§ Lords Amendment: No. 21, in page 12, line 41, after "goods" insert "or services".
§ Sir G. HoweI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)With this, we will take Lords Amendment No. 59, in page 108, leave out lines 10 to 32 and insert:
"Description of goods or services Form of supply (1) Apparatus or equipment used, or constructed or adapted for use, for the purposes of or in association with any such system as is mentioned in paragraph 7 of this Schedule. Supply to persons who are subscribers to a service provided by the Post Office which constitutes or forms part of any such system, in their capa—city as subscribers to such a service." (2) The installation or maintenance of any such apparatus or equipment.
§ Sir G. HoweThe amendments relate to a technical variation of the scope of the definition of the monopoly of the Post Office in Schedule 5. Amendment No. 2 is a paving amendment in Clause 16 and Amendment No. 59 replaces the words referred in Schedule 5 so as to ensure that the scope of the Post Office monopoly as defined in the Post Office Act is covered identically and to the same extent in the provisions of Schedule 5.
§ Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)Does this widen or narrow the original Schedule?
§ Sir G. HoweIt widens it to make sure that it covers all means of telecommunication, not merely telephone services.
§
Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 13, line 7, after "section" insert:
"Minister" includes a Minister of the Government of Northern Ireland, and".
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery)I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we will take the following Lords amendments:
§
No. 9, in page 37, line 3, after "Scotland "insert:
the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland".
§
No. 10, in page 37, line, 4, after "Ireland "insert:
the Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland".
§
No. 11, in page 38, line 3, at end insert:
and the Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland.
§
No. 16, in page 63, line 42, at end insert:
and the Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland".
§ Mr. EmeryClause 16 provides that before referring to the Advisory Committee the trade practices of certain nationalised industries carried on in connection with the supply of goods and services listed in Schedule 5 the Director General must first secure the consent of the Minister with sponsoring responsibility for that industry. The Minister responsible for certain nationalised industries in Northern Ireland has been omitted, and the amendments correct that omission and similar omissions in the other clauses referred to.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 13, line 9, at end insert—
( ) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument vary any of the provisions of Schedule 5 to this Act, either by adding one or more further entries or by altering or deleting any entry for the time being contained in it; and any reference in this Act to that Schedule shall be construed as a reference to that Schedule as for the time being in force.
§ Mr. EmeryI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment introduces a power by order to vary Schedule 5. Its terms are precisely parallel to those of the powers to vary the schedule already contained in Clause 50(5). In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) drew the attention of the Committee to this. Clause 50(5) contains a power by order to vary the provisions of Schedule 7. There is, 628 however, no equivalent power in Clause 16 to vary the provisions of Schedule 5. The amendment remedies that omission
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)As such a power to vary is appropriate to the Schedule, I am surprised that it has not been thought necessary to insert a provision to exclude professional services.
Will the order be subject to positive or negative procedure? The Opposition—and I suspect back-bench Members on both sides of the House—would prefer it to be subject to positive procedure.
§ Mr. EmeryWith the leave of the House, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his throw-away line about the professional services. That is an in joke which will be appreciated by hon. Members who served on the Committee. I confirm that the order will be subject to positive procedure.
§ Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)Can my hon. Friend say whether it will be possible to delete certain items as well as to increase them?
§ Mr. Alan WilliamsWe are delighted to have the assurance that this is to be done by the positive procedure. However, in view of the frantic agitation now taking place in certain areas in close proximity to the Minister, I have a strong suspicion that this may not be the case. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could now confirm that this will be subject to the positive procedure—and, if so, will he explain how this will be provided for in the Bill?
§ Mr. EmeryWith the leave of the House, may I reply to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). They will realise that there are certain items which arc subject to the positive procedure and others to the negative procedure. I obviously misunderstood my own reply. [Laughter.] Well, I cannot be more honest than that. I appologise if I have misled the House. This particular amendment, which relates to the power to vary Schedule 5, is by negative resolution and is entirely parallel to 629 the variation of Schedule 7. If we were not to provide for the situation in this way, this would be inconsistent with what is already in the Bill.
§ Mr. WilliamsWith the leave of the House, may I say that I regard consistency as less important than securing the rights of the House. Frankly, I regret the fact that I gave the Minister the opportunity to reconsider his original reply. I must state that the Opposition are utterly dissatisfied with the situation. The Minister is taking power to make an important variation. We feel that this should be done by the positive procedure since this would give the House closer scrutiny over these matters. It may be that at a later stage, in the event of a change of Government, it will be appropriate to extend Schedule 5. In the event of that being necessary, I feel that certain Conservative back-bench Members may in some future Parliament regret that this is to be by a negative rather than by a positive procedure.
§ Mr. EmeryI understand the point. There appears to be an argument that in regard to Schedules 5 and 7 one may be said to be more important than the other. As an intellectual argument I find that somewhat difficult to sustain. As I said earlier, it was thought right that this provision should be on exactly the same lines as similar provisions.
§ Mrs. Sally Oppenheim (Gloucester)Would my hon. Friend not agree that in the unlikely event of Labour returning to power, it is understandable that the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) should be worried about further variation, because it would mean that he would be responsible for adding 25 nationalised companies?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI must remind the House that this is not a Committee stage and that observations should be made before the Minister resumes his place.
§ Question put and agreed to.