CLAUSE 3.—(Regulations as to wireless telegraphy.) (Hansard, 18 November 1948)

§ Mr. Erroll
I see that in this Clause the Postmaster-General may describe the things to be done, or not to be done, in connection with any station for wireless telegraphy. I should like to make an inquiry in this connection with regard to wireless masts. Some of the wireless transmitting stations which have been erected for police and other purposes are very large and apt to be a serious interference with the amenities of individual locations. To what extent will the Postmaster-General make use of these powers if, indeed, they are ever conferred upon him, to ensure that wireless masts are concealed as far as practicable, and are located in positions likely to cause the least interference with the natural amenities of a district?

§ Mr. Wilfred Paling
I think the answer is very definitely that we have to have regard to the amenities of the places where we erect these masts. In this connection it comes to my mind that one of the first jobs I did when I came to the Post Office, was in connection with the agitation over the erection of a mast at White Horse Hill. We considered the matter, and altered the location of the mast.

§ Mr. C. Williams
I should like a little explanation of one point in the proviso. It says: Provided that nothing in any such regulations shall require any person to concede any form of right of entry into a private dwelling-house for … certain purposes. Why is it necessary to put in that proviso? What it means is that the Post Office have no right to go to a person and say, "You must give us the right of entry"? Have they been doing this in the last two or three years? Is it something they have been doing which they ought not to have done, because, if so, I think we ought to be told how long it has been going on. I welcome the fact that it is proposed to do away with the right of entry. I am not opposing this in any way, but I should like an explanation.

§ Mr. Paling
We have not the right of entry into any house for the purpose of inspecting a wireless receiver.

§ Mr. Williams
That is exactly what I have said, but why is this proviso put in? Have they been doing something which ought not to have been done? I can only suppose that the reason why this proviso has been inserted is that the Postmaster-General has been doing very wicked things.

§ Mr. Paling
I think it is intended to show that we do not intend to do wicked things.

§ Mr. Williams
I am glad that, for once, they are not going to exercise the right of entry. I am also glad that they are bowing the knee to the Opposition rather than to their Communist bosses behind them.

§ Mr. D. Marshall
This Clause describes the things which are to be done, and as, undoubtedly, there will be an increase in the number of these material matters, I trust that the Postmaster-General will bear in mind any measure which he may think necessary for protecting wild birds. He knows that in connection with other activities in his Department—telephones, and the rest of it—he already does this. If he finds it necessary, I hope he will bear this point in mind.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is expected to be comprehended by this Clause. What is the Clause expected to cover? It clearly does not cover experimental work. Are not other wireless transmitting stations now nationalised or under the control of the Post Office? It may be that this Clause has been taken from the 1904 Act, but is it still wanted after the passing of the Cable and Wireless Act? To whom is it meant to apply? Who are the people to whom Clause 3 (1, c) is intended to apply? That paragraph says: where sums are or may become due from the persons to whom a wireless telegraphy licence is issued after the issue or renewal thereof, requiring that person to keep and produce such accounts and records as may be specified in the regulations. Is the right hon. Gentleman asking for this power because he does not think that Cable and Wireless, now it is nationalised, will keep proper records of accounts? He should tell us now, having regard to that Act, for what purpose this Clause is wanted, bearing in mind that in the next Clause there is provision for experimental licences.

§ Mr. Paling
Clause 3 (1, c) is a machinery provision which has no counterpart in the Act of 1904. It empowers the Postmaster-General to make regulations as to wireless telegraphy about certain matters. These are matters for which provisions could be made in licences, and the question may be asked why the Postmaster-General should have two provision-making powers. The answer is simple. Many licences such as broadcast receiving licences and ships licences belong to classes and contain common provisions. In such cases, these provisions can conveniently be made by regulations, a course which will serve the desirable purpose of shortening the licences and making permanent much of their contents which are of special concern to the individual licensees.
On the other hand, licences are issued which are individual in the sense that they do not belong to a class. They naturally contain special provisions called for by particular circumstances. It would plainly be inappropriate to put the provisions of such licences into regulations. Examples of these licences are the B.B.C. licence, the licence of Trinity House in respect of lighthouses and lightships, the licences of former railway companies in respect of coast stations in connection with cross-channel ships.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
The Postmaster-General has thrown very little light on the subject on which I asked him certain questions. He talks about licences for railway companies, but those companies are now nationalised. Is a licence still required from the Post Office to operate property belonging to publicly-owned corporations? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer a specific question. What is the relationship between the powers contained in this Clause and the provisions of the Cable and Wireless Act? Does the Postmaster-General, under this Clause, take power by regulations to control the operations of that company? Is he taking power to control the operations of these stations which were formerly in the ownership of the railway companies and which are now nationalised? He has given us a very long statement, but it was not at all clear to me. Would he give an answer to these two specific questions which I put to him?

