HC Deb 07 August 1916 vol 85 cc785-804

If the owner, lessee or occupier of any land or building refuses or fails to give his consent to the placing of a telegraphic line under, in, upon, over, along or across the land or building within one month after being required to do so by notice from the Postmaster-General, a difference shall be deemed to have arisen between the Postmaster-General and that owner, lessee or occupier, and Sections three, four and five of the Telegraph Act, 1878, shall apply accordingly as if it were a difference arising under that Act.

Mr. JAMES MASON

I beg to move, to leave out the words, "If the owner, lessee or occupier, of any land or building, refuses or fails to give his consent to the placing of a telegraphic line under, in, upon, over, along, or across the land or the building within one month after being required to do so by notice from the Postmaster-General," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Where any telegraphic line of the Postmaster-General has been lawfully placed under, in, upon, over, along, or across any land or building, and the owner, lessee, or occupier of such land or building shall duly require its removal, such requisition to remove shall, if the Postmaster-General objects to such removal, be deemed to be a failure to consent under Section three of the Telegraph Act, 1878, and."

The object of my Amendment is to give effect to a proposal which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill. On that occasion I admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had very good ground for asking for certain powers to be given to the Post Office to prevent the Department from being pressed to do certain work in regard to telegraph poles during the War, and I admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had made out a considerable case, and that this part of the Bill certainly came under the category of a war measure. On the previous occasion, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that certain unscrupulous persons who are annoyed by the present increase of taxation, or by other things of a similar kind, came down to the Post Office and tried to take advantage of the power they had to try and make the Post Office remove at this moment the telegraph poles from their property. That is an intolerable position, and I think one which the Post Office has a right to resist. But the Bill, as it stands, empowers the Department, also, to go a great deal further, and to erect new poles and new apparatus on other property, which I designated on the Second Reading as being a kind of power which was not required more now than at any time within the last ten years, or any other period, and that therefore that part of the Bill could not be classed as a war measure. A very considerable point was raised on that part, and it is certainly a very contentious one. I think the Bill might be confined to the power to refuse to remove poles already existing, and to abandon the far greater power which is sought of extending the system in a way which has not hitherto been found necessary. The object of my Amendment is to give effect to that suggestion, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to curtailing the Bill to what I admit is absolutely necessary as a war measure.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Joseph Pease)

I cannot make any concession to the hon. Member for Windsor, for although his proposal would leave the Bill operative in regard to existing plant, it might prevent any extension whatsoever, of lines which are absolutely required in the interests of the public service. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that we should still be at the mercy of unscrupulous individuals, who might desire to escape war taxation, even after this period. War taxation, unfortunately, must continue for some time ahead, and our experience is that while there is only a limited number of these black sheep, against whom this Bill is directed, yet these unscrupulous people would not if the Bill did not extend to the future as well as to the present merely resist us as they do to-day, but, if this Amendment were accepted, some of them would hereafter be encouraged to ask extortionate or unreasonable terms. Let me give an illustration of 'two landowners in the neighbourhood of a village. One landlord at the present time is quite reasonable in his terms of wayleave; we have had no difficulty in coming to an amicable arrangement, and he has already given his consent to our wires going across his land. Munition works have been established at the other side of the village, and telephonic communication is required. If there is to be an extension of the lines to these works to this place for a new industry, it would be open to the other landowner to demand terms so excessive as to place him in a preferential position as compared with his neighbour. Be would be able to ask terms unreasonable and extortionate; and it is because we want to look after the interests of the public and to be able to extend lines from one place to another, where it is essential to the public interest, that we seek these powers, and we believe that in every instance these powers will enable us to make amicable arrangements and to come to terms with the landowners and property owners. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel GRETTON

