Lords Sitting of 23 June 1969

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Chancellor.

HONG KONG: SOCIAL REFORMS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what decisions were made regarding democratic and social reforms and a more enlightened labour policy on the occasion of the visit to Hong Kong of the Minister of State of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, there is a constant exchange of views between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Hong Kong, and my recent visit was part of that contact. The over-whelming priority is to maintain the momentum of development in the fields of housing, the provision of medical facilities, water supplies and roads, primary and secondary education and university development. Increased attention is being given to technical education, em-
2
ployment opportunities and the provision of amenities for leisure. The Government have also done a great deal to reach down to the people and their problems. The City District Officer scheme is an impressive example of this. I was greatly impressed with the calibre of the officers, most of whom are Chinese, who are working the scheme.
There are many Boards and Advisory Councils in existence in Hong Kong drawn from the general public which assist in policy considerations and a review of their scope and terms of reference is now being undertaken. Also several proposals for possible changes in the fields to which my noble friend has referred are at present being considered by the Government of Hong Kong. These I discussed in detail with the Governor, members of both Executive and Legislative Councils, urban councils and other bodies. I am confident that once the details have been thoroughly worked out proposals will be announced.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming my noble friend's return, may I ask whether he is aware that many of us who have had reports from Hong Kong appreciate what he did in pressing for these reforms? May I ask him about two points which he did not mention? The first is the very interesting suggestion that an Ombudsman might be appointed for consultation with the under-privileged Chinese. Secondly, could my noble friend confirm that since his return the 12 Emergency Regulations which allowed for detention without trial for one year have been withdrawn?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I announced on Thursday last, in reply to a Question from my noble friend Lord Sorensen, that 12 of the remaining 18 Emergency Regulations, including the one my noble friend specifically mentioned, have now been withdrawn. In regard to the Ombudsman, this is a matter to which I and the Governor have given very careful attention. We both regard the City District Officer scheme as perhaps the first step in such a system, but we are giving further thought as to how the questions, doubts and complaints that may exist among the general public may be more carefully and fully examined.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords might I ask my noble friend why we constantly use the word "Ombudsman" when we have a very good British equivalent?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I used the word "Ombudsman" only because my noble friend used it.

ANGUILLA
2.38 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been reached regarding the future of Anguilla.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in another place on May 23 he had had a series of useful discussions with the Premier of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla during the latter's recent visit to London, on the setting up of a Commission to study the Anguilla problem in the light of constitutional and other factors and to make recommendations leading to a satisfactory and durable solution. It was agreed that the Commission will be appointed later in the year. The terms of reference of the Commission have been placed in the Library of the House.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, again thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask what progress has been made since May 23? Could my noble friend say whether the police and military personnel from Britain are still on the Island; secondly, and, whether there has
4
been any suggestion of the appointment of a Caribbean High Commissioner there?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the police and military are still in Anguilla and will remain there as long as it is considered necessary. But as my noble friend will know, the Royal Engineers in particular are doing a useful civil operation in the Island. So far as the appointment of a High Commissioner for the area is concerned, this is something that we undertook to consider. Naturally we are still considering the matter, but we prefer to await the outcome of the Commission to which I have just referred, once it has been set up and has reported.

ENZYME WASHING POWDERS AND WORKERS' HEALTH
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to safeguard the health of workers in factories making enzyme washing powders.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, the risk to workers exposed to enzyme washing powders is that the material can cause both skin reaction and acute illness. Individual sensitivity may play a part. There is also some evidence that inhalation of enzyme material may lead to impairment of lung function. Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate has been in close touch with this problem since the early stages of production in this country. Medical inspectors have visited the factories concerned and at one factory have made a detailed survey of workers which has been followed up. The need for the higher standard of environmental control has been stressed to all the companies concerned. New methods of manufacture and handling have probably greatly reduced the risk, but it is necessary to be sure that this is the case. The Chief Inspector of Factories has invited all companies concerned to a meeting as a matter of urgency. It is hoped that they will share their medical knowledge and experience.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer.

BRITISH SUMMER TIME
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to continue British Summer Time throughout the forthcoming winter.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE, (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the Act so provides. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said, an interim assessment has been made based on a study of road accident figures and of the available statistics of accidents in industry and agriculture during the past winter. The views volunteered by representative organisations have also been examined, together with correspondence from members of the public.
The difficulties which emerged were foreseen and taken into account during the passage of the British Standard Time Act, which envisages a review after the experience of two winters. The evidence available at this stage is not conclusive, although the fears expressed about road accidents have, happily, not been borne out. The Government therefore propose to continue, as intended, with a comprehensive review of advantages and disadvantages based on the experience of two winters, and this review, which will include a social survey, will take place after the winter of 1969–70.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that full reply. May I ask whether he will bear in mind that, apart from these official investigations, there is a very large number of ordinary persons to whom summer time in winter is quite unacceptable?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, apart from the organisations which I have mentioned, which included the National Farmers' Union, the building trades organisations and the Union of Post Office Workers, I have received some 550 letters, many of them from Members of Parliament, and to all those letters I have myself attended. There have also been representations from 48 local authorities, 39 trade unions and other organisations, and I do not think it likely that
6
we are going to overlook any facet of this very important subject.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? He said that the views of the general public and of voluntary organisations had been received. Can he say whether the majority were in favour of or against the experiment?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot give that information. I think that, in the main, we had representations from organisations who opposed. So far as the 550 letters are concerned, they included 40 who were in favour of the scheme.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a unanimous opinion in Scotland against this new time?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, I am not aware of that. It is not the case that there is unanimous opinion against the scheme. When one analyses the accident figures the quite surprising fact is that from the end of October, 1968, to February 18 this year there were 345 fewer accidents in Scotland than in the corresponding period of the previous year. In fact, accident-wise, Scotland appears to be more fortunate than South-East England. Therefore I am not aware of what the noble Baroness said.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, is it not the case that the parents now have to accompany their children, in order to prevent accidents? Is that not what is happening?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I assure your Lordships that we are going very carefully into this matter and that all the facts will be put before Parliament when a case is decided. This is not a Party political matter. But it was obvious—and we knew this before we began—that it was going to affect some people more than others. I am aware of the fears of parents, but, so far, against the background of a sharp increase in accidents in January for which we cannot account, the accidents overall to children in the relevant times have not increased. That is important.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the National Farmers' Union. Since agriculture is

7
very much concerned with this issue, as so much of the work at the beginning of the working day has to be done out of doors, can the noble Lord say whether the National Farmers' Union were in favour of this change or against it?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make that clear. The representations of the National Farmers' Union were against a continuance of British Standard Time; but they were against it before ever it was enacted by Parliament. They gave estimates of the likely extra cost in overtime and other expenses, but those estimates have not been fully borne out. In fact, the extra cost to them and to the building trades has been less than was anticipated.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm or deny that the great majority of the representations received from Scotland have been definitely against a continuance of this measure? Also, may I ask whether it is realised that scores of thousands of Scottish children have to go to school in darkness, which is not the case in England, because in the winter daylight comes much later in Scotland than in England? Finally, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware of the great loss caused to agriculture through farm workers being unable to start work because of the condition of darkness, although they have to finish work at the same time, which means a great deal of overtime and extra expense to the farmers?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords. In answer to the first question which the noble Earl addressed to me, it is the case that of the representations from Scotland a very substantial majority have been against the continuance of British Standard Time. But I think it is fair to say that people are more likely to complain than to approve—at least, to the extent of writing about it. With regard to children going to school in darkness in Scotland, this was indeed always the case, and it is the southerners who are, as it were, enjoying this new experience. But I assure the noble Earl that all these factors were considered, and we had representations from educational authorities who were in favour of this change before we made it. What we have to do is to
8
consider all the effects, statistically and factually, and then decide in Parliament whether, on balance this three-year experiment ought to be brought to an end or continued.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to call attention to the fact that every hour of daylight lost in the morning means that an hour's daylight is gained the same evening?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this is perhaps the most enlightened House in the world, and I did not think it necessary to draw the attention of your Lordships to that inescapable and indisputable fact.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: LETTER OF INTENT
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past three, I shall be making a Statement on the Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund.

PERSONAL RECORDS (COMPUTERS) BILL [H.L.]
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to prevent the invasion of privacy through the misuse of computer information; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

POST OFFICE BILL
2.50 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Abolition of office of master of the Post Office]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: I have a question that I should like to put to the noble Lord on Clause 1. The clause abolishes the ancient position of Her Majesty's Postmaster General, which has been in existence for, I think, upwards of 300 years. I think it is by virtue of that position that Post Office vehicles carry the Royal cypher, and it is known as the Royal Mail. From experience in the Post Office during the war, I know that this had quite a bearing on prestige, and so on. The words used to be, "Whatever happens the Royal Mail must get through." It was one of the things that contributed to the very high morale of Post Office staff which exists to-day. The question I should like to ask is: when the office of Postmaster General ceases and the head of the Post Office is no longer one of Her Majesty's Ministers, will the appellation "Royal Mail" still be used by the new Corporation? If it is not used, I think much will be lost.
LORD BESWICK: First, may I say that I sympathise with what the noble Lord said at the beginning of his remarks. This decision to call the Minister in the future something other than the Postmaster General was something which quite a number of us regretted, and had it been possible to retain the name I think we should have agreed to retain it. Nevertheless, for various legal reasons it was found most efficient and expedient to move on to the new title. The answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question is: Yes, the appellation will be maintained.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Powers of the Post Office]:
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 30, leave out from ("that") to second ("to") in line 31 and insert ("appears to the Post Office to be requisite, advantageous or convenient for it")
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly simple and straightforward Amendment. It is not far-reaching. It is not concerned, as my next Amendment will be, with the possible abuse of monopolistic power, but simply with the actual abuse of the English language in the Bill itself. I hoped that, if he were here, I should have had the support of my noble friend Lord Conesford. May I read out to your Lord-
10
ships subsection (2) of Clause 7 as it stands at the moment? It says:
"The Post Office shall have power, for the purpose of securing the effective exercise of any of the powers conferred on it by the foregoing subsection, or in connection with or in consequence of an exercise thereof, to do anything that it appears to it requisite, advantageous or convenient to do, …"
I should have thought that that was rather inelegant language, even by some of the standards of Parliamentary drafting. Some of my honourable friends in another place did their best to get it changed, but they did not succeed. This is an attempt to do so. I do not believe it changes the sense of the subsection in any way. I would suggest to your Lordships that the language suggested in the Amendment is a little more elegant, and I therefore hope it may be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
LORD AIREDALE: I am always in favour of preserving the purity of the English language in the Statutes, and I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
LORD BESWICK: I was going to say that I was moved by the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Newton; but, of course, I am swept off my feet by what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I agree that this is much more sensible terminology. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has said, the wording here was criticised in another place. We have looked at it in the light of the criticisms, and I am very happy to accept the Amendment. I should like to think that this is a happy augury to the way in which we shall go on.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [General duty of the Post Office]:
2.57 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 30, leave out ("provision thereof is, in its opinion,") and insert ("Post Office, after consultation with the Minister, considers the provision thereof")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may now thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for accepting my first Amendment, and

