SAVING FOR THINGS DONE UNDER A LICENCE

HC Deb 01 April 1981 vol 2 cc433-70

Mr. Golding

I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 17, leave out from beginning of line 36 to second 'by' in line 39.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 30, in page 17, line 47, at end insert— '(1A) The Secretary of State shall license the Corporation to provide telephone services and for that purpose to provide a system falling within subsection (1) of section 12 which shall not extend beyond the first point available for connection of apparatus within each set of premises occupied by a single household or business.'.

No. 31, in page 18, leave out lines 1 to 4.

No. 32, in page 18, leave out lines 16 to 20.

No. 33, in page 18, leave out lines 30 to 37.

No. 34, in page 18, leave out lines 41 and 42.

No. 35, in page 18, line 42, at end insert— '(10) An application for a licence under subsection (1) shall not be refused unless it appears to the grantor that one or more of the following circumstances applies:—

1. (a) the system which is the subject of the licence does not conform to the relevant standards defined under section 16;

Mr. Golding

At this late hour we reach the nub of the Bill. Clause 15 provides for the breaking of the monopoly of BT. It has bitterly upset many of the staff employed by BT.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) talked earlier of the insecurity expressed by the 15 Post Office members who lobbied him today. Most of that insecurity stems from their understanding, which I believe to be correct, of this clause. The object of the amendment is to remove from the Secretary of State the right to issue licences.

I am totally opposed, as will be all the unions in the Post Office and British Telecom, to the amendments put down by the Liberal Party. The Liberals seek to go even further than the Government in breaking the monopoly. If they had their way, they would bring about even greater insecurity among Post Office and British Telecom staff than even the Secretary of State has managed. There will be a great deal of surprise among members of the Union of Communication Workers and Post Office Engineering Union when they see the policies advocated by the Liberal Party for British Telecom and the Post Office.

3.15 am

Mr. Alton

The hon. Gentleman will recall that in Committee I moved a reasoned amendment on the need for an independent authority to act as the licensing authority. That authority would owe allegiance neither to the Secretary of State nor to the industry, but would act in the same way as, say, the Civil Aviation Authority. Regrettably, that amendment cannot be moved again in those terms. While I shall certainly be putting points on behalf of the Liberal Party when we come to discuss our amendment, to say that it in any way undermines the rights of those working in the telecommunications or postal industries is absolute nonsense. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. Golding

If the Liberal amendments were accepted—and I hope that they will not be—they would go even further than the Government in breaking the monopoly. That in itself would create insecurity and would almost certainly create redundancies in BT which would not otherwise occur. It is the attack on the monopoly by the Liberal Party's amendments Nos. 30 and 35 that I so strongly condemn and wish to bring to the attention of people in the Post Office.

I return to the Government's proposals. On Second Reading I expressed the legitimate fear of Post Office engineers about the loss of job security as a result of breaking the exclusive privilege of BT to provide service. Conservative Members have argued that there is a possibility of additional work as a result of the proposals, but there is utter scepticism in BT about that proposition. Indeed, the majority of its members strongly believe that breaking the monopoly will lead not only to less work in BT and among existing Post Office staff but to a substantial loss of work in the British manufacturing industries. For Post Office engineers, job security is important, particularly at present, when there are high levels of unemployment. Job security has always been important for these people.

In 1919 the Post Office engineers decided to opt for civil servant status. They decided to go for a career and job structure in return for other benefits which would not otherwise have been available. They made a conscious decision that job security was of great importance to them. Many things have flowed from that job security. As a result, this threat to jobs is very serious. This is because the members of my union are gravely threatened by job losses as a result of technological change.

I have long been an advocate of technological change. I supported TXE4, system X and optical fibres. Each technological development has this in common with the one before—it destroys jobs. Despite that, for many years I and my fellow officers in the Post Office Engineering Union have campaigned vigorously for the acceptance of technological change and of certain working practices.

In our union a few years ago we had the irony of the union putting pressure on Post Office management to accept productivity bargaining. Why have we always been able to argue in terms of the acceptance of technological change and productivity bargaining? We have been able to do so because there has been underlying job security. We were not persuading men to accept changes which would put them out of work. That has made a great difference to the atmosphere in which we work. Whenever I have been challenged about the policies we have pursued I have been able to say "Telecommunications is an expanding business. If you lose work in one area there is other work to be picked up and further work will emerge."

Under the Bill the Government are saying that we can keep the network, which is basically an area of diminishing employment, but that the work which we are likely to lose will be in the expanding area of employment, fitting the peripheral equipment to the network. What the Government are saying to us, as union officials, is "Go to your members and try to persuade them still to accept technological change but to accept, in addition, that any work which might formerly have been available for them is not to be theirs." That is the situation and it is serious.

I oppose this proposal because it threatens the job security of Post Office engineers. I know that it will be argued that it will not diminish the number of British jobs in telecommunications. That is not a satisfactory answer for those who have been Post Office engineers throughout their lives. There is a tradition in the Post Office, among manual workers as well as technicians, whereby they have come to look upon their jobs as careers. They look upon their jobs in the same way as do clerical workers or managers in other industries. They have come to expect that they will be employed by the same employer. That has big benefits for the employer. The rank and file staff in the Post Office owe much more allegiance and are often more dedicated to the success of the industry, and more closely tied to the Post Office, than is top management, which comes in and out like a buck rabbit. It is the staff who have the dedication to the firm. They will not take kindly to anyone who says "If you lose your job with British Telecommunications or the Post Office, you can go and work for IBM or Plessey." That is not on. The staff will say "We have devoted 20 or 30 years of our life to helping to build British Telecommunications, and that is where we want to stay. We do not want our work taken away from us." I make no bones about the fact that my starting point is that of job security for Post Office engineers.

Mr. Cryer

When he mentions the devotion of the British Telecommunications engineers, will my hon. Friend also point out that that devotion and loyal service have never been questioned by any member of the Government? They accept that the staff have given loyal service but seem to be rewarding them with a particularly shabby piece of legislation.

Mr. Golding

It is common for people to be brought in from outside to top management, and always, when they leave, they pay their respects to the staff who have served under them. It is seriously meant. They are surprised at the loyalty of the staff. They are not used, in our class-ridden society, to an organisation in which, because there is no private ownership, no clear division, there is an atmosphere which can described as a family atmosphere. Certainly, there is identification among those who work in the industry with the job that has to be done and with the business generally.

This objection to our union members losing their jobs is not the only objection to be made to this proposal. For a long time, one of the things that I have clearly recognised has been that, along with pay and conditions of service, pride in the job is essential for work people. Again, one of the characteristics—it has been tarnished from time to time—of the members whom I represent is that they want to take a pride in their jobs. They want to take a pride in British Telecommunications.

I shall not repeat the hour-and-a-half long speech that I made in Committee. I say simply that it has been the union which has campaigned since 1960 for greater investment in telecommunications. It has been the union which has campaigned for modernisation, expansion and better marketing. Why has the union done this? It has done it because it realised that the morale of our members has depended upon there being adequate investment, competent management and a good telecommunications system. The morale of our members is all-important. It is imperative that people in such an organisation take a pride in their jobs.

They fear that private industry will be able to come in on terms that are unfair to British Telecommunications. It will be able to cream off the profits.

3.30 am

As my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) said, British Telecommunications will be left with the unprofitable parts of its network. British Telecommunications will maintain the network, but areas of potential, such as those involving peripheral equipment, will be opened up to competition. Work will be lost and profits will be lost. That will have a bad effect. Private industry will not want to serve customers living in remote areas or I small provincial towns, and those customers will suffer. If the profits go to private industry, there will be no money available for investment. It will be difficult to keep prices down; indeed, they will increase. That is the inevitable effect of creaming off the profitable parts of British Telecommunications.

The same effect has been felt in the United States of America. In Committee I asked whether Ministers had comsulted the American consumers' association. It is admitted that although there may have been some advantage to business in the big towns as a result of the liberalisation that followed the Cartaphone telephone decision, residential subscribers suffered badly and will continue to do so.

The breaking of the monopoly will result in higher prices for the consumer. The Government are starving British Telecommunications of the funds that it needs and are not permitting it to borrow. As a result, the system is suffering from under-investment. Investment could be paid for through internally generated funds. However, the more that is creamed off the less will there be available for investment. That is demoralising to many.

Another issue is exercising the minds of many Post Office engineers, namely, the stupidity of duplicating maintenance. If one piece of equipment is attached to another and there is a fault, there will be an argument about the origin of the fault and where responsibility lies. Many of our members are apprehensive about the division of maintenance between private enterprise and the Post Office. The customers of British Telecommunications are entitled to have their equipment maintained.

Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon)

Is it not a fact that much of the equipment will be imported and may not be up to the standard required by the Post Office? Instead of new jobs being provided in private industry, jobs in private industry may be lost as the result of an influx of cheap imports that are not suited to the excellent system that the Post Office has built up over the years with great public investment.

Mr. Golding

My hon. Friend is correct. I shall give examples of that shortly. We have now to consider the situation that has arisen because BT has been starved of capital. The union members whom I represent do not believe that competition will be fair, because—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may laugh, but it is his responsibility and I put the blame straight on the Treasury—at that time the Minister was doing his best to get rid of the daft system of cash limits and dispense with the Treasury mumbo-jumbo of the public sector borrowing requirement. I am embarrassing the Minister by telling the House how embarrassed he looked when he moved an amendment which would have permitted BT to borrow and avoid its problems, but he had to read a Treasury brief which said "We are sticking to cash limits." I felt sorry for the Minister. His heart was filled with common sense, but his brief came from the Treasury.

The problem that we have is of explaining to our members that the Government say that subsidies must be created and that the corporation must compete with private firms from outside. I am interested in how it can compete. First, we must spend most of our investment moneys on the network, because it needs modernisation. To prepare for information technology we must invest heavily. Under the present regime, however, the money will not be available to put into the subsidiaries. Thus, the firms will not be able to compete.

Added to that, the Minister said that there should be no cross-subsidisation. The Government are telling Post Office subsidiaries that they must compete against firms coming from outside which might be cross-subsidised. Thus, the competition will be unfair.

However, that is the point of view of the members of the Post Office Engineering Union, and I shall consider it more widely. When I was at the Department of Employment I saw the telecommunication equipment manufacturing industry shrink with a loss of 40,000 jobs; I may have the figure wrong. In Liverpool, Nottingham and the North-East, with GEC and Plessey, jobs were disappearing fast because the export market was being lost. We had not modernised quickly enough to compete against the Crossbar and SPC systems from abroad. The manufacturing industry was in a great deal of trouble. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) is correct in drawing attention to the possibility of the loss of business by those companies to foreign companies.

