Tellers for the ayes: Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

Shaw, Lieut. Col. A. D. McI.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley.

Skelton, A. N.

Smith, R. W.

Smithers, Waldron.

Spender-Clay, Col. H.

Stanley, Lord.

Williams, Com. C.

Wilson, R. R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Col. George.

Wolmer, Viscount.

Womersley, W. J.

Wood, Right Hon. Sir Kingsley.

Worthington-Evans, Right Hon. Sir L.
Wright, Brig. Gen. W. D.

Tellers for the noes: Captain Wallace and Captain Bowyer.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert). Mr. Ammon.

Mr. BENN. On a point of order. I handed in a manuscript amendment, in line 25, to leave out the words "communications company.'

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. I will ask the honorable member to explain how he would make any sense at all.

Mr. BENN. It is the custom of the house to move to leave out words or subsections in order to get an explanation. It is true that the amendment does not read, but it is put with the customary practice of getting an explanation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. An amendment which is moved for that purpose must be of such a form as to be effective and one which would not have the effect of making the bill absurd. The honorable member's amendment is to leave out the words "communications company,' but they really must be included because the whole of the rest of the bill is based upon what will be arranged with the communications company.

Mr. BENN. Would it be in order to leave out the words "to the communications company"? That would make sense.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. No, I am afraid it would not. The honorable member has to make some totally different alteration. This communications company is referred to all through the bill.

Mr. BENN. I will refer to it on the question, "That the clause stand part of the bill."

Mr. AMMON. I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, to leave out the words "twentyeight" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty.'

This may seem quite a trivial matter, but, having regard to the discussions which have taken place this afternoon and on previous occasions, it is more important than appears at first blush. We have had great difficulty in getting the necessary information in order to understand all the implications of this bill and all that has transpired previous to its appearance. Within the last few

minutes, we have had from the secretary of state for the Dominions the reply to a question to which we have been striving to get an answer for six months. That is an indication of our difficulties. I am moving to alter the date in order that we may be supplied with fuller information particularly with regard to the

evidence submitted to the imperial conference, which caused them to alter their previous decisions. We might also have information as to why Professor Eccles and other distinguished persons were not called upon to give evidence. This is necessary that the public may be informed.

We are parting with a valuable property belonging to the public, and one which is in some senses an essential service. It ought to be maintained and owned by the State, particularly in times of disagreement with other powers, as otherwise we would be exposed to very great dangers. That was our experience during the last war. Difficulties arose owing to the leakage of information, and action had to be taken in order to bring the cables wholly under the control of the Government. It is difficult to discuss this important problem within the compass of the bill, but it is necessary to have this information that we may discuss it with greater clarity than at present. Two years would give ample time to get that information, especially as there is every likelihood of a change of Government within that time and other persons may then occupy the front bench who will be imbued with a greater sense of their responsibility to the public than the present Government. This delay will also give the Postmaster General time to consult with his administrative colleagues, so that he may hand on their views to his successor, who will not be so likely to part with these services.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON. I do not want to be disrespectful to the right honorable gentleman or to speak discourteously of his amendment, but, of course, this is purely a wrecking amendment, which, if carried, would destroy the whole scheme and finance upon which the proposals have been based. The terms of sale and every figure given throughout the whole of the white paper are based upon the considerations as they are at the end of the financial year March 31, 1928. The right honorable gentleman is asking the committee to start again. I am certainly not prepared to assent to such a proposal. He must remember that the conference was called because an emergency had arisen owing to the effects of the increasing competition of the beam with the cable services. The financial secretary has already explained the position as regards the Pacific cables and has frankly told the committee that the earnings of the Pacific cable have been dwindling. When the next clause is reached, he will explain the position of the West Indian cables, and, when the imperial cables are reached, I will tell the committee that their earnings have reached vanishing point. His Majesty's Government in Great Britain would be very loath to go on in this way for two or three years, and it is clear that that view is equally and even more emphatically shared by the other partner governments. Under these circumstances, I could not agree to an amendment which would delay the operation of this bill for two years.

Mr. BENN. The object of this amendment is to give time. We are very much in the dark about this bill. This is the very first day that we have had any statement from the post office. We are selling something to a thing called the communications company. Does it exist? If it does not, is it unreasonable to ask for a few months to enable this purchaser to come into existence? There is a scheme for a merger. Has it happened? We are to have so many directors. Have their names been put forward? Is it unreasonable to ask for a little time before we sell? The postmaster general can not say whether it exists. Perhaps the financial secretary or the secretary of state for Scotland knows? I ask an honorable member with a special significance in these debates, the honorable member for the city of London, (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), whether it is unreasonable to move for a little delay before we hand over these things, whether valuable or not, to some company, the existence of which is in some doubt and as to the control of which nothing has been laid down by the committee?

