XN000022-1985-06-12 — Page 5

3

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1985

+ IN OTHER WORDS THE BILL MAKES THE CONCESSION, AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT THIS COUNCIL SHOULD NEVER ACT AS JUDGE IN ITS OWN CAUSE, HE SAID.

MANY OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL, PARTICULARLY THOSE OF THE PRESS, HAD FOCUSED ON CLAUSE 20, WHICH DEALT WITH DEFAMATORY AND UNAUTHORISED PUBLICATIONS, HE SAID.

THE CLAUSE REPRESENTED AN ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE LIMITS ON THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO SUBJECT THE COUNCIL, ITS MEMBERS OR PROCEEDINGS TO SCURRILOUS ABUSE OR MALICIOUS ATTACKS OR TO DISCLOSE IN A PUBLIC WAY WHAT HAD BEEN DONE AND DISCUSSED IN CONFIDENCE.

HOWEVER, HE SAID, THE LAW OF LIBEL ALREADY EXISTED WHICH PROTECTED MEMBERS AS ORDINARY PERSONS AND THERE MIGHT BE OTHER LAWS WHICH WERE RELEVANT.

THE GOVERNMENT THEREFORE, IF MEMBERS WERE CONTENT, WAS PREPARED 'NOT TO PROCEED WITH THIS CLAUSE.

HOWEVER, THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUED TO SEE MERIT IN HAVING PROVISIONS TO GUARD AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL

INFORMATION AND PROCEEDINGS, AND WOULD MAKE AN EXAMINATION OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THESE OBJECTIVES COULD BE ACHIEVED.

REFERRING TO CLAUSE 24, HE SAID THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IN IT THAT WOULD PREVENT A PERSON CHALLENGING IN THE COURTS AN UNLAWFUL EXERCISE OF POWERS.

+1 CANNOT THEREFORE SUPPORT THE SUGGESTION THAT CLAUSE 24 BE DELETED FROM THE BILL, HE SAID.

AN AMENDMENT WOULD HOWEVER, BE TABLED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS CLAUSE DEALT WITH THE LAWFUL+ EXERCISE OF ANY POWER CONFERRED UNDER THE ORDINANCE ON THE STANDING ORDERS OF THE COUNCIL.

MR AKERS-JONES SAID THAT TO ENABLE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL TO ACT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO INVESTIGATE TOPICS OF PUBLIC CONCERN, THE COUNCIL HAD TO ENJOY POWERS TO REQUIRE THE ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITH INFORMATION OR KNOWLEDGE TO IMPART AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND TO GIVE EVIDENCE.

THE ARRANGEMENTS IN PARAGRAPH 16 OF THE BILL AS DRAFTED WERE TOO FAR-REACHING IN PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES FOR THEY MIGHT AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES AND DEFEAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

AMENDMENTS WOULD BE PROPOSED TO MAKE SUCH EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HE HOPED WOULD BE SEEN TO BE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR THAT PURPOSE, HE SAID.

DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.