I beg to move, after the word "If" ["If the owner"], to insert the words "the Postmaster-General considers that the inhabitants of any district or any public authority are debarred from the convenience of telegraphic communication owing to the refusal or failure of any person being." This Bill deals with a large matter of principle, and includes telegraphic and telephonic lines which already exist, while it also deals with the future extension of telegraphic and telephonic lines on lands or buildings. The Bill is drawn for the protection of the owner of any land or building which has been included in connection with telegraphic and telephonic communications. I understand that the Postmaster-General will only exercise the powers if there be real public necessity for their enforcement. No doubt this Bill implies that he will only exercise those powers on that ground. It does not say so, and by the omission to say what every Act, except the Act of 1863, has enacted previously, it implies that he need not do so. As no doubt the Postmaster-General knows, if an interpretation is not stated in an Act it is not administered, and if any particular provision or principle is not so stated it is not administered. The Courts adhere to the wording of the Act, and in this case it would be an argument which, I should imagine, would be comparatively easy to sustain that, there was a reason, and that it was intended to omit this, and that the provision was not intended to be applied. Of course, in recent years there has been a considerable change in the spirit of legislation and the' administration of the law. A generation or two ago the right of private owners was considered to be paramount, and the State or public companies only infringed or interfered with those rights under stringent conditions. The spirit is entirely changed now, and in this House and outside there is a tendency to consider that the powers of the State are paramount, and that the public interest must override all private rights. No doubt that principle is capable of very large application, but it does not mean the entire abrogation of private rights and liberties whenever the representative of the State chooses to exert himself, and to claim that he desires to do something. It is really a maintenance of principle that when the Postmaster-General goes before the Railway Commission, or before the County Court, he should prove that he really needs these lines which he is claiming to maintain, or to place, and that he should have to prove that there is a reason, that that is the right place to go, and that he cannot go elsewhere, in the interests of the State. I think I have on principle a claim that these words should be inserted, and that there should be no objection to the State when it desires to contest the claim of private rights, at any rate, proving that it is urgently necessary that the State should go there, and override the private rights and convenience, whatever they may be.

Mr. POLLOCK

I desire to support this Amendment. It is, verbally, almost the same as one which stands in my name, and although I think it will be found when the matter is looked into that it will be preferable to take the rather longer words I have used, the same material is contained in both proposed Amendments. The reason why I support this Amendment I can explain in a very few words. We all have a sympathy with this Bill. The Postmaster-General has explained, and explained very clearly, that he wants to have the simplest possible method of dealing with a refractory owner, lessee, or occupier who misuses the position-in which he is placed to try and exact terms from the Postmaster-General to the detriment of the public interest and for the purpose of enhancing his own private and personal gain. It is quite clear that the Postmaster-General ought to be entitled to have powers in order to deal with anyone who is so unpatriotic at the present time. If I follow the Clause, it gives the Postmaster-General, by asserting that a difference has arisen within the certain Acts referred to, a much speedier method of dealing with a refractory owner, lessee, or occupier than he would have if this Bill were not passed. So we are all in agreement. We are all agreed that there should be this power; and we are with the Postmaster-General in saying that he wants a handier weapon than he has otherwise, and that, therefore, he ought to have the facilities granted by the first three or four lines of Clause 1.

Having stated that, just let us see whether this Bill, and this Section, does not go a good deal further. It must not be forgotten that the Schedule of this Bill is important, and it will be found that the Telegraph Act, 1892, Section 2, is repealed, and that the Telegraph Construction Act, 1908, Sections 1 and 4, are repealed. What were these Sections? The Section of the Act of 1892, Section 2, is the one which contains the overriding words which both the hon. Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton) and I propose should be reintroduced into the present Clause, that which contains these words:

"If the Postmaster-General considers that the inhabitants of any district or any public authority are de barred from the public convenience of telegraphic communication owing to the refusal or failure of any person being the occupier, lessee, or owner of any land or building to consent to the construction or maintenance of a work by the Postmaster-General—"

Do not let us forget that the effect of this Bill, if it is passed into an Act, will be that you will have cleared away that overriding limitation, which is that the Postmaster-General has to be satisfied that the public need requires that the particular course should' be followed, and all you would have left after having struck out Section 2 of the Act of 1892, and Section 4 of the Act of 1908, would be simply that, whether the Postmaster-General considers that the public means requires it or no, you have simply the case of where the owner or occupier of land refuses to consent. Just let us consider for a moment how that would work. Suppose it is desired to put up a new line of telegraph or telephone in a particular country district. There may be two ways of doing it. One may be a way in which you may avoid a certain amount of public property, and it may perhaps be a little longer. The other may be the more highhanded way, of going over private property, and it may be that the private owner, lessee, or occupier, on perfectly reasonable grounds, refuses to consent. Once you have that failure to consent these powers are in operation, and you have taken away from this Bill all the important questions that it lies upon the Postmaster-General to decide, whether or not in the exercise of what is necessary, the public interest is being unfairly and adversely affected. Let me take Section 4 of the Act of 1902 which is to be repealed—

