HC Deb 18 November 1948 vol 458 cc608-18
Mr. John Lewis (Bolton)

I beg to move, in page 5, line 47, at the end, to add: but it shall not be an offence under this Act for any person holding an ordinary broadcast receiving licence to listen to any station coming within the wave bands in which are included any of the authorised broadcasting stations and licensed amateur stations. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that anyone in possession of an ordinary broadcast receiving licence shall not commit an offence under this Bill by tuning into a station which is not regarded by the Post Office as being an authorised broadcasting station. The Clause says: Any person who— (b) otherwise than under the authority of the Postmaster General or in the course of his duty as a servant of the Crown, either —

  1. (i) uses any wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) which neither the person using the apparatus nor any person on whose behalf he is acting is authorised by the Postmaster General to receive; or
  2. (ii)except in the course of legal proceedings or for the purpose of any report thereof, discloses any information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any such message, being information which would not have come to his knowledge but for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus by him or by another person,
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. This places the ordinary licensee in a very difficult position. Let us assume that a person has a broadcast receiving set, on which there are the three usual wavebands. Running through these wavebands he happens to stop at an unauthorised broadcasting station, for example, a trawler transmission. Possibly the captain of the trawler is talking to another captain, and perhaps they are abusing one another's ancestry. Immediately, the licensee realises he is receiving an unauthorised broadcasting station it is his duty to stop, because he is committing an offence. But when he stops it is too late, because he has already committed an offence by picking up the unauthorised station.

It has been the habit for many years, in the Yarmouth and Lowestoft districts, for people there to tune their sets to 190 metres in order to pick up transmissions from these trawlers. That has been to some extent abused. Skippers very often have sent messages home to their wives to advise them of the time to expect them back for dinner. It is quite obvious, in so far as the licence issued by the Post Office to a trawler is concerned, that that particular purpose would not be one of the conditions embodied in the licence.

5.30 p.m.