Lieutenant Commander KENWORTHY. The postmaster general told us that we were not the only parties in this little-how shall I call it-frame-up. I wish be would not look so pained. I will give my reasons why I use that term in a mement. It means a thing fixed up beforehand and about which you afterwards produce the necessary evidence to prove that it was the only thing that could be done.

Major General Sir NEWTON MOORE. Where did you learn all that?

Lieutenant Commander KENWORTHY. Where the honorable and gallant mem ber learned some of his phrases. I learned it with His Majesty's forces where be learned much of his choice vocabulary. We all feel sorry for the postmaster general who has to part with his assets and with a successful service. He tells us that the Indian and Dominion Governments are concerned. On this conference which was set up the chairman, the secretary of state for Scotland, and his assistant and right-hand man, the financial secretary to the treasury-dare I

call him Sancho to his Don Quixote-were the representatives of this house. Let us see what witnesses they called. Their names are on page 22 of this report. Every one of the witnesses was associated either with the Canadian Marconi Co., the Marconi Wireless Co., the Indo-European Co., or the Eastern and Associated Telegraph Cos. We had Lord Inverforth and Mr. Kellaway, who is associated with the board of the Marconi Co. and who is a predecessor of the right honorable gentleman. Another witness who was called was Mr. Brand, who has been mentioned by my honorable friend the member for West Bristol, (Mr. W. Baker), in one or two debates, and who, apparently, had some function to perform. Several witnesses of this kind were called, but earlier in the day the postmaster general_referred to the Government's adviser, Professor Eccles

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. I must remind the honorable and gallant gentleman that we have passed through that earlier in the debate. We have now passed from the general discussion to the simple question whether the date shall be altered from 1928 to 1930.

Lieutenant Commander KENWORTHY. I am going immediately to hinge my remarks on the qcstion of the date. I ask for more delay because there are still undisclosed details, one of which I was referring to. This expert, who has given such valuable advice, was not called before this conference, and, because the witnesses were chosen to give a certain kind of evidence, I consider that the matter should not be rushed through in this way, and that to bring it into operation as from the 1st April, 1928, is an under acceleration of the business. It is particularly objectionable because it is being done by a dying Government in the last months of its term of office. It is making good business for its friends in these last months; I have previously referred to the extraordinary dealing which has been done on the stock exchange as a result of this business.

The country ought to have a chance of speaking its mind on this business, and we ought to try and save the Government from doing this until they have faced the electorate. It is part of a deliberate policy of doing these things while they have the opportunity. One day it is the London County Council tramways; soon it will be the export credits department of the department of overseas trade. All these nice little pickings are being got rid of while the Government are in office. This is a sort of reverse spoil system. In some foreign countries, whenever the Government is changed, they give all their friends jobs; they change their officials from the postmaster general down to the very postmen. This is the spoil system before the Government go out of office. I am not making any personal accusations against the two ministers who were members of the conference, but I accuse them of having been made to do certain things which were a bad bargain for the Government. They were easy game for the extremely clever financial brains behind this whole movement. They could have made a far better bargain if they had used the greatest bargaining asset that they had, namely, their whole control of the beam wireless system, on which they could have got any terms.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. I am afraid that the honorable and gallant member might hang by hinges a great many things on to this discussion which can not be got inside the amendment.

Lieutenant Commander KENWORTHY. I will only say that, in view of the approaching end of the Government, a further delay of two years would be decent. Mr. W. BAKER. I support this amendment, because I think that anyone acquainted with the history of the deals which have taken place in regard to wireless communication in this country will agree that there has been no consistent policy in the past, and that a change of Government has on at least one occasion caused a complete reversal of the policy which otherwise would have been pursued. Had it not been for the short period during which the Labor Party was in office, we should not have been faced with this problem to-day, because the State would not have secured control of the beam wireless stations in this country. I venture to hope, if not to predict, that this subject is gradually becoming a subject of interest to the general electorate in this country. Rightly or wrongly, they are beginning to share our point of view, and, rightly or wrongly, even some members on the other side are not quite satisfied that everything is as it should be. The honorable member for the city of London, (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), to whom I referred earlier, does share our fears to some small extent. In these circumstances, I would plead that these assets, which are not directly referred to in the bill, but which are intimately connected with the matter that we are discussing, should not be taken from the State by a Government which has not the confidence of the people, which never had the confidence of the people [interruption] and which is quite certain, so far as indications can tell