HL Deb 08 February 1949 vol 160 cc561-88

2.40 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)

My Lords, the Bill I am submitting for your consideration is largely technical. I am relieved to find that your Lordships have appreciated that point because, from a glance at the list of speakers, it would seem probable that the debate is to be a duet between the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and myself. I venture to hope at the outset that the performance will be entirely harmonious. This Bill is also largely uncontroversial. Probably another reason why noble Lords have not signified their desire to take part in the Second Reading debate is because many of the Bill's provisions, and the principles on which they rest, have already ben approved by Parliament over a fairly long period of time. The remaining area of controversy has been narrowed during the Bill's passage through another place, when the Government met the main objections raised by the Opposition. I think your Lordships will be chiefly interested in those features of the Bill which may still be a possible source of controversy. I will therefore deal rather briefly with the area of agreement, and more fully with the area of potential dispute.

For more than twenty years, since the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1926, the law relating to wireless telegraphy has not been altered in any respect, in spite of a degree of technical progress which has revolutionised the use of wireless. Twenty years ago, a public television service did not exist. The technique of radar and its employment for the guidance of ships and aircraft was unknown, and both broadcasting and the use of wireless techniques for domestic, medical and industrial purposes were in their early infancy. It is because technical advance has so far outstripped the law relating to the use of wireless that this Bill is urgently needed. I am sure your Lordships would agree that the transmission of wireless signals through the ether must be subject to Government control by the issue of licences. Whatever controls may be removed, this is one of the things that should remain a matter for a Government authority. Otherwise, it would become impossible for us to honour our international commitments about the use and allocation of wavelengths, or to prevent the occurrence of widespread interference between a large variety of different internal wireless transmissions.

Part I of the Bill deals with this matter of licensing, and it provides for the licensing of all forms of wireless communications. The definition of wireless telegraphy in Clause 19 (1), for those who can follow the scientific terminology (and I shrewdly suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, is possibly the only member present this afternoon who understands the full implication and physical significance of the definition) is widened and clarified to make sure that in its present form it covers the use of radar, and that it will include the actuation or control from a distance of machinery, such as the engine of an aeroplane or a ship—what is commonly known as "remote control." The amended definition gives a clearer and more up-to-date idea of what is meant in these days by wireless communications.

Besides modernising the law and bringing it into line with recent technical changes, the Bill will serve two other useful and generally acceptable purposes. It is obviously wrong that the temporary provisions of the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act should be extended every year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Indeed, I believe that in times past there have been protests against the use of this procedure. This Bill will put an end to the misuse of a procedure designed for temporary enactments by substituting, in the form of the present Bill, a permanent Statute. It has also given us the opportunity of consolidating, by bringing together in a single measure the different enactments dealing with wireless telegraphy, the existing body of Statute law on this subject. That is a matter about which my noble friend on the Woolsack and I have little doubt that other noble Lords in this House will be well satisfied. I will not say anything more at this stage about Part I of the Bill, because it lies within what I have called the area of broad agreement.

VISCOUNT SIMON

Does the Bill as it is now drawn repeal the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The Bill as it now stands incorporates many of the provisions of that Act and, for that reason, it will be unnecessary to repeat them from year to year. That is the point I was trying to make.

VISCOUNT SIMON

The 1904 Act will lapse because it will not be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act in future?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

That is precisely what I intended to convey. With Part II of the Bill we step into the arena of controversy—at least of past controversy. This Part of the Bill will enable us to stop accidental interference with wireless telegraphy when it is caused by the ordinary type of electrical apparatus with which we are all familiar. I am thinking of domestic, medical and industrial electrical equipment. It will also enable us to lay down requirements obviating interference to be complied with by manufacturers or importers who sell electrical apparatus in the United Kingdom.

Before I say anything more about the new powers sought in Part II of the Bill, I should like to say something about the state of affairs which has obliged us, most reluctantly, to ask Parliament for these new powers. The Post Office have received about 40,000 complaints of interference with wireless receiving sets during the past year, and are now receiving complaints running at the rate of 70,000 a year. The number of complaints has grown with the increase of listeners and viewers since the war and, of course, with the increasing use of electrical apparatus liable to interfere with reception. It seems likely that in the future this nuisance will continue to grow, because the use of electrical equipment in the home is likely to become more general and because more doctors and manufacturers are likely to introduce electrical plant into their premises. The figure for complaints I have just given does not, of course, measure the full extent of the hardship, because there are many people who still prefer, for one reason or another, to suffer in silence and to make no public complaint about interference with reception. But surely these people are also entitled to our consideration.

Let me now say something about what happens at the present moment if the Post Office are notified by a letter, or in whatever way it may be, of interference with wireless reception. When such a complaint has been received, a Post Office engineer is sent to find out the cause of the trouble. In about half the cases examined, he finds that the interference is coming from somewhere outside the place where the complainant keeps his set.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The noble Earl has given a figure in regard to the persons who have complained. Is it also possible for him to give us a figure, not of doctors and experts and people like that, but of ordinary persons who use a vacuum cleaner and what he called domestic electrical plant so that we work out the proportion?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am afraid I am not able to do that off-hand, but I am sure the noble Viscount will appreciate that it is only in a very small number of cases that these electrical helps in the home are causing, or are likely to cause, interference; so it would not be a fair comparison, even if we had the figure.

