CLAUSE 2.—(Fees and charges for wireless telegraphy licences.) (Hansard, 18 November 1948)

§ The Chairman
Does the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) desire to move the first Amendment. If he will forgive me for saying so, it is not at all clear. It does not say whether the 20s. to which it refers means 20s. per week, or year or what period. Unless the hon. Member presses it, I should prefer not to select the Amendment.

§ Mr. Grimston (Westbury)
Perhaps it might be made clear by a manuscript Amendment. The intention is that it shall refer to 20s. a year, which is of course the charge for a licence at the present time.

§ The Chairman
I will call the hon. Member to move the Amendment.

§ Mr. Grimston
I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, at the end, to insert: Provided that the amount payable to the Postmaster-General in respect of a broadcasting receiving licence (excluding television) shall not exceed the sum of twenty shillings. No new power is concerned here, because the Postmaster-General has had power, by regulation, to impose a charge, which will be maintained, for wireless receiving licences. This charge was raised comparatively recently from 10s. to 20s., and the purpose of this Amendment is to put a ceiling upon that charge and to require the Postmaster-General to come back to the House if he wishes to raise it. It will be observed that television has been excluded from the Amendment. We leave the Postmaster-General free to raise the charge for television. I believe that I am right in saying that in the last increase of 10s. per year in the charge for a wireless receiving licence, some amount was provided for increased charges in respect of television. We think, therefore, that the ordinary wireless listener has been asked to pay quite enough for his licence by being required to pay 20s. per year. Also, we are continually seeing costs rising in every direction today, and we think it is high time that a statutory stop should be put upon one in respect of which we see no reason for any increase for some time to come.

§ Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodmin)
I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, but I should like to put a further point to the Postmaster-General. He knows my view already. Not only have I made it in 583 a speech quite recently, but I have made it on many occasions in this Parliament. I agree with the aim of this Amendment to put a ceiling of £1 upon the charge for a wireless receiving licence, but for my own part I should like to see that ceiling fixed at a lower figure. I take this opportunity once more to refresh the mind of the Postmaster-General about the heavy pressure which some people are bearing because of the high cost of living.
It is necessary, and it is within the confines of this Amendment, to point out the fact, which is extremely important, that it is no longer any use His Majesty's Government viewing the question of broadcasting as a luxury or anything of that kind. The Government and previous Governments have broadcast, and Governments that are to come will broadcast, from time to time, matters which are of considerable and vital importance to the people. By virtue of the fact that they take advantage of the radio, the possession of a radio set is made essential to many people. Therefore, the charge that we are discussing is an extremely heavy burden, particularly on a great number of people in the rural areas. I address to the Postmaster-General for his deep consideration my view that, while I agree that the limit of charge should be confined as proposed by this Amendment, I should like to see the overall charge reduced.

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson)
I read this Amendment with a good deal of fear and trepidation. There was nothing to indicate whether the 20s. was to cover a week, a month or a year. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) for his elucidation of that matter. The position at the moment is that the fee for the licence can be arbitrarily decided, without reference to Parliament. Under the new provision which we have inserted in this Bill it will not be competent for my right hon. Friend or for the Government to increase or reduce the charge for a wireless licence without reference to Parliament. We have to lay a regulation before each House and when such a regulation is laid it can be prayed against, and Members will have an opportunity of stating whether they are in favour of or opposed to the proposal.
584 I would remind the hon. Member for Westbury that when the charge was increased from 10s. to £1, the information was given to the House as a result of a question which he placed on the Order Paper. We have, in this legislation, met the point of view of hon. Members opposite. I do not want to embark on a discussion as to whether 20s. is too much or too little. My concern is with the main principle, the fact that we can decide this matter by a vote of the House of Commons. That is a considerable advance on existing legislation, and I hope that hon. Members will not press the Amendment.

§ Mr. Erroll
Does what the Assistant Postmaster-General has said mean that any changes in the price of an ordinary wireless receiving licence will in future be subject to a negative or positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament?

§ Mr. Hobson
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Skinnard (Harrow, East)
Does that also apply to a television licence?