"The provisions of Section 2 of the Telegraph Act, 1892—"

which is what I have just quoted—

"shall apply where, on the application of the Postmaster-General, the Railway and Canal Commission are satisfied, that owing to the refusal or failure of any person, being the occupier, lessee, or owner of any land or building, to consent to the construction or maintenance of a work by the Postmaster-General, telegraphic communication cannot be supplied to any district or place, except at unreasonable cost or on unreasonable conditions."

All that is 3wept away, and therefore we find no longer the safeguard we ought to have, the safeguard that belongs to and is enshrined in the Postmaster-General, that before any course of this kind is followed he must be satisfied that the general interest of the public is being defeated by reason of a failure to consent. I hope I have made my point clear, because I feel sure the Postmaster-General, when his attention is called to this, will be really ready to meet us. It is a one-Clause Bill for the purpose of giving a speedier method to the Postmaster-General for overcoming difficulties. Let us agree to that. Why do we want the Schedule? If it is to apply to these refractory persons, why repeal the responsibility that under these two Acts lies with the Postmaster-General? If you insert the words my hon. and gallant Friend proposes, you safeguard the position, and we are all satisfied, but if you do not it might be that an arbitrary controversy might arise between the owner of the land and the persons who were endeavouring to exercise these public powers. Personally I very much prefer, as I think most persons, including the Postmaster-General himself, will prefer, to have this sort of powers restrained and restricted to cases where the public interest is involved, which I suppose it was originally intended should be done by the Bill. Probably it has not been considered what the result would be of repealing these Sections and leaving the first Clause in the bare way in which it stands. I hope the Postmaster-General will feel that the Bill goes a little too far and that he will be prepared to put in these words.

Mr. PEASE

I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Pollock) or the Mover of the Amendment realises that, from the draftsman's point of view, if the words were inserted the Clause would not apply if the owner consented to the line being constructed, but if anyone demanded an extortionate price they would apply. Be that as it may, I want to point out to the hon. Members that Section 2 of the Act of 1892, from which they have extracted their words, has been, in actual practice, a dead letter. A procedure was set up by that particular Section which really has never been put into operation. A new procedure is now proposed which will deal with the new grievance for which hon. Members have admitted I have made out a case. The reason why that particular Section has never been operative is, that no past Postmaster-General could ever prove to any Court, to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, or any other tribunal, that any individual could not obtain communication in some other way. That was the Section which required the antecedent condition that the Postmaster - General should consider that the inhabitants were "debarred." The Postmaster-General never could consider that people were debarred, because there was always some other route, some more circuitous way and some more expensive method of securing telegraphic communication. It might be secured in some cases by a private wire. If I accepted the words proposed by the hon. Members it would prevent me or my successors resorting to the tribunal whenever certain things have to be done in connection with the public service in the interests of economy and of efficiency

Let me take an illustration. Suppose a telegraph line goes up to a colliery district and away to another village. At the moment the colliery district is a most important district, and requires tele- graphic communication. The line goes along two sides of a isosceles triangle. Suppose the colliery is worked out, then no longer telegraphic communication is required for that community, which disappears. The Postmaster-General, in the interests of economy and efficiency, proposes to erect a short line at the base of the isosceles triangle and to do away with the two long lines. If I accepted these words I should be prevented from being able to do what is obviously in the interests of the community. I recognise, however, as hon. Members realise, that individuals who have property and certain rights should be protected, and I have endeavoured to see that they shall be protected hereafter as they were protected in 1863 when a company owned the telegraphic system and the State did not. Whilst I want them to be safeguarded, I do not think they should be safeguarded merely on account of the refusal or failure of any person, as is suggested by the Amendment. I think I can quite well accept an Amendment, which I trust will meet their views, to insert after the words "Postmaster-General" the words "and if the Postmaster-General considers that such refusal or failure is contrary to the public interest." In that way we shall safeguard the interests of the public. It will be for the Postmaster-General to look after the in terests of the public service and he will not act arbitrarily or in the high-handed way which this Amendment is intended to avoid.