Nevertheless, last year a rather enterprising radio manufacturer decided to mark into a waveband the words "Trawler Wave Band," so that it could be seen on the dial of the set. A retail distributor in that district advertised the set as being capable of picking up messages from trawlers. The result was that the Telecommunications Department of the General Post Office communicated with the retailer in the following terms: The Postmaster-General is hound by international agreement to prohibit and take all necessary steps to repress unauthorised interception of radio communications not intended for reception by the public, and in pursuance of this duty he is prepared to licence the use of broadcast receiving sets only on condition that the reception is specifically limited to messages sent for general reception from authorised broadcasting stations and amateur stations. The reception"— I emphasise the word "reception"— of communications from ships' wireless stations by members of the public is, therefore, unauthorised, and the Postmaster-General views with distinct disapproval the incitement to improper interception on the part of the public which was a prominent feature of the display. As a result of that, on 11th June last year I put a Question down to the Postmaster-General, which he answered as follows: The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, provides that every licence for the working of apparatus for wireless telegraphy granted by the Postmaster-General shall contain the terms, conditions, and restrictions on and subject to which the licence is granted. Broadcast receiving licences authorise the reception only of broadcasts from authorised broadcasting stations and messages from any authorised amateur station, and members of the public holding such licences who improperly intercept communications which they are not entitled under the terms of their licence to receive are liable on conviction to the penalties prescribed by the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 116.] I think it is quite clear from that answer—and I take my authority from the Postmaster-General—that it is an offence both under the 1904 Act and carried forward into the present Bill, to intercept communications from stations which are not regarded by the Postmaster-General as authorised broadcasting stations, even though the offence may have been committed quite innocently by people using ordinary broadcasting receiving sets. It was interesting, I think, at that time to ascertain precisely what the Postmaster-General had in his mind as to the definition of an authorised broadcasting station. In reply to a communication I addressed to him on 16th June last year, he told me there were some 3,500 authorised broadcasting stations throughout the world, and that an official list of them was published by the Bureau of International Telecommunications Union at Berne. He said: In this country the authorised broadcasting stations are those operated by the B.B.C. In other countries the authorised broadcasting stations (other than those operated by the television services) are the wireless stations licensed or authorised by the Government of the country to radiate emissions of speech or music intended to be received by the general public. My right hon. Friend informed me further in that letter that the holder of an ordinary broadcasting receiving licence is entitled to listen to any one of those 3,500 broadcasting stations, all of which operate at frequencies in bands internationally allocated and reserved for broadcasting services, and is also entitled to listen to messages sent out by licensed amateur stations. I would point out in this connection that messages from some unauthorised transmitting stations come within those frequencies in precisely those bands internationally allocated and reserved for broadcasting services. Finally, my right hon. Friend, in what I think was the most significant part of his communication, said: I am under an international obligation, however, to do all in my power to ensure the secrecy of radio telegrams and other radio communications exchanged between ships or between ships and coastal wireless stations. Apart from this obligation, I am sure you will agree that it is in the general interest that all practical steps should be taken to prevent interception by the general public of private radio communications not intended for them. I think I have said enough to the Committee to make it abundantly clear that in the view of the Postmaster-General it is without doubt an offence to pick up or listen to messages available for general reception from stations other than authorised broadcasting stations or amateur stations. I remember that during the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to use this argument in my speech. The Assistant Postmaster-General, in his otherwise very able winding-up speech, dealt with the point I had raised in the following terms: Then the question of trawlers was raised, and it was said that it is an offence to listen-in to trawlers. That is just not true, as the hon. Member will discover if he cares to read the Act. Trawlers are permitted to use wireless on a given frequency, and obviously that frequency is not one which is allocated for ordinary broadcasting, but if perchance the regulation is broken on a trawler and the hon. Member hears on his radio set the spokesman on the trawler, that does not constitute an offence in any shape or form within the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1948: Vol. 457, c. 1638.] I am not attempting in any way to drive a wedge between my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend. I am merely attempting through this Amendment to elicit information. It does seem remarkable, however, that whereas the Postmaster-General has made it quite clear that it would be an offence to receive a station within the normal wavebands that we find on an ordinary receiver, but which is not regarded by the Post Office as an authorised broadcasting station, the Assistant Postmaster-General, on the other hand, is of the opinion that it is not an offence under the Bill. It is with the object of clarifying the position that I move this Amendment. It is also with the object of protecting listeners, because there is no doubt at all that action was taken by the Post Office in the case to which I have referred, and that a communication was addressed by the Telecommunications Department of the Post Office to certain people in the Yarmouth area warning them that they would commit an offence under the Act if they incited the public to improper interception. In those circumstances I hope that the reply, either from my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend, will make the position clear, and I hope they will be in a position to accept my Amendment.

Mr. D. Marshall

I was very interested when this point was put during the Second Reading of the Bill, and I rise to support what has been said about this matter. I should like to add one point in order to make the whole thing perfectly clear. I likewise remember the Minister's winding-up, and his suggestion that this was really all nonsense. I want to add this point. I think it is an extremely good thing that the people of our country are extremely interested in the sea. I think it has been a habit in the country, particularly along the seaboard, and especially on a peninsula such as that of Cornwall, for people from time to time, when tuning their radio sets, to pick up certain messages being broadcast from ships. They have taken an interest in that type of message. Unless the Postmaster-General tells us that such interference might cause some form of danger, I would state that there is a good deal to be said for the people who pick up these messages. This interest in what happens at sea is for the good of our security. Our need in this country is for people at a very early age to become sea-minded.

I have had a complaint from a constituent of mine who has written to me, and who is very worried about this point. He is a man of mature years, and he takes a great interest in listening-in on his radio, but he constantly has the fear that if suddenly, when tuning in, he hears something which he is not intended to hear and listens to it for a few moments, he will, under this Bill, be doing something against the law. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Postmaster-General, and I trust that he will come to the Box and clear up this matter. If he cannot, then the Bill must be amended.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)

I hope I shall be able to relieve the anxiety of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), for whose county I have such great affection. I cannot help thinking that his speech, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis), are based upon too strict an interpretation of the Clause and too rigid a view of the manner in which the Clause will be administered when it becomes a Section.

