COMMONWEALTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 28 March 1968)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill proposes that legal effect in the United Kingdom should be given to certain agreed changes in the administrative arrangements of the Commonwealth telecommunications partnership.
This partnership can be said to date from the end of the last century when the Governments of Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and some of the Australian States, took the then radical step of agreeing to construct a submarine telegraph cable across the Pacific. The partnership continued and developed, and now covers the operation of telegraph cable and radio links used for external telecommunications by all but four Commonwealth countries.
This commercial partnership, which now operates under the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreements of 1948 and 1963, is a fine, but unfortunately little publicised, example of how Commonwealth countries can work together. It is now advised by a Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, and it is this Board which is referred to in Clause 2. The Board, which has its own secretariat, is a standing body of representatives of the partner Governments, and meets not less frequently than once a fortnight in London. Under a number of distinguished chairmen, of whom the present Chairman is Sir Dawson Donaldson of New Zealand, it has served the partnership extremely well.
However, times change, and the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference held in London in 1966 concluded that the Board had fulfilled, and continued to fulfil, a very useful function, but that in view of the increased size and complexity of Commonwealth telecommunications and of the rapid development of telecommunications technology, there was a need to review the existing arrangements. The Conference was also aware that many of the more recently-joined partner Governments had been 1838 unable to spare an official with telecommunications knowledge and experience to reside permanently in London. The Conference therefore recommended that the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreements should be terminated and that the Board should be dissolved.
In place of the existing organisation, there should be a new Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation with a constitution of which a copy was laid before the House on 1st March in Cmnd. 3547. For the purposes of the Bill, the important provisions of the proposed constitution are that the advisory and consultative functions of the Board should be transferred to a Commonwealth Telecommunications Council.
This will consist of senior, serving telecommunication officials residing in their own countries meeting not less frequently than once a year. This dispersed Council should be served by a Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau or Secretariat, in London. It is this Bureau referred to in Clause 1. All Commonwealth Governments have agreed to these recommendations. They consider that the disadvantages of dispersing the advisory and consultative body in this way will be more than compensated for by the fact that all partner Governments will be represented on the Council, and the Council representatives will be in much closer contact with their Governments, because they will in many cases be the officials responsible to those Governments for external telecommunications.
With the greatly improved telecommunications facilities available, these Council representatives should find no difficulty whatever in consulting each other between meetings. In any changeover from one system to another there is a need for an overlapping period. In this case the new Council has already been established and it is proposed to set up the Bureau not later than October of this year. Between them, these two bodies will by stages take over the functions of the Board, and it is expected that the Board will be able to transfer its functions and wind up its affairs by the end of March, 1969. It will then be dissolved.
Turning to the Bill, Clause 1 provides that the Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau, when established in London, 1839 should have the capacity of a body corporate. This will enable the Bureau, through the general secretary at its head, to enter into contracts, to rent or purchase accommodation, to obtain supplies and services and to engage staff and so on. Clause 2 provides for the repeal of Sections 1 and 2 and the first Schedule of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Act, 1949, under which the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board was established as a body corporate. I should add by way of explanation that Section 3 of the Act has already been repealed and that the remaining stages of the Act do not concern the Board. Since the Bureau and the Board will exist together for six months, and the Board will need to remain a body corporate until its dissolution, it is proposed that Clause 2 of the Bill should not come into force until after the Board has been dissolved.

Mr. Bernard Braise (Essex, South-East)
This Bill had a very easy passage in the other place. Its Second Reading was disposed of in 15 minutes and the Committee stage and Third Reading were formalities. No one, at any stage, seems to have asked any questions. It is obviously not a very controversial Measure. However, while I am sure that the House is grateful to the Under-Secretary for his clear and interesting exposition, there are a few observations I would like to make.
We on this side of the House join with the hon. Gentleman in paying a tribute to the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, which under the Bill is to become the Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau. The Board has served the Commonwealth well. It is no secret that those of us on both sides of the House who are dedicated to the idea of the Commonwealth, have been disturbed by the growing attitude of indifference and even hostility towards it, not only in this country but across the world. Yet it remains the only organisation of nation States which is located in every continent, which embraces every section of the human race, and which bridges the gulfs which unhappily divide mankind. Despite occasional differences, setbacks and disappointments, it is still the best example in the world of how free nations can live, work together and 1840 co-operate together for the common good.