Major NEWMAN

We are getting along way from the refractory owners and dealing with them during the period of the War. We now find that the Postmaster-General, where a telegraphic line is running from a colliery to a laundry, if the colliery is worked out, deciding that it would be economical to put up a line on the base of the triangle. Where does the owner come in? As a matter of fact, along the base of the triangle might be a valuable piece of property where telegraph or telephone poles would do a lot of harm. We have there the main objection which some of us feel to this Bill. When we were told just now that this Bill was aimed at one or two refractory owners it assumed a very different complexion. Now we have it from the Post-master General it is to operate in the future and not against a refractory owner at all, but in the interests of economy. That economy may be exercised at the expense of the private owner. I am not at all inclined to agree with the suggestion made by the Postmaster-General.

Mr. PEASE

I would point out to the hon. Member that we must ask leave to go upon property. We have to secure the consent of the individual. If we fail to secure the consent of the individual, and if we cannot make other arrangements in the interests of the public service, we go to the tribunal in order to seek powers.

Major NEWMAN

To the Railway and Canal Commission?

Mr. PEASE

No; first of all to a judge of the County Court. It is a settled procedure which has been in operation for thirty-eight years in connection with public authorities, and it has worked quite smoothly. We should have to satisfy the tribunal that the places where we are going to put the poles are reasonable, and all the conditions upon which there is any disagreement between ourselves and the owners of the property can be determined by the tribunal in the event of our being successful in our contention that the telegraph line was in the interests of the public and that the place was desirable land where the telegraph ought to be.

Mr. PETO

In his answer to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pollock) the Post-master-Generall has attempted to explain why the Sections in the two Acts referred to in the Schedule should be omitted, namely, that they have not been found to be operative because in all cases it has been found that there was some method of telegraphic or telephonic communication which could be found. That may be very well, but the right hon. Gentleman entirely failed to explain why he should take the widely extended powers in place of these restricted powers, which he now proposes to repeal altogether. If he had wanted to carry out logically the purpose of his speech he would have accepted the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend with the addition of, say, a couple of words, such as "reasonably convenient or reasonably direct and convenient communication, by telegraph," because then we should have maintained the principle which my hon. and learned Friend was pleading for, namely, that it is the reasonable convenience of the public which should be the overmastering necessity which should compel the Postmaster-General to override private interests. I do not think the Postmaster-General, and I do not think my hon. and learned Friend, entirely dealt with what is the more ordinary way in which this thing works. As long as the private owner of property had some right of bargaining with the Post Office he had a means of arriving at a reasonable compromise. If the Post Office authorities wanted to take their line in a bee-line across his property, regardless of the damage done, by destroying views, or whatever it might be, if there was a right of objection the Postmaster-General could very easily be persuaded to take his line upon a reasonable course, doing a minimum of damage to the property. On the words the Postmaster-General proposes to insert we really fall from one alternative to another. It always turns out to be the choice of the Postmaster-General.

Mr. PEASE

The hon. Member has not studied an Amendment which I propose to move later, which adopts all the powers of the Act of 1863, one of the Sections of which deals with exactly the point the hon. Member mentions about the necessary consent, and also about full compensation being paid.

Mr. PETO

I have not dealt with the question of compensation, which is a little outside the Amendment, but I do not see that the Postmaster-General has made out any case for the repeal of these Sections in the previous Act or any case really for opposing the Amendment before the Committee, and I think before these very statutory provisions, which may have been rendered ineffective are swept away altogether, he should consider the acceptance of this Amendment, with the addition of such words as I have suggested, which would have rendered the words which were rightly put into these old Acts operative, instead of telling the Committee that because they had not been found to be operative on account of their omissions, therefore he proposes to sweep away the protection which private property owners desire.

