§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of great importance before we proceed to the Second Reading, of the Telecommunications Bill. There is a report in The Times this morning, headed
Pension fund threat to Telecom sell-off".The article states that there is a £1,200 million shortfall dating back to 1969, when the Post Office was established as a corporation. Should we proceed with the Bill, which is about to have its Second Reading, when there is no mention in it of how that £1,200 million deficit will be funded? Will it be funded by the investors? Will it be funded by the Government? I have frequently raised the matter of pensions with the Secretary of State, who has said that there was no problem to worry about and that there was no issue. We are now told that there is a colossal deficit. The House is entitled to an explanation if we are to proceed with the Bill and if there is to be no reference to the circumstances in 1969. If we do not have an explanation, we should not proceed with the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, who knows something about these matters, should have allowed himself to be bamboozled by a journalist who simply did not know what he was writing about. The pre-1969 deficit was debated at length during the proceedings on the British Telecommunications Act 1981. British Telecom has a statutory obligation to make annual payments to liquidate the pre-1969 deficit, which arose because the employees were originally civil servants and the pension scheme was non-funded. The Bill expressly provides for the transfer of those obligations to the new company. Mr. Gareth David simply did not attempt to do his homework. He does not know what he is writing about. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen flat on his face.