When the engineer has succeeded in tracing the cause of interference to its source, he may, and indeed often does, find that this particular source of interference has been hampering the reception of wireless transmission by several hundred people in the vicinity. One particular electrical contrivance, because it is not working properly, or perhaps because it is badly designed, may be causing this nuisance to the whole neighbourhood. Having located the place, the engineer visits the owner of the premises and asks permission to inspect the electrical equipment in use there. If his suspicions are confirmed, and he finds that the particular apparatus is causing interference—it may be a vacuum cleaner, a refrigerator, a faulty switch, or a bedwarmer which is interfering with the wireless sets in the neighbourhood—he explains to the person responsible for the apparatus how the trouble can be stopped by the use of a small and inexpensive device that cuts out interference. In the great majority of cases the owner of the apparatus—and this has been the experience of the Post Office in times past—not being at all anxious to annoy or interfere with his neighbours, readily agrees to put an end to the nuisance in the manner suggested. The public spirit of the vast majority of people who are unintentionally spoiling their neighbours' pleasure is shown by the fact that in the past year only 500 persons refused to do what was required of them. Out of a total of approximately 20,000 people, that is surely a very small proportion of, let us say, non-co-operators amongst those involved in wireless interference.

According to the law as it now stands, we can do nothing if someone refuses to be helpful. The interference goes on, and many hundreds of people in the neighbourhood of some selfish household may continue to suffer indefinitely. Moreover, more serious harm can be done than spoiling the enjoyment of a wireless or television set. We are all aware how widely radar is now used to assist aircraft in making a safe landing, and that its use is steadily expanding. Electrical apparatus in a hospital, in a factory or in a doctor's house, when used in the vicinity of an aerodrome, may interfere with radar signals and might, therefore, become the cause of a serious air accident. The sole aim of Part II of this Bill is to make it possible to take effective action against the very few selfish people who "will not play," even when it has been pointed out to them that their appliances are interfering with wireless reception or the use of radar signals. I agree, of course, with noble Lords opposite, that every new power taken by this or any other Government is an encroachment upon the liberty of the individual to do as he pleases, and we do not want to obtrude any further than we are absolutely obliged to do. We have therefore tried (I think successfully), to limit the power we are now seeking to the minimum of compulsion required to prevent or stop this particular public nuisance.

Clauses 9 and 10 of Part II authorise the Postmaster-General, after he has consulted an advisory panel of technicians and representatives of persons likely to be affected by the regulations, to formulate regulations prescribing the requirements to be complied with, either in the use of electrical equipment or in the manufacture or import of such articles for sale in this country. For many years past, Post Office engineers have worked in close collaboration with the Institution of Electrical Engineers, a body of whose eminence we are all well aware. The Government are extremely glad that the Institution have promised to assist in the setting-up of the advisory committees which are to advise the Postmaster-General on the requirements to be specified in the regulations for users and manufacturers. We have no doubt that this co-operation will be extremely valuable and we are most grateful to the Institution for their willingness to help.

It is essential for these regulations to be applicable to the user as well as to the producer, and for this reason. It might be thought that it would be sufficient if we were to tackle this matter from the one end. But it will not be so, because we shall have to take steps to stop not only interference caused by existing electrical equipment but also interference resulting, as time passes, from the deterioration in the course of ordinary wear and tear of satisfactorily designed equipment. So we must tackle the matter from the end of the user as well. I should like to make it clear that we are not in any sense dictating to manufacturers in the design of their products. The requirements with which they will be expected to conform do not go further than the technical conditions which, when incorporated in the design, will prevent interference from taking place. Any regulations that may be made either for manufacturers or for users will, of course, be laid before both Houses of Parliament in the normal way.

It will not be an offence for a manufacturer or a householder to contravene the regulations applicable to them. An offence will occur in the way which I will describe later on. The object of these regulations is not to make contravention of the regulations a legal offence; their object is something quite different. It is to inform the people concerned what they ought to do if they want to behave in a public-spirited way, and not to tell them what they must do unless they mean to break the law. We hope and expect that, as a general rule, the mere existence of a regulation drafted with the help of independent experts, and having the authority of Parliament behind it, will be a sufficient inducement to the makers of electrical apparatus to do whatever may be necessary to obviate interference. These regulations will be technical directives, with no more than a moral sanction, and, if they carry as much weight as they deserve, we shall have stopped this nuisance at birth without having to use the powers in the Bill so far as the producers are concerned. But we should be acting unfairly towards the great majority of public-spirited business men, who will no doubt render their apparatus incapable of causing interference, if we were to allow some firms to gain a small competitive advantage by standing out and refusing to co-operate. We must, therefore, have power, in the last resort, to oblige manufacturers as well as users to comply with these regulations.

Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill deal with enforcement. Clause 11 authorises the Postmaster-General, when an apparatus is being used which does not conform with the regulation applicable to it and he is satisfied that interference is taking place or has taken place—that is to say on the advice of his engineers—to serve a notice on the appropriate person requiring him to stop using it, or to use it only at certain stated times. If, at least four weeks from the date on which the notice has been served, and if in the meantime he has not declared his intention to appeal, this person continues to use his apparatus as before, he can then be charged before a magistrate with the commission of an offence. That is the first moment, under this very carefully-considered procedure, at which an offence can take place. The offence will, of course, be the breach of the notice and not the contravention of the regulation. Clause 12 applies exactly the same procedure of enforcement to the manufacturer, the importer or the assembler, enabling the Postmaster-General to serve a notice on such persons requiring them to stop the sale of apparatus causing the interference.

