HC Deb 04 July 1967 vol 749 cc1697-723
Mr. J. H. Osborn

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 20, at the end to insert: (2) Information (not being information in the public domain) obtained by any such officer in the course of the exercise by the Postmaster General of any of his functions (other than that relating to the provision of such services or facilities as are mentioned in the said section 1) shall not without the consent of the person giving the information or to whom it relates be used by any such officer in the course of the provision of the said services or facilities. Towards the end of our debate on the last Amendment reference was made to confidentiality and secrecy, and I am therefore glad to have the opportunity of moving this Amendment. The Postmaster-General, after the Second Reading, appreciated some of the anxieties not only of this House but of the country at large, and he made a gesture in Standing Committee which brought in Clause 2 of the Bill as it now stands. The only difficulty is that we do not believe that this goes far enough.

I should like to see that information obtained by an officer, not only in connection with such services or facilities as are mentioned, but services or facilities for the communication of transmission of data shall not, without the consent of that perosn, be disclosed by that officer. I should like this Clause to deal with other matters, and in particular, that information shall not without the consent of the person giving the information or to whom it relates be used by any such officer in the course of the provision of the said services to be made available to outside parties.

We raised this matter in Standing Committee. At one stage, as reported in column 82 on 15th June, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology said: Disclosure is not permitted, of course, to any Government Department, any more than it is permitted to any other users. It is information in the broadest sense—that is to say, not simply in relation to the content of the information itself, but in relation to, possibly, its volume and its frequency of operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B; 15th June, 1967, c. 82.] That is information within a Government Department.

We are faced with the fact that data banks, let alone the transmission facilities, are going to be a feature of this modern age. Data banks are bound to come. The data bank is the putting of information on some form of magnetic tape or, as we know now, the disc or other random access memory. This means, whatever the facility, that a vast amount of information about individuals and companies will be placed on data banks. These data banks will have information which is confidential to the individual or confidential to the company. The Post Office will be running the service.

Here is an example from commerce. It is possible that the Customs and the airlines—there has been some Press reference to this—will want facilities of this kind, and the Post Office providing the data processing service for this purpose, for a Government agency, will have the information. Mail order companies and commercial companies will want to know about individual and other companies, and they will want information which is stored in data banks.

Mr. Edward Short

I am sorry to intervene, but we are not discussing that aspect of the matter. The Amendment specifically excludes it, the words being (other than that relating to the provision of such services or facilities as are mentioned in the said section 1)". All we are concerned with here is the transmission facilities. According to the hon. Gentleman's own Amendment, we are not concerned with the information stored.

Mr. Osborn

That is a question of interpretation. It was definitely the intention behind the Amendment to cover the whole matter, and, if I may put it to you, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should deal with the principle here.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I want to help the hon. Member, but he can deal only with what is in the Amendment.

Mr. Osborn

I accept that, Mr. Speaker.

Let us say that individuals working for the Post Office will have information of value. As matters stand at present, information could be provided to outside individuals. It could be provided to companies which would value the information. It is immaterial whether the information is collected, being transmitted from a bank to a user who collects it, or whether it is in a data bank. We are dealing with the supply of information available to employees of the Post Office to outside parties. I ask the Postmaster-General to accept that that is the intention behind the Amendment. Whether it is information colleced from a data bank or in transmission, is immaterial.

Mr. Webster

We are concerned with the secrecy of the information in the whole service. If there is a breakdown in the multiplexer and the information is fed into the wrong hands, secrecy is completely broken. It is the information that we are talking about.

Mr. Edward Short rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot have an intervention upon an intervention. The right hon. Gentleman can intervene in a moment or two.

Mr. Osborn

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman so that we may have his observation.

Mr. Short

The Amendment deals with the exercise by the Postmaster-General of any of his functions (other than that relating to the provision of such services or facilities as are mentioned in the said Section 1)". Section 1 is data processing. The Amendment in terms specifically excludes the confidentiality of information.

Mr. Osborn

I shall not pursue that, but I direct attention to the word "information". Perhaps we may leave the brackets out, so that it reads: Information … shall not without the consent of the person giving the information or to whom it relates be used by any such officer in the course of the provision of the said services or facilities. How that information is obtained is immaterial. It is information in the hands of individuals who are employees of the Post Office. The Amendment, for technical reasons, may need clarification, but it is definitely relevant, because information held by the Post Office as a result of the services which it is now operating would be extremely valuable to outside commercial interests. If the Post Office decided that information held by it concerning its outside clients or individuals could be sold to outside interested parties, this would be a departure which we should deplore. Therefore, I urge the Postmaster-General to give attention to the sentiments behind the Amendment. He may duck it on Report, but I assure him that it is an issue which will be of vital concern before the Bill passes into law.

