HL Deb 29 March 1949 vol 161 cc804-12

5.44 p.m.

Report stage resumed.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords in order to facilitate the progress of our business may I say that I am advised—and I think noble Lords concerned will agree with me in this—that the first of these Amendments (the one at page 10, line 32) is not necessary for the noble Lord's purpose. The main question at issue between us, I understand, is the one arising on the Amendment at page 12, line 36. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be willing to meet our convenience by withdrawing the first Amendment. The real discussion, as I say, is on the next Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I regret that I know very little about this Bill, but I have no doubt that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, as usual, is accurate in his remarks. I hope that one of my noble friends who knows more about this measure than I do will shortly arrive, and that we shall be able to proceed, possibly, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House suggests.

LORD PAKENHAM

This is a filibuster!

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, as I say, I really know little about this matter and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Cherwell is now here.

LORD CHERWELL

My Lords, I think it could certainly simplify matters if we had the Division—if there has to be a Division—on the next Amendment, but I have always entertained hopes of the reasonableness of noble Lords opposite. Though I have been disappointed in the past, I still trust that they will come round, and that appeals to reason will not be thrown away. I certainly think the Amendment to Clause 11 will be the best one upon which to debate this question. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House said that there never were difficulties between, say, the Admiralty and the Hydro-Electric Board—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, I did not say that there would not be difficulties. I said that these difficulties would be capable of being composed by consultation and the application of ordinary common-sense methods.

LORD CHERWELL

If the Hydro-Electric Board had as great confidence as the noble Viscount on that point, they would not be pressing so strongly for this Amendment. They frequently have difficulties either with the Post Office or with someone else. As things now stand, there is no incentive for the other party to try to meet the electricity concern or whatever concern it may be, because the whole of the cost will be thrown upon the owners of the transmission line or whatever other body is in question. The noble Viscount said that the Postmaster-General would have the assistance of his Advisory Committee. That is true. But that Advisory Committee will say only whether interference is caused.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

The Advisory Committee will advise on the regulation that will govern the issue.

LORD CHERWELL

I do not know whether as the Bill stands the regulations can include a provision which would, for instance, make it possible to allocate the costs between the parties. That is the point at issue. All we are asking is that there should be more freedom for those people who are going to advise or, as in the case of the tribunal, to decide. As the Bill stands at present, all they can do is to say: "You must revoke or relax your regulations." They cannot say that both parties concerned should pay some appropriate fraction; they cannot allocate the cost. It is only common sense to say that they should have the freedom to say, for example, that one of the parties should pay 40 per cent. and the other party should pay 60 per cent. or whatever the proportions may be. So far as I can see, there is no freedom for the tribunal to do that. All we are asking is that the tribunal or the Postmaster-General should not just make a regulation saying, "You must either suppress this" or "You must let it go on." They should have freedom to say: "You should suppress this and pay one-half and the other party should pay the other half"—or whatever the just proportions may be held to be in the circumstances of the case. I cannot see why anyone should resist giving them freedom to do that. If he liked, the Postmaster-General could say that 100 per cent. of the cost should be borne by one party—I do not, of course think he would be so unreasonable as to do that. But as it is you cannot say anything but that either the whole cost must be paid or the whole thing will not be allowed. Surely noble Lords will not wish to prevent freedom being allowed to allocate the cost between the parties.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I want to say just a few words on this matter, and I shall be brief because I think the issue here is a short and simple one. It is: Ought there, or ought there not, to be power to apportion costs? I am not going to follow the noble Viscount in his charming description of how united are all Government Departments. My own experience of the Admiralty in the past is that what is much more likely to happen is this. If the Admiralty wanted to put up a radar station, they would put it up and no one else would know anything about it until it was erected. They would say it was so secret that, in the interests of security, they could not tell the other Departments what they were doing. But that is not the only instance; a case might occur between a firm owning a factory and a Government Department. In such a case the firm would not be interested in the regulations; they would be interested in what was to be done in a specific case, which cannot be settled by the regulations unless we grant this power. There ought to be power to share the costs fairly between the persons concerned.