Mr. BOYTON

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept the Amendment. I hope he will not think that the opposition displayed to this Bill is at all factious. We are only doing what was done by this House in the Act of 1863—looking after the interests of all and sundry—and it is a pity that he opposes it. If you leave out Section 2 of the Act of 1892, the right hon. Gentleman is placing himself in a most autocratic position. Everything is left to him. The Railway and Canal Commission is not to be applied to to make a Provisional Order, and we are to be left entirely in the hands of the Department. The Amendment is practically taken from Section 4 of the Act of 1908. Since 1863 the House has had a good many nibbles at this sort of thing. I should have thought what was good in 1908 ought to be good enough to-night, and that the right hon. Gentleman might very well have accepted the Amendment.

Mr. RAWLINSON

Cannot the Government accept this Amendment? This is an Emergency Bill to deal with certain refractory people who are making Post Office work impossible. It is a wonder how the National Telephone Company managed to do without this power.

Mr. PEASE

They often managed very badly.

Mr. RAWLINSON

They did a great deal better than the Government has done. Be that as it may, it is merely to deal with certain refractory people. If that is really the object of the Bill, what can be the harm of this Amendment? It puts it perfectly plainly, and the existing law is that the powers of the bureaucracy shall only come in in case there is really an obstruction or prevention of a particular district getting proper telephonic communication. One Amendment has been rejected already. There can be no harm in accepting this. The right hon. Gentleman suggests instead an Amendment below, which means nothing at all— "provided that the Postmaster-General considers that such refusal or failure is contrary to the public interest." Of course he would not deal with the matter at all if he did not think the refusal was contrary to the public interest. He would not ask to go upon a man's land unless he thought the public interest was affected. This Amendment as it stands has something in it. I think if the Postmaster-General will leave off looking at it from the point of view of the Department only, there is a very grave case for accepting the Amendment, which can certainly do him no harm as far as the case he has made out before the House is concerned. But if he takes these very wide powers, someone less reasonable than himself may be holding the office and the officials under him may act somewhat high-handedly, and if no restriction is put upon them this House would certainly complain. This is a reasonable Amendment, and it should be accepted. I hope he will reconsider his position. If not, I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.

Major WEDGWOOD

I hope the Postmaster-General will stand to his telegraph poles. I am, as a rule, a desperate opponent of bureaucracy, but it seems to me that on this question, when you see on the Paper a string of Amendments down in the interest of owners of property, we ought, as a whole, to look to the interests of the public. The Government administration is always open to the shafts of criticism from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and if they act unjustly they can be called to account. It is not fair to compare the position of the Government in this matter with the position of the National Telephone Company. If these powers had been given to the National Telephone Company, owners of property might very well have resented and resisted it, but you are giving them to a Government which can be called to account by question or comment in this House day after day, and you are really not making a fair comparison between the two authorities. It seems to me that the Amendment proposed by the Postmaster-General is not only reasonable but generous. I do earnestly protest against taking the opportunity of Bills of this character, at a period such as this to load the Order Paper with Amendments directed solely towards the benefit of vested interests concerned, with disregard of the vital interests of the taxpayers of this country. The Amendment goes a great deal further. It makes every case of the putting up of a telegraph pole on a man's land subject to special inquiry by the Postmaster-General. That is the effect of the Amendment, whatever the wording may be. I protest against these obstructive tactics towards a Department which in the past has done its duty very well, and towards a Bill which we all want to see become law.

Mr. POLLOCK

A good many of the comments of the hon. and gallant Member seem to indicate that he has not heard the discussion which has taken place upon this Amendment, and I am not quite certain that he has appreciated when he talks about a war emergency measure that what we are doing is trying to keep the law as it is at present, and the Postmaster-General is taking the opportunity of this Bill, which he wants for one purpose, to cut out effective Clauses which have stood the test of time for something like twenty years in the public interest, and have been enshrined in the Telegraph Act, 1892, and reaffirmed in the Act of 1908. If the hon. and gallant Member's observations are directed to anybody they should fall upon the head of the Postmaster-General, who is making use of this opportunity to alter the law, not for what is required at the present time, but in the interests of bureaucracy, to use the hon. and gallant Member's own phrase. Let me thank the Postmaster-General for endeavouring to deal with this matter. I quite appreciate that he is endeavouring to deal with it. So far from wishing to overload the Order Paper with Amendments, I would point out that there are only two or three. I want to see whether we cannot agree to accept some terms. The Postmaster-General's difficulty, as I understand it, is that in the past the Postmaster-General has been unable to prove that his Department is debarred from a public convenience. I quite recognise that that may have involved a burden which he was unable to discharge. He has pointed out that that is the difficulty from his experience, and he offers to us these words, "And if the Postmaster-General considers that such refusal or failure is contrary to the public interest." We are getting very near one another now. If he agrees that something ought to be done by the Postmaster-General which should be in lieu of the Sections which he is cutting out, I want to see whether we cannot find words which would really meet the case. The word "considers" really leaves the matter entirely with the Postmaster-General. Supposing the words read in this way, "And if the Postmaster-General proves that such refusal is contrary to or endangers the public interest," the proof then that he would have to give is a proof that would come from his own Department that as a matter of fact it would be to the public interest to have a short cut for economical working, decreased outlay, and so on. If I put in the further words "or endangers" I meet him still nearer, because he would then only have to prove that such refusal would be contrary to or endangers the public interest. The phrase "or endangers" would be still more easy for him to prove. I hope that the Amendment in that form would be one which he could accept. If so, it would get over the difficulty, and he would have met what undoubtedly is felt by a great number of persons to be a considerable disadvantage. I hope that these wider words which I suggest will be accepted.

Mr. TYSON WILSON

I hope the Postmaster-General will not accept the Amendment, either as moved or as suggested. Anyone who listened to the evidence given in connection with the Holt Committee will be convinced that the Post Office ought to acquire far greater powers than they have in regard to telephones and telegraphs, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to the wiles of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken. It seems to me that we have Members in this House who, if the Germans were on this side of the Channel, would apply for a mandamus to prevent them crossing a certain field. That is not the time for that. We want the public services of this country as free as we can possibly get them, and if there is any proof required from anyone with regard to whether a telegraph pole ought to be erected, or whether a telephone wire ought to be taken through certain land, then the onus of proof that it is against the public interest ought to rest upon the owners of the land, and not upon the Postmaster-General. The public interests must be considered first, and private interests afterwards. I hope that the Postmaster-General will not make any concession whatever, either with regard to the Amendment as it has been moved, or as it has been suggested.

Sir F. BANBURY

I hope the Postmaster-General will accept this Amendment as altered. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have assisted as much as is in my power, and I think that something of this sort is necessary. It appears to me that the hon. Member (Mr. Tyson Wilson) has not gone into the matter properly. He appears to think that this only relates to landowners, to whom apparently he has some objection. The greatest objection comes from the county councils, and this Amendment is necessary in order to check a too autocratic Government, or a too autocratic Department. We all know what autocratic departments are. You can frighten a private company, but you cannot frighten a department. As to putting questions in this House, everyone knows that in nine cases out of ten questions in this House are met by right hon. Gentlemen opposite with an official answer. Nothing further happens, and nothing whatever is done. The power of questions in this House is very much exaggerated, and Ministers are not in the least afraid of them, unless there has been some very flagrant act committed, which appears in the Press, and they think they cannot get out of it by an official answer; but those are of very rare occurrence. In these circumstances, and especially as we have endeavoured on this side of the House to meet the Postmaster-General, I do hope he will accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, which goes a long way to meet his requirements. It cannot possibly be left to the Postmaster-General to "consider" the cases, because it makes him an autocratic entity. He must show some grounds.

Mr. PEASE

The words "and if the Postmaster-General considers" are the very words which hon. Members proposed to insert at the beginning of their own Amendment, and it was with a view to adopting that portion of their Amendment that I inserted these words. If it would meet their views, I am quite prepared to omit from my Amendment "and if the Postmaster-General considers that," and simply leave it "and if such refusal or failure is contrary to the public interest." Those words would come in after the words "Postmaster-General" in line 9. If the hon. Member approves he can withdraw his Amendment, and I will substitute mine.

Colonel GRETTON

I think that the Postmaster-General, though he has not gone so far as we would like, has met us very fairly, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. ANDERSON

As the Amendment stood, the question was, "if the Postmaster-General considers." From that it would follow that the Postmaster-General would go into the matter personally and reach a certain decision. These words are now entirely deleted, and the only condition provided is—this is in the public interest or opposed to the public interest. This leaves the matter very vague. What I want to know from the Postmaster-General is, how it is going to be ascertained whether it is in the public interest? Is it going to involve some legal tribunal with legal expense, because a very large amount of expenditure might be involved?

Mr. PEASE

The hon. Member was not in the House on the last occasion when the Bill was debated and when I explained that the procedure was going to be exactly similar to that which has been in operation in connection with local authorities ever since 1878. That procedure is the simplest and cheapest which was able to be devised at that time, and we are proposing to adopt it now in connection with private owners. It was subsequently extended to private property in connection with hedge-banks and roadside waste. Now, owing to a limited number of individuals being extortionists, we are trying to extend these powers to private property. As a rule there is no difference between the Post Office and the owner. We are able to come to an arrangement, and I think with these powers we shall still be able to come to an arrangement. If there is a difference we shall then have resort to the cheapest tribunal which can be set up, and which is already in existence—the County Court, It will determine whether the line is right and the terms are reasonable. But if there is any difference as to the decision of the County Courts there would be an appeal. This right has comparatively rarely been exercised in the course of the thirty-eight years.

Amendment negatived.

Major NEWMAN

I beg to move to leave out the words "lessee or occupier."

10.0 P.M.

I move this Amendment for the purpose of getting some information. I am afraid that where a patriotic lessee or occupier gives leave to put up telegraph or telephone poles and he has a comparatively short lease, and does not tell the owner until the month was up and no objection is lodged, the owner might possibly be able to come down on the lessee or occupier for dilapidation or something of that sort. Possibly there is some Clause in some Act of Parliament which deals with this, and if so I will withdraw my Amendment. But I would like some explanation from the Postmaster-General.

Mr. PEASE

The effect of the hon. Member's Amendment is, I understand, that an occupier or a lessee of land would be debarred from having his assent secured, and he could therefore, if he was sufficiently unreasonable, prevent all telegraphic communication. I have in my mind the case of a hotel lessee. He tells me that at this moment that, owing to one thing or another which has been imposed upon him during the War, unless I will give him and all those who lodge with him in his hotel a telephone free he will insist upon serving notice upon me to remove a pole which will cut off over a hundred subscribers to the telephone service, and I am at his mercy and would have to spend several hundred pounds. The hon. Member I know does not intend to debar me from dealing with that difficult case. He is dealing with the case of an individual who has given a short lease and may be put in a difficult position at the termination of the lease. The arrangement always made in these cases is that a reasonable period is given for termination, and if anybody has got a lease for five years he would probably insist upon a notice in the terms of arrangement of three or six months before the expiration of the lease. In that case the difficulty is avoided. But if we do what I propose we shall do, obtain in every case the consent of the owner and the occupier in connection with the property, I think that we shall meet all reasonable demands. As I understand it it will be necessary for us hereafter to obtain the consent both of the owner and the occupier, so that all concerned shall understand exactly on what terms poles may be erected.

Major NEWMAN

After hearing that explanation, I ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major NEWMAN

I beg to more to leave out the word "one" ["within one month"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."

Under the Bill an owner, lessee, or occupier is allowed one month after the Postmaster-General asks for leave to place his telegraphic line in which to raise objection. I submit it would be fairer to give three months. The owner might very well be abroad serving with the Forces and not get the request of the Postmaster-General for a fortnight or even longer. In that case he would not have time to urge his objection. A great many officers have gone to the front without leaving a Power of Attorney to some trusted solicitor or other gentleman, with the result that several things have happened to them, which would not have happened if they had been more careful or if they had been upon the spot. I know of one case in which a man was made bankrupt in that way. I suggest, in the special circumstances, and as this is a measure dealing with the war period, that it would be fairer to give the owner something more than a month in which to raise objection.