It being Ten o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Webster

I am grateful to the Postmaster-General, because he has helped us a great deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) was developing a very reasoned case. However, I am sure that he would agree that no one suspects that any regular member of the Post Office is likely to do anything of this sort. We are trying to be doubly careful. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will have something to say on the subject of confidentiality, and we are grateful for that.

We accept that the processing side is excluded from the Amendment. However, what will happen if there is a breakdown in the multiplexer? I am sure that my hon. Friend could explain it better than but the multiplexer is that which goes between the computer and the modulator-demodulator. We are all aware that it is possible to give a wrong number, and multiplexers are not foolproof at present. This is the transmission which my hon. Friend is concerned with in his Amendment.

If it should happen that there is a breakdown between the modulator-demodulator and the multiplexer and a data bank is raided by mistake—I appreciate that data banks are exempted from the Amendment—once it gets into the circuit, the data bank is ruined for further use and the information gets into the public ken.

We are not yet certain that a multiplexer can do its selective activities with the accuracy which we would wish to see. Again, I refer to the Report of the Nationalised Industries Committee where it deals with S.T.D. That is a very modern development in which Britain leads most of the Western world, but where there are still 8 per cent. of wrong numbers. It is true that bad dialling results in 30 per cent. of that 8 per cent., but, as the hon. Member for Bristol, North East (Mr. Dobson) pointed out, there is a very fine play in the West End of London called, "Sorry, Wrong Number". If it happened that the multiplexer was at fault and gave the wrong selection, and the "Sorry, Wrong Number" incident occurred, the information would be in the transmission line. That is what, with great wisdom, sagacity and accuracy, my hon. Friend is concerned to deal with in his Amendment.

The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East said that in the play it was the right number. This again shows that collusion might enter into the matter. It is a point about which we want to be very careful. We need great precision here. In an expanding service it is easy not to properly vet [Interruption.] Did my hon. Friend wish to intervene?

Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosport and Fareham)

I was just drawing the attention of my hon. Friend to a split infinitive which I deplored.

Mr. Webster

I apologise for my hon. Friend's lack of tolerance of my split infinitive.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Speaker is an old school master. He will not tolerate this, however.

Mr. Webster

Up with that he will not put, Mr. Speaker. I accept what you say, and am very grateful.

There is the risk with this modern machinery that the multiplexer could go wrong between the modulator-demodulator and the data bank, and the information could go into the circuit. It is possible that with a staff of 1,200 in the very near future they will not all be thoroughly vetted. What we ask is that there should be a vow of secrecy. It is difficulty to precisely define—

Dr. Bennett

Oh.

Mr. Webster

It is difficult to know whether the line between transmission and processing is drawn at the modulator-demodulator or at the multiplexer. This is a matter on which the House will wish to hear from the Postmaster-General, the Assistant Postmaster-General or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, who has vanished into space tonight, having assisted us magnificently in Committee. I hope that this very right and precisely drawn Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Edward Short

I found the Amendment rather difficult to understand but I tried to paraphrase it, and I think that we then see that it means something like this: private information obtained in the course of his official duties by an officer of the Post Office who is not concerned with data processing may not be used by any officer of the Post Office for the purposes of the N.D.P.S. except with the consent of the person who gave the information or to whom the information refers. I think that that is really the intention. Although the Amendment is very obscure, the intention is relatively simple. But I believe that implemention of the intention by legislation is impossible. It is, of course, true that the argument about advantage may be set up. It has been made more than once, but I think that the alleged advantages which could be gained by N.D.P.S. would in practice be found to be illusory.

What is being attempted here is to carry legislation into the internal organisation of a business in a quite unprecedented way, with an intention, moreover, which it would be impossible to enforce. The intention appears to be that the separate data processing service—and I stress once again that it will be an entirely separate service—shall not in any circumstances glean from any of the other services of the Post Office any fact which data processing could turn to its commercial advantage; say, for instance, from the telecommunications service, that a particular computer bureau has made an inquiry about a data processing line. That is what the Amendment is about, I hope.

But unless the implication is that the telecommunications service will deliberately hold up the provision of the line, it is difficult to see what advantage N.D.P.S. could take from knowledge which happened to come into its possession in this way. If there is delay in provision of the circuit, it would affect both the private bureau and N.D.P.S. If there is no delay, then the private bureau will obviously be in business before the N.D.P.S. could be.