I know that I am right in saying that unless that power is giver by the Bill, the power will not be there. I think that is common ground. It is true that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is proposing an Amendment to give the tribunal power to say that the cost is so heavy that this thing ought not to be done. That might be the worst possible solution. Possibly the right solution is to say that the cost is too heavy to impose on an under- taking and the fair thing is to share it out between the undertaking and the Admiralty or the Air Ministry or the Post Office. Unless we put in a provision to that effect, that could not be done, and one of two things might happen: either the whole cost would fall unfairly or, what is more likely to happen under the noble Viscount's own Amendment, what ought to be done would not be done because the tribunal had not the power to apportion the costs. As a former Minister, I honestly cannot understand why the Government do not jump at this Amendment. If I were a Service Minister again I would undoubtedly say that the fair thing to do is to share the cost. If that is the view of the House, specific provision should be put in the Bill.

Where ought it to come in? With great respect, I think it is unnecessary to insist upon the Amendment now before the House, because this is not a case of saying that "regulations shall provide"; it is a case of the tribunal having the power. If the tribunal have power to frame regulations, regulations will be framed in accordance with that power. Nor do I like the proposal that the tribunal shall have this power under a modification of the definition clause. It seems to me that if we are to give it, we ought to say straightforwardly in the appropriate place in the Bill that the tribunal is to have this power. If I may venture to advise, I suggest that this Amendment should be withdrawn as unnecessary, the House should pass the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, on Clause 11, and then it would be unnecessary to press the Amendment to Clause 19 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. If the House agrees with that suggestion of what we ought to do, I think the Leader of the House will agree that what I have suggested is the practical way of giving effect to it.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, I agree that the noble Viscount's suggestion as to the procedure on these Amendments is the practical way of dealing with them. As he says, what is now in question is the power of the tribunal to do something. It is not a matter of regulations and therefore the appropriate place to decide this issue is, as he says, on Clause 11. I would point out to the noble Lord that after prolonged consultations with the Post Office and their advisers on this very point, with a sincere endeavour to meet the case, I have been convinced that my Amendment about undue interference, coupled with the power of the tribunal and with subsection 4 (b) of Clause 11, adequately covers anything that might be required. I am advised that this matter is deliberately left open and without prejudice, so that the tribunal can take into account any consideration that is material to the issue and, in consequence of the evidence put before them, may revoke the notice or vary it. That is why it is left in this completely indefinite form. I am advised that, after discussions with the representatives of the large business interests concerned, those interests are satisfied that this is the sensible way of dealing with the difficulty. At all events, I have said what I have to say on the subject. Surely noble Lords do not wish to prolong the discussion unduly. If we take the line recommended by the noble Viscount, I am sure the House will be indebted to him.

LORD POLWARTH

My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that I have listened to what he said with great respect and all humility, but I am afraid that what he has said does not reassure us on the point. I think I can say that on this side of the House we are sure that there should be some provision for sharing the costs. We are equally convinced that under the Bill as it stands there cannot be provision for sharing the costs. I agree with the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that this is not the right clause to amend, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11:

Enforcement of regulations as to use of apparatus

(4) On any such reference, the tribunal shall hear the Postmaster-General and the person at whose instance the reference was made and any other person appearing to them to be interested who desires to be heard, and has, in accordance with the rules regulating the procedure of the tribunal, procured himself to be made a party to the reference, and—

  1. (a) if they are satisfied that the apparatus in question complies with requirements applicable to it under the regulations, shall direct the Postmaster-General to revoke the notice;
  2. (b) if they are satisfied that the said requirements ought properly to be relaxed in relation to the apparatus, may direct the Postmaster-General to revoke the notice or to vary it in such manner as may be specified in the direction,
and the Postmaster-General shall revoke or vary the notice accordingly:

5.59 p.m.

LORD POLWARTH

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment to Clause 11.

Amendment moved—

Page 12, line 36, at end insert: (c) if they are satisfied that compliance with the said requirements or those requirements as directed to be varied, would impose unreasonable cost (not being less than one hundred pounds) upon the person having possession of or any interest in the apparatus they may if they think fit direct the Postmaster-General to allocate the cost in such proportion among

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORD POLWARTH

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 37, after ("notice") insert ("or allocate the cost")—(Lord Polwarth.)

such persons or class of persons and in such manner as may be specified in the direction"

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, I have already replied to this Amendment.

