4.12 p.m.

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration of those clients of public relations companies who are engaged in political activities. I am sure that the House will wish permission to be given to me to introduce my Bill. It is admitted that little, if any, time remains to deal with this subject further in the present Parliament, but the opportunities for back-bench Members are limited enough without letting the 10 minutes accorded to a Motion of this description go by default.

I think that the nature of the problem with which we intend to deal by the provisions in my proposed Bill was best summed up in a recent book on the subject, where it was stated: Public relations has suddenly come into the open as the business that has failed to do for itself what it effectively does for others: either through incompetence, or because of other hidden reasons. The performance and technique of public relations have given it a mystique without increasing public confidence in its value or necessity. I consider that criticism and judgment a little harsh because in the "Teach Yourself" series dealing with the subject of public relations we find the definition: Public relations practice is the deliberate planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain mutual understanding between an organisation and its public. When we first embarked on a study of this subject, some years ago, and went to the research department of the Library in this House, and asked for a list of publications and cuttings on public relations, we discovered that public relations was indexed For public relations, see propaganda. We can, therefore, approach the problem from that point of view.

I was particularly interested in a comment by Neil Staebler, Chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, to the Special Committee of the House of Representatives in America, set up to investigate the 1952 campaign expenditure. He said: I suggest to the Committee that our major problem comes from the modern development of the mass media of communication. These media are expensive and grow more so all the time… [they] are not merely expensive but for them have been developed new advertising techniques, requiring professional skills that are also expensive… If present tendencies continue, our Federal elections will increasingly become contests not between candidates, but between great advertising firms. There are people who say that cannot happen here. I am quite certain that if one examines the development and the tendencies one would appreciate that our General Election may be heading in the same direction.

Let me say, in fairness, that the intention of my Bill has the support of most of the sections of the Institute of Public Relations. This Institute, with a membership of over 2,000, is the main professional body in the field of public relations. At its annual conference this year a call was made for a positive assertion of the bona fides of the Institute membership by support of the promotion of legislation such as is now before the House. To quote the words of the President: and thus at one blow sweep away the element of secrecy from pressure group activities. I suggest that there are few hon. Members who would, at least openly, oppose the idea of this move.

I welcome the fact that here at least is an organisation that realises it is not enough merely to have a code of conduct for its profession, the code must be legally enforcible. It may interest hon. Members to know that provisions in the Institute code are designed to ensure that members do not disseminate false or misleading information; that they do not operate "front organisations"; that they disclose the motives behind their actions, and that they do not corrupt the channels of public communications. I can imagine that the operation of such a code of conduct would keep many people silent for a long time.

The idea behind the proposal in my Bill is not new. As far back as 1959 we find that a prominent Oxford social scientist was discussing the idea, and it has been mooted in different quarters in different ways on different occasions. I should be the last to wish to copy the legislation of the United States in this matter, but the House will be aware that the Federal Registration of Lobbying Act has been in operation there since 1946, Since 1934, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which obliges all public relations organisations representing overseas clients to register with the State Department, has been on the Statute Book of that country.

In respect of a multitude of political matters we, as Members of Parliament, could reach decisions much more easily if we were able to tell from a registration list which clients of a public relations firm were contacting us. I appreciate that we could do quite a bit of naming when dealing with a subject of this description, but I prefer to leave that side of it alone in order to concentrate on laying the foundations of a more healthy and democratic approach to the whole problem. This is something which can be thrashed out by the House, by the public relations profession itself and by all those who are interested in seeing that democracy in this country is fostered and is not limited in any way.

In 1962, addressing the conference of the Institute of Public Relations, the Minister of State for Education and Science said: My own belief is that everyone in a democratic society is entitled to proclaim his own opinions, or pay someone else to proclaim them for him, and to urge that those who have the power to do so should act on those opinions. There is a little danger in that. The suggestion is that, if we cannot proclaim our own opinions strongly and forthrightly ourselves, and if we have sufficient cash or resources for the purpose, we should employ others to do it.

I do not complain about that, but what I am asking is that, when it is done and when there is an expenditure of money to proclaim an idea on behalf of someone else, then we, as Members of Parliament, ought to have access to a list giving us knowledge of who is sponsoring what and who is behind the idea being proclaimed.

For the reasons I have given, I commend the Motion to the House.

4.21 p.m.

I oppose the Motion, and I do so so that I can state one or two reasons why I believe that a Bill of the kind proposed by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) is not a suitable one to be introduced by a private Member without a really full inquiry. The hon. Member has put his case so moderately, and without any personal allusions to what one imagines is the background reason for the introduction of the Bill, that I hesitate to develop the argument further. Nevertheless, I think that a point of importance for everyone, not only Members of Parliament, is raised.

The argument, if developed, could touch on the need for the publication of all sorts of information which is at present kept secret by certain bodies of professional people, perhaps doctors, lawyers or accountants, and a very wide subject is embraced by the matter which has been put to us by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is genuine in his interest and approach, but it seems a little odd that, at the final stage of this Parliament—as he himself admitted, and as we all know, there is not the slightest chance of the Bill reaching the Statute Book—he should have thought right to introduce a Motion of this kind.

I think that it a pity that he did not go a little further in developing his real reasons for so doing.

The hon. Lady would not have liked them.

No, but I could have answered them. I never believe in raising personal matters—I do not mean personal to myself, but personal in the sense of what would be proposed in the Bill—unless there is a good reason for so doing. However, I shall not develop the argument as I might have done had the hon. Gentleman gone further.

I had it in mind to say to the hon. Member for Blyth that, although I do not agree with him politically, I know that he is a very active Member who lives in his own Constituency, close to mine. I should have liked to offer him, as a friend, if I might, a warning that he is fishing in waters in which it would be unwise to fish. However, since he has not developed the matter, I shall not take it further from that point of view. All I say is that, on a subject of this kind, involving the disclosure of relationships between professional bodies and their clients, we should in a democratic Parliament, before acceding to any such proposal, think very carefully.

The subject of the proposed Bill touches a matter with which we in Parliament are closely concerned, that is, the protection of the individual and the privacy of the individual in his use of professional organisations. It is a little unwise to try to introduce such a Measure with such far-reaching provisions at the final stage of this Parliament and without proper Parliamentary inquiry.

That is all I have to say in Opposition to the Motion. I should not dream of trying to force a Division on the Motion. The Bill which will be introduced will go no further, and it would be a waste of the time of the House to try to do any such thing.

This is a waste of time, too.

I have as much right to make my observations as had the hon. Member for Blyth in introducing the Motion.

If, in the next Parliament, whoever may be the victors at the election, the hon. Gentleman is still a Member and I am still a Member, and if the Bill is reintroduced under the Ten Minutes Rule, it will be more profitable if we then ask the Government of the day to institute a full inquiry before embarking on legislation affecting the secrecy of relationships between clients and professional bodies. I put that on record because I should not like a Bill of this kind, implying what it does, to be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule without someone stating that there may be involved an attack on the freedom of the individual in his right to decide who or what he wants to use or in his right to select what professional bodies he wishes to put forward the interests which he wishes to advance.

Therefore, not only in the interests of parliamentary democracy, but in the interests of the hon. Member for Blyth himself, who is, as I say, fishing in waters in which he has not a great deal of experience, I register my protest against such a Bill being introduced without proper inquiry at this stage of Parliament.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Milne, Mr. Blyton, Mr. Deer, Mr. Ferny-hough, Mr. Loughlin, Mr. Moyle, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Silkin.