WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL. (Hansard, 18 May 1906)

§ LORD AVEBURY
My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee on this Bill I should like to say that I have this morning received a communication from the Committee of Lloyd's begging me to move that the Bill be rejected, or that it should, at any rate, be referred to a Select Committee. They object very much to the manner in which the Government monopoly is at present being exercised, and they allege that the claims of the great body of the shipping and mercantile community are being ignored. There are three main companies engaged in wireless telegraphy, and two of them have written to me making a somewhat similar complaint, but I am very glad to say that the noble Earl is about to meet their view. I need hardly say that Lloyd's is a most important institution representing large numbers of those engaged in shipping and insurance. At the same time I feel that without more knowledge of the facts I should not be justified in asking your Lordships to take either of the courses they recommend, but I should have thought this was a Bill which might very well be considered by a small Select Committee. I hope His Majesty's Government will grant a reasonable lapse of time before the next stage is taken.

§ THE EARL OF GRANARD
My Lords, I do not think there is any objection to granting the noble Lord's request that there should be a reasonable interval before the next stage is taken. I would remind your Lordships that before the year 1904 there was no legislation in regard to wireless telegraphy outside territorial waters, but in that year the then Postmaster-General, Lord Stanley, found that legislation on the subject was most necessary. Consequently he framed the present Act. Your Lordships will readily understand that from a strategic point of view it is necessary that we should obtain the control of the stations in time of war, and we also desire to prevent the erection of stations too close to each other and to prevent a monopoly from growing up. Of course, if there had been no legislation on the subject a monopoly would have grown 748 up, which the State might have been obliged to purchase afterwards. At present all stations are licensed by the Postmaster-General, and since the Act of 1904 was passed 119 licences have been applied for. Of these ninety-one have been granted or are in process of being granted, fourteen have been abandoned, and others are still under consideration. The object of this Bill as it came up from the House of Commons was to continue in force the powers of the Act of 1904 for six years, but in consequence of the representations of the noble Marquess opposite, the Marquess of Londonderry, the period of extension will be reduced in Committee to three years.

§ The MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY
My Lords, having had the privilege of occupying the position of Postmaster-General at the time when the Marconi system of wireless telegraphy was first patented, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on this subject, which has a very important bearing on the future of the country. I agree with what was said by Lord Avebury that the views of the committee of Lloyds are entitled to great consideration, not only at the hands of your Lordships, but also of the Department to which they appeal. I think myself that the alteration that has been made at my request is one that is only consistent with the policy pursued by the Post Office while the late Government were in power. When the question of wireless telegraphy was before us we had several matters of great importance to consider, and although the Post Office was all-powerful over territorial waters we could not decide on our course of action without co-operating with the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. The heads of those two Departments with myself carefully considered the matter. We realised that when this extraordinary invention became better known it would not be right to check enterprise in any way, but it was necessary to have some hold over it in order that companies that might be formed in the future should not establish installations too close to each other and thus damage themselves and also the public interest. The present Bill is on all fours with the Bill which was introduced by Lord Stanley, and on the question of principle I most heartily 749 endorse the Bill; but there is a small matter of detail to which I think some attention should be given, namely, the question of the extension of time of these licences. It is necessary that the licences should be constantly reviewed, and therefore the period of extension should be limited. My noble friend Lord Stanley, when he introduced his Bill, suggested that the licences should be given permanently. It was pointed out that this would be very detrimental, and he consented to reduce the period to six years. Well, my Lords, I consider six years again too long a period for companies to go without revision, and though I thank the noble Lord for reducing the period of extension at my request from six years to three, I would prefer a period of only two years.

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON)
My noble friend who represents the Board of Trade has no right to speak again, but if the noble Marquess will allow the House to go into Committee on the Bill the noble Earl will reply on the first clause.

§ THE EARL OF GRANARD
My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Marquess that the period of extension should not be too long, but I think it can hardly be contended that three years is too long an extension. I regret very much that I am not able to accept the noble Marquess's suggestions, but he must remember that we have at his request reduced the period from six years to three, so that we have gone a long way to meet his views.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY
I fully recognise that a substantial concession has been made. I should have preferred two years, but as the noble Earl is unable to see his way to granting that I have nothing further to say.

§ THE EARL OF GRANARD
I beg to move to amend Clause 1 so as to provide that the Act of 1904 shall continue in force until December 31st, 1909, instead of 1912.