11
say how much I concur with him in the hope that the fact that the Government were able to accept it will be a happy augury for the future stages of this Bill. There could be no better indication of that than if the Government were able to accept this Amendment, which I now move. This is a much more important Amendment than my last one. I tried to indicate in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill that we on this side of the Committee support those parts of the Bill which aim at creating a modern, commercial enterprise, and we agree that when the Post Office is free from the apron strings of a Minister—which it is not, of course, at the moment—it should be better able to achieve its financial targets and to provide up-to-date services for the public. We are concerned—and I tried to make this clear—about the lack of adequate protection in the Bill for the consumer. I suggest the word "adequate", which is of course a matter of opinion, but in our opinion at the moment it is not adequate.
I do not want to cover too much of the ground that I covered on Second Reading, but I pointed out in my speech then, I think correctly, that when the Corporation is established under the Bill and is working it will in fact be the largest and most carefully entrenched monopoly that this country has ever known. One would therefore hope, if not expect, that protection for the public would be adequate in the eyes of everybody. Yet it seems to us that such safeguards as there are now in the Bill are quite inadequate to protect the public against abuse by this gigantic monopoly of its vast powers, or to ensure that the Corporation will in fact carry out the duties laid upon it in this Bill. The general duty of the Post Office is defined in subsection (1) of Clause 9. It is required
"… in particular, to provide (save in so far as the provision thereof is, in its opinion, impracticable or not reasonably practicable) such services for the conveyance of letters and such telephone services as satisfy all reasonable demands for them."
May I invite the Committee, as I invited the House on Second Reading, to note particularly these saving words in the subsection? It is phrased as "in its opinion "—not the opinion of the Govern-
12
ment, not the opinion of Parliament, not even the opinion of the users' council. To us on this side of the Committee it seems very dangerous to allow a monopoly to be the sole arbiter of what is practicable or impracticable in the provision of vital services, monopolistic services, which affect the lives of all of us as soon as we are literate. May I repeat the illustration of this argument which I gave on Second Reading? I recognise that it is an extreme argument, but for the moment I make it deliberately extreme for the purpose of better illustrating what I am trying to say. Let us suppose that the Post Office, as I said on Second Reading out of the blue were to say that in its opinion it was impracticable to deliver second-class mail except on Tuesdays and Thursdays and that the minimum rate for first-class mail would go up to 9d. If it did that—and you may say that it is absurd to imagine the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and his colleagues on the Board being quite so ridiculous; but it could happen under the Bill—there could be a considerable row in the country. Yet the Minister would be virtually powerless, so far as the language of the Bill is concerned, to do anything about it. He certainly could not give a direction to the Post Office under Clause 11 (and this is clear from what Lord Beswick told us, or implied, on Second Reading) because this would be a matter of day-to-day administration.
That is an extreme example of the use of monopolistic powers. But there could be other far less extreme examples of decisions which seem unreasonable to everybody except the Post Office. I want to submit to the Committee that the Post Office is not necessarily the best judge of what is unreasonable in the provision of the services required of it by Parliament. It would be possible to amend this Bill in such a way as to make the Minister the arbiter of these decisions; in other words, to write into the subsection, "in the Minister's opinion" and not "in its opinion"—the opinion of the Post Office. Obviously, that would be going too far; it would be leaving apron strings which we all want to remove.
My Amendment is much milder. It merely says that before the Post Office decides that something is impracticable about the general duty laid on it in Clause 9, it should first consult the Minister.
This seems to me to be a modest Amendment. It is not provocative; it is not extreme. But I hope it might be a steadying influence if the Post Office were tempted to go slightly off the rails. In the event of the Post Office making an unreasonable decision, it would enable the Minister to explain to Parliament what views he had expressed during the consultations. Therefore this Amendment is a mild attempt, not an extreme one, to associate the Minister with the decisions that the Post Office makes on its own duties and responsibilities. It enables the Minister to be concerned with Post Office discussions on how to balance commercial and social duties. It does not require him (nor enable him) to make the decisions himself or to interfere in the day-to-day administration of the Post Office Corporation. When on Second Reading the noble Lord. Lord Beswick, referred to our point of view on safeguards and protection for the public, I felt that he had some sympathy with our general attitude. I very much hope therefore that this Amendment provides a formula that will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I am not sure that the happy augury suggested by our very happy beginning is going to last all that long; because although I have listened to the noble Lord with great sympathy and much interest (and I read his speech on Second Reading very carefully) I am afraid that we cannot respond in quite the way he wants. As the noble Lord said, this clause is a statement of the authority's basic statutory duties, and this part of subsection (1) relates to particular duties for letters and telephones. The example which the noble Lord gave was perhaps a little extreme, but his solution to the problems involved in these particular duties laid on the Post Office really would go much further than he would want it to go. I know that he says that he does not want the Amendment to interefere with the day-to-clay working of the Post Office—and we very much agree with his view that it is important for the authority to be a properly-run commercial interest—but the effect of the Amendment would be precisely that. It would mean that instead of having one authority to go to there would be two: the Minister and the Post Office. I can-
14
not feel that this would be a good way to reduce red tape and generally to quicken things all round.
Further, I think that the noble Lord has forgotten the extremely adequate safeguards provided by the Post Office users' councils. This is a very important safeguard. As he will know, if the Post Office is thought to be interpreting its duties unreasonably then, under Clause 14(8)(a), the users' council can bring such cases to the Minister's attention. It will therefore be possible for the Minister to be involved in the kind of way that the Amendment proposes. I must also quarrel with the noble Lord's interpretation of Clause 11. In fact under the provisions of Clause 11, the Minister could override Clause 9. In Clause 11(2) the noble Lord will see the words:
"… he may, after consultation with it, give it directions of a general character for remedying the defect."
I am afraid, therefore, that as the Post Office has a job to do and only certain resources with which to do it, we must stick to the actual ruling which we have already given. We have great sympathy with the principle of the accountability of the Corporation to Parliament. I understand exactly the spirit in which the noble Lord moved his Amendment, but we very much hope, in the light of what I have said, that he will see fit to withdraw it.
LORD NEWTON: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for the spirit in which she responded to my Amendment, but I must respectfully go on to say that, in my opinion anyway, my Amendment does not go further than I want it to go. If I had thought it did I should not have moved it. The point is—and I made this point on Second Reading—that the Post Office, unlike the other nationalised corporations, is a complete monopoly. The others are monopolies; but if you do not like the price and quality of coal then you can burn gas, oil or electricity. You do not have to travel by British Rail; you can go by road. You do not have to fly abroad by B.E.A. or B.O.A.C.; if you do not go by charter company, you can go by boat. That is why, in my submission, it is more than ever important that the public should be protected; because if they want to communicate with people by letter or by telephone they must use the services of the Post Office; they cannot use anybody else's.

15
I know about the users' councils. I hope that they will protect the public; but, with great respect, I do not think they are going to be an adequate protection, because at the end of the day they are absolutely toothless; they can do nothing. They can complain to the Minister about what the Post Office tells them that the Post Office is proposing to do. So what? The Minister may say, "I agree; but if this is a matter of day-to-day administration there is nothing that I can do about it. Nor can you". Again with great respect, I think that the sort of action which I illustrated, in what was admittedly an extreme example, would be an act of day-to-day administration—
LORD BOWLES: No.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, says, "No", but I am as much entitled to my opinion as is the noble Lord to his. Again I am not convinced that Clause 11 would enable the Minister to issue a direction to cope with the sort of situation which I envisaged. That is all I have to say about this matter. Fundamentally, it is a fairly simple issue which I am putting before the Committee. I am not going to withdraw my Amendment and I suppose that your Lordships will have to decide whether to support me or not.
LORD MITCHISON: Before we come to the vote I should like to try to make peace between the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and his own Amendment. So far as I can see, it would oblige the Post Office to consult the Minister on any complaint made by the public and I should have thought that it was very doubtful wisdom indeed to increase the number of civil servants for that purpose. I should also have thought that Clause 11, which is intended to regulate the arrangement between the Ministry and the Post Office in the matter of defects and things
of that sort, did it sufficiently. So far as I can see there is no Amendment down to Clause 11, and I am a little surprised to find the noble Lord persisting in an Amendment which, I should have thought, was against the general views of the Tory Party, and pressing for matters to be referred to the Minister, however trivial they might be and however much they might be covered by Clause 11 as an alternative.
LORD NEWTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for trying to make peace between myself and my Amendment. The noble Lord is a very eminent lawyer, I am not a lawyer at all, not even an "uneminent" one—if there is such a word. But, with respect to him, I would ask the noble Lord to construe my Amendment in the terms of Clause 9(1), and I suggest that the Amendment, which is concerned merely with the general duties as laid down in Clause 9, would not require the Post Office to consult the Minister about every complaint, or even any complaint, from a member of the public.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I much regret that I was unable to satisfy the noble Lord. I can assure him, with all the sincerity at my command and with all the eminent advice at my disposal, that his Amendment would bring more trouble even to his own wishes than he suggests. If the noble Lord is determined to press his Amendment to a Division and wishes to express himself in that way, we entirely accept that; but I believe that, were he to think again, he might see that we have put forward our views with great sincerity and with the best advice.
3.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided—Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Denham, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Belstead, L.

Dement, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Airedale, L.

Brentford, V.

Dudley, L.

Albemarle, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Dundonald, E.

Allerton, L.

Caccia, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Alport, L.

Carrington, L.

Effingham, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Conesford, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Auckland, L.

Craigavon, V.

Falkland, V.

Audley, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Falmouth, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Sackville, L.

Grenfell, L.

MacAndrew, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

McNair, L.

St. Helens, L.

Haddington, E.

Mansfield, E.

Savile, L.

Hawke, L.

Mersey, V.

Strang, L.

Helsby, L.

Milverton, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Mountevans, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller

Swinton, E.

Ilford, L.

Tangley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Moyne, L.

Teviot, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Newton, L.

Teynham, L.

Jessel, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Vivian, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Ogmore, L.

Windlesham, L.

Latymer, L.

Rankeillour. L.

Wrottesley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rothes, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Archibald, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Boothby, L.

Jackson of Burnley, L.

Samuel, V.

Bowles. L. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

Serota, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland. L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindgren, L.

Shannon, E.

Burden, L.

Listowel, E.

Sorensen, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stokes, Bs.

Champion, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Crook, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Moyle, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Peddie, L.

Uvedale of North End. L.

Granville-West, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.24 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 4, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: We on this side of the House are particularly worried about the plethora of legal immunities that this vast new Corporation is to be given by many parts of this Bill. The Corporation is to be in an extremely privileged position. I will just pick out a few of the immunities. Clause 29 largely exempts the Post Office from liability and tort. One result of this exemption is that the Corporation cannot be sued for libel for anything in, say, its telephone directories. This is a privilege that even Her Majesty's Stationery Office does not have. Clause 69 gives an unwarranted authority to the Post Office accounts. We have all suffered from the eccentricities of computers. If the Post Office computer says you owe them money, its Bill will stand up in a court of law. A Government Amendment in another place specifically continued Post Office exemption from liability as a common carrier.
Many exemptions given in this Bill may be justified by the particular nature
18
of the responsibilities and activities of the Post Office, but this blanket exemption is very worrying. The Post Office will be very powerful indeed. It will affect the day-to-day lives of everyone in the country. Your Lordships have accepted an Amendment which will ensure that Ministerial responsibility will be continued. This will provide a certain safeguard, unless perhaps Her Majesty's Government see fit to try to change it at a later stage. But whether that last Amendment stands or not, the individual must be protected. This Amendment which I have put down may not provide exactly the right way to do it. Her Majety's Government may say that we are going too far the other way. It is a probing Amendment, to ask Her Majesty's Government to explain how the individual is to be safeguarded and to ask them to try to find some way of including further legal safeguards in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Denham, says that he is worried because of the blanket exemption (as he called it) provided by this clause so far as legal liability is concerned, but one must be equally disturbed at the idea of