I hope that during the debates on the Bill I have already effectively disposed of the suggestion that the telecommunications service of the Post Office would attempt to hold up the private bureaux in the interests of N.D.P.S. I refute that suggestion completely. The telecommunications service will be just as anxious to do business with the private bureaux as with N.D.P.S. The use which N.D.P.S. could possibly make of any information which happened to come into its possession is clearly dependent upon there being enough time for N.D.P.S. to be able to take decisive advantage of this knowledge. This possibility depends on the notice required for a circuit. The time period required for computer schemes, be it setting up a bureau or programming a customer for a bureau, is a lengthy one, and the time required to supply circuits is shortening the whole time.

I have already told the House that we aim to double the size of the trunk network during the next five years. Slow and medium speed local lines can usually be had with little delay, as can long lines on many routes. There are at present provision difficulties on some routes, particularly long ones, which we aim to clear within the next year or two. Wide- band circuits, which nearly always involve some special cable provision, will always require some notice, but if there is delay for this reason, this will bite just as hard on N.D.P.S. as on the private bureau, which would be first in the queue anyway.

Thus, the only practical result, as far as I can see, which N.D.P.S. could make of this kind of information is in a negative sense. For instance, if the information pointed to a firm having an intention to open a bureau in a town where N.D.P.S. were not represented, N.D.P.S. might decide not to open a bureau in that town. This would obviously in no way harm the private firm. Indeed, it would help it. This is the sort of negative way in which N.D.P.S. might make use of information which came into its hands.

Finally, however carefully the Amendment were drafted, it would be impossible to make it watertight. I give another example. It would be quite proper for an officer in the telecommunications service, having received a request for a particular line for which he would have to make special provision, then to canvass other possible users of the line, including N.D.P.S., so that he might decide how much provision to make. The mere receipt of such inquiry by an alert management could be enough to defeat the intention of the Amendment.

I hope that I have convinced the House of the impossibility of legislating along these lines. I therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I think that the Postmaster-General got it right in his interpretation of what the Amendment meant. But I think we have to read it in the context of the Clause as it stands now. What we are trying to do is to ensure as best we can that, whether the information comes from inside or, as in the Amendment, from outside, in the actual data processing work done by officers of the Post Office there is adequate security to ensure that the information goes only to the people who ought to have it and even to them only with the permission of the people from whom the information came. I think that the effect of the subsection read with the original one or with an amended one would have achieved this.

As long as the Postmaster-General has in mind the need for security on these two fronts I am certain that we can accept his offer to have private talks about the whole security problem, which he has twice invited us to do. We are very grateful to him. On that I advise my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. J. H. Osborn

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have had some very interesting and informative discussions of this proposal. If I had a regret, it would be that, in the pressure of debates, the basic purpose of the Bill has become somewhat overladen by one or two important aspects which have emerged. With the indulgence of the House, I should like to address myself to the aspects.

The use of what has been described as the most important invention since the wheel—the first realisation was effected in this country by Charles Babbage about 100 years ago—has not found as widespread an acceptance in this country as in some others. The Government believe, and I feel sure that there will be few dissenting voices in the House, that accelerated and more widespread use of the computer could only be to the benefit of economy.

The Government have already set up the National Computing Centre, which should make a considerable contribution to the solution of training and programming problems, and the new National Data Processing Service will provide the facilities by which working jobs will be brought on to the computer much more easily than now.

The service will be designed to make a profit, because the making of a profit is a good index of efficiency in a competitive situation. But the basic motive is to increase the spread of computing. That is why the service must not be monopolistic. If it were, it would defeat my purpose in setting it up.

We have now to enlist the support of every one who can contribute to the basic aim and for this reason we are opening the service to all comers. What we shall be trying to do is to provide a basis, a framework, from within which the development of computing in this country may go ahead as fast as possible, taking advantage of all the special skills we can find and all the most modern technological developments as they become available. I think that there will be a steady drawing together of private enterprise and the service to the mutual advantage of both.

The debates turned basically on the twin themes of confidentiality and unfair competition. The point made about the need for utter confidentiality of information entrusted to the service was an extremely valid and very important one. I went so far as to say that it was one of the major problems facing society in the technological age into which we are moving. The Bill has been amended to include a Clause which places an absolute embargo on the disclosure of such information unless with the consent of the owner or in response to a process of law. There has been a very proper concern amongst hon. Members to guard against abuse of the information entrusted to the service and I hope that they will now feel that this has been achieved.

