I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a rather technical matter. The definition of "interference" in Clause 19 (4) of the Bill as it left this House was considered on reflection to be unsatisfactory. The definition treated the emission or reflection of electro-magnetic energy as the "interference," if the energy prejudiced the wireless telegraphy. But the "interference" consists not in the emitting or reflecting of the energy, but in the prejudicial effect of the energy on the telegraphy if the energy should get into the wireless receiver. The Amendment corrects the definition by giving it this sense.
Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 19, at end 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 Amendment attempts to define "undue interference." It is not only a technical definition of undue interference but it is framed in such a way as to take into consideration certain human circumstances which may arise with regard to cost or to the number of people who may be affected by the apparatus which is causing interference. It is in order to be less arbitrary that in another place the Amendment was inserted in order to prevent undue hardship.