19
the blanket liability which would rest upon the new Post Office Board if this Amendment were carried. From what the noble Lord himself said, it would be hopeless to have a situation under which, if the Post Office did not deliver a letter by 9 o'clock in the morning and instead the letter arrived with the second post at 11.30 and the recipient was inconvenienced, he would be able to go to court. It would be an absurd and impossible situation. I think that the noble Lord, on reflection, will see that it would be unwise to leave out subsection (4), as his Amendment suggests.
In our discussions, we always seem to come back to the same problem that we discussed on Second Reading: how are we going to give this new body increased opportunities to provide a more efficient service by giving them increased independence, but at the same time fastening on to them the kind of customer and Ministerial checks and balances to which, I think mistakenly, the House has just agreed. We are going to lose the advantages of independence and of the benefits of the exemptions which we are giving to the new Board, if we get cold feet and insist on making it liable to go into the courts or to the Minister for consultation.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, what would be the way to meet a proper complaint on the part of a consumer—the recipient of a letter or the user of a telephone. In the first place, he can make a complaint to the local office. I find that the divisional office or the local office are always extremely ready to listen to complaints. They really ought to be used much more than they are used. They want to help. If a customer goes along to the local post office and says that he gets his letters too late, or that he cannot get service from his telephone, they will try to put things right.
If a consumer does not get satisfaction in that way he can go to the users' council. If he does not get satisfaction there, it is still possible for him to write to his Member of Parliament, and it will still be possible for that Member to take up with the chairman of the Board complaints that are made to him through Parliamentary channels. That again, I think, will be a useful check
20
on the Board's activities. But to open them up to the liability of court action for anything that goes wrong just would not enable them to operate with the kind of efficiency which I am sure noble Lords opposite want to see. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether there is any other nationalised industry which is entirely exempt from having an action brought against it. I speak subject to correction, but I do not believe there is. It is possible to bring an action against the Coal Board and against the Electricity Commissioners. If I am right about this, is it not wholly unreasonable that this Corporation, which has a larger and more arbitrary power than any of these other great nationalised undertakings, should be entirely exempt from any legal proceedings?
LORD BESWICK: I cannot answer with certainty the question which the noble Earl has put to me: I do not know whether there is any other body that is exempt from proceedings. There are certainly limitations upon the liabilities of other bodies. But I think the noble Earl will agree with me that the Post Office have quite exceptional responsibilities; the nature of their service is such that they require protection from legal action if they are to provide the sort of service which we expect from them.
I ought to add two further points. One is that this is not something new. We are not providing that there shall be this exemption in the case of the new Post Office Board when exemption has not been provided in the case of the Postmaster General in the present set-up. It is not a new provision. It is a provision which existed throughout the years in which the noble Earl had some responsibility for Government, and I should have thought that it was one which he would agree with me was necessary in this case.
I think I should add that even if the subsection were omitted it would not necessarily give the right to aggrieved customers to find a remedy in the courts. There would still be some doubt. The reason for this subsection is simply to reaffirm the position and, I suppose, to give some protection to customers who

21
might otherwise seek to open an action in the courts which could not stand.
LORD CONESFORD: Surely the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has not answered satisfactorily the question put by my noble friend Lord Swinton. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that certain immunities are now enjoyed by the Postmaster General, but, the Postmaster General can at least be called to account in Parliament. What is wholly new here is that we are setting up a body outside Parliament and stripping it of legal accountability. That surely cannot be satisfactory. Not having studied the Bill sufficiently, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that this particular Amendment may not be satisfactory; but he has given no sort of reply to my noble friend Lord Swinton by calling in aid the immunities enjoyed by the present Postmaster General. Giving immunity in the courts to a body or person who can be called to account in Parliament is a totally different thing from giving legal immunity to a body that cannot be called to account in Parliament.
LORD TANGLEY: I cannot help feeling that there is a certain amount of misunderstanding about this subsection, probably due to the ambiguity of its wording, and I would ask the Government whether, after they have heard what I have to say and before Report stage, they will reconsider its wording. As I read it, this subsection does not—or certainly is not intended to—give complete legal immunity to the new Post Office. The earlier part of the clause says that the Post Office has a duty to do certain things and to perform certain services; then, as I see it, this subsection says simply that that shall not impose a legal liability if the Post Office enters into a contract, as it often does for a telephone or for other purposes. I can see nothing in this clause which is intended to take away the right of the citizen to sue the Post Office on that. In the same way, if the Post Office were so unwise as to defame some subject of the Crown, I can see nothing which would take away the right of action. I believe that to be the intention of the subsection. But I sympathise with the mover of the Amendment, because I think the wording of the clause is rather wide. If on Report stage something could be put in to make it absolutely plain that the clause means
22
what I believe it to mean, then I think this misunderstanding may be resolved.
LORD BESWICK: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I think there is a misunderstanding. I am, of course, concerned only with the immunity which is granted by subsection (4) of this clause to the obligations placed upon the Post Office by the clause. There is no general immunity provided here, and when we get later into the Bill (I think it is Clause 29) noble Lords will see that there is an obligation on the Post Office to fulfil its contracts, if it enters into contracts. No immunity is granted to the Post Office for any negligence of its servants—if, for example, they are involved in an accident on the roads. I feel that it is not the fault of the Government that those who seek to express doubts here are taking too wide a view of these words. I think it is that they have not yet seen the later clauses to which we shall come.
LORD DENHAM: I must confess that I am a little disappointed with the noble Lord's reply, and the fact that he has not offered to look into this again and possibly try to meet our worries in a different way. As I said, this is a probing Amendment to try to clear un the whole situation. We feel that although the Post Office has a special Position, and special difficulties that possibly do not apply to private businesses, even so, it should be in the same position legally as a private business, except when there is any good reason otherwise.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, praised the post offices and the divisional offices, and I must say that I have always found those with which I have been in contact very helpful. I have also found several private businesses very helpful. But I am, of course, safeguarded by law when I have dealings with a private business if they should not be helpful, and unless there is good reason why in a particular case I should not be safeguarded by law (and there are a number of such cases in the Post Office), I feel that immunity can go too far. I think we shall have to look at this matter and consider whether we might wish to put down a slightly less sweeping Amendment at a later stage. In the meantime, I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think if it would be convenient now for the House to resume, for the purpose of hearing the Statement to which I referred earlier.
House resumed.

POST OFFICE BILL

  I.M.F. STAND-BY CREDIT: LETTER OF INTENT
  3.41 p.m.
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the following is the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons:
  "On May 14 I told the House that there had been discussions with the I.M.F. Staff about further stand-by facilities for the United Kingdom and that a full Statement would be made when the arrangements were complete. These arrangements are now complete. On Friday last, the Fund Board approved a stand-by facility for the United Kingdom of 1,000 million dollars over the next year. Five hundred million dollars is available for drawing immediately; the rest will become available in three quarterly tranches, after consultation with the Fund in each case.
  "The amount and phasing of this facility is related to the schedule of repayments in respect of our drawing in May, 1965. This was 1,400 million dollars, of which 600 million dollars has so far been repaid and a further 800 million dollars remains to be repaid in instalments between now and May, 1970. The new arrangement is a way of refinancing part of our debts. Our total indebtedness to the Fund, so far from being increased, will be approximately 400 million dollars less in May, 1970, than it was a year ago, on the assumption that we draw the full amounts.
  "In accordance with normal practice, I addressed a Letter of Intent to the Managing Director on May 22, Copies have been made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office this afternoon. The letter follows the main lines of the financial policy announced in the Budget. But for the present purpose I have expressed two features of that policy in quantitative terms. First, I am announcing an objective of a £300 million balance-of-payments surplus for
  24
  the current financial year. This is an interim objective, a measure of our intended progress towards the continuing surplus which we need.
  "Second, I emphasised in the Budget the need for restraint in the expansion of credit to the domestic economy. Domestic credit expansion—that is, broadly speaking, the net addition to the borrowing of the public and private sectors taken together—is intended to he limited to not more than £400 million in 1969–70. In addition to the annual figure I have made estimates, of which I have informed the I.M.F., of an appropriate quarterly path for domestic credit expansion and for the central Government borrowing requirement within it. I do not propose to publish these quarterly figures. Were I to do so. I should be encouraging speculation in a way that would make more difficult the management of the gilt-edged market.
  "I regard the conclusion of these discussions with the Fund as satisfactory. The House will have the opportunity to discuss the matter on Wednesday when I hope to enlarge on this Statement."
  My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. It is a sorry state of affairs that the Government have to come to this House and say yet again that they have had to borrow money from the I.M.F. Shorn of all the verbiage, what this means is that we cannot pay our debts and we have had to borrow money from our creditors, or default. We shall read the Letter of Intent with interest, and it may be, since we shall not have an opportunity of debate in this House, we shall want to ask some more questions. I cannot help saying that I hope the £300 million surplus forecast is right. After all, we cannot help remembering that on five occasions before the Government have been wrong—but that was perhaps due to an accounting error. Would the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, tell the House what is the total Government indebtedness incurred by this Administration since October, 1964?
  LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I want on behalf of my noble friends on these

  25
  Benches, while welcoming the present additional facility granted by the I.M.F. as such, to express the hope—with an element of doubt, in view of so many tragic failures—that we shall achieve the £300 million surplus on our balance of payments in the present year. Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether he believes that the limitations on domestic credit expansion proposed—namely, £400 million a year—will, if successfully imposed, be sufficient to prevent inflationary tendencies. In any case, if the surplus on the balance of payments is achieved and the limit is successfully imposed, when does he think, in those circumstances, that we shall be able to repay our total present liabilities?
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I fear the noble Lord who speaks for the Liberal Party is asking me to cast my calculations too far forward. I cannot answer the last part of his question to me. To the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who was concerned to say what a sorry state the Government were in. I put this point: it is an unfortunate and an unsatisfactory state, but it is not a question of this country going further into debt. He said that this was a matter of borrowing again. The position is that we are repaying our outstanding loan indebtedness. but we are doing it at a slower rate than was originally intended. As to the amount of indebtedness, it will depend upon how much of this loan we do in fact take up. The real figure, which he ought to be pleased about, is that by 1970 we shall be 400 million dollars less in debt than we were a year ago.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that really will not do. I asked the noble Lord a perfectly easy question to answer. I asked him what was the total indebtedness incurred by this Government since October, 1964. Surely that is a question that always ought to be in the minds of noble Lords opposite. It cannot be very difficult to answer that.
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, who knows far more about these financial affairs than I do. knows that it is not so straightforward or so simple as that. I answered a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, on June 12, and in my Answer I broke down our liabilities to some extent. But I do not know, for example, whether the noble
  26
  Lord is referring to the central swap arrangements and whether he has accounted that debt. In that case I cannot answer him, because those figures are not disclosed. If he is simply talking about the I.M.F. outstanding payments, it is 1,400 million dollars, less the 600 million dollars which we have already repaid, plus the amount which we have got as a stand-by credit. The amount which we shall actually draw has not yet been decided.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to say whether or not the total figure outstanding is over £3,000 million?
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, to give the noble Lord a more precise answer, I should be obliged if he would put a Question down. I would then find the figure and let him have it.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, so that I may be able to clear my mind on a very confused situation, could my noble friend answer these questions. First, is it not a fact that the State expenditure of Great Britain, as shown in the annual Budget, is not in any difficulty, and has balanced with the sum on the right side? Secondly, is it not a fact that our balance of payments is on the wrong side, not because of State activity but because of the activity of British businessmen, manufacturers, merchants and other members of what are called the capitalist classes?
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, so far as the inuernal situation is concerned, my noble friend is quite right: for the first time for many years we are in a position where we do not have to borrow at all. We are in a better position now than we have been for many years. That is internally. The external situation is quite another matter. For a country of this kind which is dependent so much on overseas trade, we do need to have some reserves. Unfortunately, they are not adequate. We had the loan of 1,400 million dollars, some of which has been repaid. It has not been possible to repay the whole of it, and therefore it has been necessary to rephase the loan with this additional stand-by credit.
  LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what contribution could be made by the Government themselves to the realisation

  27
  of this £300 million surplus if they revised their policy and removed the ban on certain exports to South Africa which are required for defence of the Cape route? Have they made any calculation as to what they themselves can contribute by revising their own policy?
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there have been calculations and some figures have been given, but if the noble Lord wants to go into a discussion about that matter, I suppose it would be true to say that, had the Government which the noble Lord opposite supported not committed us to such an extravagant expenditure on military bases in the Far East—that is certainly so—we should not have had the difficulty with our overseas payments that we have had.
  LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is no answer to my question, but merely poses another one?
  LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in reaching the calculation that we should be running at a surplus at the rate of £300 million by the end of this year, the new element in the accounting of our surplus of payments (running, I think, at a rate of £10 million a month) was taken into consideration? And therefore do we start on this new leg of our recovery with the advantage of £10 million a month—£l20 million a year—surplus in our favour as a result of a new entry in the books?
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the objective of £300 million surplus was arrived at before the calculations about the recording of exports were reached. It is therefore the fact that, to the extent of £10 million or so a month, we are on the way to the objective.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, in order to enlighten the noble Lord behind him, whether it is not the fact that, were it not for our invisible exports, our position would be perfectly hopeless, and that the gains from these invisible exports are won by private enterprise?
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure how far that point takes us. Of course the invisible exports have
  28
  made a terrific contribution to our position. Acknowledgment of that was made in a recent debate.

