HC Deb 07 December 1928 vol 223 cc1611-3
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I will call upon the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) to move the proposed new Clause—(Postmaster-General to have power to acquire the undertakings at the some price)—which is third on the Paper.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE

On a point of Order. Before proceeding with this proposed new Clause, may I draw attention to the first proposed new Clause on the Paper—(Beam wireless services not to be disposed of without consent of Parliament)—which stands in my name. May I respectfully submit certain reasons why it should be called. I think there are new reasons which you, Sir, may not have considered. Under existing Statutes the Postmaster-General has certain rights to lease property, whether actually in his possession or likely to be in his possession, to any private undertaking—any property which this House has given him permission to purchase. We consider that he has used those powers in order to provide the basis on which this Bill has been drawn up. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury yesterday said that the prices which we have been discussing in this Bill are based on probable future prospects. Now the probable future prospects are due to the fact that the Postmaster-General has leased the beam wireless for 25 years at a fixed price of£250,000 plus a small percentage increase. That is the fundamental principle upon which this Bill and all the outside agreements, of which we know nothing, have been drawn up. Unless this proposed new Clause can be discussed, we are in a very difficult position. We cannot obtain from the Post-master-General the very simple facts which we desire to know about the beam wireless and about how he arrived at this price, and the various details as to what stations he is going to lease, and so forth. You will have seen yourself, Sir, from your position in the Chair, that the matter of the beam wireless has been brought in on nearly every Amendment, and J humbly submit that it is important that the rights of the House should be guarded, and not merely the rights of the House, but the rights of the country and the Empire in regard to the beans wire less.

The Deputy-CHAIRMAN

I think it is perfectly clear that the proposed New Clause to which the hon. Member refers is entirely the title and scope of the Bill.

Mr. BENN

May I point out that in the title of the Bill are words and to make provision for certain matters incidental thereto

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

This undoubtedly is a matter which cannot be considered as incidental.

Mr. BENN

May I also draw attention to the Preamble of the Bill, page 2, lines 36 and 41. You will find there that the Conference was appointed to report thereon and to make recommendations. I submit that the recommendations of the Conference, as embodied in the White Paper, must be in order on a Bill which makes specific reference in its Preamble to the report of the Conference.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I considered that paragraph in. the Preamble very carefully before the Debate commenced. It is quite clear to me that, however much or however little the question of the beam could be discussed at any other stages of this Bill, it would be quite impossible to admit a New Clause in the form of that which is on the Paper.

Mr. BENN

But it would have been possible to admit it if the Bill had been drafted in another form?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

If the Bill had been drafted with reference to the powers generally of the Postmaster-General.

Mr. BENN

So it would have been in the power of the Government to have given the Committee an opportunity of discussing the matter, but they have ruled it out on a point of Order.

Mr. W. BAKER

In regard to the second proposed new Clause—(Licences for transmission of messages by wireless telephony or television not to be granted without consent of Parliament)—which I understand is also ruled out of order, may I call attention to the fact that in the report of the Imperial Conference, Recommendation (viii) reads as follows: The Post Office in London will reserve the right to conduct the external telephonic services of Great Britain. In view of that, recommendation, is it not right that we should be given an opportunity to discuss the conditions under which the Postmaster-General, as representing the Post Office in London, may grant licences?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am not addressing my mind at the moment to what matters can be discussed in the general Debate on this Bill, but to the wording of this particular new Clause, which clearly is outside the scope and Title of the Bill.