I hope that I have also convinced hon. Members that there will not be unfair competition. The basic aim is to get more people into computing, not to keep them out of it. The service will be an independent one, independently managed. We are now reorganising the managerial structure of the Post Office to ensure this. It will not have authority or responsibility in the matter of providing lines or apparatus for data transmission. That remains the function of the telecommunications service.

The accounts of the service will be separately presented to Parliament. Its charges will include the full overheads of the service and its basic charges will be published for every one to see. This will continue when the Post Office becomes an independent corporation.

I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the courteous way in which they have discussed the Bill and for the valuable points they have made. I have been in this House for 16 years and I have rarely been concerned with a Bill in which the discussion throughout has been so consistently constructive.

This service is essentially building for the future. Its early growth is likely to be restricted by the finding and training of the skilled personnel necessary to develop it. I think that the provision of a channel within which all our efforts may be directed towards a new goal is of itself a worth-while achievement, and I hope that the House will now join me in wishing the project success.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. David Price

I agree strongly with what the right hon. Gentleman said in his early remarks about the need in this country to make the full use of the opportunities which the advent of the computer puts before us. I am tempted to follow the Postmaster-General into some of his historical references. If one looks round the Chamber at the moment the words "spare capacity" take on a slightly different meaning from that which has been used in the Bill.

I should like to respond to the Postmaster-General's closing remarks by saying that we on this side in the House and in Committee upstairs have received great courtesy from him and from the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology.

The Bill appeared to many when it was first published as a simple enabling Bill, but the introduction of these E.D.P. services by the Post Office is a matter of major national importance. I suggest, with all humility, that but for the vigilance of my hon. Friends the scale and implications of these new services would not have been properly discussed. I believe that we have fulfilled our proper rôle as an Opposition in ensuring that the full implications of the Bill were properly discussed.

The Press has certainly benefited from our continuing debates. It is not unfair to make the point that the serious Press has recently taken a very keen interest, but only in the later stages of the Bill. It may be that for once Parliament, which is so frequently abused by outsiders, has in fact been rather ahead of interests outside. I believe that our debates have been constructive and worth while. Dare I even suggest that the Post Office has benefited from our debates, even though it has not always agreed with all our points.

We have not succeeded from this side of the House in getting the Bill altered, but we have received some important undertakings from the Postmaster-General which we know he will honour. They come under five headings: accountability, concern about unfair competition, the question of confidentiality, the problem of restrictive practices, and the question of standards. I have also raised in our general discussions the problem of the future and the key importance of the transmission side to a really efficient network.

Are these undertakings binding on the right hon. Gentleman's successors? He has given them in such a categorical form that any successor—we are not for a moment wishing to see him move to other fields in the near future—would find it very difficult not to be bound by the undertakings which the right hon. Gentleman has given.

We on this side of the House are particularly grateful for the Postmaster-General's offer on confidentiality. I did not feel it was proper to press the point until we had finished all stages of the Bill, but we can now take this up. I hope that my proposal in Standing Committee—that when the Post Office has got these services started it may have sufficient confidence to organise some annual colloquia or conferences to discuss future problems with users, with manufacturers, bureaux and all concerned—will be adopted. As the Postmaster-General rightly observed, this must be a partnership and I hope that, having disposed of the Bill, we may occasionally have an opportunity to discuss these matters together in the spirit in which we have discussed the Bill.

I should like to add to what the Postmaster-General said that, although we had and still have some doubts about how far the Post Office should go in providing these services, we are determined that where they are provided they should be provided in the spirit with which the Postmaster-General has proposed them to us.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Webster

I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). When I walked upstairs today I had the pleasure of admiring the Postmaster-General's paintings. They were very pleasant and they made the whole atmosphere look very pleasant indeed.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Press Gallery, I am sure, would appreciate if if the hon. Gentleman would speak up.

Mr. Webster

I should like the Press Gallery to know that I admired the Postmaster-General's paintings. They were very pleasant and they gave an atmosphere of comfort and ease. There was one of a young lady and young gentlemen sitting on a seat, very friendly —[Interruption.] Was it not by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Webster

I hope I was not out of order. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the young lady and the young gentleman were not out of order.

Mr. Speaker

I was calling to order the hon. Gentleman who was interrupting. I am beginning to wonder whether I should have asked the hon. Gentleman to speak up.

Mr. Webster

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. You asked me to speak up and I was endeavouring so to do.

Mr. Edward Short

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I never paint ladies.