  POST OFFICE BILL
  3.52 p.m.
  House again in Committee.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Restriction of carrying on by the Post Office and its subsidiaries of certain activities]
  LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 13, line 31, leave out ("a subsidiary of its") and insert ("any of its subsidiaries").
  The noble Lord said: Government draftsmen have many distinguished attributes, but they have never really been noted as writers of very beautiful English. I do not think they have achieved this distinction in Clause 13. Is there any reason why Clause 13 should read:
  "Consultation with the Minister by the Post Office shall be requisite before it or a subsidiary of its constructs, manufactures or produces"—
  et cetera, rather than:
  "before it or any of its subsidiaries constructs, manufactures"
  et cetera? Very often an apparent clumsiness in wording has a very good reason in that it is necessary in order to avoid an ambiguity in law. Is that so in this case? If not, will Her Majesty's Government accept this Amendment and the several other consequential Amendments that would be necessary at a later stage?
  LORD AIREDALE: I believe the noble Lord is perfectly right in suggesting that this expression is a piece of the jargon used by Parliamentary draftsmen. We do not want Statutes to contain anybody's jargon; we want them to contain the ordinary English language which everybody understands. I hope therefore that this Amendment will be accepted.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: This House is always at its most amusing when it indulges in a discussion on semantics. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, has contributed to the continuation of that tradition. There is a lot to be said for

  29
  the ordinary layman's point of view against the use of the very clumsy word "its". Nevertheless—and I hope the noble Lord has not overlooked it—the terms of the actual Amendment on the Paper go very far beyond this little item of grammar upon which he addressed us. The original text of the clause says that there shall be consultation with the Minister by the Post Office before something is done. The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved says that this must have Ministers' approval which is—
  LORD DENHAM: If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, my noble friend Lord Newton did not move Amendment No. 4. I am speaking to Amendment No. 5.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: Then everything I was going to say is irrelevant.
  LORD DENHAM: None the less welcome!
  LORD BOWLES: The intention apparently is to improve the drafting of this clause, but I can assure the Committee that the words proposed to be left out are grammatically correct. Here I might point out to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that Acts are in a way repeating themselves because these words, although they may be the jargon of Parliamentary draftsmen, are what Parliamentary draftsmen put in Act after Act, and they are what the court interprets. One could no doubt write a beautiful essay into an Act of Parliament—and it would be almost "unconstruable" in the courts. I agree that these words may sound like jargon but they accord with a recognised form in drafting Acts of Parliament. Therefore, when the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, thinks that over, as he is a solicitor I think he will see what I am getting at more readily than some noble Lords will. As I say, the wording in the clause is quite grammatically correct; and so of course is the grammar of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, in whose name the Amendment stands.
  LORD NEWTON: Hear, hear!
  LORD BOWLES: Oh, yes. We are not saying that you did not go to a decent school. Though choosing between the two drafts is perhaps a matter of taste,
  30
  the words in the Bill as printed are more appropriate because they seem better to cover the case where the Post Office has only one subsidiary, though it cannot be denied that Lord Erroll's words do not rule out that interpretation, either. In short, the Amendment is unnecessary and would simply be change for change's sake. Since accepting it would necessitate altering other instances of this phrase in the Bill (one of which has been passed earlier on this afternoon), it is to he hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, will now see his way to withdraw.
  LORD AIREDALE: I should have thought that if the Post Office had only one subsidiary, the Bill would say, "the subsidiary of its". But it does not. It says, "a subsidiary of its".
  LORD BOWLES: It may have one. It also may have more. It varies. The number may go down to one.
  LORD DENHAM: Of course, this applies to my Amendment, too. The noble Lord says that he is grammatically correct, and I think he probably is. But he says also, which I quite accept., that the courts have to interpret this. But before this Bill ever reaches the courts it has also to be interpreted by the ordinary man and woman. If one reads an Act, which is notoriously always short on its punctuation, which contains the word "its" left rather in the air, not obviously referring to something, at first sight the ordinary man or woman is in difficulties. The clause reads:
  "or a subsidiary of its constructs".
  One looks for something else after the word "its". It is a very small point, but I think it would be a very great help to ordinary people not skilled in the law who read an Act like this, perhaps must read an Act like this, if it has been written so that it is most easy to read.
  I do not propose to ask your Lordships to divide over a point like this, but if Her Majesty's Government would consider this point again—it is something we are continually concerned with in this House: trying to get Bills written in such a way that they are readily comprehensible—I think the noble Lord would be doing a service.
  LORD BOWLES: I will have another look at it.
  LORD DOUGLAS or BARLOCH: May I ask my noble friend to explain why the word "its" is used at all? Why does it not say, "a subsidiary of it"? What does "its" refer to?
  LORD BOWLES: It is the plural.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Surely not.
  LORD DENHAM: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Duty of the Post Office to consult the Post Office Users' National Council about certain proposals]:
  4.2 p.m.
  LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 18, line 38, leave out ("so").
  The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to take Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together. They amount to a probing Amendment to see whether the intention of the Government is really to limit the functions of the Post Office Users' National Council quite as much as I believe the clause as it stands will in fact limit them. I hope to show that the Amendment, if accepted, would give a less uncertain field of operation to the Council and yet would not put an irksome restriction on the Post Office to carry out its proper commercial business efficiently. The words that worry me are:
  "… relating to any of its main services".
  The effect of the Amendment, if accepted, would be that the clause would read as follows:
  "Before the Post Office puts into effect major proposals affecting the persons for whom its provides services, it shall be incumbent upon it … to refer … to the Post Office Users' Council."
  The difference may seem subtle but I think it is real and important. I believe it to be the intention of the Government that the Council should be consulted, as of right, on all major proposals of substantial significance to the body of its customers, but I do not think that the clause as it stands quite fulfils this intention, or at any rate is open to some ambiguity. I hope and believe that my
  32
  Amendments are in line with the intentions of the Government and not contrary to them, and I hope that they will remove such ambiguities.
  Amendments were put and negatived in another place which depended on the simple deletion of the word "may", the argument being that the joint effect of "major" and "main" was too restrictive, but these Amendments were rejected on the ground that they would produce the result that a proposal made by any single individual, such as with regard to a party line, would have to he referred and this was certainly not what anybody wanted and would be, rightly, unacceptable to the Post Office.
  I believe that the present Amendments are not open to this interpretation. It has been argued that unless major proposals are confined to main services the Council would have to be consulted if, for example, the telephone circuits for, say, Shell or some such building were to be rearranged, and this again is certainly not the intention of the Amendments. But I think too little weight is given to the qualification "major" if it stands on its own, and in any case there would have to be some agreement between the Post Office and the Users' National Council as to what "major" is to mean, whether the clause stands as it is or is amended. On the present wording, such things as qualitative services of the Post Office, such as the "999" emergency service or even the non-greetings telegram service could, I think, be treated as less than a "main" service and therefore could be altered without reference.
  I hope I have said enough to persuade my noble friend at least to look at the wording of the clause again, in the light of my anxieties. What I think we both want to achieve is that major proposals of substantial significance to the body of customers are referred, and if my noble friend can confirm that that is the intention of the Government, and will look at the wording again, I shall be entirely satisfied. As our intentions are the same, I think it should not be difficult to meet this wish. I end by saying that these Amendments are supported by the Post Office Users' Council itself, the Consumer Council, and the Confederation of British Industry. I beg to move.
  LORD NEWTON: I should like to say that I hope very much, and so do my

  33
  noble friends, that the Government will respond to the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in the spirit in which it has been made. It will be realised by now that I, for one, do not think that there are sufficient safeguards for the consumer in this Bill, so naturally I take the view that anything which will extend the influence of the Users' National Council without causing great alarm and despondency to the Post Office surely ought to be done.
  LORD BOWLES: The apparent purpose of my noble friend's Amendments is to widen the scope of the matters on which the Post Office is obliged to consult the Users' National Council. This is an extremely important subject, as I hope the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will realise as he goes through the Bill and the arguments in favour of what the Users' Councils can do. As my noble friend has said, this point was debated at some length in another place but I would stress that we are here dealing with the question of what proposals the Post Office should be obliged by Statute to refer to the Users' National Council before putting them into effect. The Post Office will no doubt wish to consult the Users' Councils about many other matters, but this is not in question here.
  The subsection is not intended to oblige the Post Office to consult the Users' National Council before it could do anything at all, however small. This would be very inefficient. It would also slow up the work of the Post Office and would take up the time of the Council on very small matters. If the clause is amended as my noble friend suggests it will still refer to "major proposals". Therefore, I am sure my noble friend would agree that some limitation is needed on the proposals about which the Post Office must consult the Council. The difficulty is to define precisely what sort of proposals need to be put to the Council. It has been said that the clause as it stands is too vague. With respect, the Amendment does not seem to help with the definition.
  What is meant by a "major proposal"? It must be a proposal to change something. In the clause as drafted it must be a change to a main service. The Amendment does not say what it is that the proposal must be a
  34
  change to. The Amendment does not give any guidance at all, except that a major proposal must be one that affects persons for whom the Post Office provides services. But this is not of much help because the Posit Office provides services for everyone. It is difficult, I agree, to describe in the Bill an area of consultation which cannot be defined precisely without going into detail. The formula in Clause 15(1) seems to me to be as good a description as can be managed in a few words.
  The clause also provides a safeguard. Under subsection (3), if there is a question as to whether a proposal comes within this description then the Minister decides. I agree that it is only a final safeguard and does not dispose of the real difficulty of definition. My right honourable friend the Postmaster General has already indicated in another context what the practical solution to this difficulty should be. He has stated that he expects the Post Office to reach a working arrangement with the National Council on the matters about which the Council will expect to be consulted. This arrangement could go into more detail than any formula in the Bill, and could be revised as experience dictates. I should perhaps remind noble Lords that the existing Post Office set up its present non-statutory Users' Council to enable it to consult users' interests. The Council was not imposed upon it. That is a measure of the value which the Post Office attaches to consultation. The new Post Office will carry on this tradition.
  In conclusion, may I agree that it is most important to safeguard the consumer, but I suggest that the Amendment would not achieve that purpose any better than the clause as drafted. Indeed, it perhaps makes the position less precise. The real solution is, I think, on the lines that I have indicated and therefore I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: I am encouraged by what my noble friend has said about the discussions that have taken place between the Post Office Users' National Council and the Post Office to define what they are to discuss. I will wait till we see the result of the discussions. I think the fact that we have recorded the view that we seem

