Open meetings

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33539, 21 May 1974, Page 12

Open meetings

It is one of the distinguishing features of democratic government that the deliberations of all public bodies, from Parliament to a Pest Destruction Board, are subject to public scrutiny. Restrictions on public knowledge of the decisions such bodies make and of how they were reached, beyond those necessary for orderly government and national security, have no place in a democratic system. The Labour Party recognised this when it called, at its conference, for an extension of the provisions of the Public Bodies Meetings Act. An appropriate response to this call would be for the Government to open to members of the public, under the terms of the act, certain meetings to which they are not at present admitted as of right. These might include the ordinary meetings of some public bodies not at present named in the schedules to the act, whose members are appointed and not elected but have authority over matters of public concern, and, perhaps, the meetings of some committees of some public bodies. Many of the decisions which affect the day-to-day life of citizens are made by local and statutory authorities. Much of the business of these authorities is necessarily conducted in committees. Those citizens concerned enough to want to act in support of the decisions they think right, or to attempt to have changed those they think wrong, are entitled to know how some decisions made in committee were reached. It is not enough to say that the information is available through the press, because no newspaper has either the reporters or space to cover fully the work of all such authorities Some members of the public bodies concerned might object that it would become difficult to conduct their business efficiently if the public were present, because of possible disruption or because they would be reluctant to sneak their minds on delicate topics. But the Public Bodies Meetings Act provides that the public can be excluded from a meeting if confidentiality is necessary, or on other grounds. There are also provisions in the act designed to prevent any member of the public from disrupting any meeting. Nor would opening some committee meetings under the act impose an undue administrative burden on the staffs of the bodies involved Given these safeguards, there is little reason why the Government should not consider extending the provisions of the Public Bodies Meetings Act in the manner the conference has urged.