Mr. Webster

I will not get out of order and discuss painted ladies with the Postmaster-General. However, I noticed that the atmosphere under his guidance today and because of his very great reasonableness was very pleasant. Things did not go quite so well when he was not present in Standing Committee and we had the rather more sinister thoughts of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology and the Department of which he is an important and sponsoring Minister. It was notable that he was not here today, so that we got through the remaining stages of the Bill very quickly. The Parliamentary Secretary has just walked into the Chamber. I am very glad to see him and I hope that he will make a thoughtful speech.

Our argument, and it is the contention to which I stick, is that the Post Office should provide the lines. In the "thirteen wasted years" when my party was in power, the waiting list for telephone lines was decimated from 440,000 to 44,000, while during the term of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is experienced enough a Parliamentarian to know that we are on the Third Reading of a Bill which has to do with data processing.

Mr. Webster

I apologise if I have stepped out of line. The Post Office is now to go into the processing of data, a move which we have resisted. I am very frightened about it. I believe that the correct procedure would have been for the Post Office to provide transmission lines between communications centres, although for its own purposes it could have set up a computer service which would also have been useful to the nationalised industries. Organisations like B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and the aircraft industry and the nationalised industries and the newly nationalised steel industry will undoubtedly greatly need the transmission of information among themselves and it might well have been right for the Post Office to process that information. However, it is difficult to establish what should be the management objective in a nationalised industry and thus to establish adequate criteria for the processing of data. Is it to be regarded as a public service without the criterion of efficiency and without the criterion of adequate costing?

We know very well that the Postmaster-General is a reasonable man. It has been suggested that he may be translated to higher spheres. I do not know whether they will be the Foreign Office or where they will be, but if we lose the right hon. Gentleman, we shall lose the greatest assurance for the safeguards which we have sought to write into the Bill. As with the laws of the Medes and the Persians, the wording of our proposals has often been found wanting, although the right hon. Gentleman has frequently conceded the principle. Nevertheless, he has not produced his own Amendments with alternative wording, and if he is translated to some other function, his assurances will have no force in a court of law, and this is the danger.

We are now to have a system in which the Post Office will move from the simple transmission of information to the processing of information, and the safeguards which we have sought have all been connected with this change.

It can be done with the nationalised industries. It is probably right that it should be done as between the nationalised industries, but, having set it up, having quarrelled about it, not very vigorously, but with some interest, in Committee, what will be the criterion of management by which this new process will be judged?

Will it be by absolute cost? Will it be by maximum profitability? To what extent will this be blurred by the need to provide a public service? But if we provide a public service, we expect to be paid for it. These are all reasonable thoughts, and reasonable anxieties which we are right to express when the Bill is being given its Third Reading.

I come back to what my hon. Friends have said about the Orwellian possibilities of the provision of information, the processing of information, by the State. I think that this is why the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology has been given leave of absence this evening. I have here a small book which contains the thoughts, not of Chairman Mao, but of the hon. Gentleman, in which he says that the common good must be expressed in some mind of common ownership and control. But it does mean that the analysis must take hold of the problems of today. This is data processing. This is the State intervening in it.

He then says: … the attack on abuses will remain ineffective until something like the network model"— which is what we are setting up tonight, having given the authority for data processing— is available to provide a framework within which the trading practices of individual firms and the relationships between firms can be properly examined and corrected as a part of normal trading activity. This is "Big Brother" in a big way. This is the almighty State, and those who wish to control every aspect of our lives will now have the power to do so at their fingertips. The transmission of data is right and reasonable, but when we get to the stage of processing it for an almighty planning machine, what will be the consequences?

The hon. Gentleman goes on to say: An air of benevolence and a gloss of inefficiency are no substitutes for an adequate scrutiny of their trading activities, investment and production. The idea of social accountability should be given some precision. Those are the thoughts of one of the principal sponsors of the Bill, and I know that he is not in discord with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Under the heading of "dealing with problems" there is this interesting statement: … if necessary, to show the firm how to use the information it gives and receives, in conjunction with its knowledge of its own business, to make better decisions;"— this is the State saying that this is necessary with the information that is received— to identify where intervention will be needed to reconcile the interests of the firm with a wider interest"— Who will decide this? Not the Postmaster-General, but the Minister of Technology. He is the person about whom we are worried. He and his Joint Parliamentary Secretary have been sent to the cinema to get them out of the way— and to bring the appropriate instruments into action. The Postmaster-General and his hon. Friend are the instruments which are being brought into action. We accept their assurances, but we will not always have them here to protect us. This is the Orwellian danger which some people may think is being over-dramatised. When we shout about these things, we are told that our fears and anxieties are groundless and stupid, but it is those who accept that they are stupid, and are not vigilant, who find that their opportunties for vigilance are removed. This is the danger.