  35
  largely to agree that it is a matter of the definition, and that in general we want the most important things to be referred, provides sufficient ground for not pressing the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Vesting in the Post Office of property, rights and liabilities generally]:
  4.11 p.m.
  LORD DENHAM: I am sorry to inflict another drafting Amendment on your Lordships. The Amendment (No. 9) proposes to leave out "the next but one following section" and to insert "section 18 of this Act", which is in fact the next but one following section. This seems to be a very much easier way of putting it, and much easier for the person who is reading the Act to understand readily. This point was raised by my honourable friends in another place and I understand that Her Majesty's Government undertook to consider the matter. I should be most grateful if Her Majesty's Government would accept this very small Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 8, leave out ("the next but one following section") and insert ("section 18 of this Act").—(Lord Denham.)
  LORD AIREDALE: I hope we shall not be told that Parliamentary draftsmen from the beginning of time have been using the expression "the next but one following section" and that they are unable to divest themselves of this habit in 1969. The only purpose that I know of numbering the sections of Acts of Parliament is that they can be readily referred to by their numbers.
  LORD BESWICK: That is a proposition we have heard from the noble Lord before, and one with which I find it difficult to disagree. I am happy to think that again I can agree with what has been said and can accept the amendment.
  Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Exclusive privilege of the Post Office with respect to telecommunication]:
  BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: This is a purely drafting Amendment. The clause is about the exclusive privilege of the Post Office with respect to telecommunication, and I think it is perfectly clear. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 39, leave out ("this Part of")—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
  BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, and with the permission of the Committee I will deal at the same time with Nos. 12 and 13. These are also drafting Amendments and they are interrelated. They deal with the offence of infringing the Post Office's exclusive privileges about telecommunication. They are intended to make clear in actual terms, and not merely by implication, how the subsection works when the system in relation to which the offence occurs is a system extending beyond the British Islands. I think, if I may, the simplest way to convey a rather complicated position is to give your Lordships an example. The intention is that an international firm shall not be able to carry other people's traffic by, say, its private lines from London to the Continent without obtaining a monopoly licence from the Post Office, and it will be committing an offence, in so far as the running of the London end of the system is concerned, if it does so without securing the licence. The way this situation is to be treated is not made explicit in the way the Bill is at present drafted, and these Amendments put the position beyond any doubt. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 8, after ("infringement") insert (", in relation to a system not extending beyond the British Islands").—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
  BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 9. leave out from ("system") to ("(or") in line 10.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
  BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 15, at end insert ("and, in the case of an infringement, in relation to a system extending beyond those Islands, of that privilege, the person running the portion of the system within those Islands (or, if different people run different parts of it, each of them) shall be guilty of an offence and similarly liable").—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
  Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Acts relating to broadcasting not infringing the telecommunication privilege]:
  4.17 p.m.
  LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 29, line 23, at end insert ("or through the medium of a relay service licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, and since the next Amendment, No. 15, is consequential, I ask leave of your Lordships to discuss both Amendments together.
  The Government have said that before the year 1976 there is to be a review by a body appointed by the Government. So far as I know, they have not said exactly what sort of body it will be. At any rate, there is to be a review of current arrangements for broadcasting. In other words, there will be a review of the position of the B.B.C. and I.T.A. and this review will include the future of relay services. The purposes of these two Amendments is to preserve the status quo of the relay services until the review has taken place and decisions have been made by the Government of the day in the light of the review's recommendations.
  Most of your Lordships will probably know, but perhaps I had better remind you, that relay services are services which provide reception of radio and television programmes without the use of individual aerials. They are therefore not broadcasting systems, since the signals are piped by wires into people's homes. These services began in the 1920s, when there was no television, but only radio. These services now, I understand, serve
  38
  1¼ million homes and are operated by about 280 commercial companies, with a capital investment of something like £100 million. For the record, I may say that I have no interest personally in any of them.
  The companies are licensed by the Postmaster General under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. The current licences of the companies expire in 1976, and the Bill proposes that the licensing authority shall then be the Post Office Corporation and that there shall be no appeal at all from its decisions to grant or not to grant licences. By 1976, the Post Office will be strongly competing in this field of relay services it has already started. Yet under the Bill it is to be the judge and jury in its own cause after 1976. So the Post Office. if it is so minded, will be able to kill the relay industry completely by refusing to grant any licences, or to kill it by slow degrees by granting licences for the operation of services only in unprofitable areas. As I say, under the Bill there will be no appeal against decisions of this kind. This seems to me to be quite monstrous, quite contrary to natural justice as we in this country understand it. This is an important point, though to me it is a simple one, so I am not going to elaborate on it. We either think it is just or unjust, and I happen to think that it is unjust. How does the Postmaster General seek to decide this proposal in the Bill? From what I have discovered by reading what he said about it in another place, I would say that it will be mainly in two ways, the first being that he wants the Post Office monopoly to be complete, as complete as possible. He has said so on many occasions.
  I am not going to start an argument now about the general principle of how large the Post Office should be. In this context what matters, I think, is that this alleged justification that the Postmaster General wants the Post Office to have a complete monopoly seems to me to prejudge here and now whatever recommendations may be made by the forthcoming review body as to the future of the relay services. The second justification put forward by the Postmaster General is that he wants the relay services to be in the same position as the B.B.C. and I.T.A. prior to the review, with no greater assurance about security after 1976 than the B.B.C. and I.T.A. have. This seems

  39
  to me to be an absurd argument, because in this Bill the Postmaster General is deliberately putting the relay service companies in a different position from the B.B.C. and I.T.A. The Bill does not affect in any way the future position of the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. whereas it deliberately prejudges the future of the relay services by changing their present position.
  My two Amendments would preserve the status quo, and keep the relay services on the same footing as the B.B.C. and I.T.A.—which is what the Minister says he wants to do—and provide that they will continue to be licensed by the Minister, instead of by one of their competitors, unless or until Parliament decides otherwise in the light of the recommendations of the review body. To me, this proposal prejudges nothing in any way, and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that it is both sensible and fair. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Newton. has put the argument in a most persuasive way, and I can quite understand the reasoning behind it. What he wants to do is to protect the position of those companies which now provide a service by relay over wire to, I think, about 1¼ million homes in this country. I think he was a little unfair when he talked about the Government wanting the power to "kill" these relay companies. That is not at all the attitude of the Government in this matter.
  LORD NEWTON: With respect to the noble Lord, I did not say that I thought the Government wanted to "kill" the relay services. What I said was that if the Bill goes through as it stands the Post Office will he in the position, if it so chooses, at a future date to "kill" them. That is not the same thing.
  LORD BESWICK: That is what the noble Lord said, but the implication of what he says is that the Government, by drafting the Bill in this way, want to put the Post Office in the position in which it could "kill" the relay companies. What I am saying to the noble Lord—and I mean it—is that that is not the intention of the Government. What the Government seek to do here is simply to protect the best interests of the nation as a whole. The reason for the reference to 1976 is, as the noble Lord, Lord
  40
  Newton, says, that the position of the B.B.C. and of the I.T.A. will be fundamentally reviewed by that date. Whatever is decided, in the light of the technological situation then existing, will be put before Parliament, and clearly the position of the private relay companies will have to be considered in this context.
  But it is not simply a matter of the position of the I.T.A. or the B.B.C. There are some important and interesting, indeed fascinating, technological developments taking place, and it may well be that by 1976 it will be possible and desirable to put into the homes of all our people through the one cable, the telephone service, the radio service and the television service. That would mean that we could get rid of some of these unsightly aerials that are now to be seen on the houses of so many of our people. I am sure that that is a prospect which will delight the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who I hope is trying to follow my argument.
  I think that with these technical or technological developments in the offing it would be quite wrong—indeed, it would be unfair—to give the relay companies a privileged position, which the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. do not have, of guaranteeing them a stake after 1976. It would be quite wrong to encourage them to make capital investments for which they would have to be compensated if, by 1976, it was found in the national interest better that we should use these new developments of which I have been speaking and cut out a good deal of what it now done, including the provision of the relay services by these private companies.
  On the other hand, of course, it may well be that by that time the technical situation will be such that the relay companies will have an even larger part to play. All we are saying is that it would he wrong to accept the Amendments and to give a guarantee which, by 1976, the nation could not honour. In the meantime, between now and 1976 the companies have been told that their contracts or licences will be maintained; and, indeed, that if they seek any new licences the applications will be favourably considered. It is not in any way intended to do anything to injure them in this interim period but by 1976 the experts of the day will be able to have a

  41
  look at all the services that are provided. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel it possible for him to withdraw his Amendment.
  4.29 p.m.
  LORD TANGLEY: I had hoped to be able to avoid having to speak in this debate on this clause because, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I have an interest which I must declare. I have for many years been a director of one of the principal companies providing these wide services. With the greatest respect, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has not, as I see it, dealt with the main point. He says that in 1976 it would be entirely open to the Postmaster General, or whoever is the appropriate Minister, to consider all the new technical developments and, in the light of all the circumstances which are then relevant, to decide whether or not licences should he granted to continue these relay services. If that were the situation I should be quite happy. But, with the greatest respect, it is not.
  As the matter stands at the moment, the Postmaster General is the licensing authority under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, and therefore is the licensing authority under which these relay services operate, because they happen to come within the ambit of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Under this Bill two licences will be required; one from the appropriate Minister under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, and the other from the new Post Office, the new commercial Corporation which is to enter into competition with the existing companies. Nobody, as I understand it, objects to the appropriate Minister remaining the licensing authority under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. He can take into account all the technical circumstances, the complicated matters about wavelengths and wavebands and all that sort of thing, and nobody objects to that. But even if the appropriate Minister were to grant a licence the Post Office might say, "We will not grant a licence"; and the Post Office, of course, will not be responsible to Parliament—or, indeed, to anybody—and will be bound only to pursue its own commercial interests.
  What is happening to-day? The Post Office is for the first time entering into competition with these relay operators. I do not object to that, although person-
  42
  ally I think the Post Office might get its own business right before it starts on other businesses. But let that go on one side: the companies and the Post Office are now in competition for the provision of these services in certain areas. If the appropriate authority, whether it be a New Town or whether it be a local authority, think that the Post Office offer is the best, they will accept it; and good luck to them! If, on the other hand, they accept the company's offer, under this Bill the Post Office will be able to say, "We have not won by fair means. We have not been able to beat the competition; we will win by foul means and we will not give you a licence". In that event, whatever the Minister may say—even if the Minister has granted a licence—that service will be illegal and the person who runs it will be suffering penalties under this Bill.
  Is there not a misconception here? Do the Government appreciate that what is being done is to set up two licensing authorities: one the Minister, to whom nobody has objection, the other the commercial body, the Post Office? As I understand it, the object of this Amendment is to make it plain that the Minister, who is the only person responsible to Parliament, the only person in a position to review all the facts—including the technical developments to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has referred—shall be the final authority to say whether or not a service shall be run and shall be able to take into account the competitive position of the Post Office and any other relevant matters. But surely it is absolutely wrong—it is unconstitutional and, I suggest, unprecedented—to set up a commercial body which will have the power to license its competitors.
  LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: I should like to declare an indirect interest inasmuch as members of my union work for the relay services that have been mentioned. I know that this is reiteration, but I should like to support the plea that this matter should be dealt with equitably. The Post Office is coming into the field of relay, or intends to come into the field of relay as an extension of its existing services, and it seems to me grossly unfair that it should he the body to decide whether or not the service that has been in existence for so long shall continue after

  43
  1976. Surely it is a most reasonable proposition to ask that the situation should be judged by someone who has not a direct interest—namely, the Minister—and he can deal with all the facts. I was rather sorry that my noble friend Lord Beswick did not attend himself to this question of principle as to what is the objection to having a matter of this kind referred to the Minister responsible to Parliament for adjudication.
  LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I was one of the pioneers of relay services in this country and have been connected with them for some forty years or more, and I am still connected with them. I think my noble friend Lord Newton put the case very clearly, and the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has really pinpointed the matters to which this House, I suggest, must give consideration. I cannot believe that anything of this kind has ever happened before. A monopoly by private enterprise can always be dealt with by Parliament. A State monopoly—and I would differentiate between what I call a public monopoly and a State monopoly—can also come under the control of Parliament in that the Minister is accountable to Parliament for the actions of that State monopoly.
  We all know that one of the difficulties of a State monopoly is that you have no public accountability in the sense that there are shares on the Stock Exchange. The Minister defends the actions of the State monopoly for which he is responsible, everybody criticises those actions, but in the end the thing goes through all right and the taxpayer pays. But this is something quite different. Here a monopoly is being given to a commercial organisation to do as it wishes outside the control of Parliament. Surely that must be wrong. Is there any other example in the country of a monopoly being given in this way?
  All kinds of abuses could happen. I do not say that they would happen, but they could happen. I would suggest that it is quite wrong that a commercial monopoly should be given to an organisation to operate as it thinks fit and not subject to control by a Minister or Parliament. That is the issue; it is just as simple as that. I suggest that the Bill ought to be altered to allow the Minister to give decisions; that the present situation be
  44
  allowed to continue whereby the Minister gives the necessary licences. I suggest that between now and 1976 (when, as we have heard, the whole question of broadcasting and the distribution of programmes by relay services comes under review) the position be left as it is so that if there are any further relay developments of a technical kind, or any other kind, then the present relay services in competition with this new commercial organisation can make application to operate the services, and if there is any difficulty or dispute they can then go to the Minister and to Parliament for decision.
  What is wrong with that? Is that not natural justice? Is that not in accordance with our Parliamentary democracy that we have developed over the centuries? But the Government are proposing to depart from that principle, and I suggest to your Lordships that we take a very long and close look before we create this new principle of putting a commercial monopoly in the hands of a commercial organisation subject to nobody, to the Minister, to Parliament, nor to anybody else, which is what the Government are doing in this case.
  LORD BESWICK: I have listened over the years to many similar speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, and I must say that I still remain unconvinced. This is not a case of putting a monopoly outside any process of Parliamentary control at all. We went into this matter on Second Reading, and I do not propose to go into it again.
  On the other issue which the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, put before us, I really think he was addressing himself not so much to the Amendments that we have before us but to an Amendment which came before another House, or to a letter which appeared in The Times. We are not here considering whether the Minister should give the licence or whether the Post Office should give the licence: we are here considering whether the relay services operated by different private companies—and, I understand, some local authorities as well—should be placed outside the provisions of monopoly granted to the Post Office. We say that it is essential for the Post Office, which is the acting agency of Government in this field, to have a monopoly.