But, of course, both the manufacturer and the user have the right to appeal against the notice served on them, and, except in case of danger to life, the notice cannot be enforced until their appeal has been heard and adjudicated upon. Clause 9 provides for the setting up of an independent appeal tribunal consisting of a lawyer, to be appointed by the legal authorities, and two technical assessors, to help. This tribunal is, of course, entirely independent of the Postmaster-General, and, indeed, of any Government Department. The tribunal will have power to direct the Postmaster-General to revoke or, in the case of a user but not of a manufacturer, to vary any notice, and the Postmaster-General will, of course, be obliged to comply with their directions. So I hope your Lordships will agree that every possible care has been taken to prevent any unfairness towards the people who, either because they produce or sell electrical apparatus or in some other way, may be responsible for wireless interference.

And now may I say a word about Part III? The salient provisions in Part III of the Bill are those relating to penalties, and to the right of entry to premises where a source of interference in breach of the regulations is suspected. Noble Lords will notice in Clause 14 of the Bill that the maximum penalty attached to conviction for offences under the Bill, if they are due to the disregard of a notice prohibiting the use or sale of apparatus without danger to public safety, is really not excessive. I am sure your Lordships will agree with that. The offender will be liable only to a fine, not to a term of imprisonment, and the maximum amount of the fine will be £10 for a first offence and £50 for any subsequent offence. I would like to emphasise that these are maximum penalties, and that the magistrate is left with a wide discretion. It is obviously essential for Post Office engineers to enter premises before a notice is served, because they can decide only by inspecting a piece of electrical equipment—a vacuum cleaner, a refrigerator or a diathermy apparatus—whether it is, in fact, causing interference. Now if the owner of the premises agrees to admit them—as would ordinarily happen, our experience shows, in 99 cases out of 100—no difficulty arises. But, if he refuses, clearly the Post Office representatives must have a right of entry.

As noble Lords will observe in Clause 15, this right can be exercised only with a written authority from a magistrate, and the Postmaster-General cannot attach any condition to the issue of a licence which would enable him to send in his engineers without the sanction of the court. That cannot be done. The approval of the magistrate must first be obtained. The magistrate will not give his consent to the exercise of this right without most careful consideration of both sides of every case. It is laid down in Clause 15 that before he agrees to give his authority for entry, he must satisfy himself on the basis of sworn evidence that the Post Office has reasonable grounds for believing that the offending apparatus is on the premises; and, secondly, that this belief can be confirmed or disproved only by entry and inspection. He must also be satisfied that access at a reasonable time of day has been unreasonably refused by the owner of the premises, and that the latter has had a week's notice of the request for access. I think it is abundantly clear that there will be no unnecessary or unjustifiable intrusion upon the privacy of any householder under these provisions, which have been considered with extreme care. I should also like to point out that this procedure is only an extension of existing procedure under the 1904 Act, which has been in operation now for many years—indeed for forty-five years—during which time no complaints have been lodged.

I think that is all I need say about the Bill. The Post Office, with its natural modesty, has never blown its own trumpet, and I feel that, as I am not in the Department. I am able to say what I think should be said. This is a comprehensive and useful measure which illustrates the extreme efficiency and high public spirit of the Post Office. I am certain that anyone who has inside knowledge of the Post Office, and many others who have no inside knowledge, will agree that the Post Office is an extraordinarily efficient and go-ahead Department with a long tradition of public service. I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to your Lordships, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

3.4 p.m.

LORD CHERWELL

My Lords, as the noble Earl who has introduced this Bill said during his affable speech, this ought not to be in any sense a Party measure. He expressed the hope that we should have harmony. I also trust that that will be preserved throughout our debate. I am sure that noble Lords in all quarters of the House would desire to guard against any interference with radio communications. Indeed, we on these Benches welcome any step towards reducing interference with our business or our amenities in any sphere whatever, whether it be by Government "snoopers" (sent, of course, for the best of reasons and intentions) to see what we are doing and to tell us not to, or by some unwitting neighbour whose electrical appliance radiates energy which is picked up and amplified by our radio sets. Some people would go even further, and would try to stop interference by neighbours whose loudspeakers at full blast with open windows are apt to disturb the rest and leisure of a great many people. But that is another story.

In introducing this Bill in another place, the Postmaster-General admitted that Part II was experimental and offered to consider with an open mind any suggestions for improvement. I trust this attitude holds also in this House, and that the noble Earl who introduced this measure will not resent any proposals which we may make, but will consider them on their merits. After all, the technique of wireless communication is still developing rapidly, and the problems which this Bill is designed to meet are of the type for which there is very little precedent. In their definitions, to which the noble Earl called attention, the Government are clearly trying to look ahead. The Bill applies to all radiations of a wavelength greater than one-tenth of a millimetre. When one remembers that a mercury vapour lamp produces a good deal of radiation at three time this wavelength, and that it is quite possible with existing wireless sets to pick up the thermal radiation from a match, indeed from the noble Earl himself (I am not suggesting that he is hot under the collar; I am referring to his normal temperature), and when one also recalls that no existing wireless transmitter produces radiation within three or four octaves of the limit which the Government have selected, it is clear that the Government are taking time by the forelock in their determination to let nothing get past them.

