HL Deb 05 July 1967 vol 284 cc711-20 We are now required by law to forward the names and addresses of all those who hire or buy television sets to the Licensing Department of the Post Office."

This would make the dangers of licence evasion known to those most likely to incur them. It would also have the added benefit of being a safeguard to retailers, as it would make clear to their customers that they are giving these details to the Post Office as a result of a statutory obligation, and not just through a desire to do some sort of gratuitous informing. I do not, of course, expect an answer on this subject from the noble Baroness, but I should be most grateful if she would put this point forward.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and I shall certainly put it to my right honourable friend. It is not an Amendment in the sense that the noble Lord needs a reply, but it seems to me eminently practicable, so I shall certainly pass it on.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Short title, citation, interpretation and extent]:

6.53 p.m.

LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Wireless Telegraphy" and insert "Television and Radio". The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to the Short Title. I hope I am right in thinking that the purpose of a Short Title to an Act of Parliament is to give people some clue as to what the Act of Parliament is about. I have read this Bill, and I hope I am right in thinking that it is about television and radio, but I should not have thought that the average person reading the title "Wireless Telegraphy Bill" would suppose that it was about television and radio.

We have had Wireless Telegraphy Bills on the Statute Books since 1904. In those days wireless telegraphy consisted of sending messages by wireless from person A to person B, from point X to point Y. It was 16 years before public sound broadcasting began, and I think it was 32 years before public television services began. I should have thought that "wireless telegraphy" meant to-day, to the average person, very much what it meant to the average person in 1904, and would not mean "television and radio". We pioneered television—this great marvel of recent years. We started it, we started the first public television broadcasting service. We have nothing to be ashamed about; we have no need to wrap up this great marvel in a brown paper parcel and label it "Wireless Telegraphy".

Unless we break away some time soon from this rapidly becoming obsolescent expression of "wireless telegraphy" we never shall manage to break away, because the next time television comes before Parliament in some Bill the Parliamentary draftsman will say, "Well, they were still calling it wireless telegraphy in 1967 and nobody made a fuss." So we shall "get stuck" with this antiquated expression forever, if we are not careful. I respectfully submit that now is the time to break away. Here we have a Bill about television and radio, so let us call it the "Television and Radio Bill", and then when people read the Short Title they will have a clue what the Bill is about. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 6, leave out ("Wireless Telegraphy") and insert ("Television and Radio").—(Lord Airedale.)

LORD STRABOLGI

I should like to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and I have very little to add to the strong arguments which he has advanced. It is important that we should amend this Bill and bring it into line with current usage. I doubt whether anybody under the age of 40 now uses the word "wireless"—it is always radio—just as I doubt whether anybody under the age of 40 uses the word "gramophone". They always call them record players now. Like the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, when I first saw this Bill on the Order Paper I had not the remotest idea what it was about. I thought it had to do with wireless transmission. I had no idea that a great deal of it referred to control over the sale of radio and television sets. I hope that the Government will consider this point because, after all, the public will be affected by this Bill. The television and radio dealers have a good deal of work to do under it, and unless the Bill is amended in this way they will have no idea that it is the kind of Bill which is going to affect their business in the future.

LORD SOMERS

The noble Lord has just said that nobody under 40 uses certain terms, and he seems to imply that if you are over 40 you are necessarily out of date and possibly inaccurate. I am sorry he thinks that, because if that is so a very large proportion of your Lordships' House must be extraordinarily inaccurate and out of date.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the clear and concise way in which they have made their points in connection with this Amendment. Merely in passing I would say, as one over 40, that "wireless" never seemed to me a very accurate description of something which was a mass of trailing wires. But that is a slightly different subject. For most people the expression "television and radio" means broadcast television and broadcast sound radio, but "wireless telegraphy", as defined in Section 19 of the 1949 Act and also in the present Bill, means much more. I think I tentatively suggested this on Second Reading. For instance, it includes aeronautical navigation transmission systems and point to point data transmission, so that "television and radio" would not be an acceptable substitute. Moreover, strictly speaking it would be saying the same thing to refer to "television and radio" in the Bill. Although for most people "radio" means broadcast sound radio, to the experts it includes television, which is one form of radio. Her Majesty's Government feel that, in all, it is better to stick to the expression "wireless telegraphy" in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, pointed out in his speech on Second Reading, and again to-day, that the expression "wireless telegraphy" went back to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904. Although this is true, the Act of 1904 was superseded by the 1949 Act, which introduced a radically new definition of "wireless telegraphy". So the present use of the expression really goes back only to 1949, and not 1904. I wonder whether, having heard this, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD AIREDALE