If those entrusted with these matters enforced the provisions of the Statute Law in every case and prosecuted—if that were the appropriate procedure—in every case where some infringement had apparently been committed, whether or not it was technical, regardless of circumstances and regardless of the merits, the whole of the administration of the law in this country would break down at once. The law is not administered in that way, and before a prosecution takes place for any offence under the existing Statute Law, or before any prosecution took place for an offence under this Clause when it becomes law, careful consideration would obviously be given by those entrusted with the administration of these matters to the circumstances in which the alleged offence had come to be committed.

I am certainly ready to give the clearest assurance that this Clause will be administered with the normal discretion with which the police and the authorities responsible for the administration of the criminal side of our law enforce that branch of our law, and that no proceedings would be taken under this Clause—nor, in my opinion, could they succeed if they were taken—unless it were established to the satisfaction of the court that there was a clear element of deliberate intention to obtain unauthorised information.

In practice, I think that it would be almost impossible to establish a case under this Clause to the satisfaction of any court unless we were able to say that the person who had, with intent, obtained the information by listening on his wireless set had made some improper use of that information. If that in fact happened, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for Bolton would agree that there might well be circumstances in which a prosecution would be justified. The position of the Postmaster-General in this matter is that in this regard he is under an international obligation to make statute provisions of a fairly rigid nature. He must have the powers, but he will enforce them only when it is reasonable to enforce them. He is under treaty obligation to take the powers.

The Amendment is so vague that, so far as I can see, it would allow the reception by anyone of any message on any frequency. There seems to be no limit to the width of the wavebands covered by the Amendment, and the result would be that no secrecy in wireless telegraphy could be preserved at all if the Amendment were accepted, and the Postmaster-General would be in a position in which he could not fulfil the undertaking which the Government have given to implement the international communications regulations in regard to the preservation of the secrecy of wireless telegraphy. For these reasons, the Government are not able to accept the Amendment, but to relieve any possible doubt and anxiety on the matter, I give the assurance that there will be no prosecution, and, as I think, there can be no prosecution, unless there exists a deliberate element of intent to procure information which the listener is not authorised to obtain.

5.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton (Brixton)

Having heard what the Attorney-General has just stated and being one of those who put their names to this Amendment, I must confess at the outset, that his remarks have gone a long way to allay the anxieties that were felt not merely by those of us who put our names to the Amendment, but by a number of people outside. It is now clear that it is not intended strictly to enforce this particular Clause, and that there has to be some deliberate element of misuse of the information obtained before any prosecution will lie. None the less, I must say that one of the reasons I was prompted to put my name to the Amendment was the ambiguity of the reply made on this point by the Assistant Postmaster-General when this matter was brought up on Second Reading. He is recorded as having said: Trawlers are permitted to use wireless on a given frequency, and obviously that frequency is not one which is allocated for ordinary broadcasting, but"— and these are the words to which I should like to draw particular attention— if perchance the regulation is broken on a trawler and the hon. Member hears on his radio set the spokesmen on the trawler, that does not constitute an offence in any shape or form within the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1638.] That limits the guiltlessness of the recipient only if the regulation is broken on the trawler—that is to say, if the trawler by some mischance is not operating on its proper wavelength, but where it is operating on its proper wavelength and the message is received by a listener, then I assume that his remarks do not apply.

Although my constituency is nowhere near the sea, and I personally have no interest in trawlers within the meaning of the phrase as used in this House, I have received a letter from a constituent who made a particular point of this matter and drew my attention to the fact that the Assistant Postmaster-General was careful to say that no offence would be committed by the listener if the trawler was off its proper wavelength, but he omitted to say that there would be no offence if the listener tuned in to the frequency allotted to the trawlers. However, in view of the assurance given by my right hon. and learned Friend, I must say that he has gone a long way to allay the anxieties that were undoubtedly felt.