I agree with the noble Earl that we need not discuss Part I of the Bill at any length, because this seems to be a consolidation of earlier measures—notably the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904. The fact that this Act was able to serve its purpose for such a long time without any major modifications shows with what skill and foresight it was drafted. Therefore, it behoves us to try and do as much for the Bill now before the House. Had it not been for the explanation given by the Attorney-General in another place, I should have complained about the paragraph concerning unauthorised listening. To expect anybody to recognise at once whether he is listening to one of the 3,500 authorised stations on the list, or to some unauthorised transmission, would be absurd. But if the clause is administered reasonably, as the Attorney-General promised, and if the real reason for its inclusion in the form in which it appears is to comply with some international arrangement, I think we need not say anything more about it.

As the noble Earl said, Part II brings us to the more difficult aspects of the Bill—namely, the prevention of interference with the transmission of radio signals. The Government desire to do this for two quite distinct reasons. The first, as explained in Clause 11 (1) (b) (i), is to prevent interference likely to endanger the safety of any person, aircraft or vehicle. No instance, happily, has yet happened in which there has been any casualty due to this, but I need scarcely say that we on this side have the warmest sympathy with this intention, and are willing to go to extreme lengths in order to implement it. The second purpose, as explained in Clause 11 (1) (b) (ii), is obviously intended to prevent interference with the reception of radio and television programmes. Naturally we sympathise with this desire also. But there is a great difference between jeopardising safety of life and limb and some measure of interference with amusement and enjoyment.

Everything must give way where considerations of safety are involved. But where it is a matter merely of disturbing slightly the reception of some dance programme or the like, we must have some consideration for the distress and burden which may be imposed on other people who are to be compelled to spend money, and even to refrain from using domestic appliances legally acquired, simply because some neighbour has brought some fancy radio set with which he would like to listen to America. The noble Earl referred to one selfish individual housewife spoiling the reception of radio programmes by a whole street because she will not suppress the radiation from her electric cooker or iron. What about the selfish listener who demands that a whole street full of housewives should be stopped using their domestic appliances, or spend a lot of money on them, simply to improve his reception? Television, like radio, must make its way on its merits. It is surely not right to say that all users of electrical appliances must spend money and effort, and get out of the way so that a rather crude television outfit should not be disturbed.

Radio, after all, has managed to impose itself without the assistance of this Bill. The reason it has been able to do this, as the noble Earl said, is because the problem which Part II of the Bill is designed to meet is a small one. Only 40,000 complaints from 11,000,000 listeners are lodged in a whole year—less than 4 per cent. About half of these are not due to extraneous interference at all; they are due to something being wrong with the reception or with the house wiring—or perhaps they are not even genuine complaints. Only about 15 per cent. are caused by domestic appliances-6,000 in a year, or about one listener in 2,000. The great majority of these complaints, as the noble Earl has told us, have been dealt with without any compulsion, by a little "give and take." Only 500 people have been obstructive—one in 20,000. It is for this small remnant that the whole paraphernalia of search warrants and penal clauses is to be introduced.

The noble Earl said that the number of complaints is likely to grow, but if he is successful, as we all hope he will be, in getting the manufacturers to refrain from selling apparatus that creates interference, there will be a dwindling cause of complaint. It is not likely to grow, but is more likely to vanish. I understand-I think the noble Earl confirms this—that the procedure is that the B.B.C. who, after all, extract about £11,000,000 a year in licence fees, quite reasonably feel under some obligation to see that we get something for our money. For this purpose, if I am correctly informed, they pay a certain sum annually to the Post Office which undertakes the duty of investigating complaints and tracing sources of interference. To trace one source of interference, I am told, costs on the average about three pounds. If it is true, as we are assured, that the cost of fitting a suppressor is only a few shillings, surely it would be reasonable for the B.B.C., or whoever it may be, to add the; few shillings to the three pounds that is presumably already paid for tracing the source of interference, and put the matter right themselves. A few hundred thousand shillings out of 220,000,000 shillings—or £10,000 out of 11,000,000—which the public pay could surely be afforded.

If, on the other hand, it is not true that the interference from an electric iron or cooker, or whatever it may be, can be suppressed for a few shillings, then I say it is a gross imposition to place on the housewife the onus of preventing interference, and to force her to spend money which is not trivial in order to prevent some neighbour from being disturbed in his listening. The whole bias of the Bill is in favour of the radio receiver and against the user of domestic appliances. We on this side of the House have always tried to protect the interests of the poorer sections of the community, and noble Lords opposite always protest that they have the same intentions. I hope, therefore, that they will join us in passing some Amendment on the Committee stage to achieve this end. On the suggestion of the Opposition in another place a clause was added giving the Government power to see that articles liable to cause interference were not sold to unwary purchasers. That is a step in the right direction. It must be admitted that this will cause a small general rise in price, and the question does arise: Is it better that, say, 100 per cent. of the users shall have to pay an extra 5s., or that 10 per cent., who are the only 10 per cent. causing interference, should pay an extra 25s.? That question does not arise if, as I hope, some other source is found for financing these alterations.