  45
  That is a good thing in itself, if you are to have proper control in the national interest.
  At the same time, as I have said, there is no argument about trying to take away from the relay companies the opportunity to provide a service which they now enjoy. They will have that opportunity guaranteed to them, by the word of my right honourable friend given to Parliament—and, I believe, in a letter, too—up to 1976. He has also said that if new licences are required the application for those licences will be favourably considered. So there is no question here of the Minister giving power to kill the relay services. That is not the case at all. He has given them an undertaking, which I am sure the noble Lord accepts, that their position up to 1976 is safeguarded.
  The position which we have to consider is what is to happen after 1976. I have said that by that time the technical position will be such that it is quite unwise now to give further commitments extending beyond 1976. It may be 1975 or 1974 before new developments take place, but 1976 is chosen as the year because the other two broadcasting authorities will come under review by that year. Furthermore, this is not a question of the Post Office entering into competition with these companies. It is not quite so simple as that. The only condition under which they would enter into corn-petition is if they could provide this service of radio relay at the same time, and through the same wire, as they are providing a telephone service or a television service; and it may well be that other services can also be supplied through that same wire.
  It is obviously in the national interest, and in the interest of conservation of national resources, to exploit these new developments to the utmost, if experiments prove them to be possible. That is the only reason why it is thought unwise to give to these companies undertakings extending beyond this period within which we can foresee technical developments. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will see his way clear to withdraw his Amendment.
  I ought to add one other cogent reason why I hope he will see fit to withdraw it. When the noble Lord, Lord Tangley,
  46
  first got to his feet on this Amendment, I thought he was going to help me out again by saying that there had been a misinterpretation of the wording. I thought he was going to show that, even if this Amendment were carried, it would. not secure the position. which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has in mind. It would not, in fact, help the relay companies, because subsection (1) of Clause 26, with which we are concerned, refers to wireless telegraphy, and, of course, the relay companies are not concerned with wireless telegraphy; they are concerned with services over a wire. Therefore, even if the Amendment were accepted, it would not achieve what the noble Lord has in mind. I kept that until the end because I know that the other matter is a matter of principle which ought to be considered, but I assure the noble Lord that, on the wording, also, he would be well advised to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD TANGLEY: The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, rather challenged me—and that is my excuse for asking your Lordships' permission to speak again—on the question of the undertaking given by the Minister. The undertaking given by the Minister was most carefully drawn, as one would expect. What it amounts to is that he will see that until 1976 existing undertakings operating under existing licences are rot interfered with. So far as new possibilities are concerned, the Post Office can compete—and probably will compete—and will be the licensing authority, irrespective of the Minister, up to 1976. In those circumstances, it was a very carefully drawn undertaking.
  After 1976, there is no undertaking at all, even with regard to existing undertakings, and the Post Office will therefore be its own master after 1976. Even if the Minister decided to grant a licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, the Post Office could say, "It does not suit us commercially. We will not grant a licence", and nobody could do anything about it. In those circumstances, it is quite a different situation from the one we are in to-day. It is often said that to-day the Post Office has a monopoly which is going to he considered. But the Post Office does not have a monopoly to-day, because there is no such thing as the Post Office. The so-called monopoly of the Post Office resides in the fact that

  47
  the Minister, the Postmaster General, is the licensing authority under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, and, therefore, in a sense, nobody can operate anything which requires a licence without going to the Postmaster General. That is a totally different matter from setting up a commercial corporation separating those powers from those of the Postmaster General and dividing the authority between a new Minister, who will take the place of the Postmaster General, and the Post Office. The two things are not at all the same. I repeat that, although perhaps at the moment the Amendment does not completely cure the problem, it is a very good way of starting the discussion.
  LORD BESWICK: May I answer one point here? The noble Lord insists that after 1976 no one can do anything at all about this, but he is quite mistaken. By 1976, or when we reach this point of decision in 1976, then, clearly, something will be done by Parliament. The position of the B.B.C., the position of the I.T.A., and the position of these relay companies will all have to be considered. I imagine they will be considered by experts, in the first place, and, ultimately, Parliament will also have to come to a decision. If Parliament decides that the present situation, under which the relay companies have been providing the service, should be continued, then, clearly, a directive can be given by the Minister to the Post Office. I feel that the noble Lord is under some misapprehension. He also raised a point about new licences, but I should like to see what he said and to consider again whether anything more can be said to reassure him on that point. But on the post-1976 position, I assure the noble Lord that he is unduly alarmed.
  LORD TANGLEY: In that case, why ask us to pass a Bill now which may have to be repealed in 1976?
  LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said towards the beginning of his second reply that we are not concerned with who should give the licences and who should not. But, indeed, we are. That is precisely what these Amendments are about. Three noble Lords, speaking from different sides of the House, have now spoken in support of my Amendments, and that fortifies me
  48
  in the belief that I was right to move them.
  In his first speech, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said words to the effect that it is not the wish of the Government either to kill the relay companies or to see them killed by the Post Office. Surely it is not necessary for me to remind the House once again, as I did on Second Reading, that it does not matter in the least what are the intentions of the Minister, or the present Government, when one is dealing with a Bill. What matters is what is in the Bill, and nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said has convinced me that I am not right in thinking that, if the Bill is passed in its present form, it will be possible after 1976 for the Post Office to kill the relay companies if it is so minded. That appears to me to be what the Bill says, and nobody has yet contradicted that.
  The noble Lord said that there might well be interesting technical developments in these wires. So what? That is very interesting and very good, but, with respect, it seems to me that whether or not there are going to be important technical developments in the future is not relevant to a principle of justice—and this is a principle of justice, as several other noble Lords have said. Another complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was that in moving this Amendment I am apparently seeking to put the relay companies in what he calls a privileged position. Although he says that these Amendments will not do, he is, nevertheless, complaining about them and saying that, in effect, they will give firm commitments to the relay companies that they will be able to continue in operation after 1976. With great respect, that is a complete red herring and I do not know why the noble Lord is dragging in that argument. The Amendments are not conferring anything. They are not putting them in a privileged position. All my Amendments do, in my opinion, is to say that the position shall remain as it is now. That is not promising anything. All I am trying to ensure is that the Minister shall continue to be the sole licensing authority, as he is at this moment of time.
  The noble Lord said at the end of his second speech that my Amendments would not achieve what I am setting out

  49
  to do. I could not help wondering, when he said that, whether he really understood what my purpose was, because if he had understood what my purpose was then surely he would not have said that we are not concerned with who should give the licences and who should not. I shall have to look at this wording very carefully to see that it is right, but I am still not convinced that it is not. In any case, what we are really concerned with is the principle behind the Amendments: the principle of natural justice, as to whether or not, in anticipation of any recommendations which may be made by the forthcoming review body, the law is nevertheless to say that, as from 1976, the Post Office and the Post Office alone shall de-
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  cide who shall operate relay services in this country. That is a very simple principle. It is a principle upon which I hope your Lordships will decide in a moment, because I am not going to withdraw my Amendment; and if the Committee pass it, then there will be an opportunity for the Government to amend the wording at a later stage, if they think it necessary, to make quite sure that it does what the Committee want it to do.
  4.52 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 48.

  CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Fraser of Lansdale, L.

  Morrison, L.

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Glendevon, L.

  Molson, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Goschen, V. [Teller.]

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Arran, E.

  Gray, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Newton, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Audley, Bs.

  Haddington, E.

  Rothes, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Helsby, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

  Bessborough, E.

  Horsbrugh, Bs.

  St. Helens, L.

  Brooke of Cumnor L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Ilford, L.

  Semphill, Ly.

  Conesford, L.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Somers, L.

  Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

  Jessel, L.

  Strang, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Lambert, V.

  Strange of Knokin, Bs.

  Daventry, V.

  Latymer, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Denham, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Swinton, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Loudoun, C.

  Tangley, L.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Dudley, L.

  McCorquodale of Newton, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  McNair, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Mancroft, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

  Mansfield, E.

  Vivian, L.

  Evans of Hungershall, L.

  Margadale, L.

  Wade, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Mersey, V.

  Wakefield of Kendal, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Meston, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Milverton, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Gaitskell, Bs.

  Plummer, Bs.

  Archibald, L.

  Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Popplewell, L.

  Beswick, L.

  Henderson, L.

  Royle, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

  St. Davids, V.

  Boothby, L.

  Hughes, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Bowles, L. [Teller.]

  Jacques, L.

  Serota, Bs

  Brockway, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Shackleten, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Brown, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Lindgren, L.

  Sorensen, L.

  Burden, L.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

  Stocks, Bs.

  Chalfont, L.

  Longford, E.

  Stonham, L.

  Champion, L.

  McLeavy, L.

  Stow Hill, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Maelor, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Crook, L.

  Mitchison, L.

  Summerskill, Bs.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Moyle, L.

  Taylor of Mansfield, L.

  Douglas of Barloch, L.

  Phillips, Bs.

  Williamson, L.

  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the last one. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 26, after ("reception") insert ("or to operate a broadcast relay service")(Lord Newton.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Saving for things clone tinder licence]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD HELSBY: I should like to ask a question of Her Majesty's Government about Clause 27, in which some of the doubts which were raised in the discussion on Clause 26 seem to me to come to a head. Clause 27 deals with the granting of licences to operate within the field of the Post Office's exclusive privileges under Clause 24. This is its field of monopoly in telecommunications. The clause is drawn very widely. For instance, it extends to
  "signals serving for the actuation or control of machinery or apparatus."
  It may well be that in a few years' time this will be a very wide field, if technological development in British industry goes as fast as we all hope. Already, too, the use of large computers linked with commercial offices by landlines is extending very widely. The banks are introducing such installations; so are other large commercial organisations. I therefore think that, in the long run, what is going to be at stake is not so much the retention of an absolute monopoly, with no competition allowed in any respect whatsoever, but the control in the national interest of the number of people, other than the Post Office, which is allowed to be active in these fields. In other words, the real issue is: who is to he the licensing authority? I confess that I am not clear why it has been decided that it is essential to the Post Office's exclusive privilege that the Post Office itself should be the only body that can license its competitors. When B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. were set up, nobody suggested that they should license the independent airlines; when the British Transport Commission was set up, nobody suggested that it should license
  52
  the commercial road vehicle operators. I do not think there is any instance as yet of the privileges of a commercial body being maintained by a statutory monopoly given to it and not controlled by Parliament.
  I therefore feel that I should ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider this further, even at this late stage. I am not raising any question of whether, in the words of the Postmaster General in another place, there should be "a monopoly which is a monopoly." The only question I am raising is: who should judge what is the public interest in allowing competitors to compete? Surely this should be a Minister answerable to Parliament.
  5.2 p.m.
  LORD BESWICK: I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord had said, and I shall read it to-morrow with interest and, possibly, understanding. He asked me about the future so far as the granting of licences is concerned. As he rightly said, Clause 27 deals with the situation created by the separation of the Post Office from the Minister. The position, as I see it, is that the authority will license infringements of the monopoly with the consent of or within the terms of a general authority given by the Minister. The existing licences—for example, that to the Hull Corporation—will continue. They will run their local service as now. That is provided for in Schedule 9, paragraph 10.
  The Minister will continue to issue the wireless telegraph licence and will also issue the new wired broadcasting licence. In some instances, the authority's licence will be needed, in addition to licences from the Minister. The charges or royalties will fall to be determined by the Post Office. The Minister can only veto the licence; he cannot compel it. That is the situation as I read the Bill. If there is any point that I have missed I shall be happy, after reading what the noble Lord said, to try to answer him at the Report stage.
  LORD HELSBY: May I just make this further point? Clause 27 stipulates that the Minister's consent must be given for a licence to be granted, but it does not in any sense give the Minister authority to instruct the Post Office to give a licence. In other words, the Minister can