There are many ways in which that co-operation is facilitated. There are the links of commerce, the assistance we give one another through technical aid programmes, the links which promote interest and understanding between doctors, lawyers, engineers and other professional men, the links of culture and of the English language, and not least the link between Parliamentarians which is provided by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of which you, in this country, Mr. Speaker, are the President.
To preserve and strengthen these links there are a host of Commonwealth organisations. They receive precious little publicity. The work that they do is not particularly newsworthy. I am sorry to say that it is crime, disaster and misfortune, the sensational, the unusual and the shocking, that command the headlines. The normal, continuing, quiet and patient work of organisations designed to facilitate growth and understanding and co-operation in a still divided world goes largely unnoticed, unhonoured and unsung.
Yet the work of these organisations, such as the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, and a score more we could name, is a vital element in the task of holding together this unique organisation which we call the Commonwealth and of promoting the interests of its members. The Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau, as it will become when the Bill is passed, is perhaps one of the most important of these organisations, providing as it does the means of encouraging the flow of information across the world. I wish to make it plain that my hon. Friends and I fully agree with the changes proposed in the Bill, which flow from the recommendations of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference held in March, 1966. However, it is one thing to take steps to facilitate communications. It is another to ensure that they are properly used.
I recall what was said by a great Victorian man of letters about 100 years ago when the telegraph cable was first laid between this country and India. When told that it was the wonder of the age and that it would enable messages to be flashed across the world from the hub 1841 of the Empire to its outermost provinces, he replied, "Interesting, but what have you to say to India?"
What use is to be made of this wonderful system of telecommunications which the Commonwealth now possesses? I pose this question because it was particularly unfortunate that the Government should have increased the rate for Commonwealth Press cables from 1d. to 3d. last September. When the decision was announced in April of last year, it was widely feared that this would reduce the flow of information between Britain and the Commonwealth. I do not know whether that has happened. I recognise that the Government took the view that the G.P.O. had been subsidising Commonwealth Press telegrams for too long. I agree that other Commonwealth Governments—not all of them, it should be remembered—followed suit.
But the fact remains that that decision was taken and it was strongly criticised throughout the Commonwealth. It was criticised because it did not appear to have been discussed with the Commonwealth Secretariat. It was criticised at the Annual Conference of the Commonwealth Press Union. It was criticised because the increase would bear most heavily on the smaller Commonwealth countries. I believe that I am right in saying that Mr. Vincent Fairfax, Chairman of the Australian section of the Commonwealth Press Union, described it as "a bad and unimaginative decision—retreat from the wider world of common interest." Mr. Ross Munro, Chairman of the Canadian section of the Commonwealth Press Union described the decision as "a rude shock" and said: It does not make any economic sense, for the British will probably lose revenue rather than gain. Mr. Khalilur Rahman, Chairman of the Pakistan section of the Commonwealth Press Union said: The increase will hit hard all newspapers in the Commonwealth. Then there was a protest from the Nudge Committee sponsored by the Royal Commonwealth Society drawing attention to the fact that cheap, subsidised material was being offered to editors in India and 1842 Pakistan by China, Czechoslovakia and Russia in order to exploit the situation.
This was a bad decision. The Government's policy in the economic field forcing them to cut expenditure, often of a desirable kind, has had many results which are not immediately apparent, and this I am afraid has been one of them. May I say in passing that, in my view, is was most unfortunate that the Commonwealth Secretariat were not consulted before the decision was taken. The excuse for this has been given in another place. It was very lame.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I know of the hon. Member's devotion to the Commonwealth, and we are discussing the Commonwealth Telecommunications Bill, but he cannot on this Bill debate the Commonwealth, telecommunications and bureaux in general. He must keep within the scope of the Second Reading.

§ Mr. Braine
Of course I entirely agree, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to observe in passing that it is one thing to provide telecommunications and another thing to make effective use of them in the interests of providing information to the Commonwealth. I shall not pursue the matter except to say that I hope in future, whether in telecommunications or in any other field of Commonwealth interest, there will be fullest consultation with the Commonwealth Secretariat before such decisions are announced.
Having said that, I welcome the Bill. I am delighted that the Council of the new organisation is obliged to meet annually, and that a full conference will take place normally every three years with powers to make recommendations in the telecommunications field to Governments. For our part we hope and trust that the new bureau and the new Council will continue the good work of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board and that the new structure will add to the effectiveness of that work. We therefore wish the Bill a speedy passage.