HC Deb 18 November 1948 vol 458 cc643-76

7.15 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, in page 9, line 23, to leave out "regulations," and to insert "orders."

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has had to absent himself from the Chamber, and I am moving this Amendment for him. It raises quite an important point. The Bill provides for various things to be done by regulations, and that means that those regulations will come before the House, as the Postmaster-General said, under the negative procedure.

This Amendment must be read in conjunction with the last Amendment to this Clause: In page 10, line 11, at end, add: (5) Orders made under this section shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure. It is not a question of putting down "orders" as being a more interesting word than "regulations." The effect of the acceptance of the Amendment would be to bring the machinery of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, into effect. The reason for doing that is that the requirements which the Postmaster-General may want to lay down under the regulations may, in certain cases, be such as to weigh very heavily upon the manufacturers of certain apparatus. Suppose that he says, "In future this apparatus must not be used any more." Hon. Members will see that Subsection (2) provides for requirements as to the maximum intensity and so forth, and different requirements may be prescribed for different circumstances and in relation to different classes or descriptions of apparatus … The manufacturers of some particular kind of apparatus might feel aggrieved by the regulations. If so, I do not see that there is any provision by which their case can be met, because while regulations may be prayed against, they cannot be amended in this House, and that, in a technical matter, may lead to very considerable difficulty.

If we bring in the special procedure under the Act of 1945, and proceed by requiring orders, then, of course, the manufacturers who feel aggrieved by a proposed requirement will have the right of coming to this House by the process of Petition, and petitioning to the joint committees which are set up under the Act of 1945. It seems to me that if private interests—using the word in its largest sense—are being affected by something which the Minister does, in the way of prohibiting the use of a particular apparatus, for example, the manufacturers might say, "That is going too far; we should modify it to deal with the situation," and under the Act of 1945 they could have access to the special joint committees and the matter could be dealt with there.

I think this is the kind of case where that Act ought to be used. It is not often used. In fact, I am not even sure that it has been used at all, but Parliament in its wisdom opened that particular road for dealing with difficult cases of this kind. I quite appreciate that the Postmaster-General is bringing a certain number of matters within the purview of the House by using regulations, which has not been the case in the past. I appreciate the change from the Parliamentary point of view, but it may not be sufficient in certain cases. Therefore, by bringing in the order procedure, I do not think the Postmaster-General would harm himself in the normal case, and it would give an opportunity to the manufacturers of apparatus where there may be a real sense of grievance or where great loss may be involved.

It was that sort of consideration which my hon. and learned Friend had in mind when he put down this Amendment, and I hope I have been able to make the point clear. I do not think there is any need to amplify it any further. The words in our last Amendment to this Clause, to which I have already referred— subject to special Parliamentary procedure"— are, I think, the correct way of setting out the requirements. Of course, if they are not technically correct the right hon. Gentleman will tell me, but I think that is the correct way of bringing to life the Act of 1945 so as to deal with that problem.

The Attorney-General

If the intention of this Clause were to enable the Postmaster-General to make ad hoc regulations relating, for instance, to Mrs. Smith's flat iron, there would be a great deal to be said for the Amendment. But that, of course, is not the purpose of the Clause. Regulations which will be made under this Clause will be general in their application to all flat irons, or whatever types of apparatus may be covered by them, and the special Parliamentary procedure would be quite inappropriate to regulations of that kind. That procedure, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman well knows, applies, and is designed to apply, to cases for which previously the Private Bill procedure would have been used, where the interests of particular parties are particularly or specially affected by what it is proposed to do. It enables those parties, after a somewhat cumbrous and elaborate procedure—less elaborate and cumbrous than in the days of Private Bill pro- cedure, but still somewhat elaborate and cumbrous—to have their case argued by counsel when the House is considering the content of the regulations. That really would be quite inappropriate, and most inconvenient one would have thought, to the parties as well as to the House if it were to be applied to general regulations of this kind.

These general regulations, applying to a whole class of apparatus of a particular kind will be subject to a number of safeguards which will protect all private users or manufacturers of apparatus within the Clause. First of all they are subject to the safeguards that before the regulation can be made at all the Postmaster-General is required to consult with the Advisory Committee. Some members of the committee represent the interests of those persons who are likely to be affected by the regulations, and may be trusted and expected to represent those interests. If there is any doubt about it they will, secondly, be subject to the jurisdiction of this House in which, on this side at any rate, there will certainly be a number of hon. Members who will represent the interests of all the persons concerned in those matters.

Thirdly, and this is a particular safeguard, any person affected by the regulation has the right to appeal to the technical tribunal before the regulations can be enforced against him or her, and the tribunal itself would have the power under one of the subsections of Clause 11—to order the regulations to be relaxed in relation to that particular individual. That provision in itself indicates that the regulations will be of general rather than particular scope, to which it would be quite inappropriate to apply the special Parliamentary procedure. I hope, in view of that explanation, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not wish to press the Amendment.

Mr. Turton

It does seem that the learned Attorney-General has not answered the case put up by my right hon. and gallant Friend. If we look at Clause 10, line 39, and following we see: .. different requirements may be prescribed for different circumstances and in relation to different classes or descriptions of apparatus, different districts or places and different times of use. In other words, we are, in effect, to have different regulations for different districts. That is just the sort of case we were envisaging when we passed this special legislation. If I remember rightly, this legislation is already in operation in the Water Act. That is the same type of case, where we have varying conditions in different districts, which caused Parliament to make this special procedure. It does seem that those who are affected, whether housewife or manufacturer, will be greatly embarrassed by the fact that they cannot put their case unless by some chance they are represented upon the Advisory Committee. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter and allow this special procedure which has been laid down to be used in this case.

The Attorney-General

It is not a question of their being represented on the tribunal at all. If the housewife is affected by the regulations she can come to the tribunal herself. She will probably find that a much more convenient, a much less expensive and inevitably a more expeditious procedure than coming to this House under the special Parliamentary procedure. Just think what the hon. and gallant Member is really suggesting—that if the housewife, the individual housewife, who is affected by a regulation which may be limited to a particular area or town, wishes to object she has to take advantage of the special procedure. It really is quite ludicrous. Her interests are far better safeguarded in a case like this by going to the tribunal and saying, "There are circumstances in my particular case why this regulation should not apply to my flat iron." It really is like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut to suggest that that type of case should come to this House under the special Parliamentary procedure.