One of the surprising things is the way in which the trade press has switched from being supporters of liberalisation to expressing all the doubts and anxieties of British manufacturers. An article in the Electronics Times of January 1981 states: One man pours scorn over PORS. Liberalisation of British Telecom is a subject which affects every telecoms manufacturer. Eric Wignall talks to Jeoff Samson of STC…. One of STC's big concerns is that with liberalisation may come a lowering of the standards, not to the extent of affecting the performance of the network, but enough to allow imported telephones to meet the requisite criteria. Where the big risk occurs, said Samson, is in this interim period between the Minister's announcement last July and when the law becomes clear, following the passing of the Act. Standards may be lowered, and the foreign firms that produce only to the lower standard will push in equipment, which leaves British STC and other manufacturers high and dry.

The "Telecommunications Supplement to Electronics Times" states that the equipment that has come in generally has been imported from Japan, United States, Taiwan and Italy. Some of it was much more sophisticated than anything then available from Telecom. However, much of it was not just cheap, but shoddily made, and even incompatible with the United Kingdom telecommunications system. Telecom is particularly worried about such equipment as it can cause faults by capturing lines". Foreign firms establish component assembly plants here, in the same way as warehouses are established, on industrial estates.

The article continues: Vako Electronics were eager … to tell Electronics Times of its plans to set up a telephone assembly facility in the United Kingdom. Parts for the telephone would be imported from Taiwan, while the electronics would be developed and manufactured by Vako. The company is now just importing the ready assembled equipment from Taiwan. It is then being sold through an agent in the United Kingdom, and Vako has no further interest in the business. Many United States manufacturers are looking to the bonanza of the British telecommunications market. Company after company is being established here. Other countries are laying down specifications for equipment that no one else can precisely meet. It is ironic that while other countries are tightening up their markets we are opening ours. It is absurd. At a time when the Department of Industry cannot cope with the industrial redundancy and destruction that it is creating, it is destroying yet another industry. I cannot understand why, insted of assisting companies such as Plessey and GEC by making certain that British Telecom's equipment is manufactured in Britain, the Government are doing their damnedest to make things difficult.

3.45 am

Mr. Gerry Neale (Cornwall, North)

I listened to the excellent contributions that the hon. Gentleman made in Committee. Will he comment on the fact that while the Bill provides for liberalisation it also provides for a change to new standards that still has to take place and that, in the meantime, British Telecom is buying foreign equipment, namely, Mitel Analogue PABXs, of a lower standard than it is insisting upon from British manufacturers? How does the hon. Gentleman justify that?

Mr. Golding

I am not justifying it. It is the sort of question to which the answer is "We will look at it." I shall not use cash limits as a defence, although I understand the argument. I have defended in the House the purchase of Ericsson equipment at a time when Plessey was unable to cope with an international exchange. I would not do so today. Unemployment has reached such a level that it would be indefensible for a publicly owned corporation not to give almost total preference to British goods.

In debates over the past three months I have been disturbed at the extent of the influence of IBM. Some years ago, when in Opposition, I visited Plessey, GEC, AEI and Standard. They talked about liberalisation. I understood the reason. I could see why hon. Members representing Liverpool, Newcastle and Nottingham were attracted by the argument. In the arguments over the last three or four months, IBM has been the biggest single lobbyist.

I was told at the United States embassy that a chap like me should not have had to buy a dinner for three months in view of the money IBM was spending in lobbying on the Bill.

I was disgusted yesterday to see the press notice on the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) on PABX maintenance. It was not only disgusting in principle; it was tailor-made for IBM. It was a handout to IBM. That American company seems to have gained more influence in the House in the last four months than Weinstock, who is always quoted but who has had no influence compared with IBM. Plessey has had no influence compared with IBM.

The Government have sold out completely to IBM. The statement Mr. Baker announces private maintenance of certain PABXs might as well have been "IBM bonanza". I receive letters from British telecommunication companies saying that the Government are right in principle but that the action is wrongly timed. This means the loss not only of profit for those companies in the years to come, but of jobs. I do not attack profit—it is needed for investment, and so on—but I strongly attack the Government's introducing measures such as this when 3 million or more of our people will be unemployed and there is a background of demoralisation not only of work people but of managers and foremen.

The cynicism displayed by certain Conservatives, Members adds to the problems. When I argue in private with them that the Bill means loss of jobs and that that is to be deplored, when I argue that it means giving the work to IBM, the answer is "IBM is better, and British companies must suffer." When I was a child, members of the Conservative Party claimed to be patriots, and they displayed the Union Jack. They claimed to speak for the British people. They cannot say that now. If they believe that the interests of multinational companies come before the interests of working people, it is time they left office.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend has made an extremely good case about technology and the resultant loss of jobs. The unions did not oppose the introduction of new technology, because they realised that it was necessary. The Bill will make the position worse, as will the cuts in public expenditure. My hon. Friend may be able to explain how the cuts in spending in the rest of the public sector have led to loss of jobs in telecommunications. They are bound to have had a spin-off effect, as they have in many manufacturing industries.

To what extent is it necessary to reverse those cuts in order to assist the British companies as opposed to the multinationals? What about the lifting of exchange controls and the amount of money invested overseas? It is not just a question of blindly supporting multinationals; it is a matter of ensuring that there will be a profit for those who invested their money in those multinationals abroad, arising out of the relaxation of exchange controls.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that I shall agree that what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) says about that is in order.

Mr. Golding

My hon. Friend has made my speech for me, and saved me from being ruled out of order.

Those on the Opposition Front Bench must say what they intend to do about the position. The Government are tonight destroying one important area of public ownership. It is incumbent upon those on my Front Bench to tell us that they will reverse the Government's decisions when we take office.

Mr. Alton

I listened, as usual, with great interest and respect to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). In the Standing Committee he made a contribution that was second to none, speaking with more knowledge than most hon. Members have, from the trade union point of view.

However, I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman's views about the monopoly and with what he says about job opportunities. I believe that parts of the Bill will ensure that with liberalisation great new job opportunities will be opened up, particularly in private enterprise. The hon. Gentleman must not be blinkered about this matter. People work in firms such as Plessey just as much as they work in British Telecom. If the Bill is made to work properly, not only will it safeguard existing jobs; it may mean new jobs.

There are reasons—the hon. Gentleman gave some—for ensuring that certain safeguards are enacted. I wrote to the Secretary of State last week concerning my reservations about Plessey, in particular, and I hope that the Minister will say a word in that connection. Amendment No. 35, standing in my name, relates to some of the safeguards which will help to protect jobs in the manufacturing industries involved in telecommunications.

I carefully noted the amendments tabled in Committee on such matters as the right to strike, telephone tapping, pension funds and the need for an independent authority. I disagreed with the Government, but I agreed with them on the question of the monopoly, the need to split the operations of the postal services and telecommunications, and the need to privatise Cable and Wireless. I reached my conclusions on the merits of the arguments that were presented, but I expressed my reservations about what I considered wrecking amendments such as those on the Amendment Paper tonight. I shall, therefore, recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against them.

In speaking to amendment No. 30, I shall need to refer to the two amendments to clause 12 standing in my name which were not selected, because amendment No. 30 depends on the Secretary of State being granted exclusive privilege of licensing the running of telecommunications systems. I accept that those amendments have not been selected, but if I were to press amendment No. 30—which I do not intend to do—the other two amendments would have to be taken with it. I hope that the Minister will bear that fact in mind if the matter is pursued in another place.

Such exclusive privilege as there is in telecommunications should be in the hands of the Secretary of State, under the aegis of the Secretary of State vested in the Crown, rather than in a public corporation, which is a business enterprise and thus not subject to the same control or scrutiny of Parliament. In Committee I said that an independent authority was needed, but, regrettably. the amendment was not accepted. While that would be my ideal alternative, I believe that it is proper for telecommunications to be handled by the Secretary of State, though I take a different view about postal services.

The purpose of amendment No. 30 is to define the extent of the BT monopoly. Under the Bill as drafted, BT would have a total monopoly which could be derogated unpredictably by the licences of successive Secretaries of State. If the Secretary of State were statutorily given the exclusive privilege of licensing the running of telecommunications systems, as proposed in the unselected amendments, BT would need licences as well as the third parties. That would put BT on a fairer footing. The amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State by law to license BT to provide basic telephone service and the public network for that. That would make good sense, because BT has a natural monopoly based on reasons of economy and efficiency. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that competition in this area would not be in the public interest.

I turn to amendment No. 35. I suggest that an application for a licence under subsection (1) shall not be refused unless it appears to the grantor that one or more of the following circumstances applies:—

1. (a) the system which is the subject of the licence does not conform to the relevant standards defined under section 16".

That would mean that much of what the Minister said in his memorandum would be enacted in clause 15. Subsection (10) (b) of the amendment suggests that the licence shall not be refused if the system which is the subject of the licence is not sufficiently distinct from systems already offered by the Corporation or by other licensees". That would clarify matters and ensure that two sets of similar equipment that offered nothing new to the British market would not be on the market at the same time.

4 am

Paragraph (c) deals with reciprocal arrangements— in the case of goods or services not originating in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State is not satisfied that in the country of origin there is adequate opportunity for the supply of equivalent goods and services originating in the United Kingdom". When overseas goods might flood our market, they would not be allowed in if we were not given reciprocal arrangements. There is a difference between free trade and unfair trade, and I have tried to highlight that.

Paragraph (d) states: for a limited period specified when this section comes into force, in the case of goods or services not originating in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State is not satisfied that suppliers in the United Kingdom have the opportunity to compete on fair terms". The reason for that is that Plessey and many other companies have taken the view that when the Bill becomes law there will need to be a breathing space for them to adapt to the rigours of the market place. To expose British industry without giving it time to adapt would be an act of incredible folly.

Paragraph (e) provides that a licence shall not be refused if it is not in the common interests of subscribers, of the Corporation and other suppliers and of their employees.". That builds in safeguards for consumers and employees.

Paragraph (b) safeguards BT's monopoly because it allows for any other application for a similar licence for basic telephone services to be refused. That would solve any possible problems of interconnectivity which could have arisen by virtue of two or more public networks attempting to provide the same service in the way that, say, the railway companies originally tried to provide a national service with different gauges in different parts of the country. But the possibility of licensing alternative transmission services—for example, satellites or microwave—unconnected with the main BT network would be unaffected by the amendment. Activities that fall outside BT's basic telephone services, and are a complete service on their own, should be licensed as separate activities.