Mr. J. Lewis

While appreciating the difficulty of my right hon. and learned Friend who has only recently come into the Chamber to deal with these matters and therefore, as one can understand, has not had a full opportunity of studying all the Amendments on the Order Paper, it appears to me that what he has told the Committee is briefly this. He said that we were perfectly right. This is an offence under the Bill, but it does not matter; we have to put it in because we are under some statutory international obligation to ensure that people do not do this sort of thing. We shall not prosecute them even if it is an offence under the Bill. Then he went on to give some reasons why, in his view, it was not possible to accept the Amendment. One of the reasons he gave was that the Amendment was vague, and that there was no limit to the width of the wave bands. If he reads the Amendment, he will see that it says: … to listen to any station coming within the wavebands in which are included any of the authorised broadcasting stations and licensed amateur stations. These, quite clearly, are the stations which the Postmaster-General in his licence authorises people to receive, and these would be covered by an ordinary radio receiving set. It is limited to that, because it limits the wavelength, and in those circumstances I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that the reason he put forward for rejecting the Amendment—on the grounds that it was vague, and that there was no limit to the width of the wavebands—is not a very good one. However, I accept his assurance that in this particular matter the Postmaster-General is in some special difficulty because of the international question, and because he has certain obligations under international agreements, and in those circumstances I feel that it would be unwise of me to press the Amendment.

Mr. D. Marshall

I do not wish to detain the Committee because I think the Attorney-General has been very fair on this matter, and has made it very much clearer than it was before. We know that there is a certain amount of difficulty because of international complications; and he also made reference to security, and so on, about which it is necessary to have provisions in the Bill. However, there is one point which I should have liked him to stress—perhaps he thought it was not necessary so to do—and that is in regard to people who may from time to time have been worried by what they thought this Clause really meant. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say that, in general, there is no question of prosecution, and also that such a course is not endangering life at sea, if by chance people do pick up these messages on their radio and listen to these different matters. I think people may be disturbed from that angle. Although I am not a technical man, I believe that such action is of no danger.

The Attorney-General indicated assent.

Mr. Marshall

I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees. That is quite sufficient for my purpose.

Mr. Langford-Holt

There is one aspect of this Amendment on which I wish to be reassured. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) said that the question of the authorised wavelength was controlled at Berne. I would remind the House that about a year ago we had a debate on the B.B.C. and commercial radio, during which the Government expressed themselves very strongly in saying they would discourage, by all means at their disposal, persons in this country listening to commercial radio from Radio Luxembourg. It appears to me possible for the Postmaster-General to utilise the Bill in order to prevent people from listening to Radio Luxembourg, should the Government be so minded, unless the authority is and always will he the authority in Berne and not His Majesty's Government. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman clear that up?

Mr. Grimston

Could we have that point cleared up by the Attorney-General?

Mr. Hobson

The answer is that frequencies for broadcasting are allocated internationally. Quite frankly, I could not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford- Holt), because he presupposed that a wavelength on which the person would be listening would be identical with one which had been allocated for broadcasting. If that were so, then obviously, in the light of what the Attorney-General says, it would not be an offence.

Mr. Langford-Holt

The hon. Gentleman has completely missed the point. Let me give a specific example. The wavelength on which Radio Luxembourg now operates is an authorised wavelength; the Government have expressed it as their opinion that it is undesirable for people in this country to listen to Radio Luxembourg. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me an assurance that this Bill will not be used in order to enforce that opinion which the Government hold, rightly or wrongly?—I think wrongly.

The Attorney-General

I do not know anything about this prohibition by the Government. I listen to Radio Luxembourg regularly, and I intend to go on doing so. I find nothing in this Bill which will endanger my pleasures in that regard.

Mr. Langford-Holt

It was the Lord President of the Council who expressed it as the opinion of the Government that so to do was undesirable.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.