I do assure hon. Members opposite that they are fully safeguarded by the three matters to which I have referred; in particular as the individual housewife or individual user of apparatus, or individual manufacturer has a right to come to the tribunal and say, "This regulation may be all very well in a general sense, but it ought not to apply to me." The tribunal hears them, and with expedition comes to a sensible conclusion about the matter.

Captain Crookshank

It is always very difficult for the layman to answer the learned Attorney-General and his legal explanations, but I think he is trying to ride us off by talking about the housewife—

The Attorney-General

The right hon. and gallant Member talked about the housewife.

Captain Crookshank

Of course hon. Members can talk about what they like within the rules of Order. But the case I have tried to put is not the case of the housewife at all, but the case where one manufacturer may find himself very damnified because of a proposed regulation affecting him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says the idea is that there will be general regulations. The case I was thinking of was one where there might be some people who make flat irons, who considered they should be outside the regulation altogether, and who would find themselves possibly put entirely out of business by this decision of the Postmaster-General.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Yes, there is a tribunal. The tribunal will consider this matter." That may be so. But it is not the tribunal that brings the matter before this House. It is the Postmaster-General. And in the end it is against him that would lie the grievance which I have in mind, and which in certain circumstances might be a very considerable one. Of course no one would imagine a housewife employing counsel to come before the Joint Select Committee of both Houses. That is a reductio ad absurdum, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it perfectly well.

7.30 p.m.

But there might very well be manufacturers of that sort of equipment who might find the edict very obviously affected them, and they have not, apart from the tribunal, access to this House. It is the right of the citizen who feels a grievance to come to this House and let this House consider it which I am trying to preserve, particularly as in 1945 this House put on the Statute Book legislation to make that possible. Obviously it would not be invoked unless there were very serious reasons. Certainly it is not a question only of a housewife. If there were such a case we ought to adhere to the rules of procedure which we laid down only three years ago for meeting just such a case.

I hope, therefore, that the Attorney-General will look further into this matter. I am sure that he does not want any section of industry to labour under any sense of grievance in a matter of this kind. The Postmaster-General has special responsibility because it is he who has to bring regulations before this House, but this House is estopped from amendment of regulations and has no redress short of throwing out the regulations altogether. It is going to the other extreme. The Attorney-General has talked about the housewife as being an extreme case against the special procedure; so the other way of throwing out a regulation, because of a grievance of a section of the people, when the regulation might be desirable on other grounds, is also an extreme case in the other direction.

There is this "middle of the road" procedure. The Bill has been brought on at short notice and some of the Amendments can hardly have had full consideration by the Attorney-General owing to the shortness of time. We did not know that the Bill was coming on so soon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have had time to look at them fully. Perhaps there will be time to do so between now and the Report stage?

Mr. Hollis

I would remind the Committee of something which emerged during the Second Reading Debate, out of the able speech which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe). He pointed out that it was by no means certain which suppressors would be effective and what expense would be required to make a success of these things. The Postmaster-General was of the opinion that a very small expense would provide an effective suppressor, and he may be right or wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey division has had great experience and he did not believe that the suppressor in which the Minister put his trust would, in fact, suppress. That is a consideration which ought to weigh with the Attorney-General in meditating on this matter. We are not concerned so much with the grievance of an individual housewife but with the fact that this Measure has been brought forward on the assumption that the technical answers to the problem are much more certain than in point of fact they are.

The Attorney-General

I certainly do not want to deal with the matter on the basis of a housewife. Far be it for me to ride off on the case of the housewife, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) seemed to think I wanted to do. Because of my great interest in housewives and my jealous determination to protect their interests in this matter, I gave that particular example, but only as an example.

The case that was put to me by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be equally and adequately protected, in my submission, by the Tribunal procedure. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite consider what is involved in the special Parliamentary procedure. We have not used it much yet. It is much better than the old Private Bill procedure which might have had to be resorted to, but it is expensive, cumbrous, and takes time. Here we have a regulation prescribing some requirement in regard to electric flat irons. I assume that they are the kind of apparatus that might be affected by regulations. Under the special Parliamentary procedure, before any order in regard to the matter could be laid before Parliament, notices would have to be published. There would then be a time limit within which objection might be lodged and considered.

After the order had been laid before the House, petitions would have to be lodged and there would be a further time limit to enable them to be lodged. When these were finally lodged and the time limit had expired the petitions would be referred to the Lords Chairman of Committees and to the Chairman of Ways and Means. Those petitions might pray against the order in regard to flat irons generally or in regard to flat irons of some particular colour or type. They might deal with some particular aspect of the order or with the whole order, and that matter would have to be considered by the Lords Chairman of Committees and Chairman of Ways and Means. They would have to decide whether to certify the petitions as disclosing a substantial ground of objection.

If they decided that the petitions were such as were proper to be received, there would be another period of perhaps 14 days allowed, during which any Member of either House might move that the order should be annulled. The House would then determine whether the order should be proceeded with any further. If the House decided that it should and if such a Motion had been carried, the petitions would stand adjourned to a Joint Select Committee. Before that Committee there would be a hearing attended by counsel and probably taking a very long time. After that, the Committee's report, when it was arrived at, would be laid before the House and the House might consider it and make Amendments to it, and so on and so forth. That is the special Parliamentary procedure.

If we adhere to the procedure as laid down in the Clause as at present drafted, a particular manufacturer who thinks that a regulation in regard to flat irons will interfere with his type of flat iron, can go to the Tribunal. Nobody has a greater regard than I have for the common sense of this House and for its sense of justice, especially as this House is at present constituted. I also think that the Tribunal will be able to deal with these matters on a common sense basis and consistently with justice. These are to some extent technical matters with which a Tribunal of this kind will be specially qualified to deal.

The manufacturer who objects to the regulation will be able to go to the Tribunal and give special reasons, many of them I dare say technical, without much expense or delay, and he will do so to a Tribunal which will understand these matters and specialise in them, and will be able to give its decision immediately. By that procedure I venture to think—and I ask the House to agree—the manufacturer who objects to a regulation will have, I will not say better protection than he would have under the special Parliamentary procedure, but protection at once as good, much cheaper and much more expeditious.

Mr. H. Strauss

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given reasons of weight for the inappropriateness of the special procedure mentioned in the Amendment. In so far as he has justified the actual provisions of the Bill, it is partly by reason of a provision in a subsequent Clause to which he alluded. Perhaps I shall be in Order in mentioning that subsequent Clause, just to that extent. What the Attorney-General had in mind was the right of the individual under Clause 11 (4, b), but a great deal may turn upon whether the relaxation of the requirements to which he referred can be made on a very wide variety of grounds or would be more limited. It seems to me possible to read the Subsection as implying that the requirements ought properly to be relaxed only if what the Postmaster-General has in view in the regulations would be achieved if they are relaxed, but it would not deal at all with the grievance of the individual citizen who might be very hard hit if there were not to be a relaxation. That point deserves to be borne in mind.

In the last argument the Attorney-General addressed to the House, he was dealing specifically with a manufacturer objecting—I largely agree with what he said—but what many of us have in mind is the position of owners of existing apparatus lawfully manufactured and complying with the law that applied before the making of any regulation. The regulation might cause an individual citizen to be prohibited from using a lawfully acquired apparatus, unless he alters it so as to comply. There may be very considerable hardship unless the widest possible provision for relaxation is made. I agree with the Attorney-General that that probably falls for consideration more under the next Clause, but I should like to point out to the Government that the comfort which the Attorney-General sought to give us very much depended on the actual effect of Clause 11 (4, b) and I should like him to see whether that protection is quite as wide as he suggested to the House in an earlier speech.

Mr. Mack (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

This seems to be an instance of hairsplitting among the lawyers.

Captain Crookshank

There are not many hairs, are there?

Mr. Mack

Last week the Postmaster-General, who is a very homely person, moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and said he wanted to take homely examples. So do I, and I have an example of a domestic situation which might occur. A British workman, Mr. John Smith, comes home at night after a hard day's work. He cannot go to the public house because beer is dearer than he can afford. He does not smoke many cigarettes. He takes his coat off and sits in front of the wireless, toasting his feet in front of the electric fire. Suddenly his wireless emits a howling whine or wail, like a cat with his tail caught in the mangle, or hon. Gentlemen opposite when they hear the result of the next General Election. Smith is very disturbed and angry, and pandemonium breaks out. If he lives in a block of flats, probably the people above are banging on the floor to draw his attention to the fact that his set is making a noise and the people below are pushing broomsticks against the ceiling—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Butcher)

The hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the question, which is to leave out "regulations" and to insert "orders."

Mr. Mack

All I can say, Mr. Butcher, is that there has apparently been a very wide discussion. What I have heard up to now Mr. Butcher, has not been strictly relevant to the remark you have made. The noise may turn out to be due to the fact that the lady next door is using a flat iron. Flat irons have been mentioned in this connection. My right hon. Friend says that if a flat iron is fitted with a thermostat, it must comply with certain requirements. He can then enforce the fitting of a device to an individual's electric iron which is confirmed as being the cause of interference, by prohibiting its use so long as it interferes. That raises many possibilities. I should like to know from the Attorney-General whether, under this Bill, we are to have action against the owner of the iron. Are we to say to the woman, "You cannot use it for a period of time," or what action shall we take?

The Temporary Chairman

The hon. Gentleman must really confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee, which is to leave out "regulations" and to insert "orders."

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)

I was rather impressed at first by the arguments of the Attorney-General, but on thinking them over, I came to the con- clusion that the impression he left with me strengthened very greatly in my mind the desirability of having the Statutory Instruments procedure. There are two reasons for this. The first reason why I think it appropriate is that it is perfectly clear that the Post Office are speculating on the type of suppressor and the type of future activity necessary in order to prevent interference. Where that speculation is taking place and the Post Office are groping in the dark, it is desirable that whatever action they may think it necessary to pursue, should remain under Parliamentary control.

We are here dealing with wide groups of possible lines of interference, and until greater certainty and precision as to the methods of interference and suppression has been arrived at, it is desirable that the matter should remain under Parliamentary control. If the Amendment is not accepted by the Committee, it will mean, as the Attorney-General pointed out, that any question of appeal has to go to the Tribunal consisting of one lawyer sitting with two assessors, which is not a desirable form of Tribunal for consideration of these matters of major principle, policy and importance.

The second reason the Attorney-General's arguments particularly impressed me with the desirability of retaining the Statutory Instruments procedure relates to the protection of the Postmaster-General. The right hon. Gentleman is launching out into uncharted and wide seas in which he may be attacked, not only by every housewife but by every manufacturer who may happen to have in his factory apparatus of a type which might cause interference. If all those people are to be able to serve a notice on the Postmaster-General calling on him either to withdraw his notice or to appear before the Tribunal, it is likely that the Tribunal, which has powers to direct the Postmaster-General, might adopt an attitude from which the Postmaster-General would be only too pleased to escape. Therefore, for the Postmaster-General's protection, it is desirable that this Amendment be carried.

Mr. Turton

When the Attorney-General addressed us, he left with me the impression that a manufacturer who was dissatisfied with the regulations would have a right of appeal to the Tri- bunal. I think that, on examination, that is not the effect. In fact, the appeal is against a particular notice. A later Clause defines who has that right of appeal. It is the person having possession of the offending instrument or a person having "any interest in." I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether a manufacturer of an offending instrument has by legal interpretation "an interest in." I cannot believe that that could be so construed.

Take the example of neon lights. I expect the Postmaster-General is saying that when neon lighting recurs, he will put in a regulation saying that all neon lights have to be suppressed at a cost of at least £5 an installation. I believe it will be more than that. In other words, the cost of neon lighting will be prohibitive, and yet that regulation can only be challenged by a Prayer in the House of Commons, probably after 11 p.m., and there will be no opportunity for the manufacturers of neon lighting to come to the House under the special procedure and argue their case by learned counsel. If I am right, if in fact there is no real appeal provided in this Bill for the manufacturer, the Committee must reconsider their attitude on this case. It is only recently that, in order to deal with cases like that, we passed the Measure quoted in our Amendment. Perhaps that Measure is not the right one, perhaps another procedure is required, but I ask the Committee to deal with this matter, and to give the manufacturer some right of redress against the regulations made by the Postmaster-General, because at present he has no rights at all.

Captain Crookshank

May I press the Attorney-General on this matter, because I believe he has inadvertently misled us. We are talking about the regulations and not what happens after the regulations. I may have missed it in the Bill, but I cannot see that at this stage anybody has any right of appeal. The right of appeal comes in the next Clause when there is damage done as the result of the regulations. What we were trying to safeguard was the position of those who knew that certain things were about to be done, so that, when they saw the regulations but before the regulations were in force, and before they had notices to do certain things, they should have the right to come to this House and get the regulations altered. This may have great industrial results, and therefore we consider that it is only the special procedure which can safeguard the persons concerned. As I read the Bill, the appeal tribunal comes in at a later stage, and there is no right of access earlier by manufacturers or anybody else while the regulations are being drafted and presented to the House of Commons.

