HC Deb 25 January 1949 vol 460 cc771-82
The Chairman

The next Amendments on the Order Pape are all concerned with the new Clause—(Enforcement of regulations as to sales, etc., by manufacturers and others)—and can, if it meets the convenience of the Committee, be taken together.

Mr. Grimston

I think the Amendments to page 9, lines 22 and 24, relate to the new Clause, but I am not clear about the Amendment to line 38. Perhaps that should be taken separately. I think the four Amendments to page 10 are also concerned with the new Clause.

The Chairman

Then it would appear to meet the convenience of the Committee to discuss together the first two Amendments to page 9 and the four Amendments to page 10.

Mr. Paling

I beg to move, in page 9, line 22, after "regulations," to insert: for both or either of the following purposes, that is to say— (a) for. This Amendment and the others we are now discussing relate to the new Clause dealing with manufacturers. In the Committee stage one of the chief criticisms against the Bill was the lack of powers to deal with interference at its source. It was said that we were taking powers to deal with the user, the unfortunate housewife, but were not taking powers to deal with the matter at its source; that if we kept on dealing with the user and not tackling the source of the trouble the complaint would go on interminably. It was pointed out that the question of dealing with the manufacturer had been discussed and considered on many occasions, that it was very difficult to include such provision in a Bill and that it was thought that this matter might be dealt with better by way of voluntary agreement with manufacturers than by writing into the Bill a Clause for us to compel manufacturers to take the steps which had been suggested.

The criticisms persisted, however, and after much discussion I promised to do what I could to introduce a Clause dealing with this problem. As a consequence the various Clauses preceding the new Clause require to be altered to fit in with it. I am in some difficulty, however, to know whether in discussing these Amendments we are now discussing the important Clause itself or the alterations which need to be made to the preceding Clauses.

Mr. Grimston

Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, in assuming that the New Clause will be moved later on?

The Chairman

These Amendments to Clause 10 are preliminary, I understand, to the new Clause, and may, therefore, be discussed together. I have no objection to the new Clause being discussed at the same time if that will suit the convenience of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has moved the Amendment to page 9, line 22, and is discussing also, I understand, the following Amendment to line 24.

Mr. Grimston

That is quite agreeable to us. In the circumstances, as we are taking the whole matter together, perhaps the Postmaster-General would like to say something about the new Clause.

Mr. Paling

I was asked to introduce the new Clause in order to deal with the question of manufacturers and the source of interference. It is difficult Go deal with this problem at its source for the question is related also to the matter of export. The question of export is, in fact, dealt with in the Amendment to line 24. A long procedure would be necessary to develop and make the man, kinds of apparatus free of interference so that they would comply with the regulations. Many manufacturers are concerned and quite a long time might elapse whilst they are experimenting, improving and designing before they could produce apparatus which is really free of interference. That was one reason why we did not wish to bring in a Clause of this kind, but would rather deal with it by voluntary arrangement. But, because the Committee wanted to do it, we decided to put in the Clause.

4.30 p.m.

Subsection (1) of the new Clause is the operative part. The other part of the new Clause deals with the question of making regulations and also gives the manufacturer the same right as the user to go to a tribunal if a notice has been served on him prohibiting him from selling certain manufactured articles because they are not interference free. In regard to regulations, prohibitions and safeguards the proposed new Clause is on all fours with the Clause which safeguards the user. I hope hon. Members opposite will see fit to accept the new Clause. We have done our best to give as much safeguard as possible to manufacturers and to make the Clause as workable as possible.

Mr. Grimston

The Postmaster-General has given us a somewhat disjointed presentation of the proposed new Clause and the Amendments which are being considered with it, but, as he said, it meets a demand which was made from all sides of the Committee. As the Bill was first introduced it appeared that the Postmaster-General intended to deal with the problem by going for the consumer and not taking steps to see that apparatus did not leave the manufacturers' hands in such a manner as to cause interference. From all sides the opinion was expressed that the problem should be attacked from the manufacturers' end. Since then our contention has been supported by a circular from the Radio Industry Council in which they say Very often the interference can be minimised by modifications in the design of electrical apparatus or by the fitting of suppressors in the course of manufacture. I hope the Postmaster-General will explore the problem on those lines. The proposed new Clause will give him sanction to do that although I hope it will not have to be used in that sense, particularly having regard to the export trade and the difficulties of manufacture.

I think the Committee would do well to note that, although the Clause has been introduced, the Postmaster-General is still to have an alternative, a purely permissive power. By the Amendments it will be seen that he can introduce regulations and issue orders to those who sell an apparatus or to consumers. There is nothing in the Bill as it will leave us to prevent the Postmaster-General still pursuing the problem entirely from the consumer's angle. I hope before attacking the matter from the consumer end, he will consider the possibility of a solution from the manufacturing end.

In the second Amendment the word "person" is used and the same word occurs in the proposed new Clause. I take it that the word "person" is not used in the lay sense, but in the legal sense, which embraces companies and firms.

Mr. Paling

indicated assent.

Mr. Grimston

I am glad to be clear on that point. This Clause gives rise to certain Amendments, which we had hoped to discuss later, but, subject to that, we think the Postmaster-General has met us by introducing these Amendments and introducing this new Clause. We did not ask for more than a permissive Clause, but the whole matter will depend on how the Postmaster-General and his Department work the new Clause. We shall very carefully watch the regulations and we express the hope that the manufacturers' end of the problem will be attacked first. Because the Postmaster-General has responded to the wishes of the Committee, we welcome the new Clause.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I wish to register a word of dismay at the very unenthusiastic way in which the Postmaster-General discussed the new Clause. It is a very valuable new Clause, which will tremendously reduce the cost to the housewife. The Postmaster-General can use the Clause as a threat to manufacturers and by that persuasion save housewives a great deal of expense. It was said in Committee that it would cost something like 30s. to suppress an electric iron, but if the work is done during the assembly and manufacture of the iron it will cost only a shilling or two. Similarly, in regard to a motorcar during manufacture it is only a question of coppers, whereas when the motorcar is complete a considerable sum would be needed to fit a suppressor. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his attitude to the child he has adopted. I like the child, but if the Postmaster-General brings it up in a half-hearted way, it will not have the success desired for it.

Mr. Tolley (Kidderminster)

I take exactly the opposite view from that of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I think my right hon. Friend has shown a great deal of enthusiasm in introducing the proposed new Clause and I should like to congratulate him accordingly. I think this is being done from the right angle. It would be creating great hardship on people who have endeavoured in every way to perfect their apparatus and spent money in so doing if the manufacture of particular articles was wrong and he was placed at a disadvantage without knowing the facts. I think this one of the most important Clauses in the Bill and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on it.

Mr. Hollis (Devizes)

We should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he stated exactly on whom the obligation falls in Clause 10 under the new paragraph (b). In addition to the precise meaning of the word "person" I should like to know the meaning of the word "assembles" in the last line of the second Amendment we are considering. Under this Clause the obligation is being put upon the manufacturer and the obligation is not, I take it, being put on a person who merely hires out the instruments and who has nothing to do with its manufacture. I understand that to be why the words from "any person" onwards have been inserted. As for the word "assembles" I should like to know what is its definition. In some people's use of the word it would embrace people who in the course of their business tinker about with wireless sets and who might be said to assemble them but who are in no sense manufacturers of them. Such people are not, in a position to comply with the requirements which this Clause is placing upon manufacturers. Are these people to be forbidden from tinkering about with these wireless sets or is there a technical definition of the word "assemble," whereby tinkering is not regarded as assembling?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

I do not intend to delay the Committee or to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I should like to ask the Postmaster-General to what extent he has had consultations with industrial producers of electrical appliances before introducing this Clause. It may be that what this Clause is intended to do, which this Committee and the public welcome, will be expensive to some of these manufacturers. It is all very well to talk about electric irons and carpet sweepers which may involve simple additions to a production line. Producers of electrical apparatus on a large scale, for example expensive medical apparatus and even motor cars, and possibly power stations, may be involved in the expenditure of large sums. When the Postmaster-General takes powers, as he does under this Clause, to serve a notice on a person who is manufacturing, assembling or importing such apparatus, I should like to know whether that also includes wireless reception sets. We do not want to deal harshly with the manufacturer of apparatus which generates these impulses while letting off lightly the manufacturers of apparatus which receives the impulses.

The complaints with which this Bill is concerned will be those affecting wireless and television reception. I am told that it is perfectly easy to fit suppressors to motor car radio sets. To what extent will it be possible to fit radio and television sets for the home in the same way? I want the Postmaster-General to say that he will deal not only with the manufacturers of apparatus which generate these impulses—carpet sweepers, irons, X-ray apparatus, electrical apparatus of that kind—but also with the manufacturers of wireless and television sets, so that the whole financial burden, which may possibly be immense, is not put on the shoulders of those who manufacture the bigger types of apparatus.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

The question of the receiving sets is rather different from that of an iron which is causing interference. Perhaps I might explain the matter by stating the procedure. The Post Office receives from a person owning a radio set a complaint, on the form issued for that purpose, about interference. Two people from the Post Office go to the house of that person and first see whether the interference is due to the set itself. If that is so our people tell the householder what is wrong and, if they can, advise them what to do to put the matter right. That is one side of the question. There is no compulsion in that respect.

4.45 p.m.

The next question is in regard to the manufacturer's side. It may even be that some of the newer apparatus being sold today, such as irons, is more liable to interfere with radio sets than some of the older apparatus, because it is fitted with a thermostat. It is the intention that the manufacturers, by whatever means they work out, shall fit a suppressor or in some way ensure that the goods they sell are interference-free to the user, with the hope that in time the trouble from which the user suffers will be cut out because the trouble will be dealt with at the source.

With regard to assemblers it may be that a person or company which sells these irons or any of the apparatus which is liable to cause interference, buys a lot of parts and assembles them. I take it that under the regulations such a person or company will have to make sure that the whole article which is assembled and offered for sale is interference-free according to the regulations which will be made. Consultations with manufacturers have taken place. In all this matter the Post Office people concerned have been in the closest consultation with the Institution of Electrical Engineers, who are to play a part in .providing a panel of people from whom I shall make a selection. Manufacturers are largely represented in that Institution, so that manufacturers have been taken into the closest consultation in the framing of this particular Clause.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

I do not wish to weary the Committee but I do not think that the Postmaster-General has grasped my point. May I give an illustration? Suppose there is a home with a television set in it close to Battersea power station. It would be intolerable to insist upon the power station fitting suppressors to their dynamos at a cost say of £100,000, in order that that television set should be absolutely free from interference. I was suggesting that the Postmaster-General must not only go to the manufacturers of electrical apparatus which generates these impulses which interfere with radio and television reception; he must also go to the manufacturers of radio and television equipment and say, "What can you do to fit suppressors to your sets?" Can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in using the machinery of this Clause to prohibit the manufacture, assembly or importation of apparatus which has an adverse effect on reception he will also deal not only with the manufacturers of apparatus but also with manufacturers of receiving sets?

Mr. Paling

This discussion is becoming rather technical. The ordinary radio and television set does not emit frequencies of the kind which cause interference in reception. The set receives the interference and the people who make the apparatus which emits the frequencies or otherwise causes the interference are the people primarily concerned.

Let me put another point. The noble Lord put a question about a person with a television receiver who lived in the neighbourhood of Battersea power station. He asked whether it would be fair to require Battersea power station to spend thousands of pounds in order to stop interference with that set. If the noble Lord puts it in that way my answer would be that it would not. If it was the case that the power station was served with a notice to stop its interference in the case of a single receiver those concerned would take advantage of the right given to them to go to a tribunal and let the tribunal decide who was right. If any power station or apparatus anywhere were emitting impulses in such a way as to cause interference in one television receiver, it would do so at the same time in hundreds or in thousands of others. In that case it might be possible to compel people who are in a big way to do something about it. The safeguard is that they have the right to take their case to a specially qualified tribunal who know the technical side of the matter and are able to judge a case upon its merits.

Mr. Grimston

The point which my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has raised is one on which we had some discussion during the Committee stage. The Minister has not yet cleared up the question which my noble Friend has asked, which is, assuming some device is invented which can suppress interference when' it reaches the receiver does the Clause give the Minister power to make it obligatory on manufacturers of receiving apparatus to adopt such a device rather than that the Minister should go to all the people who are producing Hoovers, electric irons, etc.? Will the Minister please answer the question? Would he also answer the question about the definition of the word "person" in the Clause?

Mr. Paling

I am informed that the word "person" means also company. It is difficult to answer the other question because I am told that it is well-nigh impossible to do what the noble Lord is supposing. Even if it were possible, I think the answer to the question would be "No."

Mr. Grimston

I cannot accept an answer which says, "I am informed that the suggestion is technically impossible." About 30 years ago, one would have been told that it was technically impossible to produce television. It may become technically possible to do what we are now supposing, and to blot out interference at the receiving end. Do I take it that the Clause would not give the Minister power to impose suppressors upon those who manufacture receivers? I should really like a clear answer upon that point.

Mr. Keenan (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Certain points are not clear to me now, even after listening to the discussion in the Committee. I should like to know from the Postmaster-General whether it is possible for him to insist not merely that manufacturers of receiving sets should make sure that the sets interfere with no one else but to insist that suppressors should be put upon apparatus which is already in existence?

I think we are not looking at this matter from quite the right angle. Is it the intention of the Bill that individual householders who have receiving sets, or electrical apparatus which are causing interference with television or with aeroplane radio and the rest of it, should pay for the suppressors to be fitted to those appliances? We have been told that the cost will be anything from 1s. 6d. to 30s. If so, it is time for somebody to say that the supply of suppressors should be free to such individuals. The possessor of a receiving set or of domestic appliances should not have to spend 30s. or more because of interference being caused to somebody who has a new television set. If the television owner wants proper reception he should pay for the fitting of suppressors to apparatus that was in existence before his television set.

Mr. E. P. Smith (Ashford)

The Postmaster-General has said that there is no such thing as an infallible suppressor, but it is quite possible that one might be invented. If one were invented, is not the Postmaster-General depriving himself of the power to compel people to use apparatus which will be interference free, by the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman is giving to the Clause?

Mr. Paling

I am informed that a suppressor can be fitted to a radio set now but that it will not only stop the frequencies which are causing the interference but will stop the programme as well. It will stop the set altogether.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

What about car radio?

Mr. Paling

Cars are a different proposition? A suppressor can be fitted to a car at very little expense. The car is the instrument which is sending out the frequencies while the radio set is the instrument which receives them. This trouble must be dealt with at the point from which the interference comes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) raised a particular point. When irons, immersion heaters and a number of instruments used in the ordinary house send out interference, our people go down and track the trouble to its source and then suggest to the housewife what can be done about it. In most cases a suppressor can be fixed at very small expense. In 97 per cent. of the cases that is done. I do not know of any way to transfer the expense of doing it to anybody else. We intend that the people who have the instrument which is causing interference shall take steps to fit the suppressors.

Mr. Grimston

The Minister has not yet answered the question about his powers under the Clause.

Mrs. Middleton (Plymouth, Sutton)

I wish to thank the Postmaster-General for having met the point which I put to him during the Committee stage. I am sure that housewives will be grateful to him for seeing that apparatus that they may purchase is fitted with suppressors before they buy it. In thanking him, I should like to put a further point to him. Will the Clause give the Minister power to see that suppressors needed on apparatus at present in existence will be on the market at the lowest possible cost so as to ensure that housewives are not involved in very considerable expense in getting suppressors attached to such apparatus?

Mr. Paling

The answer is "Yes."

Mr. Grimston

I am sorry to persist, but the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he has not specifically answered the question put by my noble Friend and reiterated by myself. It is whether the wording of the Clause gives him power to make regulations that suppressors upon receiving apparatus shall be obligatory, should such be invented?

Mr. Paling

The answer is "No." I hope that I have given some of the reasons why.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

It is a deficiency in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 24, at end, insert: (b) for prescribing the requirements to be complied with in the case of any apparatus to which this section applies if the apparatus is to be sold otherwise than for export, or offered or advertised for sale otherwise than for export, or let on hire or offered or advertised for letting on hire, by any person who in the course of business manufactures, assembles or imports such apparatus."—[Mr. Paling.]

Amendment proposed: In page 9, line 38, after "and," to insert: in so tar as appears to the Postmaster-General necessary or expedient in the case of the regulations in question."—[Mr. Paling.]

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Grimston

May we have an explanation of this Amendment? I do not think it is one of those Amendments relating to the new Clause which we have been discussing

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson)

We have to make the manufacturer's Clause so that it applies universally in relation to the article which he is manufacturing. A person, on the other hand, who uses an apparatus may cause an interference in a certain district and not in another, and we have to introduce this drafting Amendment, because of this differentiation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 7, after "unlawful," insert "for any person."

In line 8, after "applies," insert: or to sell any such apparatus or offer or advertise it for sale or let it on hire or offer or advertise it for letting on hire.

In line 9, leave out "such regulations." and insert: regulations made under this section.'

In line 11, at the end, add: or under the section of this Act (Enforcement of regulations as to sales, etc., by manufacturers and others), as the case may be."—[Mr. Paling.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.