Mr. PEASE

I do not think it is quite necessary to extend the period to three months. Under the Act of 1878, which deals with railway and road authorities, only twenty-one days' notice is required, and the Act of 1908 provides for one months' notice. I recognise, however, that in a period of war there is some difference in the case of owners of property who may be absent serving abroad with the Colours, and perhaps some extension is required. If the hon. Member, therefore, will accept two months instead of three months, I am quite prepared to meet him.

Major NEWMAN

I am quite ready to do that.

Question, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Word "two" there inserted.

Question, "That the word 'month' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Word "months" there inserted.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause to add the words "Provided that the tribunal to which the difference is referred under those Sections shall not give its consent to the placing of the line unless satisfied such refusal or failure is contrary to the national interest."

I think the Amendment would be far better in that form than in the form as it appears upon the Order Paper. Of course, you must get the difference before you come to the tribunal. This leaves it to the tribunal to say whether it is in the public interest or not to treat the refusal as improper.

Sir GEORGE TOULMIN

I should like to ask why the word "national" is substituted for the word "public"? It may be a technical point which a lawyer can probably explain, but it might be in the interests of a small portion of the public and yet not be a national matter, and as the word has been changed I should like to know the reason.

Sir G. CAVE

I think the word "public" is better, and I will substitute it.

Amendment made: In the proposed Amendment leave out the word "national," and insert insead thereof the word "public."—[Sir G. Cave.]

Mr. PEASE

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words

"Provided that, subject as aforesaid, all the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1863, shall apply in the case of the exercise of any powers authorised to be exercised under this Section, and such owner, lessee, or occupier shall have and enjoy all the benefits of such provisions."

This is an Amendment on which I agreed with several authorities, and it makes it quite clear that the Act of 1863 with its numerous provisions for the protection of owners, lessees, and occupiers shall apply in the future as in the past. Section 21 provides for the consent of the owners being secured in advance. Section 7 provides that the Postmaster-General shall make full compensation to all bodies and persons interested for all damage sustained by them by reason or in consequence of the exercise of the Postmaster-General's powers, and Section 30 of that Act confers on the persons interested in land and desiring to build upon or use the land in any manner in which it was not actually used when the telegraphs were placed there an absolute power to require the removal or alteration of the telegraphs by and at the expense of the Postmaster-General. I think those Sections should be incorporated and that it should be made quite clear that they still apply.

Major WEDGWOOD

I am always suspicious of Amendments put in at the request of authorities who interview Government Departments. I assume that the Department and their legal advisers saw that the Bill was drafted in accordance with the Act of 1863 and with a reasonable respect for the rights of property. When one finds certain interests which we have not had specified—I gather it is the London County Council which interviewed the Postmaster-General in private—putting pressure upon the Postmaster-General to accept this Amendment, I think in the public interest one may well be suspicious. Pressure may be only too easily exercised. They have only got to get one or two Members to raise the matter at this point of the Session, and, if they persist, the Bill has to be dropped. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us whether it is the county council or landlords or what vested interest has got this put in. His explanation is admirable. It seems to me, if the 1863 Act is what we have been working under up to now, he is perfectly justified in specifically stating that that Act shall continue in operation in regard to the special operations made by this Act; but is the Act of 1863 the Act we have been working under and is there not an Act of 1878, and how far does that Act supersede the provision of the 1863 Act? I do wish there was always somebody to act as a kind of advocatus diaboli in order to check these public Departments when they make concessions to the more or less unauthorised bodies who ask for such. I do not know whether this Amendment is right or wrong, but I do protest against Amendments put in at the last hour at the biddings of vested authorities who secure secret interviews with the Departments concerned.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE

I ventured on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations to submit this matter to the right hon. Gentleman. What he has done is no concession at all. The Postmaster-General in a letter expressed the opinion that he did not think for a moment the local authorities would be in the slightest degree damaged, and added, "but to make the matter clear I am putting down an Amendment." The Amendment is not a concession, but is simply to make clear what was originally intended by the Bill.

Mr. DUNDAS WHITE

This is a slight departure from the common form. I understand that this is intended to be in the nature of a Saving Clause, and the general wording in a case of that kind is, "Except as aforesaid nothing here shall affect the application of such and such Acts." As proposed here you may actually extend the application of the Acts, while if you use the common form you leave the application of the Acts untouched as before.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.