HC Deb 25 January 1949 vol 460 cc782-4

Amendment made: In page 13, line 4. after "use," insert: or in the causing or permitting of the use, or in the selling, offering or advertising for sale, letting on hire or offering or advertising for letting on hire."—[Mr. Paling.]

Amendment proposed: In page 13. line 5, leave out: under Section eleven of this Act."—[Mr. Paling.]

Mr. Grimston

I do not follow why these words are left out. Perhaps the Postmaster-General could explain. Is it purely a drafting matter, or is there some other reason?

Mr. Paling

The Amendment is consequential on the insertion of the new manufacturer's Clause. There is no specific reference either to Section 11 or the new Clause, since the whole offence is qualified by the words: if the offence is under Part II of this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McKie

May I ask a question of the Postmaster-General with regard to Subsection (4)? That Subsection lays down: No criminal proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be instituted in England, Wales or Northern Ireland except with the consent of the Postmaster-General. Why is there no mention of Scotland in the subsection? I hope that it is because the Postmaster-General with the advice which has been given him and from his own knowledge, feels that it is unnecessary to ask the House or this Committee to agree to the mention of Scotland, because he feels that there will be very little risk indeed of any offence under this Act being committed in Scotland——

Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

I cannot accept the view that offences are likely to take place more often south of the Border.

Mr. McKie

I do not wish hon. Members to think for one moment that I was casting any aspersion of that kind. I made no reference at all to the possibility of there being many cases in England, Wales or Northern Ireland in which the Postmaster-General would have to institute proceedings——

Colonel Dower

I accept that withdrawal.

Mr. McKie

I certainly made no such imputation at all. I was merely asking in the first instance why there was no mention of Scotland. I think that is a point of substance. I was about to express the hope—and this is where I was interrupted by my hon. and gallant Friend—that it might be because the Postmaster-General anticipated, either from his own personal experience or from information supplied to him, that there would be hardly any likelihood of his having to institute proceedings north of the Border.

I think however that the Committee would be well advised before agreeing to this Clause as amended being put into the Bill, to ask why there is no mention of Scotland. It would have been tidier if there had been a general reference to the two Kingdoms, to Northern Ireland and to the Principality of Wales. Then the right hon. Gentleman, who has shown throughout the proceedings an almost incessant desire to arm himself with plenipotentiary powers, would have been armed against the possibility of the commission of offences in Scotland under this Act. Although I know that in Subsection (7) there is given a detailed explanation of what might have to be done by the Lord Advocate in Scotland if there are civil proceedings by the Crown for an injunction, that is one specific point which I do not think covers Subsection (4). I see that the Assistant Postmaster-General is indicating that he desires to reply, and I hope that he will be able to satisfy me on the matter.

Mr. Hobson

The point is that in Scotland, under Scottish law, the Lord Advocate is responsible.

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