  53
  prevent the Post Office having competitors but he cannot instruct the Post Office to allow competitors to compete.
  LORD BESWICK: In certain cases that is so.
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to.
  Clause 32 [General reserve]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD MITCHISON: I am not going to take up the time of the Committee; I am not going to ask any question for which I want any immediate answer, and I hope that I am going to disturb nobody's convictions or differences. But I notice in this Bill—and I ask the noble Lord to notice—that although there is provision here and in another clause, Clause 41, about the Post Office's money held as a banker, there is provision for management (which I presume includes investment) whatever the Treasury or Minister may do, there is no such foolish restriction on investment as occurs in the 1946 Act in relation to the National Insurance Fund and the National Insurance Reserve Fund. I would rather my noble friend did not answer.
  LORD BESWICK: I note the advice that my noble friend has given me, and I will observe it to the letter.
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Clauses 33 to 46 agreed to.
  Clause 47 [Making, by the Minister, in consideration of the Exchequer's being relieved of certain liabilities with respect to pensions, of payments to trustees appointed by the Post Office]:
  5.10 p.m.
  LORD BOWLES: This is purely a correction; I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 43, line 11, leave out ("amounts") and insert ("amount").—(Lord Bowles.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BOWLES: This also is a correction. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
  Amendment moved—
  54
  Page 43, line 12, leave out second ("to").—(Lord Bowles.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 48 to 51 agreed to.
  Clause 52 [Rating in England and Wales]:
  LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 19.
  Page 46, line 14, after ("(a)") insert ("by order").
  The noble Lord said: I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if with this Amendment I took the Amendments to this clause and to the following two clauses. They are all concerned with the proposed method of valuation for rating purposes in, respectively, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is a very technical subject and I do not pretend to be completely conversant with it, but possibly it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I said what was involved and at the end they will see that the principle of the thing is quite simple.
  All the buildings, including the buildings which house the telecommunications equipment for the new Post Office, will be assessed for rates in the same way as the property of any normal commercial undertaking. Because of this normal treatment there is no need for a provision in the Bill about the future rating of buildings. This leaves two parts of the Post Office undertaking, the telecommunications network—posts, wires and underground cables—and the underground railway in London, on which rates are due to he paid but for which the normal methods of valuation are not suitable.
  Clauses 52, 53 and 54 provide especially for the valuation of this property in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In practice, it is expected that in good time before the preparation of new lists at each general revaluation there will be negotiations about the value of the network between the Post Office and the local authority associations. If they cannot reach agreement, the Minister of Housing and Local Government will settle the matter.
  Without going into all the other details, may I say that the whole question has

  55
  been the subject of negotiation with the local authority associations of England and Wales and subsequently with Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is agreement as to the formula which should be applied excepting as to one point concerning the frequency of the valuations. It was suggested by the local authority associations that there should be an annual valuation. Obviously, that would involve very considerable administrative expense and indeed inconvenience. It is hoped that it might be possible to reach a solution under which the valuation would probably be an estimated mid-way period within the five-year period in which the Government propose that revaluation should take place. In any case, the determinations by the Minister at each general revaluation will be by Statutory Instrument and they will be subject to Negative Resolution procedure, so that if Parliament wishes to have a say in this matter it will have the opportunity so to do. The reason why the Amendments are put forward at this late stage is that negotiations have been continuing with the local authority associations and only now has this measure of agreement been reached. Although they are very formidable, I think that the Amendments are all above board, and I trust that on my explanation the Committee will accept them. I beg to move.
  LORD DENHAM: I know that the local authority associations will be very grateful for these Amendments. There is one question I would ask the noble Lord Lord Beswick. The time for the next general revaluation is April 1, 1973. I know that the local authority associations are very anxious about one point. If by any chance the general revaluation should be postponed, can the noble Lord. Lord Beswick, give an undertaking that the reassessment of the Post Office telecommunications network will be carried out on that date anyway?
  LORD BESWICK: I understand the point which the noble Lord makes, and I can give him that assurance.
  LORD DENHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 46, line 20, after ("(b)") insert ("by order").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 46, line 23, leave out ("determine") and insert ("by order specify").—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 46, line 24, leave out ("determine") and insert ("by order prescribe").—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 46, line 31, after ("and") insert ("(subject to the provisions of this section)").—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I beg to move Amendment No. 24.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 46, line 40, at end insert—
  ("(1A) An order under paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection may, if the Minister of Housing and Local Government thinks fit, provide, with respect to each of the years subsequent to the first with respect to which the order has effect or with respect to such of those years as may be specified in the order—

  (a) for the aggregate amount referred to in that paragraph to be re-determined in manner prescribed by the order; or

  (b) for the apportioned parts of that amount to be varied in manner so prescribed;

  and, where such an order includes such provision as is authorised by paragraph (a) of this subsection to be included therein, the aggregate amount, as re-determined in accordance with the order, shall be apportioned amongst the rating districts in which the hereditaments in question are situate in like manner as that amount, as determined by the order, was apportioned.
  (1B) Where an order under this section includes any such provision as is authorised by the last foregoing subsection to be included therein it may, further, include provision for effecting such alterations in rateable values

  57
  shown in rating lists as are rendered requisite in consequence of an apportionment effected by virtue of the last foregoing subsection or a variation effected by virtue of the order and for any incidental, supplementary or consequential matters for which it appears to the Minister of Housing and Local Government requisite to provide for the purposes of the order.")—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I beg to move Amendment No. 25.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 46, line 43, leave out ("the foregoing subsection") and insert ("this section").—(Baroness Llewely-Davies of Hastoe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I beg to move Amendment No. 26.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 2, at end insert—
  ("( ) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 53 [Rating in Scotland]:
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 27.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 17, after ("appropriate,") insert ("by order").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 28.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 27, after ("may") insert ("by order").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 29.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 27, at end insert—
  ("( ) An order under subsection (1) above may, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, provide, with respect to each of the years subsequent to the first with respect to which the order has effect or with respect to such of those years as may be specified in the order—

  (a) for the aggregate amount referred to in that subsection to be re-determined in manner prescribed by the order; or

  58

  (b) for the apportioned parts of that amount to be varied in manner so prescribed;

  and, where such order includes such provision as is authorised by paragraph (a) above to be included therein, the aggregate amount, as re-determined in accordance with the order, shall be apportioned among rating areas in like manner as that amount, as determined by the order, was apportioned.
  ( ) Where an order under this section includes any such provision as is authorised by the last foregoing subsection to be included therein it may, further, include provision for effecting such alterations in rateable values shown in the valuation roll as are rendered requisite in consequence of an apportionment effected by virtue of the last foregoing subsection or a variation effected by virtue of the order and for any incidental supplementary or consequential matters for which it appears to the Secretary of State requisite to provide for the purposes of the order.").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 30.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 32, at end insert—
  ("( ) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Rating in Northern Ireland]:
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 31.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 1, after ("appropriate") insert ("by order").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 11, leave out ("determine") and insert ("by order prescribe").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 11, at end insert—
  ("(2A) An order under subsection (1) above may, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, provide, with respect to each of the years subsequent to the first with respect to which the

  59
  order has effect or with respect to such of those years as may be specified in the order—

  (a) for the aggregate amount referred to in that subsection to be re-determined in manner prescribed by the order; or

  (b) for the apportioned parts of that amount to he varied in manner so prescribed;

  and, where such an order includes such provision as is authorised by paragraph (a) above to be included therein, the aggregate amount, as re-determined in accordance with the order, shall be apportioned among the areas of the local authorities in which the hereditaments in question are situate in like manner as that amount, as determined by the order, was apportioned.
  (2B) Where an order under this section includes any such provision as is authorised by the last foregoing subsection to be included therein it may, further, include provision for effecting such alterations in net annual values shown in valuation lists as are rendered requisite in consequence of an apportionment effected by virtue of that subsection or a variation effected by virtue of the order and for any incidental, supplementary or consequential matters for which it appears to the Secretary of State requisite to provide for the purposes of the order.
  (2C) Where the Secretary of State makes an order under subsection (1) above which includes any such provision as is authorised by subsection (2A) above, any such hereditament as is mentioned in subsection (1) above shall, for the purposes of sections 4 and 5 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act 1854, be deemed to have been included in any lists prepared under those sections for any year in which any re-determination or variation effected by virtue of the order has effect.").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 13, after ("not") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 13, leave out ("annual revision or").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 15, at end insert ("or
  (b) except as authorised by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section, make any annual revision of any such hereditament as is so mentioned.").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.25 p.m.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 37.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 18, at end insert—
  ("(4A) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: In the interests of greater productivity, and if there is unanimity in all quarters upon all the other Amendments, is there any rule under which they could be put en bloc?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AILWYN): There is a rule. With your Lordships' permission I would put the following to your Lordships en bloc: that Clauses 55 to 75 inclusive be agreed to.
  LORD WINDLESHAM: I should like to speak briefly on Clause 65.
  Clauses 55 to 64 agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Obligation of Secrecy]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 65 shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD WINDLESHAM: While we are in Committee I would like to raise one point and ask for some information which may be relevant to a later debate which will take place in your Lordships' House.
  Clause 65 imposes an obligation of secrecy in respect of information obtained in the course of the provision of Post Office computer services to the public, and makes provision for penalties for breaches of secrecy. The clause is therefore also relevant to the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, last Wednesday concerning the rights of individual citizens. I welcome this provision, but would ask the Minister whether he is able to add any further information on the clause. Amendments were tabled to the then Clause 64 in Committee in another place. The main question that arises out of this new statutory obligation is how computers can be effectively policed. It is generally accepted that there is a need for greater secrecy in the