The Government's lack of consideration for the domestic user is shown again in the constitution of the Advisory Council which the Minister is to appoint from a panel nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. This Council, which is to advise the Postmaster-General on the regulations prescribing the requirements the apparatus must comply with, if it is to be used, is to consist entirely of experts. The users are to be protected, we are told (if at all) when the regulations come before the Houses of Parliament under the negative Resolution procedure. No arrangements are made for informing makers or users in advance. No alterations in the regulations brought before Parliament are permissible; the regulations must either be accepted or rejected. Everybody knows what scant protection is afforded by this procedure. How often does a prayer against regulations succeed? The tribunals, to which anybody can appeal, will have immense power, and they are equally oddly constituted. They will consist of one man with legal experience and two assessors, again nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. These tribunals, it was said in another place, are to be the safeguard of the individual. What chance has the unhappy housewife, who has been told to stop using her electric cooker, before such a tribunal, which can snow her under with arguments about impedances, capacities, attenuation coefficients and megacycles, and all the rest of it? There does not really seem to be a very hope ful prospect of her being able to appeal successfully to these experts.

At one stage the Government argued that the tribunals must consist of experts because these are technical matters. But at another stage the Attorney-General argued that the word "undue" in "undue interference" was not to be measured objectively by the millivolts in the aerial, but was to be construed as meaning "having regard to all the circumstances." That may be a very good thing, but that is not the sort of judgment that need necessarily be confined to experts. I should have thought that because the verdict was to "have regard to all the circumstances" this was a very good reason to add some non-experts to these tribunals. Of course, the tribunals may be of great importance in other directions. I am not so much concerned with hospitals because, as they are now under the State, no doubt everything will be done to render them immune from any sort of criticism. But the future of whole factories may depend on the decision of these tribunals. If a process is being operated in a factory which cannot be screened off or suppressed, and people chose to come and live in the neighbourhood who complain about the interference, the factory may be ordered to stop operating. There is no hint of compensation, nor need any account be taken of the loss in production. All that matters, apparently, is that nobody should be deprived of the chance of enjoying some jazz band, or perhaps even the Third Programme. The only protection for the factory is the interpretation the tribunal of experts chooses to put on the word "undue."

It seems clear from discussions in another place that the whole burden and cost and making changes in order to meet the convenience of neighbours is to be thrown upon the owner of the appliance or, for that matter, of the factory from which the interference is said to arise. It is true that in the Second Reading debate in another place the Assistant Postmaster-General categorically denied that the housewife would have to pay for the suppression of any interference caused, say, by her electric iron. That is an important point, because we are informed that the cost of suppression for an electric iron, which itself only costs 39s. 6d., may be as much as 30s. When challenged about it in Committee, however, the Postmaster-General edged away from this promise and murmured something about an apparatus which she could buy for 14s. to suppress all the appliances in her home. In fact, I believe these appliances are only effective in completely detached houses. In any event, I cannot agree that the burden should be upon the user of the appliance. I hope the House will agree to remove this imposition.

Another very important omission from the Bill is that no power is taken to insist that the wireless receiver is shielded against interference. The Postmaster-General seems to have been completely misinformed about these matters—or perhaps I should say, insufficiently instructed. If a man insists on using an indoor aerial, so that he picks up only a very faint signal which he has to amplify hundreds of thousands of times, every little ripple from the neighbour's cooker will be magnified too. But if he has a proper outdoor aerial with a shielded lead, and if he connects his aerial earth by a separate lead to the water mains or something like that, leaving only his safety earth connected to the earth wire of his electric mains, an immense amount can be done in reducing pick-up from a neighbour's domestic appliance or from other extraneous sources. Surely the onus should be on the owner of the radio set who wants to enjoy his radio programme to prove that everything has been done to avoid pick-up before the harassed housewife next door is asked to stop using her electric iron. But there is not a word about this in the Bill.

Fundamentally, I am sure that we all want the same thing—namely, that wireless communication should proceed in an orderly fashion, with as little disturbance and interference as possible. None of us challenges the provisions of this Bill in so far as they are necessary for safeguarding life. But we on this side feel that, as the Bill now stands, the powers of entry into people's houses in order to cope with a comparatively rare impairment of the neighbour's amenities are exaggerated. In course of time, if appliances which radiate energy cease to be manufactured, the nuisance, such as it is, will cease. Would it not be well, therefore, to limit the time during which these harsh powers are granted? After all, we must preserve a proper sense of balance between what is necessary and what is agreeable. To keep the factories going is essential to keep the home clean and tidy, to prepare the family's food and laundry, is almost equally important. No obstacle should be placed in the way of people working to these ends, nor should any burden be cast upon them merely in order to improve the quality of someone's radio reception.

I trust that the Government will be prepared to accept Amendments designed to achieve these ends—namely, to put the onus on the complainant to ensure that his receiver is fitted with every means of avoiding interference before the housewife is hindered in her lawful avocations, and to prevent any burden being thrown upon her, should it prove necessary to alter the electrical appliances from which the radio waves are emitted. If some such minor Amendments are incorporated, I do not think there is any reason to object to this Bill or to divide against it on the Second Reading. And I feel confident that on the Committee stage the Government will accept Amendments which will afford the safeguards I have outlined. In those circumstances, I also commend the Bill to the House for a Second Reading.

3.25 p.m.

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, I find myself in some little difficulty this afternoon, because if the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, expects one word of support from me I am afraid he is grossly mistaken. I have had a good deal to do with wireless in this country during the last ten years, and I realise how essential this Bill is: the Government are asking for no more than what I may describe as the minimum powers. I think I may claim to have had a good deal more to do with the Post Office interference investigation department, and to know more about the way they work, than possibly even the noble Earl who introduced this Bill. During the last ten years they have done a magnificent job of work, labouring under appalling difficulties. I am certain that if I were to say to-day that they will be thankful to have these powers, although they are the last powers in the world they want to have, I should be making a perfectly correct statement. The engineers have been so hampered that time and time again during the last ten years the safety of this country has been dependent upon the tact and skill of the Post Office engineers engaged in this work to get something suppressed because they had no power to enforce it.