§ Mr. C. Williams
The Postmaster-General referred to the licence of the railway companies. According to the way in which he delivered his statement just now, it looked to me as if those licences might be in abeyance and might not be used at all. Have they been taken over by the nationalised railways, and, if they have, are we sure that the Post Office has the same control over them as it had before? is he also certain that the list which he read out is complete? For instance, are there no licences used by any of the other nationalised services? Are there no licences issued to any of the British air lines, or anything of that sort?
The right hon. Gentleman has been very helpful to us, but his reply was not conclusive. He certainly did not tell us very much about what was happening to the past licences of the British railway companies. There may very well be other licences to which the right hon. Gentleman could have referred. May we be assured that the list is complete and, if it is not complete, what was left out? We should like to know exactly what has happened to the railway company licences, and also what is the number of those licences. Unless we know, we are not really able to judge what the Government are doing.

§ Mr. Cobb (Elland)
Hon. Members opposite seem to be singularly ignorant about legislation which they passed in bygone years. They passed the 1904 Act, and this Bill is very largely lifted out of that Act. Surely they understand the legislation which they passed. The situation is that the B.B.C. was a private company and it had to have a licence. When it became a State-owned corporation it still had to have a licence. There are still privately owned stations on ships. They have to have a licence. If the ship is taken over by the Government it must still have a licence. It was so under the old Act and it is so under this Measure. Hon. Members opposite ought to study the legislation which they passed and the way in which it was operated. This legislation will be operated in exactly the same way.

§ Mr. H. Strauss
Part of the confusion on this Clause may have arisen because it is very easy to read this Clause imagining that the words "wireless telegraphy" mean what they would mean in 602 ordinary parlance. Clause 18, the interpretation Clause, largely justifies what the right hon. Gentleman has put in Clause 3, and I think that possibly some of the difficulty has arisen through taking the expression "wireless telegraphy" too literally and not realising the very wide definition that is given in Clause 18. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give a little more attention to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) about the relationship between this Clause and other Acts of Parliament. It may be that he has taken power in this Clause, a great deal of which he no doubt needs, for the reasons which I have given. There may, however, be some doubt as to how far he is interfering with previous legislation. I hope he will look into that point before we reach a subsequent stage.

§ Mr. Hobson
The suggestion concerning specialised treatment of nationalised industries is not true. It is a figment of the imagination of hon. Members opposite who are really introducing a political point into this matter. The position is that the corporations must have licences. We were also asked about Cable and Wireless. They also have to have a licence, and the same applies to the police and other people. There is no privileged treatment. A question was raised about the accounts. The reason for this provision is that ships transmit telegrams on behalf of passengers to people ashore, and quite rightly they are asked to keep accounts. I have endeavoured to elucidate the main points which got a little obscured by the introduction of the argument that the socialised industries were getting special treatment.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
No one said that.

§ Mr. Hobson
It certainly was implied in the argument. That is my opinion.

§ Mr. D. Marshall
The Minister has said that we were introducing a political question, but he gave no answer to the points I made. I am not suggesting that he thinks this has something to do with a political question, but I should like an assurance that he will consider these points.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I waited before I rose to my feet because I thought 603 either the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General would give us some answer, adequate or inadequate—we could have judged that when we heard the answer—to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall). It is a question certainly worthy of consideration and we really should not let the Clause go until we have been told something on that point. I do not intend to take up time dealing with the suggestion which the Assistant Postmaster-General made in his speech, except to say that he was quite wrong in his statement that any party political issue has been raised this afternoon. If he expresses his own opinion in matters of this sort, then the discussions in the course of this Committee may perhaps take a little longer than would otherwise be the case.
I asked a question to which I have had no answer up to the present. It is a pertinent question, when we are considering a Bill dealing with wireless telegraphy, as to the relationship between this Bill and other legislation passed by this House—the Cable and Wireless Act. I wanted an assurance that the two have been considered together. That assurance I did not receive, but I will not pursue the matter any further in case any sinister meaning should be read into anything I say, by the Assistant Postmaster-General.

§ Mr. Hobson
I categorically said that Cable and Wireless have to have a licence, when I attempted to answer the point that special treatment was being given to socialised industries.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
No one has put that point.

§ Mr. C. Williams
We cannot let this Clause go without some special comment on the charming speech we heard from below the Gangway from the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb). We heard the hon. Gentleman say that we ought to know all about our legislation. I am not quite sure how far it goes back, but I must say, on behalf of one or two hon. Members on this side, that we were not born in 1904. The hon. Member for Elland undoubtedly would know all about everything his party has done, but then, of course, he is a superman.

§ Mr. Cobb
I thought the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) had been talking since 1905.

Hon. Members
And still is.

§ Mr. C. Williams
That may well be, and possibly that is why I see so many of the hon. Members opposite come to my constituency to learn how to fight elections. I do not want to get into that sort of controversy. I am singularly dissatisfied with the answer given by the Assistant Postmaster-General about the nationalised railways. He did not touch the point raised from this side of the Committee and I suppose we shall have to say that the Government are legislating for things when neither the Postmaster-General, nor his Assistant, has the haziest recollection or idea of what they are doing.