  61
  use of electronic devices, but can the Minister say in what way supervision will be exercised so that if there is any abuse it can be detected and dealt with under the powers contained in Clause 65 of the Bill?
  Perhaps I should apologise for not having given the noble Lord advance warning of this intervention. If he would like to reply later I should be quite happy for him to do so.
  LORD BOWLES: I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen the bulk of the notes on the clauses, and I confess that I have not been through them all; but I have a note here. The clause safeguards the confidentiality of information obtained in the course of the provision for others of data-processing services or services connected therewith by virtue of Part III. It makes disclosures, except in the course of duty or required by law, a statutory offence and specifies the penalties. The explanation is that this clause continues and extends the purpose of Section 2 of the Post Office (Data Processing Service) Act 1967, which was introduced by the Government in the Committee stage of that Bill to meet fears that the information contained in customers' data in the hands of the Post Office National Data Processing Service might be divulged without the consent, or even the knowledge, of the supplier of the data. This clause is wider in extent than Section 2 of the 1967 Act in that it also protects the customers' data in the hands of subsidiaries or contractors of the Post Office. Is the noble Lord satisfied with that explanation?
  LORD WINDLESHAM: It is all very interesting, but it does not deal with the point that I raised.
  LORD BOWLES: Subsection (1) of the clause covers all persons providing for another data-processing service or services by virtue of Part III of the Bill and covers information obtained in any form and not only data entrusted to the Post Office for processing or transmission.
  LORD BESWICK: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is concerned with the technique which will be employed. I confess that I do not know how this desirable purpose would be achieved but I will certainly look into it and let the noble Lord know. One way forward in the direction he wants is by simplification of the official numbering
  62
  system, and if that can be done, it will be done. But if there are any other techniques I will let the noble Lord know on Report stage.
  Clause 65 agreed to.
  Clauses 66 to 75 agreed to.
  Clause 76 [Consequential adaptations of enactments]:
  LORD BOWLES: This Amendment is a paving Amendment to a later Amendment, No. 62, to Schedule 4, which we hope to persuade your Lordships to accept. At present, Schedule 4 adapts many enactments but only one Order in Council. If our later Amendment is accepted the Schedule will then be adapting two Orders in Council. In consequence, the reference to "Order" in Clause 76 should be in the plural. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 58, line 33, leave out ("Order") and insert ("Orders").—(Lord Bowles.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 77 to 83 agreed to.
  Clause 84 [Exemption from postage of certain petitions and addresses, and limitation of amount of postage recoverable in respect of parliamentary proceedings]:
  LORD BOWLES: I think it might be convenient to the Committee to consider with Amendment No. 38 the similar ones to lines 20 and 25. These are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move No. 38.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 61, line 15, leave out ("charged") and insert ("chargeable").—(Lord Bowles.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BOWLES: I beg to move Amendment No. 40.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 61, line 20, leave out ("charged") and insert ("chargeable").—(Lord Bowles.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 61, line 25, leave out ("charged") and insert ("chargeable").—(Lord Bowles.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 85 to 132 agreed to.
  Clause 133 [Power of managers of certain welfare funds to preserve their scope]:
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, which is a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 88, line 3, after (""benevolent"") insert ("or").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  5.31 p.m.
  LORD BESWICK: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage on a matter of procedure. We have done extremely well, and rather better than we might have expected. I do not know what is to happen about the two Amendments which have not been moved, and I am rather surprised that they were not moved. I hope that we shall not see them on the Marshalled List at a later stage of the Bill. However, we have reached a point now where we thought that we might adjourn. I am in the hands of the Committee. I am quite happy to go on and take the Schedules or, if it is thought that there may be some of our Scottish colleagues who would wish to raise particular points, I am equally happy to take the Amendments on Thursday. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who is leading for the Opposition, would care to say what his wishes are, and I should be pleased to fall in with them.
  LORD NEWTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am afraid that I do not know what the desires of Scottish noble Lords are; they certainly have not said anything to me about the matter. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and his noble assistants are to be congratulated on the skill with which they have in the last ten minutes redrafted a large chunk of the Bill. I am not sure to what extent that should reflect equal credit elsewhere. I am quite agreeable that we should go on and take the Schedules now, but I say that on this understanding: that we shall not be told to-night or to-morrow that the noble Lord wishes to take the Report stage on Thursday. If he has that in mind, I am afraid he must expunge it.
  LORD BESWICK: If the noble Lord is asking me whether I have the wish, the
  64
  answer is, Yes; if he asks me whether I have the intention, the answer is, No.
  LORD NEWTON: Then we are happy to continue with the Committee stage.
  Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [Adaptations of enactments and Order in Council consequential on the assumption by the new authority for the conduct of postal and telegraphic business of function exercised and performed before the appointed day by the Postmaster General]:
  LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 43
  Page 104, line 29, after ("shall") insert (", unless the context otherwise requires,")
  The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. As printed, the paragraph provides that the word "postage" in the Post Office Act 1953 shall mean postage chargeable by the new Post Office. This Amendment caters for two references to "postage" in the 1953 Act, in Section 63 and Schedule 2, which clearly do not have this meaning, because they refer to rates of postage in other countries. I beg to move.—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: The Bill makes the new Post Office a statutory undertaking for the purposes of Sections 82 and 83 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, Schedule 4, paragraph 92. This Amendment puts the Post Office in the same position in Scotland. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 111, line 5, at end insert—
  ("37A. As from the appointed day, sections 27 and 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1945 shall apply to the acquisition of land by the authority under this Act as they apply to the acquisition of land by a purchasing authority under any other enactment.").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee to consider Amendment No. 45 with the other Amendments on the same page of the Bill. They are all drafting Amendments, simply to give the same protection in Scotland as that afforded to the Post Office in England and Wales by paragraph 58 of the Schedule. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 120, line 22, at end insert ("or a street is closed or diverted").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 46.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 120, line 24, after ("land") insert ("or street").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 47.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 120, line 28, after ("subsisted") insert ("or on which the street was situated").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: Again I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee to consider with Amendment No. 48 those at pages 123, lines 35 and 39, and 142, lines 22, 42 and 44. These Amendments are all consequent upon the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, which is now awaiting Royal Assent, and make corresponding provisions to those already in the Bill for England and Wales by virtue of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968. I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 122, line 32, at end insert—
  ("91A.—(1) As from the appointed day, section 70(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969 (new provisions as to what is 'operational land' of statutory undertakers) shall, in relation to the authority, have effect with the substitution, for the reference to section 113(1) of the Act of 1947, of a reference to paragraph 92(4) below.
  (2) The said section 70 shall not apply to land in the case of which an interest therein of the Postmaster General vests in the authority by virtue of section 16 of this Act.
  (3) In paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969 (construction of certain statutory references to the acquisition of land and to land acquired) any reference to an enactment other than the Act of 1947 and that Act and the reference to a statutory provision shall include a reference to section 55 of this Act.").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 49.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 122, line 45, leave out ("3(4)(c)").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 50.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 122, line 45, after ("42") insert ("(4) and (5), 94 and").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 51.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 122, line 45, leave out ("and 113(2)").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 52.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 123, line 35, leave out ("and").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 53.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 123, line 39, at end insert ("and
  (xxxii) sections 34(1), 62, 63, 70 to 74 (both inclusive), 89, 92(3) and 93(2) of, and paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of Schedule 4, Schedules 5 to 7 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 to, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969;").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 54.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 124, line 4, leave out ("99 and 113") and insert ("and 99").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 55.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 124, line 9, leave out ("section 31(9) of, and").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 56.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 124, line 20, leave out ("and").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 57.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 124, line 22, at end insert ("and
  (r) section 74(5) of, and Schedule 5 and paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 to, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969;").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 58.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 124, line 42, leave out ("and").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 59.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 124, line 44, at end insert ("and
  (i) section 72(3) of, and Schedule 5 to, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969;").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 60:
  Page 127, line 10, after ("maintained") insert ("by the Postmaster General or the authority").
  The noble Lord said: This, too, is really a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to stop up a small legal loophole. The Metropolitan Water Board Various Powers Act 1907 could he construed as having empowered the Board to place and maintain telegraphic lines under the streets. This Amendment makes it clear that should there be any such lines in existence paragraph 95 of Schedule 4 would not apply to them. Paragraph 95 of Schedule 4 exempts telegraph lines placed and maintained in streets from provisions in local enactments. The Postmaster General has always been exempt from such provisions. Paragraph 95 ensures that the Post Office will be in the same position. The Metropolitan Water Board has not been exempt, so should not now be covered by the paragraph. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.48 p.m.
  LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 61:
  Page 129, line 9, at end insert—
  ("100A. Nothing in a local Act passed in the same Session as this Act shall authorise the doing of anything constituting an infringement of the privilege conferred by section 24(1) of this Act.")
  The noble Lord said: A local Act frequently contains a saving for the Postmaster General's telecommunications monopoly to make it clear that the powers given by the local Act do not override it. These savings have in the past been expressed by reference to the
  68
  exclusive privilege conferred on the Postmaster General by the Telegraph Act 1869. I am advised that this is replaced by a new exclusive privilege under Clause 24 of this Bill, and savings in future local Acts will refer to this new privilege. The Amendment is designed to deal with any local Bills containing a saving which are passing through Parliament in the current Session. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 129. line 11, at end insert—
  ("100B. As from the appointed day, references in the Parliamentary Writs Order 1944 (which lays down rules for the conveyance through the post of writs for parliamentary elections for constituencies in Great Britain) to the Postmaster General shall be construed as referring to the authority.")
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a technical one. Its purpose is to transfer to the new Post Office certain duties imposed on the Postmaster General by the Parliamentary Writs Order 1944. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedules 5 to 7 agreed to.
  Schedule 8 [Obsolete, &;c., Enactments ceasing to have Effect]:
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 63.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 150, line 37, after ("shall",") insert ("and")—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: This Amendment is a correction. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 170, line 12, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Post Office Savings Bank Act 1954")—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 9 [General Transitional Provisions]:
  LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 175, line 23, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
  The noble Lord said: This is the first of a number of Amendments concerned

  69
  simply with drafting. I wonder whether the Committee would agree that we take them together with the Amendments to page 184 on lines 1, 2 and 10 and line 13, in which there are two Amendments, and page 197, lines 6, 15 and 26. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 66:
  Page 181, line 29, at end insert—
  ("22A. In relation to an agreement which, on the appointed day, becomes subject to registration under Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 by reason of its having effect as from that day as if the Post Office had been a party thereto, section 10 of that Act (particulars to be furnished for registration) and section 7 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1968 (consequences of failure to register) shall have effect with the substitution, for references to the time within which particulars are required to be furnished under section 6 of the last-mentioned Act (time for registration of agreements), of references to the period of three months beginning with that day and the said section 6 shall not apply.")
  The noble Lord said: There are certain residual provisions of the agreements relating to the supply of equipment to the Post Office and to joint research and development in respect of such equipment, the main provisions of which will have ceased to operate just before vesting day. This will make the agreements registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act on the occasion of the change of status of the Post Office. The Amendment is a transitional provision which will allow the new Post Office a reasonable time to comply with the formalities involved in the registration of agreements. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 183, line 42, at end insert—
  (". In the application of this sub-paragraph to Scotland, for the reference to Parts VI and XI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 there shall be substituted a reference to the following provisions—

  (a) sections 1 and 2, Part II, sections 50, 65 and 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1954; and

  (b) section 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1959.")

  The noble Lord said: This again is the first of a group of Amendments all of which relate to the Town and Country
  70
  Planning (Scotland) Bill, and I am sure it would be for our convenience if we take them all together. The others are to page 184, lines 20, 25, 33 and 35; page 185, lines 19 and 31, to which there are two Amendments, and line 32; page 186, line 13, and page 195, line 32. Because of the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act in 1968 certain references to earlier Town and Country planning legislation and its Scottish equivalent were removed from earlier drafts of the Bill. These Scottish equivalents are reinstated by these Amendments, duly altered to take account of the provision of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill which is now awaiting Royal Assent. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: Amendments Nos. 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72 may be put together. They were mentioned when we dealt with page 175.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 184, line 1, leave out ("them") and insert ("it")
  Page 184, line 2, leave out ("them") and insert ("it")
  Page 184, line 10, leave out ("approve") and insert ("approves")
  Page 184, line 13, leave out ("them") and insert ("it")
  Page 184, line 13, leave out ("they do") and insert ("it does").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 73 to 82. They were discussed when we dealt with page 183, line 42.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 184, line 20, at end insert—
  (". In the application of this sub-paragraph to Scotland, for the references to section 19(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 and to the Minister of Housing and Local Government there shall be substituted respectively references to section 12(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 and to the Secretary of State.")
  Page 184, line 25, after ("1968") insert ("and section 70 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969")
  Page 184, line 33, after ("have") insert (", in the application of this paragraph to England and Wales,")
  Page 184, line 35, at end insert ("and, in the application of this paragraph to Scotland, the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947")
  Page 185, line 19, after ("1968") insert ("and sections 66 and 67 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969")
  Page 185, line 31, at end insert—
  (". In the application of this sub-paragraph to Scotland, for the references to subsections (3) and (5) of section 67 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 and to sections 65 and 66 of that Act there shall be substituted respectively references to subsections (3) and (5) of section 68 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969 and to sections 66 and 67 of that Act.")
  Page 185, line 31, at end insert—
  ("( ) For the purposes of the general application of this paragraph to Scotland, in subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3) the words 'and the expiration of the relevant period' and subparagraphs (4) and (12)(c) shall be omitted.")
  Page 185, line 32, leave out ("Scotland or")
  Page 186, line 13, after ("1968") insert ("or section 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969")
  Page 195, line 32, leave out from ("1962") to end of line 34 and insert ("and to section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 there shall be substituted respectively references to section 34 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 and to section 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969.")—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD BESWICK: Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85 were discussed when we dealt with the Amendment at page 175, line 23. I beg to move the three Amendments together.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 197, line 6, after ("effect") insert ("as from the day")
  Page 197, line 15, leave out ("that document") and insert ("those documents")
  Page 197, line 26, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("Act").—(Lord Beswick.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 10 agreed to.
  Schedule 11 [Repeals and Revocations]:
  LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendments Nos. 86 and 87:
  Page 250, leave out lines 2 to 8.
  Page 258, line 18, at end insert—

  ("1969 c.

  The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969.

  In section 30, subsection (2), and, in subsection (4), the words 'or the Postmaster General'.")

  The noble Lord said: Again, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we deal with the two remaining Amendments together. Both of these Amendments arise out of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill. The first deletes from the Bill the repeal of certain parts of the 1947 Act because those parts are already repealed by the new Scottish Bill. The second Amendment, No. 87, repeals those provisions of Section 30 of the new Scottish Bill which give powers of compulsory purchase to the Postmaster General because they will become obsolete when the Post Office Bill comes into force. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to,
  Remaining Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.