I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for her reply. What I should like to suggest is this. I do not know whether the Government plan to have a separate Report stage if no Amendments are accepted to-day, but assuming that they do, then I would suggest that I withdraw this Amendment now and that we should all think about it before Report stage. If that is acceptable, I am agreeable to withdrawing the Amendment now.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I am in somewhat of a dilemma. Although I feel that I can safely promise the noble Lord that we shall think about it, I am not quite certain that our thoughts will produce a reply different from the one I am giving now. I am being quite honest about this. We shall certainly be having a Report stage, and I shall certainly ask my right honourable friend to think about it.

LORD AIREDALE

On that assurance, I am very pleased to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

The Schedule [Notifications and Records]:

7.3 p.m.

LORD DENHAM moved, in Part I, to leave out paragraphs 3 to 6 and to insert: 3. The address of the premises at which the set is to be installed or to which it is to be delivered, if different from above. The noble Lord said: This Part of the Schedule lists the information that must be sent by a television dealer to the Post Office licensing authority within twenty-eight days of each sale or letting. This will involve extra work for the dealer, which will be of no advantage to him. If we are going to saddle the dealer with this obligation, I think it is encumbent on us to make it as easy as possible for him. The Post Office will want to know details of hiring or buying transactions so that they can check up on whether the buyer or hirer has a television licence. All the information the Post Office can possibly need for this is the date of the transaction, the name and address of the buyer or hirer and, in case he is not getting the set for himself, the address at which it is to be installed. Also, perhaps, in case there is to be a different licence rate for colour, they may want information as to whether the set is capable of receiving colour. The other information for which it is proposed to ask under this Schedule is how payments are to be made, whether a hire-purchase company is involved and who actually installs the set. All these points are to my mind irrelevant at this stage.

If the licence inquiries sent out by the Post Office to the new owners of sets are unsuccessful, and if further proceedings need to be taken, all the additional information will be available from the records required to be kept under Part II of the Schedule. Is it fair to ask for all this information about every sale when it will be needed in only about 1 per cent. of the cases, and when in the case of this 1 per cent. it can easily be obtained later from the other records? To ask at the first stage for the information I seek to exclude will make unnecessary work both for the retailer and for the Post Office in having to go through these other details to get what they actually need. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 7, leave out paragraphs 3 to 6 and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Denham.)

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for his courtesy in discussing this with me previously. I have had the opportunity of passing on his comments to my right honourable friend, who appreciates very much the noble Lord's help with this Bill.

In order to explain Her Majesty's Government's attitude to this Amendment, I should like first to describe to the Committee the way in which the Postmaster General plans to arrange for the provision of notification and record forms to dealers. He intends to supply pads of forms to dealers, the pads containing, alternately, notification and record forms. The dealer, on completing the notification form—the first form in the pad—will, on the undercopy, the record form beneath it, have automatically provided himself with a record of the particulars required to be recorded within 28 days of the date of the transaction. The forms will be in simple and straightforward language. For instance, they will ask the dealer to write down only the address where the set has been installed if it is a different address from the customer's address. There will be full and simple instructions at the front of the pads about how to complete the forms.

The forms will be prescribed by the Postmaster General by Statutory Instrument in accordance with Clause 2(3) of the Bill. My right honourable friend's Department have already had discussions with the representative trade associations about the details of the forms. They will discuss the details further with them before the final version of the forms is settled. Dealers will, in accordance with subsection (4) of Clause 2, not be compelled to use the Postmaster General's forms for their records of transactions—the subsection allows them to use any other form which enables the matters required to be recorded to be readily ascertained—but if they do use the Postmaster General's forms they can be sure that they will be complying with the Bill; and it has been made clear in my right honourable friend's discussions with the trade associations that a great many dealers will find this system of using undercopies of the notification forms the most convenient one. The pads will of course be provided free of charge, and postage on them will be prepaid. I think this arrangement will, in spirit if not in letter, fit in with the suggestion advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, that special record books should be provided for dealers.