The boundary set out in the amendment should be where the telephone wires cross the wall of the building. BT will need a socket or junction box just inside the building. That is all that it will need for connection, testing and ensuring that all calls are metered. In my view, everything else inside a subscriber's building should be open to competitive supply. In practice, most domestic suppliers with one telephone would continue to agree to the present arrangement of BT using that telephone as the test point for connection to its network.

The wording of the amendments makes it clear that in a multi-occupied block of offices or flats each subscriber's office or flat will be treated separately and any wiring or switches needed in the common parts of the building will be part of the BT network. The electricity boards do not insist on a monopoly of supply of any domestic electrical appliances and there is no logical reason why BT should have a monopoly of apparatus in its customers' premises.

Mr. Stott

When the hon. Gentleman turns on a gas fire, switches on an electric fire or turns on a tap, he is taking something out of a system. If he picks up a telephone he is putting something into a system; he is dialling into an electronic exchange. That is different from any other service.

Mr. Alton

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful.

Mr. Stott

I have spent my working life in the industry.

Mr. Alton

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wants to spend the rest of his life in the industry many of us will not mind. The point that I was making, before receiving that fatherly advice, was that domestic appliances situated at the end of the network—and whether they put in or take out is irrelevant—are not a monopoly of the electricity boards. The same should apply to BT. BT would be protected by the provision for conformance to standards defined in the Bill, just as the electricity boards have the right to inspect householders' wiring to ensure safety.

The aim of amendment No. 35 is to require the Secretary of State or BT to give reasons for the refusal of a licence. The criteria in the amendment are based on the intention, explicit or implicit, in the Secretary of State's memorandum of 21 July 1980 entitled "Summary of the Proposed Regime".

The clause is worded to leave the grantor with a great deal of discretion, but to safeguard against arbitrary decisions. That means that entrepreneurs planning to introduce a new service will have a better idea whether their applications for licences will be successful before investing resources in their innovations. Their uncertainty with the Bill as drafted chiefly concerns value-added services. It also applies to the conditions which can be specified under clause 16 for approving standards for subscribers' apparatus. The latter point is covered by paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of the amendment, which allow for reciprocity and phasing which are generally agreed to be necessary to protect British manufacturers and to allow them time to prepare for a free market after the restrictions which have been imposed upon them in the past.

I recognise that, subject to the recommendations of the Beesley report, the Government intend to permit most value-added services on the BT network to be under general licence and rarely to refuse any sound application for a licence. However, I commend the amendment in order to constrain future Secretaries of State from acting capriciously or frustrating the intent of the Bill by refusing to exercise licensing powers. Our worry is that, unless we set that out expressly in the Bill, it may be lost for all time. I hope that at this late hour, when most hon. Members have listened long and hard—

Mr. Skinner

I have listened long and carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has delivered a speech which sounds like his argument about site value rating. Has his view been approved by Roy Jenkins as a principle? We want to know on what the hon. Gentleman will go to the country. It is no use trotting out gibberish to us. Does Roy Jenkins know whether it will fit the pact? Will it be put to the Liberal conference in October? Will there be a Sunday debate on it?

Mr. Alton

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is so enthusiastic about the possibility of a debate on site value rating. I am sure that the House will wish to be spared that pleasure at seven minutes past 4 in the morning. I understand that if the Social Democrats had been here tonight they would have supported me. My hon. Friends are present and will support me if we decide to press for a Division. I hope that it will not be necessary to do that, because I trust that the Minister will give the assurances for which I have asked.

Plessey is one of the biggest employers in Liverpool. I declare a constituency interest. About 45 per cent. of my constituents are out of work. I want greater job opportunities for them. That is why I hope that the Bill will contain safeguards and that it will do all that its promoters claim it will do. If it can help to strengthen and develop the private market in telecommunications it will build up employment prospects in the private sector.

Mr. Henderson

In the last few minutes the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke more sense than in the three months during which he took part in the Committee, although that is not to say that his amendment has merit. That was by way of contrast to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who made so many useful contributions in Committee but tonight, I thought, was not up to the standard which we came to expect from him. What he said about jobs for Post Office Engineering Union members was absolute scaremongering. I think that the kind of fears that he expresses are absolutely groundless and that the job prospects for people with the kind of skills that members of the POEU have will be immensely enhanced as a result of the objectives of the Bill and the policies that the Government have announced. There will be something new for them—competition for their labour—which will put their particular and considerable skills at a premium.

What the hon. Member said about creaming off was equally unfounded. Far from taking away from the profitability of British Telecommunications, the Bill will, I believe, give substantial assistance to its profitability by enhancing the use of the network. The benefit to British Telecommunications of the odd little sale of the odd little bit of apparatus pales into insignificance beside the value to British Telecommunications of even a quite modest increase in the use of the total network and the facilities which are available. Not least, in terms of the moneys available to British Telecommunications, perhaps it should think about selling the extremely successful system X, which it is putting into its own telephone exchanges, to people who want to buy it as PABXs.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that despite the fears which have been expressed by some customers of British Telecommunications, that computer and data communication system connected to PABXs will not be affected by the exclusive maintenance of PABXs by BT.

I welcomed very warmly the reply which the hon. Member gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale). If not tonight, will the hon. Member take an early opportunity to expand on his answer and in particular explain a little more why not all stored programme control devices might come within the terms of his answer? Perhaps he could tell us more about who would approve contractors and whether the reference to contractors in his answer means maintenance contractors and not simply suppliers, and that by definition we are not saying that suppliers must provide the maintenance service. I hope it will be possible for suppliers to sub-contract maintenance.

In that answer there is reference to a country-wide service and to the fact that contractors who are approved should ensure their technical competence and ability to offer a country-wide service. It seems to me that if a supplier is selling apparatus to be used in only a limited area of the country and has no intention of selling it anywhere else, it is unnecessary for the maintenance facilities to be on a country-wide basis.

Secondly, there are maintenance specialists who have a country-wide service but do not supply apparatus. There is a very good parallel with this in the computer field. I hope that this will be another opportunity for the enhancement of business opportunities and for new opportunities for members of the POEU to engage in that kind of new specialist activity.

Finally, will it be possible for the customers of British Telecommunications or manufacturers of devices to do their own maintenance, as they can now?

Mr. Mikardo

I have no qualifications for assessing what will be the effect of the clause on employment prospects for telecommunications engineers, and because I have no authority to assess that I shall not speak dogmatically about it. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) shares my ignorance and my lack of authority. He does not know either. He does not know anything about the employment prospects for telephone engineers, but that has not inhibited him from speaking dogmatically about them. Perhaps it is the effect of the second-childhood mild hilarity that comes over hon. Members at this hour of the morning when they have been up a long time.

4.15 am

The 2,000 Post Office workers whom I met yesterday afternoon, as it now is, at the Central Hall know a bit more than the hon. Gentleman and I about the likely effect of the Bill and the clause on their employment prospects. They were in no doubt. They saw the effect of the Bill and the clause as being highly disadvantageous. As I am ignorant of such matters I am prepared to take their word. If the hon. Gentleman had rather less dogmatism and rather more humility he would be prepared to accept their word as well.

I manfully resist the temptation to comment on the amendments to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke. There is much that I could say about them, but I do not think that they form the main issue that is before us. Therefore, I shall not take up the time of the House by discussing them.

The main issue before us is amendment No. 28, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I think that I shall carry the House with me when I say that he moved the amendment so comprehensively and forcefully that there is no need to add much to his introduction; nor is there any possibility of doing so. My hon. Friend spoke about the effect of the amendment, first, on employment prospects, on which he is in a position to know a great deal, and, secondly, upon levels of technology. I shall speak on the topic from yet another aspect, to which I return yet again without apology because it runs through the Bill and is an important feature of it—namely, the relations between the Department and the corporation.

We have had arguments all day, all evening and all night about the extent of the powers that will be given to the Secretary of State. The subsection that we are discussing gives the Secretary of State power to say to the chairman and board of the corporation "This piece of your business you will give away. I say so." It is true that there is an obligation to consult the corporation, but the Secretary of State is under no obligation to take a blind bit of notice of anything that it says. The final say-so is entirely in his own hands. With that final say-so he can say to the chairman of the corporation "This bit of your business I direct you to give away."

What sort of autonomy has the board of the Post Office if someone from outside can decide to tell it to get rid of a part of its business on conditions that it has not approved and cannot negotiate? It is not allowed to get the best commercial deal for itself. The Secretary of State can say "I want you to license the XYZ company for that part of your business for a royalty payment of 4p a time." The board must take it.

What sort of people will the Secretary of State find who will be willing to take the job of running an organisation on those terms? Not for a salary 20 times that of the Secretary of State or double that of Mr. Tiny Rowland would I be in the abject position of having to carry the responsibility of running a great industry with someone else being able to tell me to get rid of it not on my terms but on his terms. If, after that, the Minister can say again—as he has said several times incorrectly—that the Bill gives the Minister no more powers than previous Bills, he has a bigger brass neck than I gave him credit for.

This provision is wildly damaging to British Telecommunications. The House should not allow it.

Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)

I shall go in a different direction from that of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I support the licensing provisions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and in doing so I should point out that I have not been wined and dined or entertained to luxury dinners. I feel most upset. Next time the hon. Member is invited, perhaps he will mention my name as well. I shall be delighted to attend, but it will not make any difference to my decision tonight.

Mr. Golding

I was not wined and dined. I was merely told that I could have been had I so wished.

Mr. Page

Next time I receive an invitation, I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman is also invited, and we can go together.

I support the licensing provisions. I should also mention a typical example which has just appeared before the House. I support the realistic solution that my right hon. Friend has reached on the thorny question of PABX maintenance. He provided that solution in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale).

I shall labour that point a little because it is an example of how licensing will work in practice. It will allay some of the fears of British Telecom. I appreciate the difficulties that my right hon. Friend has found in providing an answer which not only provides for full and equal competition but allows for the safeguarding of the network and protects the present employment of employees engaged in PABX maintenance in British Telecom. The difficulties which he has experienced will be experienced time and again as new technologies and ideas outstrip the rules and regulations of Parliament and the laws which we have put on the statute book.

I have been worried about safeguarding the responsibility of British Telecom to maintain the integrity of the network. The thought of ill-maintained or faulty equipment sending incorrect signals down the line to the local exchange, causing a log jam or electronic chaos, is not to be actively encouraged. However, if that can be overcome—we are given to understand that it can be—by British Telecom's expertise in reviewing the software programme of the digital stored programme of PABX and checking it back from the exchange for its correctness and effectiveness by remote control, that will remove a major obstacle to that form of liberalisation.