The danger is not present at the moment. It will not be here for five years, but in a totalitarian State the situation could occur in which this method of data processing could mean planning by a dictatorship, and the machine governing man, not man governing the machine. This is what the House is here to prevent.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Osborn

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) has covered much of the ground that I would have liked to cover, and as he has done it so well I shall try to deal with other matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) implied that Parliament was probably ahead of public opinion in this matter. It can be said of the Opposition that we are perhaps a little more sensitive and alert, or we imagined possibilities and dangers which may or may not exist in future.

There is no doubt that it was intended that the Bill should come in like a mouse. It crept in on one morning sitting. I genuinely believe that its sponsors hoped that it might get its Second Reading and Committee stage on the Floor of the House very quickly as a non-controversial Bill and then disappear on to the Statute Book without anyone realising what had happened.

Certain Members of the Opposition realised that this was a major Bill the importance of which cannot now be realised by most people, including responsible people, but which will affect us in five or ten years' time. We are legislating now for what, for the ordinary man in the street, is a hypothetical situation which he does not understand, but what, to the better-informed is something that has already happened in the United States of America and in other countries, and will rapidly happen in this country, but in a form which could take a sinister shape.

If the Bill came in like a mouse we can claim that it will lumber through to another place like an elephant. It will leave its mark as it goes through the Lobby to another place. It is right that we should have posed hypothetical questions, and it is right that the questions should have been posed not only in the House but by the Press. My hon. Friend referred to various Press comments. The Economist referred to the Bill's slipping through. I hope that that publication will give due credit for what the Opposition have done to make certain that the mouse takes on a shape and character that the people can comprehend.

The Times produced a leader on Wednesday, 21st June, making the observation that Critics were quick to point out that the G.P.O., providing line services that connect other, competing, computer bureaux, would have unique commercial advantages … It tended to criticise the critics, but went on to say, Clearly the Post Office should be allowed to engage in any business that coheres with its main activities; it should be encouraged to engage in activities that force it to behave like a business. The Times followed this up with a leader today which referred to the importance of our deliberations. It said, of the description of the Bill, Behind that innocuous phrase lies a major extension of the role of the Post Office. The Times, in its Business Supplement, which is a medium of considerable importance, has reported in detail on the nature of the Bill, and it is right that informed opinion should think about the consequences of what we have debated over the last few days.

The Postmaster-General referred to confidentiality and secrecy. I am the first to welcome the fact that there are to be discussions between both parties on this aspect. Apart from the Parliamentary Secretary's publication and the fact that the Post Office and Government Departments will have an immense amount of information about individuals and companies; apart from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) pointed out in Committee that the Prymaster-General would have his task made much easier, and apart from references to "Big Brother", it is our case that apart from the political tone behind the Bill confidentiality—as in the United States of America—is the real problem that is being discussed at present.

In Standing Committee I referred to some of the matters. In column 92 I referred a publication "The Nation's Business" for November, 1966, entitled "Push-button snooping." This contained the fears, expressed in the United States, not because the United States was operating the system, but the fears about the method of data storage. I also said that The Federal Budget Bureau wants to set up a computerised data bank to centralise the welter of information about you and your business that's available to the Government. I went on to refer to the fact that I had been on an I.B.M. all-party tour—by coincidence, not design. Reference was made in Standing Committee at column 95 to a statement by Dr. Emmuel R. Piore, Vice-President and Chief Scientist of the International Business Machines Corporation, before the Sub-committee on Administrative Practice and Procedure on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, I quote this again, because these problems are concerning America today. I outlined some of the possibilities of industrial gangsterdom, tapping in to data banks in the United States.

These are possibilities that might concern us here. It is right that these fears of push-button snooping and the dangers arising should be raised before this Bill goes to another place, like a mouse, to be more adequately debated and considered.

Confidentiality and secrecy is a problem which is not a technical issue. It is one which must be discussed by lawyers and those concerned with the freedom and rights of individuals and companies. Parliament must be the forum for discussing these particular issues. Of course files, whether in dirty cupboards or in old drawers, are always accessible to the criminal. The files that we are dealing with will be kept in a more sophisticated form and the law dealing with musty files must be brought up to date, to deal with this new form of filing—the tape, the disc, or mere random access memory.

