BEAM WIRELESS.

Waikato Times, Volume 103, Issue 17409, 23 May 1928, Page 9

BEAM WIRELESS.

STATE INTERESTS. PRIVATE COMPANY ACQUISITION. SOME SCATHING CRITICISM. BY A LABOUR MEMBER. (By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—CopvripM.) (Australian Press Association.) LONDON, May 21. In the House of Commons Mr. W. J. Baker (Labour, Bristol), raised a discussion on the. Imperial beam system. He detailed all the history of wireless since 1023. and said he understood the merger between the Marconi Company and the Eastern Cable Company was a calculated attempt to force, the hands of the Government. They were showing a handsome profit. The cable companies were frankly afraid of the success of beam and entered the merger as the only way of escaping competition. Mr Baker objected to Imperial wireless communications being handled by two groups, of which he alleged one had a record of scandalous mismanagement. They hoped to take over the post ofllce wireless and cable system and control an independent wireless and cable company in the Dominions. The fact was that the Marconi Company knew how great were the potential prolifs of the Government beam service. If it was a fact that a decision had been reached in this matter by the Imperial Wireless Conference, then the Government had adopted a course which was fatal to the national interests and the chief result of the conference ha dbeen to enrich share manipulators. "I want to submit to the House, calmly and quietly, that Marconi, the name of the illustrious inventor, stands definitely for scandal and corruption," Mr Baker continued. "It is lamentable that a scientific inventor should have his name abused, but the fact remains that the Government's difficulties are due almost entirely to the financial operations of the Marconi Company in the. Dominions. The gravest possible charges are made in regard to the Marconi operations in the Dominions. Distinguished members of the House of Commons have said things I dare not repeat unless there is proof, and I must leave the matter there. The merger is a delinitc and calculated attempt to forco the hands of the Governbient, and the attempt is accompanied by a treacherous threat on the part of Ihe companies to pay out to shareholders, cease operations, and let the cables go derelict. They threatened this because, after receiving generous Government assistance, they were unable to compete with the GoGvernment beam service. The opposition's great. foai; was that the recommendation had been agreed to by the conference, and that when the Dominion Governments acquiesced they would havo found the bargain concluded."

Mr Baker concluded by asking the Government lo say why the Secretary for Scotland (Mr Walter Elliot) was asked to look after the Government's interests. He was conspicuous for his geniality and courtesy, but these were not weapons with which to meet an international gang. Sir Haraar Greenwood (Constitutionalist, Wall/hams-tow) disagreed with Mr Baker's conclusions in favour of Stale control, which, in view of the lack of capital, made for underdevelopment of a great experiment. The State o.vned cables and the beam system had been excellent, but it was time they were transferred to private enterprise. This was an opportunity to make a sood bargain on a rising market.

Mr C. „G. Ammon (Labour, Camberwell) said: "There seems an atmosphere of corruption and wirepulling about the wireless communication and cable companies, almost without parallel in the history of commerce."

Captain lan Eraser (Conservative, St. Pancras) said the merger wao the marriage of 'two entities, one of which owned the best method of transmitting messages, and 'the other owned the best method of collecting and handling. He believed 'those in favour of the nationalisation of this industry were serving a political doctrine rather than the needs of the country. Sir John Gilmour (Conservative, Pollock), speaking as the chairman of the cable conference, detailed the progress of 'the inquiries. He pointed out that the problem was not easy to unravel. It involved considerable research. They had to consider the repercussion in Australia and other Dominions and Colonies. The Government accepted no responsibility for the merger, which was subject to a satisfactory arru.ngeinent with the Governments of Britain, the Dominions, and India. All possible .reaction from the merger had been examined in detail by the conference. Sir John Gilmour added that Mr Baker had expressed a fear that the House of Commons had been deprived of the opportunity of considering the problem before the merger became au fait accompli, but consultations and communications were still proceeding, and he could not say when they would be concluded. • When the conference made its recommendations the British and Dominion Governments would decide on their action before any flnite conclusions were taken. The matter would 'be brought before the House of Commons. He hoped this would reassure doubters. Mr Vernon Hartshorn (Labour, Ogmore) wcleomert Sir John Gilmour's announcement. The debate Ihen concluded.