BRITISH BROADCASTING COMPANY. (Hansard, 25 April 1923)

§ Captain BERKELEY

In pursuance of the notice given yesterday, I beg to ask a ruling as to whether the licence granted by the Postmaster-General to the British Broadcasting Company comes within the terms of Standing Order 72, which requires that certain contracts be approved by Resolution of this House. I hope that it is in order to point out that the decision on the point may have far-reaching effects from the point of view of the retention of Parliamentary control over contracts in relation to essential public services entered into by the Government. I do not anticipate that I shall have great difficulty in convincing you that the licence, so-called, is in fact a contract, because on the face of it it is a contract under seal, an indenture, entered into between the Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Company, which confers obligations and rights and contains a consideration. Unless you wish me to address myself to that point I shall not develop it further. It is necessary that a contract should extend over a term of years. That is so under Article 2 of the licence. It is further necessary that such a contract should create a public charge. My statement on that is that Article 25, paragraph 2, of the licence which reads: The Postmaster-General shall by each broadcast licence granted by him require payment to himself therefore of an annual foe of not less than 10s. per annum payable in advance. taken in conjunction with Article 26, paragraph 1, which says: The Postmaster-General shall (subject as and in manner hereinafter provided) out of such aids and supplies as may from time to time be provided and appropriated by Parliament for that purpose pay to the company a sum equal to 50 per cent. of all sums received by him from his licensees in respect of fees payable under licences," etc., establishes quite clearly that a public charge is created by this contract. The next point is that it should be a contract for the purpose of telegraphic communication beyond seas. On that point the question that arises is whether the meaning of the order is that such a contract must be exclusively for the purpose of telegraphic communication beyond seas; that is to say, whether the fact that a contract contained any provision whatever for inland communication would be 468 sufficient to take it out of the operation of the Order, or whether it means that any contract which makes provision for oversea communication, or under which, in fact, oversea communications are made, requires the approval of the House in order to be binding. I would like to suggest an illustration. Suppose that a new telegraph company were founded for the purpose of taking over not only inland telegraphs but also cable communication, let us say, with America. Would not the contract between the Government and the company require to be approved under the Standing Order? Or, suppose that by reason of some cheapening in wireless processes it became possible for inland messages to be transmitted at cheaper rates than the existing postal telegraph rates, and, therefore, the Government desired to enter into a contract with the Marconi Company for inland and for overseas wireless telegraphic communication. Would not such a contract come within the provisions of this Order, and would it not require the approval of this House? My submission is that, in so far as any telegraphic communication under a particular contract which otherwise satisfies the conditions of this Order is beyond seas, it comes within the meaning of the Order.

This particular licence authorises the company to erect wireless telegraphy stations at selected points in the country, from which they will transmit, by means of their wireless apparatus, certain messages, and they are also authorised to receive messages. I submit that it is quite plain from the terms of the licence, that the broadcasting is not restricted to broadcasting in this country, because the preamble by its reference to the Telegraphs Act and the Wireless Act; by the absence of words of limitation and by the express provisions of Articles 12 and 16 of the licence—which provides that the wireless messages sent out by the company shall not interfere with naval signalling between ships at sea, and shall not interfere with existing commercial arrangements for wireless communication from land stations—makes it, to my mind, quite plain that the transmission of messages is not confined to this country. You can add to that the facts that, in actual practice, liners at sea can and do pick up these wireless messages. Therefore, it seems to me that, although this is 469 not a contract for the sole purpose of telegraphic communication beyond seas, yet telegraphic communication beyond seas does in fact take place under the licence and is, in fact, permitted by the licence. It is obvious that it is a development which must happen in this industry, and I submit that this is clearly a contract which should come within the meaning of the Standing Order and should be discussed by the House. I do not wish to stress the question of monopoly, but there is no doubt whatever a monopoly is created by this particular licence and it seems to me that one of the reasons why this Standing Order was passed by the House was in order that where monopolies, by necessity, have to be created, they should be supervised by the House. I submit that the prospectus of the company itself, shows that a monopoly does exist and, in the public interest, I beg to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this point.