British Telecom (Hansard, 25 October 1982)

§ 14. Mr. Renton
asked the Secretary of State for Industry when next he proposes to meet the leaders of the Post Office Engineers Union to discuss the privatisation of British Telecom.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
I met the general secretary and other Post Office Engineering Union officials last Monday 18 October, and I offered further meetings as progress with the Telecommunications Bill develops.

§ Mr. Renton
I fully understand the concern of union leaders about redundancies, but has my right hon. Friend made the point to them that, after privatisation, there are likely to be more engineering jobs in the telecommunications industry? Is not the whole business of telecommunications, with its association with cable television, set on a path of expansion which will lead to more, not fewer, skilled jobs in competitive companies?

§ Mr. Jenkin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is borne out by the experience of the private sector companies in America. The other point, which I made as forcefully as I could to the union leaders, is that they are seeking partnerships in the development of cable with the 728 cable operating companies, but it does not generate confidence in BT and its work force when they engage in political strikes, such as the one we saw on Wednesday.

§ Mr. Orme
Does the Secretary of State agree that trade union members within the industry are attempting to defend their industry not only for their jobs but for the community as a whole? Has the right hon. Gentleman met the other trade unions involved—there are six major unions involved, three of which are not affiliated to the TUC—which are as strongly opposed to this proposed denationalisation as is the POEU? Does he agree that breaking up this company is not in the interests of the British taxpayer or the workers in the company?

§ Mr. Jenkin
I have always thought that the opposition to the Government's proposals is based on a misunderstanding. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has clearly misunderstood what we are going to do. There is no question of breaking up BT. It is proposed that BT, as an integral organisation, should offer shares to the public, so that the public can finance more of the investment in BT, rather than that such financing should fall on telephone subscribers as it does at the moment. That is not breaking up 3T. It is a single integral network, and it will be retained as such.

§ Mr. McQuarrie
In any further discussions that my right hon. Friend may have with the trade unions, will he give them an assurance that there will be a built-in safeguard regarding the services in rural areas, such as my own, in any privatisation of British Telecom?

§ Mr. Jenkin
My hon. Friend will know that I have already given a categoric undertaking to the House, and I repeated it to the unions, that the licence that we shall issue to BT when the Bill becomes law will place upon that organisation an obligation to maintain telecommunications in rural areas. Anyone who is entitled to a telephone now will not be refused access to the telephone network in future. If my hon. Friend would use his very considerable influence in his area to persuade the public that the unions' scares are lies, he will do great service to the Government.

§ Mr. Golding
Is the Secretary of State prepared to guarantee that all uneconomic kiosks that are now provided will remain after privatisation? Is he further prepared to guarantee that increases in charges in rural areas and small tow ns will be no greater after privatisation than those for business consumers? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a row going on in the United States Congress at present because of the fear of excessive increases in telephone charges for residential subscribers?

§ Mr. Jenkin
Like his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), the hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand what the Government plan to do. The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about these matters. He knows that in the United States, as a result of the consent decree, the Bell Telephone Corporation was forced to hive of F its local networks into separate companies. As a result, the separate companies, which were subsidised by the main network, will have to increase their charges. I am not proposing any comparable hiving off here.—[Interruption.] The new office of telecommunications will have to ensure that pricing is fair between different categories of users.

§ Mr. Cowans
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice? Is it in order for a right hon. or hon. 729 Gentleman to categorise people as liars, even if they are not Members of the House and cannot answer back? Is that a correct procedure?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Only when such people are not Members of the House is it in order.

§ Mr. Golding
Let me make it clear that I am not—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We are not going into the argument; we are discussing a point of order. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be pursuing an argument. If he has a point of order on which I can rule, I shall.

§ Mr. Golding
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not rise to the taunt of "liar" because I thought it to be false. You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that such a taunt was not out of order if it did not apply to a Member of the House. I am included in the category described because I am assistant secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union. If such a description should not be applied to a Member of the House, I ask that the remark be withdrawn.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. When a general category is named, no hon. Member in particular is supposed to be in the mind of the right hon. or hon. Member who makes the remark.