The other fears which we expressed in Committee had to do with the question of State patronage. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology referred in the debate to secrecy. He said, of the Opposition: Whenever they have made a technical statement, one can always trace back the particular person or firm they happen to have been talking to immediately before coming to the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; Standing Committee B, 15th June, 1967; c. 78–92.] This was abuse of the sources of information which we had, implying that the computer firms had gone wailing to Conservative Members. At column 89 I explained perfectly clearly that this was not the position. We in opposition were concerned about this Bill. We asked the computer manufacturers and the consultants for advice, which they were not willing to give us too readily, because they did not wish to be embroiled in the political boiling-pot.

This was misinterpreted by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but that slur has stuck, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do the best that he can to make quite certain that this slur on the industry, and the users of the industry does not stick. For my part I will take full responsibility for asking the questions, and obtaining some answers so that we could be informed. The fact that this slur has stuck raises the next issue.

A large company, let alone a nationalised industry or a department, has the advantage of patronage. A Government Department has the advantage of State patronage. Many people whom I have consulted have said, "Please do not take this issue up in the House of Commons as it will affect our position with the Post Office." The large user realises that, when he is dealing with the civil servants in the Post Office, if he were to come wailing to the Opposition he would jeopardise his own position. That is the position which has been put to us. I may have exaggerated the situation, but I hope that the Postmaster-General will eradicate this slur. The Postmaster-General is providing two distinct activities, an advisory service and a transmission service for those who need these facilities.

I have raised this matter again on Third Reading because it has been a matter of regret to me that already the industry has been brought into the political boiling pot, which is inevitable if the Post Office takes on an activity which is in competition with private industry. What I say now is just a hint of what might or might not happen in the future. I implore the Postmaster-General to make certain—he has indicated that this is what he would wish to happen, and the Assistant Postmaster-General has been fair as well—that these slurs which have been cast are eradicated and that companies using Post Office facilities will feel free to consult and work on a basis of trust with the Postmaster-General.

We tabled a new Clause relating to consultation. The Assistant Postmaster-General implied that the Measure had the backing of the firms concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15th June, 1967, c. 71.] A good deal of the Measure—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) wish to interrupt me? Apparently, he does not. I hope the Postmaster-General will bear in mind that many of the users of this equipment have felt at a disadvantage in not having been consulted about this Bill before it was published. Why did he not do this? Our new Clause asked for regular consultation. I hope the Postmaster-General will be in a position to take the initiative to bring about technical discussions with manufacturers, the bureaux and the users. There are technical problems which can only be resolved collectively. He referred to the computer centre, and it may be that in that centre he will find the best medium for achieving this.

Those in the industry must take note of what has gone on in other industries. The National Coal Board has gone in for brick manufacture. The steel industry will have a public and a private sector. If there is a public and private sector in any activity, then I am convinced, having sat through the proceedings on the Steel Bill, that the private sector will be well advised to bring itself together in some form of trade association from which the public sector—that is the Post Office in this case—is specifically excluded. Having said that on technical issues, it is important that there should be free consultation between the Post Office and the users, whether competitor or customer, and that the Postmaster-General should be in a position to take the initiative.

In my view, this is an innocuous-looking Bill which has very much more behind it than appears to be the case at first sight. I hope the House will forgive me for having spoken for longer than I should, but I believe that in five or 10 years time those in the computer industry will look back and will realise that tonight Parliament passed a Measure of considerable importance to this nation and its people.

Dr. Bennett

When this House started debating this Bill it certainly seemed to be such a minor matter as might be relegated to a Monday morning sitting. It is, in fact, one of the most momentous pieces of legislation this House has had to consider.

Today it is meaningless because today there is no network, no computer complex or anything but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has said, in a few years' time this will be a very substantial thing, and this giant will grow and grow until it may indeed be a nightmare organisation of supervision which could fulfil all the works of the secret police and all the forms of supervision that could ever be undertaken for a totalitarian State.

It is this that has given us the misgivings that we have brought to light in the successive debates on this Bill. A very large number of points have been brought up during the Committee stage. We had what may have seemed a surprising number of Amendments and new Clauses put down for discussion, covering all sorts of details of the working of such a data-processing network. In the course of time I feel sure it will have to be granted by the most sceptical anti-Parliamentarian that every single one of these points has received generous discussion, and I am the first to pay tribute to the generosity shown by the Post Office Ministers in this because their behaviour, I think, has been very good, indeed exemplary. I wish that other Ministers deserved the pats on the back that the Post Office Ministers are getting today. They have been, as one of my hon. Friends said, the essence of sweet reasonableness, and our debates have been conducted in an admirable atmosphere of co-operation, trying to form what should be the best structure for something which is still only to be visualised in the future.

