HL Deb 30 July 1925 vol 62 cc622-5

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lucan.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I should like to raise a point with regard to an Amendment which I propose to move but which is not on the Paper, a matter for which I apologise to the noble Earl. I also apologise for the fact that I was not, unfortunately, able to be present on the Second Reading and notify him then of my intention to move it. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 you will see that it states that the expression "transmission" where used in subjection. (7) of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, "includes, and shall be deemed always to have included, the reception and well as the sending of messages." If that is so then I take it that the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 1904 will apply to any person who has a wireless reception apparatus. I ask jour Lordships to look at the provisions of Section 1, subsection (3), of the principal Act. I will read it. It says: If any person establishes a wireless telegraph station without a licence in that behalf, or instate or works any apparatus for wireless telegraphy without a licence in that behalf, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds and, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding twelve months.… That means that the owner of a crystal set who has not taken out a licence is, as the result of this legislation by reference, liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for twelve months.

That is not what this Bill is intended to moan or what it was explained to us is to mean. We were told that it was simply to enable the Postmaster-General to have proper legal authority to collect licence fees. I am entirely with the Post-master-General in that matter; I am anxious that he should have the fullest power to collect fess from people who use unlicensed sets. I am not even against the powers of search under Section 4 of the principal Act. Those are quite legi- timate in the case of people who are breaking the law and who are enjoying something which they have no right to enjoy, and who are defrauding the Post Office. I am giving the noble Earl notice now that I shall move an Amendment to Clause 1 after "liable" to insert the words "on prosecution on indictment under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904." I want to raise the question now in order to give the noble Earl as long a notice as possible. It seems to me to be of some importance.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I am very sorry that I am entirely unable to answer the noble Earl. He only told me five minutes ago that he was going to bring forward this point, and I told him then that I have not had time to communicate with the Postmaster-General and that I shall have to ask him to postpone his Amendment to a later stage of the Bill.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DOXOUGHMORE in the

Chair.]

Clause 1:

Explanation of certain expressions in 4 Edw. 7, c. 24, ss. 1 (7) and 2.

1. For removing doubts as to the meaning of certain expressions in the Wireless Telegraphy Act. 1904, it is hereby declared that:

  1. (1) The expression "transmission" where used in subsection (7) of Section one and Section two of that Act in relation to messages includes, and shall be deemed always to have included, the reception as well as the sending of messages:
  2. (2) The expression "rent or royalty" where used in Section two of that Act in relation to licences does not include, and shall be deemed never to have included, fees (whether periodical or of any other kind) charged in respect of the grant or renewal of licences:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall render any person liable in respect of any act or omission prior to the twenty-second day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, to any penalty to which he would not but for this Act have been liable.

EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert" on prosecution on indictment under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904."The noble Earl said: I shall really have to press your Lordships to insert these words now even if they require reconsideration at a later stage—which, however, I do not think they will. It is perfectly clear that this is not the intention of the Postmaster-General and never was the intention of anybody connected with this Bill. It has never been made plain that this will be the effect of it. I hope your Lordships will not allow this matter to slip through. It is something far beyond what this Bill did, as explained to us. I have the greatest sympathy with the Postmaster-General in getting these fees, but I do not want to see these absurd penalties imposed on offenders almost by accident. I beg to move.

Amendment moved:— Clause 1, page 1, line 24, at end insert ("on prosecution on indictment under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904.")—(Earl Russell.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not propose to deal with the merits of this question; no doubt my noble and learned friend beside me will deal with that in due time. But really the noble Earl is taking a very unreasonable course and a very unusual course for him. He is generally most reasonable. He was not present on the Second Reading, no doubt for good reasons, and therefore did not warn us of this particular point. He did not put down an Amendment on going into Committee, for reasons which he has not disclosed but which no doubt are very good reasons; and at the last moment he expects us to deal at once and insert an Amendment which is not on the Paper, to which he has not referred before and of which he has given no notice whatever to the Postmaster-General. I know he will allow me to say this because we are old antagonists and have always got on well together. I do not think he is very reasonable in the course he has taken. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill made an answer which I think any Minister would make—namely, that he would have to ask the noble Earl to postpone his Amendment to a further stage. That is a simple matter, and the noble Earl will be quite able to move his Amendment on the Third Reading of the Bill.

EARL RUSSELL

I am sensible of the justice of what the noble Marquess has said, and I confess that I entirely deserve the blame that he imputes to me. There are reasons why I could not be here on the Second Reading; otherwise I should have given notice, but I confess that I am afraid there is no good reason, except my own carelessness, why I did not put the Amendment on the Paper. It is not quite the case that I have not given notice to the Postmaster-General, because I was in communication with him when the Bill was introduced. It may be difficult: to deal with the matter now, but I do not think that it ought to be. Your Lordships have the Bill, and I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount opposite quite understands the position. I should be very glad if it could be dealt with now, though I do feel that I have been to blame in the matter, and I must confess that the noble Marquess is quite justified in what he said.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl stands, as we say, "in mercy," and I think he ought to withdraw his Amendment to-day and put it down later. I could deal with the point shortly, but I would rather not do so without consulting with the Postmaster-General, because the objections which I see to the Amendment might possibly disappear after conversation with him. Consequently I would far rather leave the discussion on the matter to a later stage.

EARL RUSSELL

I feel that I have really so little merit in bringing it on with this suddenness that I must yield to the appeal which the noble and learned Viscount has made, though I ought to say that I fear I may not be here at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining Clause agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.