§ Mr. Hobson
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)
Does the fact that the procedure is to be by way of an affirmative or negative Resolution mean that the Resolution will be considered by way of a Prayer after 10 p.m., or will the Government bring a positive Resolution before the House of Commons?

§ Mr. Hobson
It will be by way of a negative Resolution.

§ Mr. Grimston
I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out from "person," to "the," in line 9.
This Amendment has been put down by way of inquiry. It will be seen that the provision it concerns is one whereby blind persons are excused from having to pay a fee for a wireless licence. The words which we are seeking to delete do not give that privilege to any blind person who may be in a public or charitable institution or in a school. There may be cases in which a person who is so resident has to have a wireless licence, and we cannot see why, in such circumstances, such a person should not have the benefit of this Clause of the 585 Bill. I should be grateful if the Postmaster-General could explain the purpose of these words.

§ Mr. Wilfred Paling
We think that the Amendment is not necessary because those persons who are affected, that is, blind persons resident in a public or charitable institution or in a school, do not and will not have to take out separate wireless receiving licences. In such places one licence covers any number of receiving sets and extension leads therefrom used by the inmates and the staff who are resident in the institution. The premises are covered by a single licence taken out by the institution or by some member of the permanent staff on their behalf. That covers the blind inmates, and there is no point in enabling them to take out a separate licence. They are covered by the one.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)
Does not a licence in respect of such a charitable institution have to be paid for?

§ Mr. Paling
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
Cannot some arrangement be made for non-payment in these cases also? It seems a little hard that when blind persons are in an institution, a licence has to be paid for whereas blind persons outside get such a licence free. Should not that be put right?

§ Mr. Paling
Only one licence has to be paid for. In most cases it covers people other than blind people, such as nurses domestic staff, doctors, etc.

§ Mr. D. Marshall
I am not quite clear on one point. Suppose there is a certain form of charitable institution which may not be in existence at the present time, a certain form of house set up for blind people to reside in. Let us assume that someone gave a certain man or woman a small portable wireless set so that when they went out into the garden they could carry it with them and use it. How does this Clause work in those circumstances? Does it mean that because he is residing in an institution it would be classified as charitable, and therefore because wireless was already available in the main building he would not need to have a licence?

§ Mr. Paling
If he is blind he does not pay a licence.

§ Mr. Grimston
He does not have to pay it if he is resident in an institution?

§ Mr. Paling
If he is a member of an institution one licence is sufficient to cover anybody in the institution. One licence would have to be pall for. That licence provides, not only for the blind people, but all the rest of the staff who are not blind. If anyone wished to give a blind person a set, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) because he is blind he does not have to pay a licence.

§ Mr. Turton
The point in which I am interested is not so much with regard to a public institution as a school. If there is a small voluntary school for the blind, it will mean they will have to pay a licence fee which the individual child would not have to pay if it was not at the school, and that seems to me extremely harsh. There would be cases where children were not in that school the whole of the time. If they have their wireless set at their home and take it to school it will mean, merely because they are resident part time in the school, that a licence will have to be paid. While I see the force of the remarks of the Postmaster-General regarding those resident in a public or charitable institution, I do not think that a similar view can be held regarding blind children in a school, and I hope that he will reconsider the matter.

§ Air-Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)
Will the Postmaster-General make a little more clear what he means by "institution"? Could he describe whether this covers hospitals which have not been taken over under the National Health Act, such as the Royal Masonic Hospital and the hospital at Manor Field Park. We should have clearly described what the word means, otherwise there may be a considerable amount of complaint.

