CLAUSE 4.—(Experimental Licences.) (Hansard, 18 November 1948)

§ Mr. J. Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)
In reading through this Clause I was struck by Subsection (1), which states that: … the Postmaster-General shall not refuse to grant or renew the licence and shall not revoke the licence when granted. … In Subsection (2) of the same Clause, however, the Postmaster-General appears to adopt powers which completely nullify the provisions of Subsection 1. Subsection (2) says that he may alter the terms, provisions or limitations which he attaches to any licence.
If he grants a licence under Subsection (1) and, at the same time, decides to attach a provision that there shall be no operation between midnight and midnight, or that no electrical apparatus shall be used with it, such a provision could be made under Subsection (2). I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the Committee exactly what he has in mind, and what his Department has in mind, in the way of the conditions introduced in Subsection (2).

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)
I see the terms set out in this Clause 605 under which the Postmaster-General will grant a licence for the conduct of experiments in wireless telegraphy for the purpose of scientific research. I am sure everybody will agree that that is a fairly wide term. I imagined that we should be invited to narrow it down into "for purposes of scientific research in connection with wireless telegraphy." I cannot imagine that the Postmaster-General would wish to widen the scope to such an extent that a licence would be granted for the purpose of carrying out experiments for scientific research in an entirely different field. Perhaps he will make that point clear and will consider re-drafting this particular Subsection in that respect.
In Subsection (3) we find that: Nothing in Subsection (1) of this section shall prevent the Postmaster-General from refusing to grant or renew, or from revoking, any licence if the applicant has been convicted of any offence under this Part of this Act … or has contravened any of the terms, provisions or limitations of that or any other wireless telegraphy licence granted to him. That is far too limited in its scope. The Postmaster-General can remove the licence only if the applicant has been convicted of any offence under this part of the Act, which really means very little and is far too narrow. He may have an applicant for a licence who is an expert smuggler, a black marketeer, a burglar, a picture thief or anything else. Such a man may have been convicted of all sorts of things, but under this Subsection the Postmaster-General has no right to do anything about the removal of his licence because the man has not been convicted under this Act.
The position becomes rather absurd. If there are reasons to suppose that smugglers—to take one example—are developing the use of wireless telegraphy in carrying out their operations, and are obtaining a licence in order to carry out research in some particular field intending subsequently to make use of that research in order to perform their operations, then this Subsection leaves them untouched. It is not only these people, but also their friends. They may have friends who have been themselves involved in exactly this sort of law-breaking which, so far as I can see, the Postmaster-General will be quite unable to stop under Subsection (3). I hope the right 606 hon. Gentleman will be able to explain the position and will consider re-drafting these two Subsections.

§ Mr. Turton
I have no desire to see more licences revoked than is necessary, but in view of later discussions which we shall have on other Clauses, will the Postmaster-General make quite clear his attitude about the radio amateur? One of the most frequent causes of interference in television is the radio amateur. I think I am right in saying that he is far more the cause of interference than the domestic articles against which the Postmaster-General shows such venomous spite later on. It is the radio amateur, far more than these articles, who is causing bad reception in television.
As this Clause is drafted, I gather that the Postmaster-General will not alter any licence unless it can be proved that the bolder of the licence is deliberately interfering with wireless telegraphy. Thus, although the housewife will be chased under the later part of the Measure, the radio amateur will be entirely acquitted. I want that position to be made quite clear and if I am wrong, I hope the Postmaster-General will correct me. I think it is right that the Committee should know whether the Postmaster-General has the power to deal with faulty reception of television caused by radio amateurs, and if he has that power, why he is not exercising it today.

§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), I should have thought that there was quite sufficient protection against notorious smugglers or anybody of that kind, because the Postmaster-General does not have to issue a licence unless he is satisfied that the only purpose for which it is required is the innocent one of conducting experiments in wireless telegraphy. In any case, if the right hon. Gentleman knew anything about the smuggler, he might be dissatisfied about that. Subsection (3) says: Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall prevent the Postmaster-General from refusing to grant or renew, or from revoking, any licence"— I do not want to widen offences; I think it is right that they should be limited— if the applicant has been convicted of any offence … 607 If the applicant asks for the grant of a licence, he can be told, "No, you have been convicted," or if he asks for renewal he can be told, "No you have been convicted." But if he has not been convicted, and is subsequently convicted, the Postmaster-General can say, "I shall revoke your licence, because you have now been convicted." I believe that the wording "if the applicant has been convicted," is a little doubtful, and that if there is to be an Amendment to this Clause it might well be worth while considering whether the words "has been or is" should be used.

§ Mr. H. Strauss
I think there may be the gap to which the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has just alluded, but I wonder if there is not a further defect, such as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing). I am not sure that the point to which the hon. and learned Member drew attention is really a complete answer. Like the hon. and learned Member, I wondered whether the words in Subsection (1) would be sufficient to meet the point, but I am not sure that they are, for this reason: suppose the Postmaster-General is satisfied on grounds that he afterwards finds to be wrong; in that event it seems that there would be the kind of gap which was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, so that the words in Subsection (1) mentioned by the hon. and learned Member would not be the complete answer.

§ Mr. Hobson
I can give an assurance that we will look into the legal points which have been raised about this Subsection, but I would remind the Committee that we are taking no powers in this Clause that were not in the 1904 Act. We have laid down certain conditions for those who experiment with wireless telegraphy, for instance, with regard to wavelengths and the articles to be used. There is no attempt to circumvent or put a brake upon those who want to develop wireless telegraphy. We want to give every assistance we can, but we must have certain safeguards. I agree with some of the remarks that have been made about amateurs, but we do not give such people a licence merely because they claim to be wireless 608 experts. Certain conditions are laid down, particularly with regard to the hours during which they may use their transmitting and receiving sets.

§ Mr. C. Williams
I am surprised at the extremely casual and discourteous way in which the Assistant Postmaster-General has treated the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), who is sitting on the wrong side of the Committee. The Assistant Postmaster-General says, quite casually, that the point which the hon. and learned Member raised will be looked into. What is the good of making laws if they are not looked into properly and seriously? It was very discourteous of the hon. Member to be as casual as he was to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith, whose deep knowledge, in many ways, has the respect of this House. We were delighted to hear the hon. and learned Member pick a small hole in this Bill, knowing that if he wished he could rake the Bill from beginning to end with that sort of thing. We only wish he would do so.
I see that we now have another learned lawyer in the Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who has just taken up duty on the Front Bench, where he ought to be, according to the old practice of this House, before doing duty anywhere else. It has been pointed out that Subsection (3) is not clear, and that it ought to he subject to a further legal inquiry. We have not been promised that the defect would be put right, and I hope it will be put right. I do not wish to rub it into the Assistant Postmaster-General, but I must remark, once again, on the unfortunate way in which he treated the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith.