WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (EXPLANATION) BILL. (Hansard, 27 July 1925)

§ THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, the Bill for which I have to ask a Second Reading at the hands of your Lordships this afternoon is a very short one and, as its title shows, is intended really to clear up two points of possible ambiguity in the 447 wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904. The Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904 is the only legislation at present in existence with regard to wireless telegraphy. It is only a temporary Act that is renewed annually under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. In February last the Postmaster-General proposed to introduce a Bill to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act and make it permanent. That Bill was dropped, but the Postmaster-General intends to institute a general inquiry into the broadcasting system of this country which will take place some time in the autumn.

This Bill deals with two points. Those points are contained in the two subsections of Clause 1. The first is the necessity for a licence to receive wireless signals as distinct from sending them, and the second is the confirmation to the Postmaster-General of power to charge a fee in connection with the granting of licences to experiment. With regard to subsection (1), the Postmaster-General has always proceeded in the past on the assumption that it was necessary for owners to hold licences to receive as well as to transmit and it is only because a certain amount of doubt has been thrown upon that assumption in certain quarters that the necessity of bringing the question forward has arisen. The Postmaster-General preferred not to act, as he could have done, by litigation which would probably have been expensive to the public, but to act by legislation. Accordingly subsection (1) has been put into this Bill. As your Lordships know there are two different classes of wireless sets—valve sets and crystal sets. Valve sets are admittedly subject to licence because they receive and transmit as well. The doubt arises in connection with the crystal sets which can only receive. 1,400,000 licences have already been issued, but many people still use the apparatus without licences and your Lordships will understand that it is most undesirable that there should be people living side by side some of whom are paying for their broadcasting while others are not. Shortly this subsection deals with such cases and aims at putting a stop to that state of affairs.

In reference to subsection (2) of the clause, Section 2 of the Act of 1904 refers to experimental licences, and there is a proviso that those 448 licences shall not be subject to "rent or royalty." Those words were put into the Act of 1904 to protect the inventor and to stop the State from claiming a rent or royalty from an inventor in the case of the invention being successful. The issue and renewal of experimenters' licences, on the other hand, is a necessary measure to enable the Postmaster-General to keep a record of, and maintain a general control ever, wireless apparatus, so that is case of War he may take any necessary steps to safeguard the interests of the community. It is to meet the cost of maintaining and administering this service that a scale of fees was fixed in the Act of 1904. This legal question has never really been raised, but it was thought advisable to take advantage of this Bill to have it definitely laid down and put beyond question that the fee is not to be regarded as a rent or royalty The present fees do not cover the whole cost of administration, but there is no intention of increasing them. They have, in fact, been recently reduced. I do not think I need say more about those two subsections.

The only other point to remark upon is that the proviso to Clause 1 enacts that bygones shall be bygones; in other words that the Bill is not to be retrospective and that nobody shall be liable in respect of any act or omission prior to the date of the introduction of this Bill which is the date when it was introduced into another place, June 22, 1925. I beg to move.