Now the safety of this country is something which has to be taken into account. We must have the powers to deal with people who will commit what is really an offence against the whole countryside—and I do not mean the housewife. Nine times out of ten, the housewife is the most reasonable person in the world. Equally, the trouble in her house is something which, nine times out of ten, the Post Office engineer, once he discovers the piece of electrical gear which is creating the interference, can put right without charging her a penny-halfpenny, or costing anybody anything except his own time which is, I believe, given at the cost of the B.B.C. B he must have the power to find out exactly where that interference is coming from. It is no good saying that he can go up to a house with all his testing gear and say: "Oh yes, the interference is in that house." Theoretically and scientifically, that would be an attractive proposition; but practically it is not true. There has only to be a telegraph wire across the road and something which is interfering in one house will appear as something which is interfering in the house on the other side of the road. Is it suggested that the Post Office will serve a notice on people to suppress a piece of machinery in their house without first making absolutely certain that the piece of machinery is in that house and not in the house across the road?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

But nobody has challenged the proposals of entry; the noble Lord commended them.

LORD SANDHURST

I know that, but I am taking the whole thing logically because it has been challenged by other people. Another point upon which a great deal of play was made was the inefficiency of the indoor aerial. Admittedly, the indoor aerial is not necessarily efficient, but it is not necessarily totally inefficient. In these days there may be forty flats in a comparatively small building. What is the roof going to look like if every flat has an outside aerial?

LORD CHERWELL

Use a communal aerial.

LORD SANDHURST

How many sets are going to work satisfactorily if people are trying to take fifteen different programmes off a communal aerial? There is another person—and a very important person—who is more affected by this Bill than the ordinary broadcast receiver. The average person with the broadcast receiver does not suffer from severe interference, but we in this country have a person known as the wireless amateur, commonly known as a "ham." These amateurs work on short waves, and are particularly liable and susceptible to interference. They are a valuable asset to this country; they are the breeding ground for our operators of the future, and they are the people who need protection far more than the ordinary household broadcast listener.

I happen to live in an area where there are D.C. lifts, which make any short-wave work almost impossible. There is no reason why those lifts should not be suppressed, except the fact that I believe that it costs about three pounds to do it. But I think landlords and others might be expected to spend three pounds on suppressing a lift, when by not suppressing it they are spoiling the wireless reception of people living in a large area. We must have compulsory powers to make people maintain their electrical gear in proper order. I am perfectly certain that in the majority of cases it is not a matter of spending something on equipment to suppress; it is a matter of having one's electrical equipment in proper order. But there are people who are so "pig-headed"—I know of one case—that they will not allow the Post Office engineer to go and look at a piece of electrical equipment, even when he says, "It is not going to cost you anything; I am going to put it right for you and it will give you more economical service when I have done it." But the answer he receives is: "I am not going to have you touching my electrical equipment; you have no right to do it." We must have powers to deal with people like that.

Out of about 40,000 cases, there are about 500 who refuse to do anything. I should have liked to hear how many of those 500 are firms and how many are private individuals. I believe that in one case it was a statutory undertaking which refused to do anything; and I think I was responsible for finding it out. I consider that too much is made of the possibility of interference from household machinery. In fact, I believe that the housewife and her machinery do not come into the question at all. The most serious interference comes almost entirely from big electrical gear and very little comes from such things as cookers, irons, or even electrical shavers, which are usually regarded as one of the worst sources of interference.

LORD CHERWELL

Fifteen per cent. of the complaints are associated with domestic appliances.

LORD SANDHURST

But the complaints are put right with very little cost to the people against whom the complaint is made. It will be found that of the people who will not have the trouble put right, the great majority are firms; they are not, in the main, domestic consumers. I say in all seriousness that, from the point of view of the safety of the country, this power is necessary. This interference is not with ordinary broadcast reception; it is interference with radio reception of a vital nature. The Post Office must have the power given them under this Bill.

3.34 p.m.

VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, I should like to add a word to this discussion—not of course with any special technical knowledge—before we agree to give this Bill a Second Reading. I do so because I would venture to press on the noble Earl in charge of the Bill the importance of considering in good time one suggestion which was made by my noble friend Lord Cherwell, and which had also occurred to others of us. It is not a matter of Party controversy at all; but it does seem to me that it is worth considering, quite impartially and very carefully, whether it would not be well to make this a temporary measure, a Bill with a reasonable time limit of some years, rather than put it on the Statute Book as a permanent enactment. I will give my reasons in a moment. I say that I do not presume to intervene as an expert, for indeed I am not one; and this is eminently a case in which, on the technical side, fools may rush in where angels fear to tread. I admired very much the way in which the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading walked delicately in what, I dare say, is to him, as it is to me, a rather mysterious territory. I have the more reason not to pretend to know more about the matter than I do; and if your Lordships will forgive me I will tell you briefly why.