§ Mr. Paling
My information is, "Blind persons resident in public or charitable institutions or in a school," which seems to me to be pretty wide.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
There is a question which arises with regard to the amount chargeable for the ordinary receiving licence. In view of what has been said in the course of the discussion 587 on the Amendments, are we to take it that there is a possibility in the near future that the charge of 20s. will be increased; because if that is not the possibility, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been glad to accept the Amendment. Perhaps he could give us some information regarding that matter. We were told that it would be quite all right without the Amendment, because any alteration in charge would be bound to come before this House in a regulation to which the House could either assent or dissent. On reading the Bill, I am not sure that that is quite right, and I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would explain—if what we were told by the Assistant Postmaster-General is right—what is the meaning of the proviso in Clause 2, Subsection (1). That says: Provided that the regulations made may contain provisions authorising, in such cases as are not otherwise dealt with by the regulations, the charge by the Postmaster-General of such sums, whether on the issue or renewal of the licence or subsequently, as may in the particular case appear to him to be proper. From that it would appear to mean that if he has a regulation dealing with the licence for television sets, that regulation may contain authority for him to charge such sums as he may think proper for broadcasting reception licences, in which case no regulation dealing with the increase of the licence would come before this House. I do not know whether that is the right interpretation of the proviso, but it seems capable of bearing that interpretation. I should be glad, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman would explain first, what the proviso is meant to cover, and, secondly, to tell us, if he can, that it cannot cover the reserving to him of power to fix the amount charged for a broadcasting receiving licence outside a regulation.

§ Mr. Paling
The hon. and learned Member asked me if the broadcasting receiving licence was likely to be altered in the future. I am afraid I cannot answer that. It depends on a lot of circumstances and events. The proviso allows for charges to be made for all kinds of licences. A broadcasting receiving licence is a receiving licence, but there are transmitting licences also, and the charge varies according to the nature of the transmitter and the purpose for which the licence is granted.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
Are we to take it from that answer that the answer given by the Assistant Postmaster-General is entirely wrong, and that the charge for the broadcasting receiving licence may be fixed by the Postmaster-General under this proviso outside the terms of a regulation?

§ Mr. Paling
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Erroll
I wish to raise a point regarding the certification of a blind person. It seems to me that the authorities who may certify the blindness of a person receiving a free licence are very few indeed. According to paragraph (b) any person resident in England and Wales may be certified only by the council of the county or county borough in which he is ordinarily resident. This certification will only free a blind person from the expenditure of 20s. which is not a very large sum on present day standards. Considerably larger sums of money may be involved in applying for certification for a much larger number of people in connection with the old age pension tobacco relief form, and this may be certified by a large number of people including justices of the peace, Members of Parliament, teachers and clergymen.
It cannot be easy for blind persons to write or to ascertain who is the local authority. It must be quite a complicated business for such persons to obtain this certificate, and it may involve them in an expenditure of some shillings out of the £1 to be saved. If the certification were to be made easier along the lines of the old age pension tobacco relief form, or in the case of the British passport, it would enable the blind person to obtain the necessary certificate more easily. I hope that the Postmaster-General will look into this point, even though he may not be able to give an immediate answer.

§ Mr. Hobson
The position is that local authorities generally have responsibilities for blind people other than that of registering them for the purpose of having a wireless set free of charge. I think that we are wise in maintaining the existing proviso for registering under the local authority in which they are resident or in which they may not be resident if they have a set in another part.

§ Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)
The Postmaster-General has done himself less than justice. I am afraid that he has rather confused the issue about the charge for these licences. I hope that he can clear up our difficulty or, if not, that he will undertake to have the wording looked at again before we reach the next stage of this Bill. When asked the purpose of the proviso to Clause 2 (1) he pointed out that, of course, there might be different scales of licences for different purposes. He instanced transmitters. But that, of course, is clear already, not in the proviso but in the main part of Subsection (1), which says: … different provision may be made in relation to different licences according to the nature, terms, provisions, … and so on. That has nothing to do with the proviso. It is already there. As I read it, it means, in conjunction with what the Minister said, that any scale of licences, not only for what we call the ordinary broadcast receiving set or the television set, but every kind of licence which comes within his purview, in future can be dealt with by regulation, and the regulations will come before the House. If that is the meaning of those words, then I cannot sec what the proviso is about. The Minister said that it was to cover such cases as transmitters, but it does not because they are dealt with in the main portion of this Subsection. Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum which, of course, does not have any force and is there to guide our halting footsteps through this Measure, says: … all fees and charges for licences are to be prescribed by regulations, except where the regulations otherwise provide … It is exactly that exception, which is what this proviso refers to, that we are trying to elucidate. What exactly does it mean? It looks as if there is some loophole, otherwise there is no point in the proviso. It appears that there is some loophole by which some form of licence, or some conditions attaching to some form of licence, can be effected without coming under the regulations and without coming before this House. That seems to be the ordinary common sense of it. We are asking the right hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly what these cases may be.