It is, of course, the possible abuses of this network which have the chief preoccupation of most of us. On these, we have first the new Clause introduced by the Postmaster-General—one totally absent from the Bill when it was first presented—which meets the broad subject of confidentiality, and now we have the offer of further discussions. All this is admirable, and we have the assurance of the Postmaster-General that there will be no invidious distinctions between the purposes for which the private operator and others may wish to employ the Post Office computer network and those for which Government Departments, etc., may wish to use it. There will be no weighting of this vast colossus against privately conceived computer organisations. This is fine, and I am grateful to the Postmaster-General, as all my hon. Friends are, for the readiness with which he has seen our point of view.

But in 10 years' time this Bill will still be the Act to which reference is made, and the admirable sentiments of the Postmaster-General of June and July, 1967, will be buried in the archives of HANSARD and will not be of any legal force whatsoever.

This is why I must express my sorrow that no practical form of embodiment of these assurances has yet been found in any way to qualify the applications of the Bill and to give it permanent guidelines which undoubtedly exist tonight or there would be a much less amicable atmosphere in this Chamber. I wish I knew how this could happen, and how some of the exemplary statements of the Postmaster-General could be incorporated in the application which would be a subject of legal scanning in lots of lawyers offices in 10, 15 or 20 years' time.

I can only suggest that an opportunity will have to be taken, perhaps when the Post Office is reorganised—which will not be long hence, I understand—to incorporate safeguards, with the full cooperation of the Postmaster-General, I trust, in the Act as it will then be, or to make some further legislative provision so that we have far more permanent safeguards in our law than the admirable but fleeting words of the Postmaster-General today.

This has been the substance of my misgivings about the Bill. They were much more acute when our debates began. They have been largely allayed, at least for 1967, by the assurances which have been given, but for the years to come we must have permanent enshrinement of the undertakings which the right hon. Gentleman has given.

10.56 p.m.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I heartily endorse what my hon. Friends have said about the outstanding need to find a way of writing into the Bill some of the assurances which have been given, and I hope that further consideration will be devoted to that before the Bill goes to another place.

I suppose that I ought to congratulate the Postmaster-General on his rate of expansion. He has increased the length of his Bill by 50 per cent. since Second Reading. If his data processing service goes as fast as that, we shall all be pleased, especially if it is done really competitively. I am a little disturbed at some of the trends which are setting in. Bearing in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I wonder whether he saw the report in the Financial Times of 20th June of a massive order worth £800,000 for nine of I.C.T.'s smallest computers to be installed in a chain of computer bureaux in the West Country. which, the report says, represents a resounding setback for the school of thought which claims that the best solution to commercial computing is to set up a large central machine and share its operating time between regional offices, operating over telephone links". This is an increasingly competitive market. I hope that all this will mean for the Post Office still further pressure on the accelerator.

Perhaps the only remark with which I profoundly disagreed was made in Committee by the Assistant Postmaster-General when he said that, "understandably enough", the private bureau operator was preoccupied with the customers he could get for his own bureau, and he was not very concerned with the wider- or long-term view. He ought not to be in business unless he is, and, if he is not very interested in the long term, he will be out of business. It is becoming an increasingly competitive business.

I believe that the best bureaux do just as much long-term thinking as anyone in the Post Office. Long-term thinking is certainly essential, and it is essential that a close eye be kept on the trends. Perhaps, after the castigation which certain sections of the Press have had this evening, I may close the quotation which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. John H. Osborn) made from the article in The Times today. This is the final sentence by Kenneth Owen: Potential applications for computers—in Government as well as in industry and commerce—have far outstripped the routine work on which they have been employed up to now, and it is against this background that Mr. Short's 'uninformative' enabling Bill must be assessed. I agree. What I like particularly about that sentence is the reference to "within Government as well as outside". I believe that the first place for the Post Office to start to help is inside the Government machine itself. If it can improve the efficiency and utilisation of computers there, it will be helping the great technological drive on which I know the Minister of Technology is finding it increasingly difficult to concentrate because of the increasing number of administrative jobs he is being given.

Although I still believe that some provisions of the Bill might be premature, I wish it well now. Just as with the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Bill, after its passed Second Reading, so I feel that, the House having accepted this Measure in principle, the sensible thing to do is to try to make it work as well as possible. Let us remember that, despite the hardware and the software involved, a great many able men and women will be partly responsible for training the people required for an increasingly difficult and competitive job. I hope that the Post Office will never fail to draw from industry and commerce outside all the experience, technology and techniques it can get. If we can get a two-way traffic going here, there is some chance of the service being of value to the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.