It is right that the present maintenance facility of British Telecom should be allowed to continue, with British Telecom having exclusive responsibility for the presently installed and rather traditionally designed PABX systems. That will allow BT to adapt to any change in the market place without feeling that it may have to start its new life with the pressures of redundancy or unemployment looking the present maintenance team in the face if the existing maintenance contracts are whisked away to private contractors.

I believe that the private contractor and BT can start with equal competition for the supply and maintenance of the more modern digital exchanges. I do not go so far as to say that this is a judgment of Solomon by my right hon. Friend, but it provides a fair and equitable solution to a difficult problem. I should like to think that this is a forerunner of the type of licensing decisions which will be made in the future when further liberalisation opportunities present themselves.

Mr. McWilliam

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) as well as to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) and the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson). There is a degree of misunderstanding in the House, not about the nature of the network which exists, but about the nature of the network which will exist shortly.

The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West was fulsome in his praise for the answer which the Minister gave on PABX maintenance, but it was one of the most dangerous answers that I have ever heard in reply to a question relating to the telecommunications network. It was dangerous because it does not mean that BT will automatically check the output from the software programme on SPC-PABXs at all times.

The problem is that when we have an advanced technology SPC-PABX working into an advanced technology local exchange, which in turn works into an advanced technology trunk telephone exchange, each has its own command language. If the software programme is wrong, that will be found out on initial installation. However, if it goes faulty, that will not be found out, and that can knock out the local exchange or even the trunk exchange—not to the detriment of the business customer who has the PABX but to the detriment of all the customers on the local exchange and to all those trying to get through the trunk exchange.

That is a fundamental point, and if the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West does not accept it he ought to take better technical advice. The only people who know the command language down the line are those who are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the command structure down the line. That does not mean the cowboys who will be looking after those SPC-PABXs on some kind of maintenance contract; it means the people who will maintain the integrity of the network.

The same argument applies to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Edge Hill. He dismissed the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) that a telephone line is not like an electricity main or gas main. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is. During my career in the Post Office, I have seen instances where—

Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire)

People have been gassed by telephone.

Mr. McWilliam

People have not been gassed by telephone. However, I have seen instances where faulty connection has caused a large number of trunk circuits to be knocked out, not at the exchange where the fault originated but 200 miles down the link, where the transient happened to coincide with the frequency that was being used. It is almost impossible to trace it back to the specific installation causing the problem.

4.30 am

Mr. Alton

I think that the hon. Gentleman is perhaps misinterpreting the answer that I gave earlier. I was talking not about the similarities between the kind of service offered but about the kind of appliances that would be held at either end of a gas or electricity supply, or, in this case, a telecommunications supply. The point that I was making was quite simple. The electricity or gas company does not have a monopoly on those appliances. Nor do I think that the telecommunications industry should necessarily have such a monopoly. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt correct me if he thinks that I am wrong.

Mr. McWilliam

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps not aware that it is illegal to put something back into the electricity mains or the gas mains. The whole point about the telecommunications network is that one puts something back into it. Otherwise one could not speak to other people; one couldonly hear them. Anyone who cannot accept that fundamental point about the network fails to understand the nature of the network.

The clause as drafted could cause more damage to the development of an integrated network than anything else in the Bill. I recommend to Conservative Members to think about that and not just about problems concerning their own digital links or the maintenance of their own PABX systems for their companies in the City. In considering the clause they should think of the integrity of the network as a whole and vote for our amendment.

Mr. Skinner

I was tempted to make a few comments on the proposal to hive off parts of the industry or to leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State to do as he likes. I was initially prompted by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who knows the industry very well. We do not always agree with one another on the various bodies on which we meet from time to time, although there has been a gradual coming together of late, as we are both harnessed and welded together against the Social Democrats, who do not seem to turn up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] The Social Democrats in the rural areas will suffer very badly from this hiving off. They are in areas which will be affected more than those of most, though not all, Labour Members who represent urban areas. They will certainly get it in the neck there, although no doubt Roy Jenkins will have a pact drawn up with the Liberals to deal with those matters.

I listened with care to the Liberal spokesman. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) is actually the Liberal spokesman. If he is, he has certainly risen very rapidly in the Liberal hierarchy.

Mr. Foulkes

He is the only one who can stay awake.

Mr. Skinner

That is a good point. It applies to a number of other people in this place, too. It shows that some hon. Members on the Labour Benches are prepared to take a keen interest in the Bill. It is clear that some of my hon. Friends, having listened to the comments of those in the industry, are likely to make speeches later. The Liberal spokesman was apparently involved in the Committee to some extent. As he has spoken it should be placed on record that, according to my hon. Friends who worked tirelessly in the Committee to oppose the provisions of the Bill, including this clause, the Liberal spokesman was not there half the time.

Mr. Alton

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his facts from. If it is from one of his friends on the national executive committee of the Labour Party, I suspect that the information is probably as spurious and ridiculous as most of the other things said in that body. I can assure him that what he said is certainly not the case, and I hope that he will withdraw that comment immediately.

Mr. Skinner

The hon. Member should tell us the number of Committee sittings there were on the Bill the number of times he attended, and, more important, the number of hours he spent in the Committee. After all, it is possible to turn up for a Committee, spend a couple of minutes there to get one's name on the register and come out again. That is what I mean by "half the time".

Mr. Alton

The hon. Member should check my record. I am surprised that before making these allegations—he seems to have chosen to single me out for some reason—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. May I encourage the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) not to proceed along that line, but to deal with the amendment?

Mr. Alton

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has given way to me again. I hope that he will not pursue that point. I hope that he will give way to one of his hon. Friends from—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has given way, the only matter that is relevant is the amendment.

Mr. Skinner

The hon. Member for Edge Hill seems a bit upset about my saying that he was not there half the time. Will he settle for my agreeing that he was there the other half? That is an advance.

Mr. Alton

I hope that, to clarify this matter, one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends will immediately point out that that was not the case. I am sure that they would not want my reputation to be slighted in this way.

Mr. Skinner

I think that the hon. Member—

Mr. Charles R. Morris

I can understand my hon. Friend making the general point which he has made—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's intervention will be on the lines of the amendment.

Mr. Morris

If you will forgive me, Sir, I shall try to address myself to that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am always happy to forgive the right hon. Gentleman as long as he sticks to the amendment.

Mr. Morris

I wish to direct my intervention in support of the amendment. I was taken by the point made by my hon. Friend about the attendance in Committee of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton). I certainly appreciate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That cannot have anything to do with the amendment.

Mr. Skinner

rose—

Mr. Cryer

rose—

Mr. McWilliam

May I say, on the amendments, that I was impressed in Committee by the assiduous attention which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) gave to this clause—

Mr. Alton

It is not fair, and it is not true.

Mr. McWilliam

—and his attendance and consistency in arguing this point? Although I do not agree with his point of view, I must repeat that he was assiduous and was consistent in putting that point of view in Committee.

Mr. Alton

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner

I was going on to say that I have heard the hon. Member today, and I checked with some of my hon. Friends about the way in which he voted in Committee.

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, West)

He was never there.

Mr. Alton

Where is the record?

Mr. Skinner

This might be an area that the hon. Gentleman is not very happy about. In this area, not to do with the Committee generally, he will recall that he made the point that he voted—

Mr. Alton

With the Government.

Mr. Skinner

With the Government. Yet on another occasion he voted another way.

Mr. Alton

No.

Mr. Skinner

Let me put it right—he will vote with us tonight.

Mr. Alton

If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my speech earlier on he would have heard me say that I voted with the Government on the question of the monopolies legislation and the break-up between posts and telecommunications, and that I voted with the Opposition on a number of matters, including telephone tapping, on which I shall be voting with them again tonight if a vote is taken—[AN HON. MEMBER: "We will not have a vote."] That shows how much the hon. Member has been paying attention to the voting proceedings as well—and on the right to strike—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The only matter that is relevant is amendment No. 28.

Mr. Skinner

On the question of amendment No. 28, I got the impression from the hon. Member for Edge Hill that tonight he was taking a slightly different view of his amendment, which is not in question.

Mr. Cryer

Will my hon. Friend accept that amendment No. 30—

Mr. Jim Marshall

Order.

Mr. Cryer

It is not out of order, because amendment No. 28 is being taken with amendments Nos. 30 to 35.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) was talking glibly about the ability of private enterprise to compete, with the aid of a licensing system granted by the Secretary of State. Yet the hon. Member, who is a fanatical pro-European, like the rest of the Liberals, and like the Social Democrats—

Mr. Garel-Jones

Where are they?

Mr. Cryer

—has thrown into this question the issue of the Treaty of Rome, which would certainly affect his amendment but on which he never elaborated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It would at least be a convenience if the hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to address the Chair so that we could hear what was being said.

Mr. Cryer

May I finish what I was saying? It is sometimes difficult to address two hon. Members at opposite ends of the Chamber. I apologise, Sir.

When the hon. Member for Edge Hill spoke to his amendment he referred specifically, on the basis of fair competition, to the Treaty of Rome. He did not elaborate on this, but it would clearly apply and is relevant to the amendments. Would my hon. Friend care to elaborate on that aspect?

Mr. Skinner

I was about to say that because it shifts its ground so often the Liberal Party is sometimes regarded as a rocking horse—all motion and no progress. I think that that applies in this case as it does in many others. Its members back all the horses in the field. They move first that way, then the other, so that they can trot around the country, together with their new-found friends—

Mr. Garel-Jones

Where are they?

Mr. Skinner

—and spread themselves—

Mr. Mikardo

Every time my hon. Friend mentions the Social Democrats, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) shouts "Where are they?" I can tell the hon. Gentleman—they are up Limehouse creek.

Mr. Skinner

Supping claret.

Mr. McWilliam

I hate to disillusion my hon. Friend, but there are two Social Democrats lurking around the building somewhere. What is more, in the last Division they voted against the Liberals, so it seems that Roy's pact does not operate at this time of night.

Mr. Skinner

That is another one. They have made a good start. Half of them are standing in the GLC elections against Liberals. Now we have this development. It will not last long.

I think we should get on to the serious question of amendment No. 28. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I want to pursue the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. He concentrated on the threat to job security and the possible massive loss of jobs.

This amendment must be set against the background of 2.5 million people on the dole.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

More than that.

4.45 am

Mr. Skinner

Indeed, the figure is not far short of 3 million if those on short-time working and women who are not on the register are taken into account. According to the Treasury, the Bank of England and 364 economists, unemployment will increase rapidly. The amendment will threaten jobs in an area in which jobs have already been lost as a result of technological advances.