The Attorney-General

That is certainly quite true. I hope I did not convey a different impression. I said the right arose under Clause 11 and that it was a right on the part of any person affected by the regulations, the regulations having been made, to go to the Tribunal and say that those regulations ought to be relaxed in his or her favour. I quite agree with the point that has been made in regard to the position of the manufacturer. Perhaps we have tended to ride off on the housewife and with a rather loose rein in this matter. The position in practice is that the manufacturer who found himself injuriously affected by a regulation would not have much difficulty in making his views known to the Tribunal. He would get the individual user of a piece of his apparatus—the housewife who had bought a flat iron from him—to appeal to the Tribunal, and he would himself appeal to the Tribunal as a party interested.

Captain Crookshank

Can she appeal unless a notice is served?

The Attorney-General

If no notice had been served on anybody, the manufacturer would not need to worry about the matter. It is only when the notice is served that the matter becomes of practical importance to him. When it does, because a notice has been served on someone using his apparatus, he can go to the Tribunal to which that person has applied, and ask to be heard as a person interested. It is perfectly true that he cannot initiate an appeal; the appeal has to be initiated by the user on whom the notice is served; but the appeal having been initiated, he is the person interested as the manufacturer of the apparatus to which the notice relates, and he can go to the Tribunal and support her case. So that in practice the result is as I have said: he can be heard by the Tribunal, and if the Tribunal thinks that the regulations ought not to be applied to that piece of apparatus, it will so direct. Having so directed, the Postmaster-General obviously would not serve further notices in respect of that apparatus in similar circumstances.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

The Attorney-General has made an excellent explanation but I am concerned with this point. Suppose I am the purchaser of a flat iron or a milking machine, or some other electrical device, which I have had in my possession for about two years. Suddenly I am warned by the Postmaster-General that it is causing an interference, so I go to my manufacturer and complain about this machine. He says, "My dear Darling"—that kind of colloquialism is not infrequent—he says, "My dear sir, we have abandoned that plant now; we have given up the old type of machine and you, my dear friend, should buy a new one." That is the quandary in which I may be placed.

The Attorney-General has told me that I should go to my manufacturer and complain to him that the Postmaster-General is making it difficult for me. That is not much of a resort because in these days of changing electrical equipment—and, believe me, it is a rapidly advancing business—what is up to date this year is out of date next year. So it looks to me as if these regulations may well discourage the use of electrical appliances altogether, and persons who are asked to use them will say, "No, the Postmaster-General has the electric field for wireless; that is the industry we are to encourage in this country, and electric machines for dress-making or milking or any other purpose—

The Temporary Chairman

I think the hon. Gentleman also is getting a little away from the Amendment before the Committee, which is to leave out "regulations," and to insert "orders."

Sir W. Darling

I was following the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. H. Strauss

I differ from the Attorney-General with the greatest hesitation on any point of legal interpretation, but has he not inadvertently given a wrong impression to the Com- mittee? Where a notice has been given, is he quite confident that the manufacturer will have any interest in the apparatus within the meaning of Clause 11 (3)?

The Attorney-General

No, I was looking at Subsection (4). I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. I think it is arguable that a manufacturer would not have an interest in the apparatus within the meaning of Subsection (3), but he clearly has an interest in Subsection (4) which says: "any other person appearing to them to be interested"—not interested in the piece of apparatus, but interested in the matter of the appeal.

Mr. Turton

The Attorney-General has not answered the illustration I gave of neon lighting. Will not the regulations under this Bill affect that? The cost may be so prohibitive that no purchaser will buy an advertising sign, so there will be no opportunity of a notice to be served. Yet the sign trade will be gravely affected by this Bill. Surely that is the kind of case for which there should be some right of the manufacturers of neon signs to have their case presented to Parliament? I am told that there is no graver cause of interference with sound wireless than neon lighting. For those reasons the Attorney-General should reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage, and provide some procedure so that the manufacturer has a proper right of appeal, not the hole-and-corner method which may be suggested in some paragraph of a later Subsection.

Mr. Grimston

I rise to make a further appeal to the Minister. As he was saying, perhaps we have had the housewife too much in mind over this. The protection which we here seek to put in the Bill has the manufacturer more in mind. The procedure proposed for the housewife is manifestly absurd and was not intended for the particular case we have in mind. We consider that there is a case in respect of the manufacturer who thinks that he may be damnified by regulations which are to be proposed, and that he should have available more opportunity than this Bill gives him to make his protest and to get these regulations amended before they come before the House, where they cannot be amended.

8.0 p.m.

We have had some discussion on this matter and I think that all that my right hon. and gallant Friend and I would ask the Postmaster-General to do at the moment is to give an undertaking that he will really look at this matter again. This Bill has been thrown at us all rather quickly. We have done the best we can to meet points at short notice. It may be that we have too cumbrous a procedure here, but despite what the Attorney-General says, it does not appear that the manufacturer has reasonable facilities for making known his point of view at the stage when the regulations are being made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has pointed out, in the case of neon lighting serious matters may be involved for the manufacturers of neon lighting and those who use neon advertisements, and they should have more opportunity than is given by waiting for regulations to be 'made and then having to wait for a notice to be served before they can take action. I think the Attorney-General should give further thought to this matter, and not turn this matter down completely at this stage.

The Attorney-General

We shall certainly give further thought to the matter but it is difficult to find a half-way procedure which is not so cumbrous and dilatory as the special Parliamentary procedure proposed here. We will certainly consider it from the point of view proposed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Captain Crookshank

In view of what the Attorney-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Grimston

I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, at the end, to insert: (c) in the case of any apparatus which is liable to cause interference with wireless telegraphy such regulations relating to manufacture as may be necessary to ensure that no undue interference is caused by the use of the manufactured article. Our previous discussion had this Amendment very much in mind. In our view this Amendment strikes at the root of the whole approach to the problem. The Postmaster-General is, in effect, taking up the attitude that he will say to the users of all this apparatus—flat irons, Hoovers, etc.—that in spite of the fact that they bought the apparatus quite legally, they are not to be allowed to use it in future unless they fit a suppressor or otherwise comply with certain regulations. He is to have the power to say that to any housewife in the land. At the same time, as the Bill now stands, he is not to take any power to force manufacturers to put suppressors on these articles at the time of manufacture. It seems to me to be a most cock-eyed way of going about the matter and one which is manifestly unfair to the consumer.

Moreover, it will in many cases cost a great deal more. By the courtesy which has already been mentioned, some of us, including quite a number of Members opposite, have taken advantage of the opportunity of seeing some of these appliances which have been on view for our benefit for the last two days. I have been round that exhibition and obtained what knowledge I could there. I came away much reinforced in what I felt about the necessity of trying to do something more at the manufacturing end.

In general, I found that apart from the suppressor for motor cars, which I believe costs 1s. 6d. there was no suppressor at present on the market which can be bought for less than 10s. Some of them cost a great deal more than that. It will be a considerable imposition on the housewife to tell her that if she is to continue to use her flat iron or Hoover she must incur an expenditure of 10s. or 15s. in order that she may not interfere with someone else's amusement. That almost approaches the monstrous if the Postmaster-General is not at the same time to take any steps to see that suppressors are incorporated during the manufacture of the appliances. In the case of flat irons I understand that it will cost 10s. to fit a suppressor but that if a certain change were made in the manufactured article it would be possible, for an addition of 2s. to the cost of the iron, practically to cut out all interference. It may not cut it out entirely, but at all events for one-fifth of the cost in the manufacture all that is necessary can be done.

If we take another case, which is slightly different, I am told that so far as television is concerned, motor cars are by far the worst cause of interference. There, the cost of the suppressor is very small, 1s. 6d., but it is only 9d. if the suppressor is fitted in the course of manufacture. I understand that it is possible to fit them now but the manufacturers are not doing so. One says, "This is not a thing which will sell the car. Unless my competitor intends to fit a suppressor, why should I do so?" That seems to be a very good reason for requiring that after a certain date motor cars should be fitted with suppressors. It will cost practically nothing.

One found out other things at the exhibition. Looking at the matter from another angle, it was demonstrated that if one fitted an aerial to a wireless set, it practically cut out the interference from a Hoover. I was certainly shown a demonstration of a Hoover running, and where a wireless had an ordinary inside aerial there was great interference. When the wireless was attached to an outside aerial the interference disappeared.

Mr. J. Lewis

I attended the same demonstration and would point out that the aerial was a special type of screened anti-interference aerial which costs £10.

Mr. Grimston

The point I wish to make is that it has tended to be ruled out that anything can be done about this interference at the receiver end. I think that more time should be allowed to see what can be done in that direction. This Bill will compel housewives to incur more expense in connection with their domestic appliances simply because they are interfering with the amusement of other people. I understand that the same is true with regard to television and motor cars, but there the cost of heightening the aerial of a television set is enormous.

The point I should like to make to the Committee is this: all this may be so today, but who is to say that later on fresh discoveries will not be made? After all, if anyone had got up in this House only 25 years ago and talked about television he would have been told he was competing with Jules Verne. How do we know, now, that there will not be any discovery whereby interference will be dealt with chiefly at the receiver end? Neither do the technicians, although at the present time they do not see it to be possible. In these realms of radio there are fields as yet unexplored and things undreamed of. Who are we to place burdens on people in the execution of their ordinary daily lives merely because they are interfering with someone else's amusement. We should think a great deal before we place these burdens upon them.

This Bill should not be passed unless the Postmaster-General takes the same powers to impose these conditions at the manufacturing end as those he is taking to impose at the other end. I believe that is the correct way to deal with much of the problem and my hon. Friends and myself are moving this Amendment because we consider, apart from anything else, that it is very unfair to attempt to impose these burdens on the users, who may be small people, while at the same time taking no steps to see that in the future manufacturers are compelled to incorporate suppressors in the course of manufacture. We think that is the correct procedure, not only from the point of view of fairness to the consumer but from the fact that incorporation costs a great deal less in the process of manufacture than it would if the suppressors were fitted afterwards.

Mr. J. Lewis

I rise to support the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) in the Amendment which he has moved. In my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to suggest to the Postmaster-General that it would be reasonable in the circumstances and should be within the provisions of this Bill, that where economically possible, manufacturers should be compelled to fix suppressors in order that users should not at some time in the future find themselves liable to penalties under these regulations when it would have been possible to avoid this liability if suppressors had been fitted at the source of manufacture.

In common with the hon. Member for Westbury and other hon. Members, I attended the exhibition which was held a few days ago and saw for myself something of what the electrical trades industry has been able to do in order to minimise—I use the word advisedly—the effects of this interference. But if we assume, as the hon. Member for Westbury did, that it will be possible in the very near future, or even in a year or two, to suppress interference at the receiver end, then I think we should be very unwise. Any reliance on that supposition might lead us into more than intellectual difficulties.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Grimston

I do not want to convey the impression that I thought the solution to this problem was around the corner. What I wanted to suggest was that one should not rule out the possibility of a solution being discovered at some stage.

Mr. Lewis

I appreciate the hon. Member's argument, but we should remember that the type of interference which is caused by the emission of electricity is precisely the same as—or, at any rate, very similar to—that caused by atmospherics. They are the same form of electrical impulses. In the last 20 years research has been going on into the problem of atmospherics but it has not been found possible to achieve any real results without reducing signal strength and the selectivity of the receiver. I do not think we can anticipate that it will be possible to deal with this problem at a low cost in the near future.

The hon. Member for Westbury referred to the possibility of fixing a special type of aerial which in itself would have the effect of suppressing the major part of the interference. It is possible to fit a type of aerial, but it is a rather special type of apparatus, known as a screened anti-interference aerial, and the cost would be 10 guineas. In those circumstances, I am sure the hon. Member for Westbury would agree that it is not something which every household would be in a position to install.

Consequently, we have to rely more on a fitted type of suppressor to deal with the interference, either a flex lead suppressor or some device incorporated into the apparatus, in order to overcome the difficulty. So far as manufacturers of electrical apparatus are concerned, I think my right hon. Friend will be in a position to tell the House that over a long period a great deal of co-operation has taken place between the Electrical Trades Industry and his Department, and that, as a result, many cheap, simple types of suppressors have been developed which can be incorporated at a fairly low cost. As the hon. Member for Westbury pointed out, in the case of an electrical iron, which creates a lot of trouble, it is possible, for the sum of 2s. or 3s., instead of incorporating the present type of thermostat, which is affected by jerks and constantly causes interference, to have some form of mica condenser with an improved type of magnetic thermostat which virtually overcomes the difficulty. It cannot be overcome altogether.

Turning to electric razors, these, of course are luxuries and could not be regarded in any way as essential. It is not possible to incorporate in the electric razor a device which would prevent interference. It is possible to fix one in the flex lead. Under those circumstances, there would be a substantial additional cost—9s. 6d. to 10s. Razors cause a great deal of interference to a large number of people in certain areas and I think the public should have the option either of purchasing an electric razor without a flex lead suppressor, and thus running the risk of contravening the regulations under the Act, or, alternatively, the lead suppressor should be available for sale with the razor if people want to buy the unit as a whole. In Royal Air Force stations during the war it was not permitted to use electric razors without a suppressor because of the interference with radio equipment and high navigational aid apparatus.

There is no doubt, now that the manufacturers, in conjunction with the Post Office, will be able to give serious consideration to this problem, that it will be possible to introduce into the major number of electrical appliances a suppressor incorporated in the apparatus itself. This will have the effect of doing what the hon. Gentleman asks in his Amendment. I think it is a reasonable Amendment, and at all times we must remember that those people who cause interference are precisely the same people who receive it; it is John Citizen who pays both ways and suffers in both cases. I think we are asking a great deal of housewives and householders and it is quite reasonable that my right hon. Friend should have powers, and certainly he should exercise them, in the right instances, in order to ensure that where it is possible to fix suppressors during manufacture they should be fitted.

Mr. C. Williams

I am afraid I shall be unable to follow the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) in his very considerable knowledge of matters dealing with wireless or electricity of steps to be taken in these cases, which is very creditable to him, but I am glad to find we have on the other side one hon. Gentleman who agrees that this is a good Amendment. If we do not get a satisfactory answer and we have to divide I hope he will follow us into the Lobby.

When we look at the enormous possibilities in the future development of this industry, we should try to do everything we can to see that the necessary adjustments are made in the original article. Tribute has been paid to the fact that the great electrical industries in this country are working hard on this matter, but 1 should like to know what the position is about fitting new apparatus. We all agree that there is a certain amount of interference which should be dealt with but, I want to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to a question which was raised during the Second Reading Debate.

The hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) asked whether the cost of fitting would be 30s. for each piece of apparatus. The Assistant Postmaster-General astonished the House when he said that in no circumstances would anyone have to pay anything under the Bill. That did not satisfy me. I am not that sort of mug, but the "dumb-bells" of Plymouth followed the hon. Gentleman and the Government into the Lobby. We ought to know whether a person will be liable to a charge for putting right his apparatus. The only real way out of all this is to go back to the manufacturing end. I think it monstrous of the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that there would be no charge at all. He deceived the simple-minded Lady who represents the Sutton Division of Plymouth, sand she followed him into the Lobby in the usual Lobby-fodder way.

Mr. Cobb

I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), who made a good case up to a point, although I do not think he took it to its logical conclusion. There are several economic issues involved in this matter, which he did not mention. May I put this analysis to the Committee? 1 believe that the principal interferers with wireless reception are motor cars and medical apparatus. Practically every motor car interferes with television reception when it is running near a set, and it is almost impossible to stop it unless a suppressor is fitted. There is, therefore, an argument in favour of cars and medical apparatus being fitted with sup- pressors wherever television sets are in operation. At the moment, however, such sets are in operation only in the Greater London area, and it would be unfair to put the onus of fitting suppressors on those who are at present using cars in, say, the North of England.

Another cause of interference is the vacuum cleaner. If a suppressor were fitted during manufacture the cost would be 2s. If the suppressor is bought by the user from the electrical dealer the cost would be 10s. to 15s. Other interferers are lifts in flats, the cost of suppressing which would be about £5. or may even be about £10. Yet another cause of interference may be industrial machinery in factories. The hon. Member for Westbury argued that all vacuum cleaners should be fitted with suppressors which would cost 2s. to, manufacture. But that is not the added selling cost to the public. The usual margin between manufacturing and selling cost is 2.5. For every 1,000 vacuum cleaners the calculation is 1,000 times 2s. times 2.5. That is the increased selling price to the public. It will not be 2s. but 5s. Supposing that only 10 per cent. of the apparatus put on the market creates interference, should we ask millions of people to pay 5s. because we have made it compulsory for all apparatus at the manufacturing stage to be fitted with a suppressor, or should 10 per cent. of several million people pay 10s. or 15s.? That is the economic problem to be faced. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has taken it into consideration, and that that is why the Bill is drafted in its present terms.

There is the export argument to be considered. An important factor in obtaining export business is price. It is important not to disturb the mass production rhythm of a factory. If every article for the home market has to be fitted with an interference suppressor which is not needed if it is for export it would increase the cost of export business; it would mean that only a small number of the factory's output of articles without the suppressor would be needed, which would upset the rhythm of the factory's production. It is the case that in much of this electrical apparatus sold abroad a difference of sixpence in the cost makes all the difference between getting business and losing it. So we ought to be very careful on these two scores about insisting that all electrical apparatus that might interfere ought to be fitted with suppressors.

8.30 p.m.

Shortly, we come to this position. In some cases, notably cars and vacuum cleaners, every piece of apparatus that goes on the market creates interference: every car that is driven near a television set will interfere with the television set. We have other pieces of electrical apparatus of which only a very small percentage will create interference. We have pieces of apparatus that can be used on A.C. mains and will not interfere but which, when used on D.C. mains, will interfere. Only 6,000 homes in this country, approximately, are on D.C. mains now. It is, obviously, economically wrong to insist that every piece of apparatus that goes on to the market shall be fitted with a suppressor merely because it interferes when connected with direct current mains. There is a certain class of interference, such as that caused by motor cars, which creates interference only on the short waves and not on the medium broadcasting bands.

Therefore, I think that my right hon. Friend is right in the way he has shaped this Bill. We want a situation in which, if one particular piece of apparatus, such as a motor car, creates interference, we may first of all try to persuade the motor car manufacturers to make a suppressor. to be standard on every motor car; a situation in which in the event of their refusing to do this, a regulation can be issued to make the fitting of a suppressor compulsory in that single case. I do not think it would be economical to say that that should be the case with apparatus which interferes in only a small number of cases. I do not think that the load we should put on the buying public—the extra price we would ask them to pay for this work—would be justified. I think my right hon. Friend has studied this correctly and has come to the right conclusion.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

I should like to correct a wrong impression that seems to have prevailed both in the Debate on Second Reading and again tonight. There has been an impression that if motor cars were fitted with suppressors, and if the manufacturers were compelled to do this, everything would be all right.

That would not be so. In any event, it would take some time for the manufacturers to deal with the matter. We should have to have legislation compelling the manufacturers to look into the whole question; and we should have to learn whether, from the engineering point of view, it is possible to turn out a standard article. All this would take time. Besides, there is the other side to the question—that there are all these appliances that we use today that are liable to cause interference. Not all these things are causing interference by any means; only a small portion of this apparatus causes interference. There is, however, the question of whether or not it may cause interference. It would be some years before the apparatus now in the homes of the people could be supplanted by new apparatus, even after it had become standard apparatus and was guaranteed to resist interference.

Mr. C. Williams

Is the right hon. Gentleman referring also to what happened at the end of the Debate on Second Reading, when the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) said that this course might mean interference with people and involve them in expenditure, to which the Assistant Postmaster-General said that the answer was a straightforward "No"?

Mr. Paling

I will deal with that point before I sit down. I listened very carefully, of course, to the Debate on Second Reading, and took notice that there was a good deal to be said for dealing with this question. The argument put forward was that we were dealing with the users of the apparatus but were doing nothing to compel those at the other end—the manufacturing end—to do anything about it. I said at the time that we had been in consultation with the electrical people, and that we hoped to get the co-operation of the manufacturers on a voluntary basis. However, there did seem to be a rather big opinion in the House that day that we should do rather more than that.

Let me come to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and what has been said about suppression. He referred to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) and the answer given to her. I will answer this way. I have not been to the exhibition which the hon. Gentleman opposite talked about, but we have had an exhibition at the Post Office. There is a suppressor now which is fitted with a switch off the mains to serve several different pieces of apparatus in a house. It costs about 14s. The Post Office people take it around with them and fit it for that sum, and it is very effective indeed. Other pieces of individual apparatus are even cheaper; but it is a fact that they cost money. I say that in answer to the hon. Member for Torquay.

We do not think this Amendment would have the effect that would warrant it, but I give the promise to the Committee that, between now and Report stage, I will look into this matter to see if I can find ways and means of dealing with it at the source. I hope, therefore, that the Opposition will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Grimston

I am obliged to the Postmaster-General for what he has said. He will observe that all we have tried to do in this Amendment is to give him the power to do something; we have not specified what. I must take up one point made by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb). I cannot make up my mind whether, at the end of his speech, he was opposing the Amendment, whether he was neutral or whether he was supporting it.

Mr. Cobb

I was opposing it.

Mr. Grimston

I would point out to the hon. Member that all we were doing was to make the Amendment permissive. I appreciate his economic arguments, and one of the reasons why we moved the earlier Amendment, which I do not think he supported, was in order to enable the manufacturers to have the procedure put before the House before the regulations were made. We should have been glad to have had his support then. 1 do not want to detain the Committee, as the Postmaster-General has met us on this matter. I am glad to accept his undertaking, and we shall look forward to seeing on the Report stage, the method by which he proposes to meet the point of view expressed on all sides of the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Grimston

I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out line 3.

The words which it is proposed to leave out are: Not being wireless telegraphy apparatus. We have put down the Amendment as an inquiry Amendment because we do not quite understand why that apparatus should be excluded from the Subsection. I should be glad if the Postmaster-General would tell us why it is so excluded.

Mr. Paling

The effect of the Amendment would be to enable interference caused by wireless telegraphy apparatus to be dealt with under the provisions of Part II of the Bill. Part I of the Bill enables the Postmaster-General to deal with interference caused by wireless telegraphy apparatus, and the Amendment would merely provide unnecessary additional power. In other words, the powers are already there if we want to use them.

Mr. Grimston

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Sir Richard Acland (Gravesend)

There is one point I should like to raise about the apparatus with which these regulations will deal. I do not think I should have been in Order had I tried to raise it on the last substantial Amendment which we discussed. I want to ask the Postmaster-General a question on the sort of procedure he will adopt in making these regulations, and whether he will take rather energetic steps to reduce, as far as possible, the expense to which private citizens will be put in complying with these regulations.

What I have in mind is this. I went, as did some others, to the exhibition which has been referred to—and I am most grateful to those who arranged it—and saw the little suppressor which can be attached to a vacuum cleaner or an electric razor—I do not know if it is exactly the same in both cases; there may be variations according to the apparatus to which the suppressor is to be attached—which, as matters now stand, costs 9s. 6d. I gather, putting it very bluntly, that the net effect of some of the regulations, when they are made and brought into force, will be that we shall say to a large number of owners of vacuum cleaners, electric irons and electric razors: "Unless you fit a suppressor you must not use your vacuum cleaner any more." That is what it will come to.

Air-Commodore Harvey

Or growing a beard.

Sir R. Acland

The same applies to motor car owners, and so on. Now, the question of price becomes rather relevant here. I do not think it is a great hardship to me or to any other motor car owner to have to spend Is. 6d. or 2s. in order that we shall not interfere with our neighbours' television. That seems to me perfectly reasonable. But I fear there are an awful lot of people to whom it will seem a very great burden to have to pay 9s. 6d. for a suppressor in order that their vacuum cleaner or electric iron shall not offend their neighbours.

I am thoroughly in favour of this Bill. I think it is a magnificent Bill. I do not want to put it too high, but I do think it is an admirable thing that the community should be addressing itself seriously to the task of clearing up this interference business so that ordinary citizens may, as far as possible, listen to wireless programmes without this intolerable interference—which, of course, becomes more and more intolerable as people use their wirelesses more and more for culture and education and less and less as background noise. If we are to go at it seriously, it seems to me that we shall need a lot of these suppressors. I understand that at the moment they are being manufactured in small quantities of about 2,000 to 3,000 a year. I think we shall need at least 100,000, and probably something like 200,000. Cannot the Postmaster-General go into this business in a big way, place an order for 200,000 and then call on some of the experts of Woolworth's and Marks and Spencer's to assist the manufacturers?

8.45 p.m.

The Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he appears to be going very far beyond this Clause. His remarks might be appropriate to some other occasion—perhaps to the Third Reading.

Sir R. Acland

With great respect, Major Milner, the extent to which one might wish to put down Amendments on the Report stage will depend on whether the Postmaster-General can tell us that he will look at this problem so that these domestic appliances can be put out at a very low price. I have not the slightest doubt that if an order for 200,000 suppressors is placed and the experts of Woolworth's and Marks and Spencer's are brought in, the manufacturers will be able to produce these things for about 2s.

Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale)

There is an industrial aspect of this problem in regard to which I want to ask a question. Certain metal-using processes create, as a by-product, very finely divided particles of metal which go up the stack into the air. These by-products are of great value, and so these fine particles of metal have to be collected. They are collected electrostatically, which means that a very high voltage, perhaps 50,000 volts, is used. There are metal plates between which this high voltage passes, and the pressure produces exactly the kind of radiation that causes very great interference. It is possible, with a factory such as I have in mind, where three or four of these electrostatic dust or particle collectors are used, to produce interference within a radius of a quarter of a mile, so that within that area no television can be operated, and certainly cinemas using television in the future will not be able to operate.