In the early days of wireless one of the great authorities was the late Sir Oliver Lodge, who was himself the inventor of some most important apparatus. It so happened that, when I was a Law Officer of the Crown, I had the duty to appear for the Post Office in a patent action in which Sir Oliver Lodge was concerned. I did my work as thoroughly as I could; at any rate I went to school with experts of the Post Office for, I should think, a couple of months. At the end of that period we invented between us a question which, we thought, when put to Sir Oliver Lodge in the witness box, would do a great deal to shatter his claim. The situation was unfortunate, because the Judge was a great expert on these things and so was counsel on the other side. However, I got up, and, with the boldness of youth it may be, propounded my question to that benevolent, fatherly figure—rather like a handsome Socrates—whom many of us knew and who himself was one of the best broadcasters that ever lived. When I put my question there was a pause; and Sir Oliver, instead of replying immediately, stroked his beard and then said: "Will you allow me to observe that that is a very good question? But I do not think you quite understand the subject. Let me explain it to you." By the time he had given his explanation I was completely lost and never recovered my position. I am in no danger, therefore, of speaking as if I knew a great deal about this subject.

But what strikes me, and what I think must be admitted, especially after this very interesting debate, is that this Bill deals with topics which are novel and which, in some aspects, appear to be in the course of surprising developments. We had command of radar methods, I believe, before the enemy—and it was just as well that we had. How many people were there—one or two perhaps, really great physicists—who fully anticipated what could be done by radar when it became a practical and invaluable instrument? I do not imagine there are any of us—not even the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell—who would claim to foresee how this science is going to develop in a limited number of years. The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, which was introduced by Mr. Balfour's Government, was a surprising piece of work. It was for long regarded as a practical and useful instrument. It was carried on by the annual legislation—too long, it may be—with very small amendments; but in itself it was, of course, a temporary Bill. I have no doubt that that was because it was fell that Parliament was enacting about a subject which was shifting and developing and, it might be, changing.

I appreciate that if that kind of change were to take place hereafter, it would be possible for the Government of the day to introduce an amending measure. But we are all familiar with the answer given on such occasions: "There is not time for this; we would do it if we could, but as it is we must go on as we are." Therefore, I ask the noble Earl to consider—I do not expect him to give ma a definite answer now, one way or the other—whether there is not a good deal to be said for making the proposal in its final form a proposal which will continue for whatever may be a reasonable number of years, and which therefore will more directly require Parliamentary reconsideration when the time comes. I think that is a matter worth considering. I do not think that it was considered in another place. It certainly is not aimed at destroying the objects of this Bill, but I would like the noble Earl and the Government to consider whether at Committee stage that might not be a suitable thing to do.

As for the rest of it, everybody must have been impressed by the point which my noble friend Lord Cherwell made—a point which probably nobody in the House could make with the same scientific background. I do not know how far it can be said that by this visitation, when it is authorised, one can arrive at a certain conclusion that this is the source, and the only source, of the trouble. That is no doubt largely a matter for the experts. Certainly the Bill is produced and explained on the view that this can be done. It may be so, but all this is rather mysterious to some of us.

The noble Earl himself said that Part II was experimental. I think the Minister in another place described it as entering upon a novel ground. It certainly is. It is, perhaps, interesting to reflect that we have to legislate in this new sphere under great difficulties, because the old principle was that your private dwelling was a place from which you could exclude the invader, that nobody was entitled to come into your house against your will, unless of course he had a proper warrant, just as nobody was entitled to turn a stream of filth into your back yard.

In those days everybody—Judges, lawyers and so on—assumed that the invasion was always something which palpably could be seen, measured or smelt, whereas, of course, the truth was—and we did not realise it—that all the time there was an invasion going on by the transmission of these minute and unseen "waves" (as I suppose I may call them), and that one could not stop them. In many cases, they passed through walls, causing no harm to anybody. Now we have a difficult question to decide—a question which I thought the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, illustrated brilliantly: Where are you going to draw the line?

That leads me to the only other observation I wish to make, for I do not want to detain the House too long. Would the noble Earl in charge of the Bill give us, if he can, what is the view which we ought to take of this phrase "undue interference" in Clause 10, subsection (2): The said requirements shall be such requirements as the Postmaster-General thinks fit for the purpose of ensuring that the use of the apparatus does not cause undue interference … I perfectly understand that one cannot give a simple conclusive list, or perhaps even an exact formula, but it is material to notice that, whereas the Bill by its language is addressed to the discouragement and, it may be, the prevention of what is called "undue interference," in the noble Earl's speech to-day—and the same was true of speeches in another place—the language used suggested that this was an attempt to deal merely with interference. It seems to me it must be largely a question of degree, which no doubt good sense would prescribe but I do not find anything in the Bill except this word "undue" to indicate that there is that sort of limitation which is intended in everything which is here provided.

While I am on page 10, I would also ask whether I am right in my views about the regulations referred to at the top of that page: The Postmaster-General may, after consultation with the advisory committee, make regulations … I do not find anything in the Bill which says that those regulations are to be subject to the negative Resolution of either House. I imagine that that is because that is already provided for. Is it in the Statutory Instruments Act? I do not remember, but I thought that at some convenient time we might be assured on that point. No doubt the draftsman is right.

LORD ROCHE

It is in Clause 16.

VISCOUNT SIMON

I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has pointed out, the method of negative Resolution, though very proper, is not in practice a complete protection. If I remember rightly, the Resolution has to be put down and the matter dealt with very promptly—within forty days, I think it is. I do not think it is a complete protection.