Her Majesty's Government are completely at one with the noble Lord's desire that the requirements of the Bill should be made as simple and as easy as possible for dealers to meet, and the contents of Part I of the Schedule were arrived at after quite thorough discussions between the Post Office and the representative trade associations. The conclusion my right honourable friend drew from these discussions was that on balance it would cause dealers the least trouble if they were asked to notify at the outset the particulars described in paragraphs 3 to 6 of Part I of the Schedule. Paragraphs 3 and 4 will enable the Post Office to know whether the transaction was one of a continuing type—a credit sale agreement, a hire-purchase agreement or a rental agreement—and, if so, whether to address themselves to the dealer or somebody else, such as a hire-purchase finance company, for any further information required about the transaction under Clause 3 of the Bill. It would plainly be a waste of time for the dealers, no less than for the Post Office, if these inquiries were addressed to people who cannot answer them; and that is the reason for paragraphs 3 and 4.

In summary, the purpose of paragraphs 3 and 4 is to put the Post Office in the position where it can direct future inquiries straight to the particular organisation which will have the answers, rather than to a dealer who, though he concluded the initial transaction, retains no further interest in it. But for these paragraphs of the Schedule he would have to look through old records to find to whom he should refer the Post Office's inquiry. For these reasons, I feel no doubt that the trade associations would on balance prefer the arrangements provided in the Schedule as it stands.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 ask for no more information than the noble Lord's Amendment, and they limit the request for information to circumstances in which the dealer must know the answer. If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, the Bill would require the dealer to notify the Post Office of the address at which the set was installed or delivered, even if he did not know it. For example, a customer might take the set away in his car, and the dealer would not then know where it was to be installed or delivered. I can assure the noble Lord that the form which my right honourable friend intends to prescribe will be easy to follow and will not be in the precise but perhaps sometimes difficult language necessary in an Act of Parliament. I am hoping that, having heard these explanations, the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press his Amendment.

LORD DENHAM

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that full explanation. I am not entirely happy about all the answers I have been given; I have a sneaking suspicion that the Post Office already may have printed the forms and that is why they do not want to alter them. At this late hour I do not intend to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DENHAM

If the Committee will allow me to do so, it would be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 together. They are all on the same point and are very minor drafting Amendments. As Part II of the Schedule is written, it is almost impossible, the first time one reads it, to understand what certain parts of it mean. On a second reading one begins to understand it. My wording will make it clear and, I hope, will make it understandable at a first reading. It will also make it more accurate; for when the form is filled in, the set will either already have been installed or be due to be installed in the future. It seems to me unlikely that it will be being installed at the moment that the form is filled in—and especially so in a one-man business. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 31, leave out first ("is") and insert ("has been").—(Lord Denham.)

LORD STRABOLGI

I should like to support this Amendment. I think the argument that the noble Lord put forward has a great deal of weight, and I agree with what he said about the wording. I cannot understand this wording; it does not seem to have any grammatical sense at all. I quote Paragraph 4: If the set is or is to be installed by the dealer or another person to his order … I cannot understand that; and I agree that the substitution of the words "has been" for "is" would greatly improve the drafting of the Bill and make it much more intelligible to the general public.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

If I may, I will reply to all the Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. These Amendments are useful improvements to the drafting of Part II of the Schedule. I thank the noble Lord for putting them down and I am happy to advise the Committee to accept them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 4.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 32, leave out first ("is") and insert ("has been").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 5.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 34, leave out first ("is not") and insert ("has not been").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 6.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 34, leave out third ("is") and insert ("has been").—(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM

I had not the opportunity of thanking the noble Lady for accepting the Amendments. I do so now. I am most grateful.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

I am not quite certain whether I can speak at this point. Perhaps I may do so with the permission of the Lord Chairman and the Committee. As the Committee has amended the Bill in this way, it would seem that corresponding Amendments will be needed in Part I of the Schedule, which we have already discussed; but perhaps we can put that right at a later stage.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.