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, may I say a word before the question is put? It occurred to me that this Amendment would be much improved if the words "not being less than £100" were removed. So far as I see, it would then cover the whole of the Amendment on the question of 2s. on which we have already divided. I did not think that Amendment a reasonable one, because 2s. to-day may be 10s. to-morrow, so I followed the Government into the Lobby. But if we remove the figure of £100 from this Amendment, it would cover the housewife and everybody else.

On Question, Whether the said paragraph shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS
Cholmondeley, M. Margesson, V. Ellenborough, L.
Townshend, M. Samuel, V. Gifford, L.
Willingdon, M. Simon, V. Hatherton, L. [Teller.]
Swinton, V. Hawke, L.
Dudley, E. Llewellin, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.] Ailwyn, L. Lloyd, L.
Lindsay, E. Amulree, L. Mancroft, L.
Lucan, E. Balfour of Inchrye, L. Merthyr, L.
Munster, E. Belstead, L. O'Hagan, L.
Onslow, E. Blackford, L. Polwarth, L.
Radnor, E. Broughshane, L. Saltoun, L.
Charnwood, L. Sandhurst, L.
Allenby, V. Cherwell, L. Schuster, L.
Arbuthnott, V. Clydesmuir, L. Soulbury, L.
Hailsham, V. De L'Isle and Dudley, L. Waleran, L.
Long, V. Digby, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.) Darwen, L. Morrison, L. [Teller.]
Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.) Henderson, L. Pakenham, L.
Holden, L. Quibell, L.
Ammon, L. Kershaw, L. Rochester, L.
Chorley, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L. Shepherd, L. [Teller.]
Crook, L. Marley, L. Winster, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.5 p.m.

Clause 19 [Interpretation]:

VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, after subsection (4) to insert: (5) In considering for any of the purposes of this Act, whether, in any particular case, any interference with any wireless, telegraphy caused or likely to be caused by the use of any apparatus, is or is not undue interference, regard shall be had to all the known circumstances of the case and the interference shall not be regarded as undue interference if so to regard it would unreasonably cause hardship to the person using or desiring to use the apparatus. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Amendment extending the definition of "undue interference," to which I have previously referred. I think it is acceptable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 19, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Addison.)

LORD CLYDESMUIR

My Lords, I would like to ask the noble Viscount one question on this Amendment. Can he say whether under this Amendment the tribunal can allocate costs?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, I can say that under Clause 11 (4) (b) the tribunal can take account of the relative costs in deciding whether something is hardship or not, or whether the order should be varied. The Amendment does not say that they can allocate the cost.

LORD CHERWELL

My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount has just said, and of the fact that the Amendment was added to Clause 11, I do not propose to move my Amendment to his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule [Procedure in relation to suspension and revocation of authorities to wireless personnel]:

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, the next Amendment is formal. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 48, leave out ("persons") and insert ("person").—(Viscount Addison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule [Provisions as to the Appeal Tribunal]:

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, the Amendments to the Second Schedule are consequential upon the change in the tribunal which has been agreed to. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, leave out lines 8 to 25 and insert—

  1. ("1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the members of the appeal tribunal, other than any members appointed to act for 812 a particular case, shall hold office for such period as may be determined at the time of their respective appointments.
  2. (2) Any member of the tribunal may at any time by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor resign his appointment.
  3. (3) If a member of the tribunal becomes a member of the advisory committee, his office shall thereupon become vacant.
  4. (4) The Lord Chancellor may declare the office of any member of the tribunal vacant on the ground of incapacity to perform the duties thereof, or on the ground of misconduct.
  5. (5) If any member of the tribunal becomes bankrupt or makes an arrangement with his creditors, his office shall thereupon become vacant.
  6. (6) In the application of the preceding provisions of this paragraph to members appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State, references to the Lord President, Lord Chief Justice or Secretary, of State, as the case may be, shall be substituted for the references to the Lord Chancellor.")—(Viscount Addison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 24, after ("president") insert ("or, in a case where additional members have been appointed, the decision of all, or, in the event of a difference of opinion, of the majority of, the members of the tribunal other than the assessors,").—(Viscount Addison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.