§ Mr. Paling
The proviso to the Subsection provides that, in cases not otherwise dealt with by the regulations—that 590 is in the case of licences for which charges are not specifically prescribed in the regulations—the regulations may authorise the Postmaster-General to charge such sums, on the issue or renewal of the licence or subsequently, as may, in the particular case, appear to him to be proper. An imaginary example is that of a licence to receive televised pictures of a particular event, such as the Olympic Games, for the purpose of showing them in a hall to members of the public who pay for admission. In such a case it might well be desired to relate the charge for the licence to, say, the number or the price of the seats in the hall. While the proviso will not be used only in respect of licences for showing televised pictures to the public, it is indispensable in connection with such licences. The use of television in cinemas is a topical and important subject. The basis, or bases, of charges for such licences will have to be developed.

§ Captain Crookshank
This is indeed a most interesting field which is being opened up though, of course, it is entirely different from what the Postmaster-General said at first. He said that this had something to do with licences for transmitting stations. I must say that I had not thought that even in the most technical sense, that referred to what he has now said. Now, he is trying to cover the case which may—and lots of people hope will—arise under which television will be linked up with the ordinary cinemas and we shall be able to have television displays of current events. I have seen in the Press recently that negotiations are going on about something like that. That is not what the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the first place. I am very glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) took up this point, because this is the occasion on which to get it cleared up.
Am I to understand that what is intended now is not what one would have thought, but that there is to be some arrangement by which the Postmaster-General would say to a cinema, or to an organisation of cinemas, "If you desire to show on your screen current events through television, there will be a licence fee payable?" Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in future, there is not to be merely a licence issued to a cinema 591 in the same way as a licence is issued for a public house, when it does not depend on the number of bottles of beer which are sold or the number of glasses that are being washed up at any one moment? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the licence depends in each case on the number of seats or the locality of a theatre? Does he mean that there are to be differential licences for cinemas which intend to organise television displays?
If that is the case, it is something rather novel in the licensing system for this form of entertainment. But if that is the intention, I quite see that some words such as these in the last line may be required: … as may in the particular case appear to him to be proper. Does that mean that a very large cinema will have to pay a very high licence fee in comparison with, say, a small news theatre, for showing exactly the same event by television? Is that what is intended? If so, again I suggest that it might be desirable to make the position more clear in the Bill. After all, we are enacting something. We were reminded earlier that the Wireless Telegraphy Acts have been in existence since 1904. Therefore, this Bill, I suppose by analogy, is likely to last for a long time before it is revised. Let us, therefore, make the position clear. I am very glad to know now that this has nothing at all to do with transmission but is concerned with television in cinemas.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)
The right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) have succeeded in making this Clause appear to be somewhat confused. I do not think that the interpretation of this Clause is that which they have suggested. It is more a case of ingenuity than interpretation. Of course, obviously it does not depend on the number of seats in a cinema. That is a ridiculous basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what the Postmaster-General said] That may be. I am giving purely my own opinion on this matter. I think that the Clause intends that there should be defined a catalogue of licences—a schedule or a list. But beyond that there may be certain uses which require a licence and which are not dealt with in the regulations.
592 This business is after all in an experimental stage. It is for the purpose of that residue which is not dealt with, and which cannot be dealt with immediately in the regulations, that this reservation is made. Thereafter, as nothing is contained in the regulations showing precisely what the fee is for that specified licence, if there are other types of licence it will be left with the Postmaster-General to say what should be the fee. That is the clear interpretation of this Clause. The efforts of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite have brought into the question a very definite element of confusion.

