HC Deb 25 January 1949 vol 460 cc825-9
Mr. Paling

I beg to move, in page 15, line 48, to leave out "personally or by registered post."

These words are unnecessary because of an Amendment that follows.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Paling

I beg to move, in page 16. line 16, at the end, to insert: Or (c) discloses, otherwise than for the purposes of this Act or of any report of proceedings thereunder, any information obtained by means of the exercise of powers under this Act, being information with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret. This is an Amendment which again was pressed upon us by the Opposition. We were asked to ensure that if our people, particularly under the new manufacturing Clause which was then envisaged, had to go into premises in order to obtain evidence or serve a notice, they should not disclose any trade secret, This Amendment is for that purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 16, line 17, at the end, to insert: and criminal proceedings for an offence under paragraph (c) of this subsection may be instituted without the consent of the Postmaster-General. This is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimston

I beg to move, in page 16, line 17, at the end, to insert: (5) No action shall be taken under Subsection (1) or Subsection (2) of this section until the expiration of two years from the date appointed for the coming into operation of this part of this Act provided that this subsection shall not apply where safety considerations are involved. The object of this Amendment is to postpone for two years the powers of the Postmaster-General for snooping purposes in private houses. We tried in the Committee stage to get this provision removed, as we took the view that the Postmaster-General was tackling this problem the wrong way round. It is now reasonable to ask for a postponement of these powers for two years if only to encourage the Postmaster-General to get on with attacking the problem at the manufacturing end.

As I said in previous remarks, the easiest way of dealing with this problem is simply to take measures to deal with the consumer and say that he or she must use a suppressor or must not use the flat iron or the Hoover, or whatever the apparatus may be. That was the method which the Postmaster-General was tempted to follow. Now that he has introduced this further Clause in an endeavour to attack the problem at the end at which we thought it should be attacked, the manufacturer's end, it would be reasonable to suspend, except where safety considerations apply, the snooping powers which he takes in relation to private homes until such time as he has given himself a chance to see what he can do in having the trouble dealt with when the article is manufactured.

7.15 p.m.

This delay becomes even more desirable now that the right hon. Gentleman has these new powers. I do not wish to detain the House on the point, as we argued it out at length in Committee. I consider that for two years the right hon. Gentleman can very well postpone the powers which he is taking to enter private homes. When we discussed this matter it was stated that power had been taken to enter homes for many reasons previously, and that this was only another reason. It is undesirable to take these powers. The more one can cut them down the better. This is a case where this new power can be postponed.

Mr. Scollan (Renfrew Western)

Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House what he proposes to do in the case of someone suffering from a disability due to some gadget owned by a neighbour? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that for two years such a person must suffer that disability, and is it proposed that at the end of two years the Minister will be able to do something about the matter?

Mr. Grimston

The position will remain the same for two years as it is today. During the previous stages of the Bill we showed how tremendously exaggerated this interference is at present. It will not become acute until the day of universal cheap television. Practically our whole case for our attitude in this matter was that if the Postmaster-General would give himself time he could solve the problem before it became acute without taking powers of snooping and of imposing pains and penalties. He has largely met our point, for which we thank him. That is my answer to the hon. Member. There is no great evil being done at the present time, nothing commensurate with the powers it was proposed to take. There is no reason why these wide powers should not be postponed for two years. Television will not have become universal by then, and the right hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to proceed by tackling the problem in me more difficult way, which is at the manufacturing end.

Sir I. Fraser

I beg to second the Amendment.

There is a sound case for postponing the bringing into operation of these drastic powers. I object to the powers being given, and it therefore follows that it is an advantage from my point of view to have them postponed for two years. There was a time when motor cars were in their infancy, and it was thought right by the Legislature that a red flag should precede them. People soon discovered that they could make motor cars that were not so dangerous as all that. In war it is commonplace for radio signals to be transmitted by one side to be jammed by the other, and he fails who cannot overcome the jamming, while he succeeds who can overcome it.

The whole purpose of this Measure is to make it easier for the technicians who are inventing and improving and devising methods of radio transmission, particularly television, to get away with an invention which is not fully developed. Whenever there is a new method of radio transmission it is feeble, the signal is attenuated, the technical skill required to use the new wavelength which is being explored is not sufficient. Consequently the signal which is transmitted is very weak, the receiver has to be extraordinarily sensitive, and as a result it is subject to interference from all kinds of local common objects in the home or in the factory such as we have heard about.

As time goes on the art and science develops until the signals go out far more strongly and in a far more efficient manner, and they are received well. All of us can remember 25 years ago, when radio first began, how difficult it was to get a clear signal from the old 2 L.O. because of the interference, even for listeners in the neighbourhood whose sets made whistling noises. But all that was overcome. If at that stage it had been made a penal offence to produce these whistling noises the inventors would never have invented ways of sending out radio signals so that such whistling was avoided.

Surely it is a mistake to protect a young and new invention and to coddle it and thus enable the technicians to get away with it in its immature stage. An hon. Member opposite, asked what would happen under the Amendment and whether people who are affected would have to go on being distressed for two years. The answer is certainly "Yes." That person ought not to have bought apparatus which did not work properly and he ought not to have been encouraged to buy apparatus which can only work if the State protects it by interfering with people's homes. It is up to the people who sell a commodity to sell something which will work in the circumstances in which it is supposed to work. I am not opposed to some measure of regulation but the Bill protects the inventor at too early a stage. There will not be the incentive to the inventor to overcome difficulties. Two years' delay is better than not having any delay.

Mr. Hobson

My right hon. Friend is unable to accept the Amendment. There seems to be a general opinion that it is only television which is affected. That is not so. Ordinary wireless reception is effected in the same way as television. It is interesting to note that the number of complaints that we get at the Post Office has greatly increased during the last six months, particularly with regard to interference in respect of wireless. The Amendment would take away from the Postmaster-General powers which he already holds under the Acts of 1904 and 1926 to enter private premises and to search for unlicensed wireless telegraphic apparatus.

I do not wish to repeat the arguments used by the Attorney-General upon a previous Amendment, when he proved beyond a peradventure the safeguards that exist for the general public in regulations. It is not the intention of my right hon. Friend to rush into this matter.

There will be consultations with the advisory committee. When apparatus is to be scheduled the matter will be laid before Parliament in the form of regulations and there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to disagree with the proposals. We shall bring commonsense to bear upon the making of the regulations. We cannot accept the suggestion not only that the status quo will be maintained for two years but that powers which my right hon. Friend already possesses should be taken away from him.

Amendment negatived.