The other small matter upon which we might have some information now, if it is convenient—I do not want to take the finer points at the moment—is this. On page 12, in subsection (4), there is a reference to the appeal tribunal. The Bill runs thus: … the tribunal shall hear the Postmaster-General and the person at whose instance the reference was made … There again, I do not know what is meant. I am only asking for information. Obviously, it cannot be intended that the tribunal has to hear both sides in person—certainly not in the case of the Postmaster-General. I suppose what is contemplated, and what follows in law perhaps, is that either party is represented as that party thinks desirable. There must be some intention of that sort.

I do not want to detain your Lords-hips further because, although this whole Bill is most interesting to me, and a large number of queries suggest themselves to me, I am too much of an amateur to think it right to detain the House upon such reflections—the more so when, on the one side, the matter has been dealt with by an expert and, on the other, the noble Earl has the services of a most accomplished body of expert advisers in the Department which he is representing to-day. My respectful submission, however, is that, with a Bill of this novelty, the suggestion I have made would be well worth considering. It is not by any means to be classed as a "technical" Bill, as the noble Earl called it in his first sentence; but it is a Bill which touches important vital interests of ordinary men and women. I think it is necessary to consider impartially and carefully whether, in any event, there ought not to be given, for the time being, only a temporary period of operation.

3.50 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, may I reply first to the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken? I will certainly look carefully at his suggestion that the Bill should run for only a limited period of time. It occurs to me at the moment that this might result in our having to produce another Bill or having to resort to the unsatisfactory procedure which we have used hitherto of including it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That might be the case and, in the event, we should not be able to accept the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion. On the other hand it might not, and I can assure him that we will carefully consider his suggestion, to see whether there is any way in which it can be met.

VISCOUNT SIMON

May I be forgiven for intervening for one moment? I do not want to be misunderstood. I was not putting forward the suggestion on the assumption that in three or four years no legislation at all will be needed. That was not my idea in the least. What I had in mind was that when you are dealing with this matter, which is essentially experimental and novel, there is a great deal to be said for not legislating for all time and thereby producing an inertia against all possible improvement. It is my own view that you should have new or amending legislation as the circumstances change, or at any rate the decision to continue the old legislation if the circumstances do not change. I apologise for interrupting, but the noble Earl had not quite appreciated my point.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount says—namely, that new legislation may be desirable in certain cases, but in others it may be undesirable, especially if the business of the Government is rather congested and there is only a limited time in which to get through quite a number of important Bills. I am putting the other side of the case, which I am sure the noble Viscount appreciates from his experience of the day-to-day work of the Administration. I will examine the noble Viscount's other points, but I prefer to wait until I have had an opportunity of consulting with my advisers on this point of undue interference. I realise that it needs careful examination.

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, very warmly indeed for what he has said. I think his words carry special force because he speaks with personal experience of this problem through his own connection with electrical engineering. I welcome what he said because it had that independence of mind behind it which is so characteristic of this House, and which makes the House so useful in the business of legislation. I listened with much care and respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said. I was glad to observe that in a general way his thermal radiations did not appear to interfere with mine, and my thermal radiations did not appear to interfere with his.

VISCOUNT SIMON

Not yet.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

That is the last occasion upon which I shall use anything approaching technical language. The noble Lord, who speaks as an expert in these matters, raised a number of points which I think were directed mainly to clauses in the Bill which he would like to see altered by amendment during the Committee stage. I hope he will accept it when I say that, in order to do justice to his argument and to be able to meet him on his own ground, I should like an opportunity of consulting with my advisers; I will then reply to the best of my ability to all the points he made. There was one general observation which I do not think he intended to apply to any particular clause but with which I did not feel I could agree at first sight—namely, that the B.B.C. should cover the cost of altering electrical apparatus so that it does not cause interference. I think that would be objectionable. It would remove any inducement for either manufacturers or users to make or use apparatus not liable to cause interference, and the result of that might well be that the cost, which is in fact greater than anything the noble Lord had in mind, because the cost of adapting industrial electrical equipment or medical electrical equipment is much more considerable than would be the case in adapting some ordinary piece of domestic apparatus—

LORD CHERWELL

Medical electrical equipment would come under the State in any case; but I would be quite prepared to consider the possibility of confining my amendment to existing apparatus. If the Government are successful in inhibiting the sale of apparatus liable to cause interference, difficulties in this respect would not arise in future.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am glad that the noble Lord is prepared to limit what he wants in that way; but I am not sure that we can meet him even to that extent, and I should prefer to answer his narrower point at the next stage of the Bill. In conclusion, I should like to say that what has happened in the past is that the Post Office has had to rely entirely on persuasion to achieve the suppression of interference to wireless telegraphy. That is the method that the Post Office will want to use in time to come. Persuasion is going to be the first line of attack on wireless interference, and it is only in the last resort, when persuasion fails, that these powers for which we are asking will have to be used. I am inclined to think that the very existence of an ultimate power of compulsion may help to make the power of persuasion rather easier, and I devoutly hope, as I am sure everyone who has spoken on this Bill hopes, that it may never be necessary to use these powers, even if they are accepted by Parliament and become part of the Statute Law of the country.

LORD CHERWELL

I do not object to the power of compulsion unless it compels a person to go to expense. Compulsion to enable investigation and the tracing of interference is one thing, but compelling a person to go to considerable expense in order to suppress that interference is another.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am afraid that what we understand by "compul- sion" does cover expense, although I could not accept the noble Lord's word "considerable." However, I will not enter into that argument now. I must thank the noble Lord opposite, and all those who have spoken, for their support for the general principle on which the Bill is based.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.