As has been said, in the 1950s and 1960s technological advances in the pits led to increased output per shift and a loss of jobs. That is even more true of the posts and telecommunications industry, in which there has been a massive increase in productivity and a loss of jobs. The industry has gone along with successive Governments. It has been too tame. As a result, thousands of jobs have been lost in the wealth-creating part of the economy, which is the very part that Tories always talk about. They talk about the manufacturing sector of industry to the exclusion of the service sector and the public sector. It is as if they do not matter.

The principle of hiving off could result in the loss of many more jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said that he was not an expert on the subject of the number of jobs that could be lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) knows a thing or two about the industry. He explained how jobs would be lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow no doubt listened closely and will realise that a considerable number of jobs will be lost.

I hark back to yesterday's rally. It seems a long time ago—

Mr. Anderson

It is a matter not only of the numbers of jobs lost but of the effect on rural areas. I know that my hon. Friend is deeply concerned about that. For a long time the Conservative Party has posed as the defender of rural interests. There has been a 20p increase in the price of petrol and an effect on bus services, and we are now faced with the Bill. Such provisions show the fraud involved. Those who live in the rural areas of Scotland, Wales and England will be adversely affected, because the more profitable parts will be creamed off and the corporation will not be able to provide services to those in rural areas who have a legitimate right to expect them.

Mr. Skinner

There can be no doubt that areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency—which is semi-rural—and mine will suffer the most. Most rural areas are represented by Conservative Members and by Liberals. Those who have been attacked will vote against the Tories in the county council elections in May. There can be no doubt about that.

Hiving off is another nail in the Government's coffin. The Tories will suffer massive defeats in the elections. The rally of thousands of Post Office and telecommunications workers was important because they wanted to express their doubts about the future of their industry. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and I, along with the many others who attended the rally in Central Hall, could take account of the fears that they expressed and of their demoralised state.

One sector of the industry went without a strike for God knows how long.

Mr. Stott

Ninety years.

Mr. Skinner

As my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) says, for 90 years. We had one in the other section that was not terribly successful, but it produced results later for other industries which finally resulted in the downfall of the last Tory Government in 1973. Who knows, if there is further job loss in that area it could result in action outside that might result in the Prime Minister making a similar about-turn as she did when the miners had a week off. That was the kind of spirit displayed at the rally yesterday. It was quite remarkable. Every time the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister were mentioned, there were great jeers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is the matter of granting licences which is of relevance at the moment.

Mr. Skinner

I agree that the amendment is about licences. Some of the people from Bolsover, North-East Derbyshire and Chesterfield said to me in the Lobby afterwards, "Why don't you get rid of them? Stay up all night, if necessary, and fight the Bill.". Those are the instructions that we had. I have heard some Tories in their corners in the Lobby giving pledges here and there.

Mr. Cryer

We shall fight it tooth and nail.

Mr. Anderson

My hon. Friend said that he would not yield to that temptation.

Mr. Skinner

I made it clear that I would be lighting the Bill tooth and nail, line by line and clause by clause. The traditional phrases were all trotted out to indicate that we were in business. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow rose at that meeting, he said "Yes, we shall do that. I have an extra spare pair of pants and a new shirt, because"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have had the good fortune to be out of the Chair for an hour or two. Ii seems to me that precisely the same observations are being made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) now as he was making then.

Mr. Skinner

Not about a change of clothing, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that is a new point. All this hiving off and loss of jobs comes on top of the loss of jobs through technology. That is a double blow, and is why the Secretary of State should understand the fears in the hearts and minds of those thousands who turned up today—and they were not the only ones who wanted to be there. They were only the delegates from the branches. It was not a mass lobby on the basis of everyone coming, because there was a suggestion to have a one-day strike to bring them all here. We shall look forward to that in the future. They represented all their branches from the communications industry and from the other—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer to the amendments in the very near future.

Mr. Skinner

I was trying to explain that not only is it a matter of hiving off but that the industry has been suffering from the cuts in public expenditure.

Mr. Cryer

Will my hon. Friend accept that in relation to amendment No. 28 the Minister will no doubt argue that in his judgment the effect of the legislation in hiving off will be to create jobs, because of the plethora of licensing and, therefore, private enterprise development? Will he compare the Minister's experience and knowledge of the telecommunications industry and the knowledge and experience of the telecommunications industry of the lobby that he was with this afternoon and the retrospective judgments that have been made—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I cannot see a reference to any of that in the amendments.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This matter was raised before you resumed the Chair by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). The tenor of the debate earlier from at least two Conservative Members was that by granting licences under the provisions of legislation which the amendments seek to limit and remove there will be an opportunity for private manufacturers to be able to get into the telecommunications industry. The argument adduced to support that is that further jobs will be available. Therefore, the experience in the industry in considering whether more or fewer jobs will be lost is relevant in assessing support for the amendments.

Mr. McWilliam

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not only has it been adduced that jobs may be lost in one sector but created in another, but it can be construed from the arguments that the private sector jobs may not necessarily be in this country. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was making.

Mr. Jim Marshall

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment seeks to remove—[Interruption.] Perhaps you could ensure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) desists from speaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I ask for the assistance of the whole House in that regard.

Mr. Marshall

It is dreadful that an hon. Member should waste the time of the House in that way when a point of order is being raised.

The amendment seeks to remove clause 15(1)(a) which refers to licence being granted by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Corporation". Hon. Members should therefore be able to seize on any point pertaining to the corporation's future business. It should be in order to deal with the corporation's future operation. We should be able to discuss all aspects of the corporation's business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The amendments deal with the question of granting licences. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is in order if his arguments relate to granting licences.

Mr. Marshall

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment seeks to remove clause 15(1)(a), which defines the procedure for granting licences. If that subsection is to be removed the House should be able to discuss any part of the corporation's business, so the discussion so far has been too restricted. [Interruption.] I must object, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and the hon. Member for the constituency which I forget—[HON. MEMBERS: "Carshalton."] I am informed by my hon. Friends that it is Charshalton. I wish that it was the far east of Scotland, so that—

Mr. Foulkes

Withdraw.

5 am

Mr. Marshall

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appear to have run into some difficulty with my hon. Friends. I withdraw any imputation of derogatory comments that I may have directed towards the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman).

The amendment, if accepted, would withdraw all the consequences of clause 15(1)(a), so permitting the House to discuss not only licences but any business that the corporation might now be doing or seek to do after the passage of the legislation. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule that the House should be able to discuss not only the licences that may be issued by the corporation but any aspect of the business.

Mr. Skinner

I had intended to remark that the amendment is both modest and reasonable, but it cannot be both. It is, however, a fairly modest attempt to try to water down the Bill. In Committee and on Report, it is necessary—

Mr. Marshall

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for giving way. I cannot agree that the amendment is too moderate. The amendment seeks to delete clause 15(1)(a), which refers to the Secretary of State after consultation with the Corporation". I wish my hon. Friend would define "the Corporation". I also draw his attention to clause 15(9)—if my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) will refrain from chattering—which states Any sums received by the Secretary of State under this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund. How does my hon. Friend expect the Secretary of State, after consultation with the corporation, to pay into the Consolidated Fund any sums of money that may be due to him?

Mr. Skinner

I stand by my original statement that this is a fairly modest amendment. Otherwise, it would have proposed to delete the clause completely. The amendment asks the Minister to accept half a loaf and shows that we are prepared to go some distance along the way. It is recognised that in Committee the intention is to enable arguments relating to a clause to be put. The amendment is more than a probing amendment, because it would change the format of the clause and curtail the Secretary of State's powers.

Mr. Cryer

If the amendment were passed it would curtail the Secretary of State's power to grant licences to manufacture equipment—licences that might well take jobs away from the United Kingdom, because there is no requirement in the Bill that equipment made under licence should be manufactured in the United Kingdom. It could be made in Japan or anywhere in the Common Market.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend has been reading my notes. I am slowly moving towards that part of my speech. I still say that this is a relatively modest amendment—not a moderate amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has spelt out the fact that there is no control over where the jobs will go. If the Tory Government argue that overall there will be no loss of jobs, because the work will go to entrepreneurs, the problem arises as to who those entrepreneurs are. Will they be in this country? My hon. Friend mentioned, as an example, IBM and the tremendous amount of lobbying that it has been doing.

Mr. Anderson

The important thing is that under the clause the Government would be able to impose certain conditions. It is a disgrace to the House that the Government are not setting out clearly here what sort of conditions they have in mind.

For example, one condition might be that none of the business could go, directly or indirectly, to any foreign company. I am sure that it would, at least in part, satisfy my hon. Friend if the Government said that in terms. It is wrong that they have not spelt out in detail what conditions they have in mind to protect our domestic industry and to meet my hon. Friend's legitimate point.

Mr. Jim Marshall

Will my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) direct his attention to the right-hand side of page 17 of the Bill? [Interruption.] I should be obliged if my hon. Friends would refrain from making sedentary comments. On the right-hand side of page 17 we read: Saving for things done under a licence". The amendment is to remove subsection (1)(a), which reads: by the Secretary of State after consultation with the corporation". What saving can be made after a consultation with the corporation by the Secretary of State? [Interruption.] I have grown accustomed to the interventions of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones).

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to have difficulty in making himself heard and controlling the House. He will have noticed that all other speeches have been listened to in complete silence. Only he is having trouble.

Mr. Marshall

I think that is true, but I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am making not a speech but an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman was trying to make a speech. It is a very long intervention.

Mr. Marshall

I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend has intimated on more than one occasion that he is prepared to accept interventions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover is not the person who decides whether a long intervention is in order; it is the Chair. I was asking the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Marshall

I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I withdraw any imputation to the Chair about long interventions.

I was drawing my hon. Friend's attention to the amendment to delete clause 15(1)(a). I was also drawing his attention to the heading at the right-hand side of page 17, which says: Saving for things done under a licence. That is what the Bill seeks to do. Yet there is no mention of savings in the long title, the short title or any title. How does my hon. Friend reconcile those facts?

Mr. Skinner

There is a contradiction, but that is not a matter for me. The contradiction is the responsibility of the Tory Party, which has introduced the Bill. Of course, there will be no savings, but no doubt in every Bill that the Government bring in they will say that there will be great economies and benefits for the whole population, that it is in the national interest, and that there will be wonderful profits for some. Of course they will say that. However, I take no notice of the heading on the right-hand side of page 17 of the Bill. I am sure that there will be no savings. So we must emphasise the dangers that are involved in the hiving off.