§ Mr. William Shepherd (Bucklow)
Very soon everybody will be confused about this proviso. As usual, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has not lent any aid to the Debate. I want to ask the Postmaster-General precisely what types of licences must be covered by regulation and precisely what type of licences or activities come under the proviso. That is a simple question, but we have had two or three answers to it up to now. I ask the Postmaster-General to give us an official answer. I am sure that there must be an official answer in the Post Office.

§ Air-Commodore Harvey
I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd). Having listened to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), I am more confused now than ever I was. The three previous speeches have been different. I suggest that the Postmaster-General should study this subject with his civil servants and give us a clear definition of what he means.

§ Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)
I disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), because I consider that, for once, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) was almost less confused than the Government. We ought not to abuse him on this question, because he has thrown rather less dark- 593 ness on the subject than he usually does. The proviso says: Provided that the regulations made may contain provisions authorising, in such cases as are not otherwise dealt with by the regulations, the charge by the Postmaster-General of such sums. I am not yet clear about this and I cannot see how I can vote for this Clause until I know approximately what sort of sums the Postmaster-General has in his mind. He is generally very good. When I want to buy a 2½d. stamp he knows exactly how many coppers I have to pay for it. Why cannot he tell us more in this case? Perhaps some of my hon. and learned Friends will tell me how I am to explain precisely what this means to the people who write to me, because that would save me a lot of time and correspondence with the Postmaster-General to find out what he means and what he is doing in the Bill. If I can have that answer now I shall be able to get on much quicker and save the Postmaster-General a lot of trouble answering my correspondence.
The proviso goes on: Whether on the issue or renewal of the licence or subsequently, as may in the particular case appear to him to be proper. In a case of this kind we ought to have something a little more definite. Can the Postmaster-General tell us a little more? How will he interpret the word "proper" and what sort of line will he take? I hope the Government will be able to throw much more light on this Clause before we go any further because it is one of the vital Clauses of the Bill and it is essential that we should know what we are doing in a matter of this kind.

§ Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)
The main Clause, coupled with the proviso, gets as near to complete incomprehensibility as anything achieved in any recent Measure by the Government. I have great sympathy with the Minister and his colleague because if ever there was a case when they were entitled to the assistance of a Law Officer of the Crown, it is on this Clause. I hope that, either before the next stage in this House, or, at any rate, before the Bill goes to another place where it will he subject to considerable legal criticism, this will be looked into. As far as one 594 can guess the meaning of the proviso, the effect is this. Under the chief Clause—I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)—before we get to the proviso at all, the right hon. Gentleman has power to make almost every variation he likes.
The effect of the proviso is that he can put in a provision to say that if he makes a complete mess of drafting the main regulations he can nevertheless charge anything he likes subsequently. Whether that is actually the effect or not I do not know. While I admire the courage of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) in thinking that for a moment he understood the Clause and the proviso, I sympathise very much with the Minister who, I believe, has no idea what it means but very courteously read out the brief that was given to him. I hope that before the next stage some sense will be put into the Clause.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
Really, we must have an answer from the Postmaster-General to the points which have been raised, We have had an effort by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) to throw light on the subject, but the only light which has emerged clearly to the Committee is that, in spite of the assurance that the prices of licences will be fixed by regulation, the right hon. Gentleman has power under this proviso to fix the amount for licences outside any regulations without making regulations, without putting the amount in any regulations, and so without any power of this House to pray against them. That is quite clearly understandable from the proviso. What the right hon. Gentleman has not said, and what he really must say, is why he wants this power to act on his own in fixing the prices for licences in addition to the power for fixing the prices for licences by regulation.
He first told us that it was for transmitting sets. Now he has told us, reading out a statement, that it is for television, and that the price must be fixed according to the number of seats, and perhaps the locality, and perhaps the class of cinema in which the television is being shown. I should have thought that that was the very case for demanding that the scale fixed for these things 595 should be contained in a regulation so that this House could pray against it if it required to do so and that it should not just be left to the Postmaster-General to fix the price on his own initiative without this House having anything to say about it. It is a tremendous power for the Postmaster-General. He may dislike one cinema proprietor and say, "The licence for you will be so much." He may think it proper to discourage that cinema proprietor from having television shows. One does not know, but to let the Postmaster-General have complete and unfettered discretion to fix the price of a licence for one individual at one figure and for another at a different figure, is wrong.
I ask the Postmaster-General to say that he does not really require this power of fixing prices outside the regulations. I also ask him to confirm that the content of this proviso makes the statement of the Assistant Postmaster-General inaccurate.