We have to choose, when making the regulations, between shutting down this business, which employs 5,000 people, or moving the television cinemas, and depriving the people of the use of television. That is the issue before us, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider, in making the regulations, that it is impracticable to order certain manufacturers to stop this kind of interference? The solution can lie only in the longterm development of the radio industry, and by transmitting and receiving in such a way that there is no interference.

My own belief is that the proper way to transmit, in a small compact country like this, is along the ordinary electric light cables instead of through the ether, so that wherever there is a power point, it is possible to plug in a radio set. This is possible, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The issue of principle behind this matter is whether we are going to force listeners by regulation to protect the goods or apparatus which they buy, or going to compel the industry, which is trying to sell its products, to serve its customers in a way which will give them satisfaction?

I can remember 20 years ago, a friend of mine, who was a designer and inventor in one of the big radio companies, telling me that he had designed a seven, eight or 10-valve set which was quite a new thing then. It kept on receiving weak signals from a distance which hitherto had not been done. No sooner had he designed it and had it on test, than he found that the electrical interference of London—trams, cables, lifts and so on—was rendering useless all the research work he had done. I was then a young Member of this House and was interested in radio. I was asked whether I could not raise the matter in the House and do something for him.

Since those days these difficulties have been overcome, not by suppressing or interfering with the general users of trams, buses, lifts, switches and irons, but by the radio industry finding that it could not sell a set which made such a frightful row. It had to produce a set which received the signals that were wanted and not those that were not wanted. It is along that line of development that we should seek the solution of this problem. It is rather like the argument met with in the countryside—shall we pasteurise dirty milk or persuade people to produce clean milk? Here the question is—shall we compel people to put in an expensive apparatus to get rid of unwanted signals, or should the trade develop a method whereby the listener receives only the wanted signal? I believe it is quite impossible to make regulations which will compel industry to avoid sending out these interfering waves, and I should like the Postmaster-General to assure us that he is not trying that impossible task, and also that he is not going to shut down an essential business in which a large number of our people are employed.

Air-Commodore Harvey

The hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) referred to the fact that he went to an exhibition the other day. I myself went to that exhibition this morning, and I found that the hon. Baronet got rather involved at that exhibition I was told that he "slated" one of the men for not having bought his shirts at the "Co-op."

Sir R. Acland rose—

The Chairman

I do not think that is a question which arises here.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I am sorry if the question does not arise here, but the point I was dealing with was the hon. Baronet's suggestion that the Postmaster-General should manufacture these suppressors. In my view, it would be quite wrong for the Postmaster-General to start manufacturing any such article, because if he did, instead of it being 9s. 6d., the cost would probably be 19s. 6d.

Sir R. Acland

I suggested that the Postmaster-General should place with the manufacturer an order so big that the manufacturer himself would be able to manufacture at very much less than the present cost which is largely fixed because he does not know how many he is going to sell. On the other point mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, he is implying, I think, that I was somewhat discourteous to our hosts. We are coming from suppressors to political points, on which we differ, but if there was discourtesy to our kind hosts—

The Chairman

The hon. Baronet has made one speech already, and the question of manufacture does not arise under this Clause at all. This Clause deals with what the regulations should provide.

Air-Commodore Harvey

I ask the Postmaster-General to assure us that when these suppressors are made, he will have competition and, further, that he will put the tender out to a number of firms so that there will be real competition.

Mr. Turton

I want to ask the Postmaster-General a question. On page 10, lines 4 and 5, there is reference to "apparatus" as a term including any form of electric line. Will he tell us what that means? Does it mean that he can make regulations providing that wiring in houses shall be of a certain nature or of a certain correctness? It is important. If faulty wiring is included in the Clause, it will mean that we shall have the right hon. Gentleman's minions coming in and taking up floor boards when exercising their right of search. It will mean inspecting the flooring and walls of houses. If not, these words are rather loosely drawn and we should have an assurance on the point.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

The reply to the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir Ian Fraser), whose speech raised a number of considerations, is that most of those considerations will have to be in the minds of the technical committee which is to make regulations on the matter. I hope that we shall never have to do anything so drastic as shutting down whole firms. There are ways and means of dealing with these things. They may not be so inexpensive as the ways of dealing with household apparatus. In some cases it might be fairly expensive. These considerations are in mind and will have to be taken into account by the people who make the regulations.

Sir I. Fraser

It must not be assumed that it can be done, even at some expense. The firm that I know of would not mind in the least spending £1,000 or £2,000 in the interests of the work-people who live around, but it cannot do it. During the war the Army came to this firm and said, "You are interfering with our signals and our monitoring service." The firm replied, "Very -well, send in all your experts and look into the matter." The experts were brought in. They found it impossible to prevent the interference and so the Army monitoring service, which was a very substantial unit, moved away because they could not operate at that place. The fact is that these things cannot be done by regulation. I am warning the right hon. Gentleman that if he takes these powers and tries to exercise them they will inevitably lead to his having to shut down processes.

Mr. Paling

I am informed that it can be done. In any event, the hon. Member may be assured that we shall keep those considerations in mind. In regard to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), I should like to correct any misunderstanding that may exist. There seems to be an idea that when this Bill becomes law everybody will have to rush and buy suppressors to put on all kinds of apparatus. The number of suppressors will be decided by the amount of interference. What we do at the moment when we get a complaint is to try to track down the source of interference and advise the people there what to do about it and how to fit the kind of suppressor which is necessary. We shall continue on those lines. I do not see any necessity for manufacturers to rush into expense. I have recently seen a suppressor devised by Post Office engineers at a cost altogether of about 14s. It can be used upon a number of pieces of apparatus in the home. Some of the others, for motorcars and so on, can be purchased for a few shillings. I am afraid I cannot give an answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).

9.0 p.m.

Mr. D. Marshall

I am certain the Postmaster-General will agree that if he can possibly do anything with regard to the Post Office's own services, it should be done. A constituent of mine has written to me on this matter. The Committee are well aware that I have no technical knowledge, but this constituent has. He writes: One of the worst offenders is the Post Office itself. Its automatic dialling system affects considerably and influences considerably matters of interference. Has the Postmaster-General any information on that matter? if not, will he look into it and see whether there is substance in that point?

Mr. Paling

The hon. Member is probably referring to interference from automatic telephone exchanges. The answer is that we do get complaints and we fix suppressors in cases where suppressors are necessary.

Clause ordered to stand part or the Bill.