I was about to mention imports. The hiving off takes no account of where the new products will be made. The balance of payments will be seriously disturbed by the hiving off, in that there is no guarantee that the business will remain in the United Kingdom.

Whole sections of industry have been obliterated during the past two decades—not only under this Government, although I must say that the rate has accelerated during the past 20 months. The Bill will allow firms overseas to move in and take over these sections of industry. We shall see countries of the Common Market benefiting, as will American companies.

Exchange controls have been lifted so that money can be invested abroad, and I have no doubt that some of the Tories' friends have invested money in multinational companies which will reap the benefit. They will not provide British jobs, but there will be a lot of pocket money for the Tories' friends who asked the Government to lift exchange controls. There will be a loss of jobs in Britain and a gain of jobs in the Common Market, America and Japan. We shall lose on every issue. Another indigenous British industry will be smashed, and Plessey and the rest will come under the hammer.

5.15 am

The Tories talk about the need to get rid of demarcation problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon referred to problems that will arise over installations. Imagine all the tin-pot employers trying to compete in the telecommunications industry. Many trade unions will be involved and the result will be a multitude of demarcation arguments—not necessarily at the trade union level, because most demarcation disputes are caused by employers, and the trade unions argument is a defensive response.

Bearing in mind the massive number of unemployed and the cuts in public expenditure, which have caused a great loss of jobs in the industry, we should ensure that those in the industry have a sliding scale of hours, depending on the amount of new technology that is introduced. If it were agreed by the unions that advancing technology could mean a loss of jobs, there should be a reduction of hours, first to, say, 35 a week, without loss of pay, and subsequently to a 32-hour, four-day week.

That is the answer, not merely in relation to the Bill but in all areas where technology is moving apace and resulting in the loss of job opportunities. The Government should provide for that, but they will not do so. The Labour Party must take it on board. It is no use our Front Bench spokesmen wringing their hands over unemployment. We must have some answers. It is no use proposing a different form of monetarism. That will not be sold to the electorate when we go to the country.

We must say to our people and our class that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not dealing with what the hon. Gentleman has to say to his people. We are dealing with the amendments and what he has to say to the House.

Mr. Skinner

I an trying to emphasise that I am facing the problem of technology in the telecommunications industry. The Government's answer is to hand out jobs to those overseas in order to gain fat profits for themselves. I suggest that the answer for our class is to spread the hours around so that we keep people in employment in telecommunications and everywhere else. That is one of the answers to the problems facing us. The Bill brings us starkly up against those problems, and we must provide the answers for the electorate when we face them.

Mr. Orme

We have had an extensive debate and we wish to proceed to a Division on the amendment. The debate has concerned breaking the monopoly and transferring to the Secretary of State powers to grant licences and to direct the corporation to grant licences if he wishes. The Bill changes the telecommunications industry from a public corporation to a private company and breaks up the corporation by selling the most profitable parts to the private sector. We are opposed to that.

As I told the lobby that came to the House yesterday, the Opposition intend to restore the monopoly when we return to power. We warn people who think that they can make a quick buck that they may have their fingers burnt. The monopoly is in the interests of the corporation. It is profitable, and it operates new technology. It should remain under State control. There is a fundamental difference between the Secretary of State's approach and ours.

Mr. Anderson

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the change is likely to deter the corporation from investing further because of possible privatisation? Will that not hobble the corporation in its task?

Mr. Orme

I accept that. The Bill will have an effect on the corporation's forward planning and research and development. There is no secret about the Secretary of State's policy. He has outlined it on many occasions. He is carrying out the policy in the Bill. It is right for us to state our policy. We are diametrically opposed to the Secretary of State's policy and philosophy.

Mr. Jim Marshall

Will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to the amendment, which seeks to delete the word "consultation"? Does he agree that consultation with the Secretary of State is not possible? Consultation with a future Labour Government will be possible. In such circumstances a more profitable corporation could be built than that which the Government seek to privatise.

Mr. Orme

I take that point. Our intention is to consult the workers about our approach.

Mr. Gorst

I was listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's commitment on behalf of a future Labour Government. It was qualified by the assumption that the industry's fortunes will be reduced under the proposed system. If the industry prospers beyond anything in the past, will that commitment hold?

Mr. Orme

I have made a firm commitment that we believe in the public monopoly and that we shall restore that monopoly, regardless. I have been asked a straight question and I am giving a straight answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

Far be it from me to put words into my right hon. Friend's mouth, because he knows far more about the Bill than does the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who has just intervened. Could he ask the hon. Gentleman, who made his name in somewhat different circumstances from those appertaining to the Bill, which sector of private industry is particularly profitable at the moment under the policies espoused and embraced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry?

Mr. Orme

I take the point that my hon. Friend has made but, returning to the question of the monopoly, I think that, as some of my other hon. Friends have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) spelt out the case very clearly and covered most of the aspects of what this break-up of the monopoly means. This is on the postal side as well as on the telecommunications side. I think that that point has been clearly made. The Liberal point of view has also been put this evening. Instead of getting into an argument with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), I suggest that he puts his vote where his voice is and votes on amendment No. 35 tonight, so that the Liberal point of view can be firmly put on record. We shall watch with interest to see whether he divides the House and carries through his conviction when we vote.

I want to raise with the Minister of State the question of the PABX exchanges and the new proposal that he made in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) on 31 March in a written answer, when he said: the Government have concluded that the measures to relax the telecommunications monopoly should include competition"— and so on, dealing with the programmes and automatic branch exchanges: This will apply to all such equipment, of approved design, which is installed after the date when PABXs generally are liberalised."—[Official Report, 31 March 1981; Vol. 2, c. 81–2.] That obviously means a new development. In Committee, as he is aware, he said: I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been put to me. I am receiving representations all the time from both sides on the question. I emphasise 'both sides'. I cannot say that the Government will change their mind."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 20 January 1981, c. 259.]

Mr. Charles R. Morris

Could my right hon. Friend also ask the Minister of State why that parliamentary reply was tabled on 31 March and not during the Committee stage of the Bill, and why it was tabled at a time that pre-empted the tabling of amendments to deal with this situation?

Mr. Orme

I was coming to that point, because it is a very important one and it has caused a great deal of consternation in the industry, as my right hon. Friend is probably aware. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have received representations. There is this contradiction between what the Minister said in Committee and what the Government have decided, and to the Opposition it looks very much as though the Secretary of State has given way to the pressures for turning over to the private sector the future PABX development. I hope that the Minister will present the House with a full explanation.

We find the clause highly unsatisfactory. We find that the powers to be granted to the Secretary of State are against the interests of British Telecommunications. When the Minister has replied, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide on this crucial amendment.

5.30 am

Mr. Kenneth Baker

It is not a matter of dispute between us that the amendment and the debate that we have had upon it go to the nub of the Bill. That was the opinion of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) when he introduced the amendment some hours ago. This is a central clause in the Bill and a part that concerns the derogation from the telecommunications monopoly. We debated it at length in Committee and it is entirely appropriate that we should be debating it again on Report.

The amendments would have the effect of removing the Secretary of State's powers to licence the running of telecommunication systems. They clearly run contrary to the principle of empowering the Minister to intervene to ensure that the monopoly is relaxed. In the most important areas they would leave British Telecommunications with the last word over what competing systems were to be allowed. This is in fundamental conflict with our total approach to the Bill. There is a clear and philosophical divide between us that the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) emphasised when he said that a Labour Government would seek to restore the public monopoly.

The Government do not intend to ignore BT's interest. I agreed in Committee to amendments to require the Secretary of State to consult British Telecom before issuing a licence under the clause and to allow him to require licensees to make a payment to BT. The Bill as originally drafted provided that licence payments would be paid into the Exchequer.

We consider that the relaxation of the monopoly, the Government's initiative, and pursuance of their policy should primarily be carried out by the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) now agrees with us. In Committee he argued fluently for having a system similar to that operated in America, namely, a Federal Communications Commission. I set out the reasons why the Government considered that that was not the way forward. Such a system would be excessively bureaucratic. It is a system from which America is moving away as a result of legal developments over the past four or five years. We think that the matter is handled properly by leaving the powers of licensing and, therefore, the derogation of the monopoly in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament and who may be called to account by the House in respect of the way in which he uses the powers.

That answers most of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Edge Hill, save that he said that he would like to see everybody licensed, including BT. I can understand that. That case has been put to us. We have rejected it because it would be excessively cumbersome for us to set about the administrative arrangements of licensing the various activities and services of British Telecom.

Mr. Alton

I should like the Minister to deal with the letter that I sent to the Secretary of State a week ago.

Mr. Baker

Yes, I have a note on that. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about that matter. His comments and anxieties are somewhat speculative. The financing of British Telecom's investments is under review. I cannot comment on the future of individual plants manufacturing telecommunications equipment while the review is in progress. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are aware of Plessey's interest in BT's investment programme and are taking that fully into consideration. I have noted the concern that lie has expressed.

It will be helpful in removing uncertainty from the minds of hon. Members if I deal with the powers in the Bill that would be used to accomplish liberalisation in each of the three main areas outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

The areas concerned were the competitive supply of all sorts of terminal apparatus, greater freedom of use of the public network to provide services to third parties—which are called value added network services in the jargon—and the exploration of the scope for competition in the supply of transmission services as such, that is to say, additional networks. Those are three distinct areas.

Clause 15 covers the licensing of the running of telecommunications systems. Complementing it is clause 16, which deals with the approval of individual terminal apparatus. Many hon. Members have focused on that aspect. With regard to apparatus, therefore, liberalisation will in the main be accomplished through the powers of clause 16. We envisage giving a general license to the British public to purchase equipment approved under the systems that I explained earlier, through the British Standards Institution and the British Electrotechnical Approvals Board. I am advised, however, that the more complex types of apparatus, such as PABXs, constitute systems in their own right, and so will be liberalised under the licensing powers in clause 15.

Value added network services can take many forms and will employ a wide variety of apparatus. In most cases, some form of system will be employed, for which licensing would be required under clause 15.

The powers in that clause will also be needed if the Government decide to allow competition in the provision of transmission services for third party use. Opposition Members have expressed particular concern that the growth of competition directly with the main network would take profits away from BT, resulting in tariff increases and a reduction in service standards. That is not necessarily so. The plain fact is that at present BT is not able to meet the demand for its services. All over the country, business subscribers complain to me that delays in providing telecommunications services are striking at the roots of their businesses, endangering employment.

Mr. Anderson

rose—

Mr. Baker

I would prefer to reply to the debate. I have given way a great deal to the hon. Members who have been present during most of the debate. Therefore, I am not inclined to give way to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).