§ Mr. Hobson
No.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
Quite inaccurate.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. If he will follow the argument he will see that it makes his statement inaccurate. He said that a broadcasting receiving licence fee could only be increased by regulation. If under this proviso the Postmaster-General makes regulations fixing the television licence fee and reserving to himself under the regulations power to fix charges for other licences, he could then fix the charge for a broadcast receiving licence without it ever appearing in a regulation. I do not say that he would do that, but I do say that, under those words, he could do it, and the fact that he could, quite clearly makes the statement of the Assistant Postmaster-General wrong in that respect.
Obviously, I do not blame him if he did not fully appreciate the effect of this proviso, but, equally obviously, this proviso, which creates so much uncertainty, should not remain in this Bill in its present form. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not in a position 596 to deal with these points today, will give a very strong undertaking to give all that has been said the most serious consideration, and reproduce this proviso—if one has to be in the Bill at all—in a very different form.

§ Mr. Wilfred Paling
I will certainly do that. Most of the charges to be made are in respect of licences about which we know, and for which we can fix charges without any difficulty, and put them into a regulation or regulations. But there is a class of licence which we shall have to issue, even now, perhaps, and in the near future, for which we cannot possibly know the charge, because we do not yet know the circumstances of the licence. The matter I mentioned was the cinema licence for showing television. We shall have to discuss such a licence in relation, perhaps, to the seating capacity of the cinema, and other things also, but, at the moment, we cannot fix the charge. We have inserted the proviso in order to cover that kind of difficulty.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
But when the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind as to the basis on which he will make the charge, why not put that basis in a regulation?

§ Mr. Paling
When we have made up our minds about this it will appear in regulations, as do all charges about which we know.

§ Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)
I am sorry if I do not understand, but, so far as I can understand, surely, the matter is now made much worse than it was before. What is now said is that there will be a class of users of these instruments and that the Government have not at present any idea at all what will be the appropriate charges for that class. No attempt is now made to define that class. There is a rough indication that some may or may not be cinema proprietors. What is said is that the class which is to pay charges least predictable under the Bill shall he liable to pay charges about which the Government are not bound even to issue any sort of regulations in advance, but that the charges may be fixed specifically instead of generally.
It seems to me, with respect, the most extraordinary exercise of power that His Majesty's Government should purport to 597 take the power—I must apologise for my throat—to lay unpredictable charges upon specific persons to be chosen by a Minister, which Minister has authority to issue general regulations in such matters, but, in these cases, prefers not to. I am not quite certain if I have it right, but, as far as I can see, that is what is being claimed. If that is what is being claimed, that is more than the House of Commons has ever permitted to anyone before. Surely, it is more than has before been asked for by any Minister in the House of Commons, and a great deal more than ought ever to be granted.

§ Mr. Harrison (Nottingham, East)
I believe that the 1904 Act contained a very similar provision to the one we are discussing.

§ Mr. Grimston
I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer, but, really, the last remarks of the Postmaster-General have confused the issue still more. Apparently, what he is doing here is to take powers to make charges without coming back to this House. He gave my right hon. Friend, as an illustration of where he might want to do that, the case of a cinema showing television. Later on, when it was put to him that he ought not to introduce a new system of licences without coming to the House, he used the same illustration to show that is where he would seek regulations. In fact, he contradicted himself.
It is obvious that the matter is in an unsatisfactory position at the moment. We should like to raise it again on the Report stage, but we are in this difficulty, that we cannot say what Amendments the Chair will select on the Report stage. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking to consider this matter in the light of the discussion in Committee and that he will introduce an Amendment on Report stage in order to give us a better explanation of what the position is after he and his official advisers have had the opportunity of reading this Debate? It seems that we can only leave the position as it is at the moment if he will give that undertaking.

§ Mr. Paling
I have already said that I will give that undertaking.