I was asked several questions about PABXs. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) asked why I decided, after consideration of the matter, that liberalisation should be extended to digital and not analogue exchanges. That is of considerable concern to me, with my responsibilities for the network and its integrity. The key difference between the two is that even in the relaxation, BT must be satisfied that the network's integrity is retained. With digital stored programme-controlled PABXs it is possible to test from a remote station and to ensure that integrity. That was one of my major concerns, and that is why there is a difference.

My hon. Friend asked me whether there could be a separation between maintenance, as between the company that supplied the equipment and a service company that wanted to provide maintenance. I confirm that that is so. The customer will be able to decide to buy either from BT or from a private supplier. After all, the equipment has been approved, and he will have the further choice of being able to decide whether he wants a maintenance contract with the supplier of the equipment, or with the maintenance company, or with the maintenance services of BT. I expect that in one of the enterprises that we discussed earlier BT could provide separate maintenance, to compete on the maintenance level.

The approval of maintenance contractors should be carried out in line with the general approval apparatus. The right hon. Member for Salford, West chided me for tabling the question yesterday. I assure him that since I have been a Minister I have probably given more time to the consideration of PABX maintenance than to any other matter.

I have had to take advice from a wide range of sources—from the industry itself, from the users, from BT and from my professional advisers. I made it clear in Committee that I was not prepared to make a quick decision, but I felt that I had to make a decision by the time that we reached Report. I thought it a matter of courtesy to tell the world yesterday, through the House, of that decision.

I spoke to Mr. Stanley, of the POEU and to Sir George Jefferson, of the Post Office, as soon as the decision had been taken. That has enabled us to discuss PABX maintenance. I am sure that the decision that we have taken is absolutely correct.

Mr. Warren Hawksley (The Wrekin)

Will a private operator who is providing the PABXs be able to insist on a service contract? If a customer gets a box from a private supplier, will he be free to receive maintenance from wherever he likes, or will the supplier be able to insist that it should be done by him?

Mr. Baker

I think that I have just dealt with that question. The equipment can be purchased either from BT or from an approved supplier. The customer can go to the supplier for maintenance, or to BT, or to a third party, as long as the third party is approved and is not a fly-by-night operator.

Several hon. Members referred to the job anxiety that the derogation from the monopoly might create. I should like to dispel that anxiety. Labour Members are far too defensive and pessimistic. The licensing system that we will operate and the liberalisation regime that will flow from the licensing system will permit other companies to engage in profitable enterprises and create new jobs outside BT. [HON. MEMBERS: "Outside Britain."] Not necessarily outside Britain. In my judgment, it will be principally within Britain.

We can draw some succour and support from the experience in America. In the last three years, what has happened in America is similar to the regime that will operate in this country after vesting day. Over the last three years, the employment figures in the American Telephone and Telegraph Company have increased substantially. That is the comparison with BT. We also find that the number of people working in the private sector in America, which provides the competitive services, which we shall now allow British firms to provide, has increased substantially.

I believe that the liberalised regime based upon the American experience will show that revenue, profits and jobs will increase.

Mr. Neale

Is it not true that among those in the forefront of the lobby that we should privatise more, particularly with regard to the maintenance of PABXs, were the leaders of the electrical trade union, on behalf of those working in the private sector who could envisage the expansion?

Mr. Baker

I have received representations from several unions that have been by no means in agreement with each other. Some wanted the maintenance monopoly retained, and some wanted liberalisation.

The opportunities that will exist after the liberalised regime is operating will be immense. That is one of the most important measures which the Government will be seen to have introduced during this Parliament. We are changing an industry from being dominated and controlled by monopoly to being driven by the force of competition. It will be good business for many British firms. It will create jobs. It will provide an increased consumer choice. For all those reasons, the amendments should be rejected.

5.45 am

Mr. Jim Marshall

I sense that the House wishes to move towards a decision on this group of amendments. I find that difficult to understand, as the amendments relate to the words: The Secretary of State … after consultation with the Corporation". I have been listening to the debate for the past hour, as have many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Having listened to the Minister's contribution, if I were in his place I should pack my bag tomorrow morning, because his boss, the Secretary of State for Industry, has been asleep for the past 40 minutes.

Mr. Snape

Two years.

Mr. Marshall

Having spent a considerable amount of time in Leeds, I should say 16 years. Nevertheless, we are referring to the activities that the right hon. Gentleman now undertakes.

The House is being asked to place confidence in the Secretary of State for Industry in any consultations that he might have with the corporation. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom are getting restless, whether they would place any confidence at all in the competence of the right hon. Gentleman in consultations or discussions to reach any kind of reasonable agreement.

Mr. Foulkes

None whatever.

Mr. Marshall

It becomes a little trying when one of my hon. Friends continues to shout from a sendentary position, as I am tempted to give way to him.

Mr. Foulkes

I was merely saying that I have no faith whatever in the Secretary of State for Industry. In that, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Marshall

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for extremely small mercies.

The amendment relates to having confidence in the Secretary of State to consult the corporation. I do not think that any Labour Member could have any confidence in the ability of the Secretary of State to consult anyone. If that is so, it seems that we must vote against the amendment. Over the past two years we have had many illustrations of the Secretary of State's dilatoriness. If I were a psychiatrist—which God forbid, if I may use that expression in this place—I should begin to feel very sorry for the Secretary of State.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That hardly comes within the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Marshall

I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the amendment relates to the words The Secretary of State … after consultation with the Corporation". If one is to look at that amendment in the round, one must have complete security, understanding and assurance that the Secretary of State will carry out his responsibilities in the way in which the Crown would wish them to be carried out. My point is that there are grounds for believing that the present Secretary of State for Industry is incapable of carrying out those responsibilities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That does not seem to me to relate to the amendment.

Hon. Members

Yes, it does.

Mr. Marshall

Some of my hon. Friends seem to think that it does, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in view of your ruling I shall go no further down that road.

Mr. Skinner

The Minister referred to this area. My hon. Friend is on the same track, except that he is putting a different point of view.

Mr. Marshall

My hon. Friend can always put a different interpretation on any point of view. On this occasion, I agree with him.

We are discussing how BT will be able to diversify. I wish that some hon. Members could be on the British Nationality Bill at 10.30 this morning, but failing that, perhaps we can examine how assistance will come from the United Kingdom or abroad. Nearly six hours ago I was told—[Interruption.] I get the impression that some hon. Members have come into this debate rather late. If they want to speak, they should get to their feet.

The Minister of State said that the Government are seeking to increase the new corporation's competitiveness by means of expertise from at home or abroad. Those involved in the industry and their unions are convinced, and have sought to convince hon. Members today, that they can do the job as well as anyone overseas. Without the amendment, overseas competitors will have the chance to get into the British industry, which they have sought for 10 or 15 years. The House should deny them that opportunity.

Mr. Anderson

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Marshall) said that the present system is a covert form of import control. The Minister sidestepped the claim that imports will be one certain result of the breach of the monopoly. The United States analogy is spurious, because it started from a different technological base. Its experience over the past three years is hardly relevant to likely events in this country following the end of the monopoly.

Because of our international obligations, the Government will be unable to impose any conditions on the relaxation of the monopoly, such as the exclusion of foreign or foreign-related companies. If the market is not going to expand that much faster, that in itself will lead almost certainly to a reduction of jobs. That is something that the Government appear not to have taken on board.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 256.

Division No. 137]	[5.55 am
AYES
Abse, Leo	Douglas, Dick
Adams, Allen	Dubs, Alfred
Allaun, Frank	Duffy, A. E. P.
Anderson, Donald	Dunnett, Jack
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)	Eadie, Alex
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Eastham, Ken
Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood	Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)	English, Michael
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Ennals, Rt Hon David
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Evans, John (Newton)
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)	Flannery, Martin
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)	Forrester, John
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)	Foster, Derek
Campbell, Ian	Foulkes, George
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Cant, R. B.	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Carmichael, Neil	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	George, Bruce
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Coleman, Donald	Golding, John
Cook, Robin F.	Graham, Ted
Cowans, Harry	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)	Grant, John (Islington C)
Cryer, Bob	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Hardy, Peter
Dalyell, Tam	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Davidson, Arthur	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Deakins, Eric	Haynes, Frank
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Dempsey, James	Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Dewar, Donald	Home Robertson, John
Dixon, Donald	Hooley, Frank
Dobson, Frank	Huckfield, Les
Dormand, Jack	Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Robertson, George
Janner, Hon Greville	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
John, Brynmor	Rooker, J. W.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Rowlands, Ted
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Sheerman, Barry
Lamond, James	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Leighton, Ronald	Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Silverman, Julius
Litherland, Robert	Skinner, Dennis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Snape, Peter
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Soley, Clive
McElhone, Frank	Spearing, Nigel
McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Spriggs, Leslie
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
McKelvey, William	Stoddart, David
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Stott, Roger
McNally, Thomas	Strang, Gavin
McNamara, Kevin	Straw, Jack
McTaggart, Robert	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
McWilliam, John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Magee, Bryan	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Maxton, John	Tinn, James
Mikardo, Ian	Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)	Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Watkins, David
Morton, George	Welsh, Michael
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland	White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Whitehead, Phillip
O'Halloran, Michael	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
O'Neill, Martin	Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Winnick, David
Pavitt, Laurie	Woodall, Alec
Pendry, Tom	Woolmer, Kenneth
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Wright, Sheila
Race, Reg	Young, David (Bolton E)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Richardson, Jo	Tellers for the Ayes:
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Mr. Hugh McCartney and Mr. Frank R. White.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

NOES
Aitken, Jonathan	Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)
Alexander, Richard	Browne, John (Winchester)
Alison, Michael	Bruce-Gardyne, John
Alton, David	Bryan, Sir Paul
Ancram, Michael	Buck, Antony
Arnold, Tom	Budgen, Nick
Aspinwall, Jack	Bulmer, Esmond
Atkins, Robert (Preston N)	Butcher, John
Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)	Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Banks, Robert	Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Chapman, Sydney
Beith, A. J.	Churchill, W. S.
Bendall, Vivian	Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Clegg, Sir Walter
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Cockeram, Eric
Best, Keith	Corrie, John
Bevan, David Gilroy	Cranborne, Viscount
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Critchley, Julian
Biggs-Davison, John	Crouch, David
Blackburn, John	Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Dorrell, Stephen
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Bowden, Andrew	Dover, Denshore
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Bright, Graham	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Brinton, Tim	Durant, Tony
Brittan, Leon	Dykes, Hugh
Brooke, Hon Peter	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Brotherton, Michael	Eggar, Tim

Fairbairn, Nicholas	Marland, Paul
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Farr, John	Mates, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Mather, Carol
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles	Mayhew, Patrick
Forman, Nigel	Mellor, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Fox, Marcus	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Fry, Peter	Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Miscampbell, Norman
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Moate, Roger
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Monro, Hector
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Montgomery, Fergus
Glyn, Dr Alan	Moore, John
Goodlad, Alastair	Morgan, Geraint
Gorst, John	Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Gow, Ian	Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Mudd, David
Gray, Hamish	Murphy, Christopher
Greenway, Harry	Neale, Gerrard
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)	Needham, Richard
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)	Nelson, Anthony
Grist, Ian	Neubert, Michael
Grylls, Michael	Newton, Tony
Gummer, John Selwyn	Onslow, Cranley
Hamilton, Hon A.	Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Osborn, John
Hampson, Dr Keith	Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Hannam, John	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Haselhurst, Alan	Parris, Matthew
Hastings, Stephen	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Pawsey, James
Hawkins, Paul	Percival, Sir Ian
Hawksley, Warren	Pink, R. Bonner
Heddle, John	Pollock, Alexander
Henderson, Barry	Porter, Barry
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Hill, James	Proctor, K. Harvey
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Hooson, Tom	Raison, Timothy
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)	Rathbone, Tim
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Renton, Tim
Jessel, Toby	Rhodes James, Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Rifkind, Malcolm
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Rost, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Kershaw, Anthony	Scott, Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Knight, Mrs Jill	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Knox, David	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lamont, Norman	Shepherd, Richard
Lang, Ian	Shersby, Michael
Latham, Michael	Silvester, Fred
Lawrence, Ivan	Sims, Roger
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Skeet, T. H. H.
Lee, John	Smith, Dudley
Le Marchant, Spencer	Speed, Keith
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Speller, Tony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Sproat, Iain
Loveridge, John	Squire, Robin
Luce, Richard	Stanbrook, Ivor
Lyell, Nicholas	Stanley, John
McCrindle, Robert	Steen, Anthony
MacGregor, John	Stevens, Martin
MacKay, John (Argyll)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.	Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)	Stokes, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)	Stradling Thomas, J.
McQuarrie, Albert	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Madel, David	Temple-Morris, Peter
Major, John	Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter	Watson, John
Thompson, Donald	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)	Wells, Bowen
Thornton, Malcolm	Wheeler, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)	Whitney, Raymond
Trippier, David	Wickenden, Keith
Trotter, Neville	Wiggin, Jerry
van Straubenzee, W. R.	Wilkinson, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Viggers, Peter	Winterton, Nicholas
Waddington, David	Wolfson, Mark
Wakeham, John	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Waldegrave, Hon William	Younger, Rt Hon George
Walker, B. (Perth)
Waller, Gary	Tellers for the Noes:
Ward, John	Mr. John Cope and Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Warren, Kenneth

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 17, line 43 leave out 'system falling within subsection (1) of section 12' and insert 'telecommunication system'.—[Sir Keith Joseph.]

Mr. Mikardo

A little under four hours ago I moved, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. In reply, the Minister said that he thought that we should seek to make a little more progress. On the grounds of that observation I sought and obtained leave to withdraw the motion.

Since then we have disposed of 26 amendments. We have had two major debates and two votes. That, and the time that has elapsed, justifies my again moving that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. [Hon. Members: "No."] Most of the hon. Members who are shouting "No" have not been in the Chamber all the time, and therefore they do not know what has been happening and what still has to go on. Perhaps I should spell that out. I am not being contumacious about this, and I was not before, but I understand that the Government business managers would like to get the Bill through without losing any more Government time. That is no longer possible.

The choice before the Government business managers is to provide some time next week to complete the Report stage or to provide some time next week for the business for today—Thursday—which will otherwise be lost. We still have 49 amendments to deal with. Some are purely formal. We have six major debates. I shall explain what they are to those hon. Members who have just come in. The Minister will need no reminding. We still have major debates on cash limits and pensions of the employees of the corporation. We still have to debate the complicated business of exclusive privilege. There will need to be a major debate on postal monopoly, similar to that which we have just concluded on telecommunications monopoly. We also have to deal with the third Bill contained in the overall Bill—Cable and Wireless, which has not yet even been mentioned. Finally, we have the Third Reading debate.

If each major debate takes two hours, which is less than the average for a major debate so far, the total is 12 hours. In addition, we shall have six Divisions on those debates, plus four deferred from a previous debate, which will take three hours. The best that we can hope for is 15 hours, which takes us a little past dinner-time this evening and wipes out today's business.

I suggest to the Minister in a most friendly way that he should consider whether to continue. I do not mind. I am as fresh as a daisy. Since 3.30 pm I have not moved out of this joint—if hon. Members will forgive me for calling the dump a joint—except for half an hour. However, I suspect that many hon. Members would prefer to break off now. If I were on the Government Benches and if continuing the debate would save a day's business, I should be in favour of carrying on, but it will not do so, even with the best will in the world. I therefore invite the Minister to consider the practicalities.

I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

I am grateful to the hon Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) for the way in which he has again moved the motion. When he moved it four hours ago I advised the House to make further progress. I am glad to say that we have done so. I do not complain about the nature of the debates. Although there has been a slight temptation here or there, there has not been excessive filibustering. The debates have been good.

The hon. Gentleman said that he was as fresh as a daisy—a daisy by any other name.… I, too, am fresh—I do not know what is fresher than a daisy—as are several of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I thank them for supporting us in making progress. They are enthusiastic to see the Bill on to the statute book, because we consider it to be a major part of the liberalisation programme that will turn an industry from being driven and dominated by monopoly to one being driven by competition. It would be advisable and sensible to make further progress.

Throughout the debate I have been lectured about the great rally in Central Hall yesterday afternoon. I have been told again and again that the two issues of greatest concern are the investment flow into British Telecom and the pension funds. They are the next two debates. If right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches wish to reflect the interest shown at the rally we should get on with them.

Question put, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned:—

The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 252.

Division No. 138]	[6.15 am
AYES
Adams, Allen	Janner, Hon Greville
Allaun, Frank	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Alton, David	Lamond, James
Atkinson, H.(H'gey,)	Litherland, Robert
Beith, A. J.	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood	McNamara, Kevin
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)	McTaggart, Robert
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Magee, Bryan
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Cant, R. B.	Maxton, John
Cook, Robin F.	Mikardo, Ian
Cowans, Harry	Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Deakins, Eric	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Dixon, Donald	Race, Reg
Douglas, Dick	Richardson, Jo
Duffy, A. E. P.	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
English, Michael	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Flannery, Martin	Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Winnick, David
Forrester, John	Woodall, Alec
George, Bruce	Young, David (Bolton E)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Hardy, Peter	Tellers for the Ayes:
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)	Mr. Bob Oyer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.
Home Robertson, John

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Alison, Michael	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Ancram, Michael	Glyn, Dr Alan
Arnold, Tom	Goodlad, Alastair
Aspinwall, Jack	Gow, Ian
Atkins, Robert (Preston N)	Gower, Sir Raymond
Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)	Gray, Hamish
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Greenway, Harry
Banks, Robert	Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Bendall, Vivian	Grist, Ian
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)	Grylls, Michael
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Gummer, John Selwyn
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Best, Keith	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bevan, David Gilroy	Hannam, John
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Haselhurst, Alan
Biggs-Davison, John	Hastings, Stephen
Blackburn, John	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Hawkins, Paul
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Hawksley, Warren
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Heddle, John
Bowden, Andrew	Henderson, Barry
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard	Hill, James
Bright, Graham	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Brinton, Tim	Hooson, Tom
Brittan, Leon	Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Brotherton, Michael	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)	Jessel, Toby
Browne, John (Winchester)	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Bryan, Sir Paul	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Buck, Antony	Kershaw, Anthony
Budgen, Nick	King, Rt Hon Tom
Bulmer, Esmond	Knight, Mrs Jill
Butcher, John	Knox, David
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Lamont, Norman
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Lang, Ian
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda	Latham, Michael
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul	Lawrence, Ivan
Chapman, Sydney	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Churchill, W. S.	Lee, John
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Clegg, Sir Walter	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Cockeram, Eric	Loveridge, John
Cope, John	Luce, Richard
Corrie, John	Lyell, Nicholas
Cranborne, Viscount	McCrindle, Robert
Critchley, Julian	MacGregor, John
Crouch, David	MacKay, John (Argyll)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Dorrell, Stephen	McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Dover, Denshore	McQuarrie, Albert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Madel, David
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Major, John
Durant, Tony	Marland, Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Eggar, Tim	Mates, Michael
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Farr, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Mayhew, Patrick
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Mellor, David
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Forman, Nigel	Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Miscampbell, Norman
Fox, Marcus	Moate, Roger
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Monro, Hector
Fry, Peter	Montgomery, Fergus
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Moore, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Squire, Robin
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Stanley, John
Mudd, David	Steen, Anthony
Murphy, Christopher	Stevens, Martin
Neale, Gerrard	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Needham, Richard	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Nelson, Anthony	Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Neubert, Michael	Stokes, John
Newton, Tony	Stradling Thomas, J.
Onslow, Cranley	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.	Temple-Morris, Peter
Osborn, John	Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Thompson, Donald
Parris, Matthew	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Thornton, Malcolm
Pawsey, James	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Percival, Sir Ian	Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Pink, R. Bonner	Trippier, David
Pollock, Alexander	Trotter, Neville
Porter, Barry	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Proctor, K. Harvey	Viggers, Peter
Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Waddington, David
Raison, Timothy	Wakeham, John
Rathbone, Tim	Waldegrave, Hon William
Rees-Davies, W. R.	Walker, B. (Perth)
Renton, Tim	Waller, Gary
Rhodes James, Robert	Ward, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Warren, Kenneth
Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Watson, John
Rifkind, Malcolm	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Rost, Peter	Wells, Bowen
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Wheeler, John
Scott, Nicholas	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Whitney, Raymond
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Wickenden, Keith
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Wiggin, Jerry
Shepherd, Richard	Wilkinson, John
Shersby, Michael	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Silvester, Fred	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Sims, Roger	Winterton, Nicholas
Skeet, T. H. H.	Wolfson, Mark
Smith, Dudley	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Speed, Keith	Younger, Rt Hon George
Speller, Tony
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)	Tellers for the Noes:
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Carol Mather.
Sproat, Iain

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Christopher Murphy (Welwyn and Hatfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. On such important legislation as this, is it in order that the Leader of the Opposition should not be in his seat, when the Prime Minister is in her seat?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair.