POST OFFICE BILL

HL Deb 23 June 1969 vol 303 cc28-72

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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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.

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, 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 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 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 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 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 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— 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 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 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—

1. (a) for the aggregate amount referred to in that paragraph to be re-determined in manner prescribed by the order; or
2. (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 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—

1. (a) for the aggregate amount referred to in that subsection to be re-determined in manner prescribed by the order; or
58
2. (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 order has effect or with respect to such of those years as may be specified in the order—

1. (a) for the aggregate amount referred to in that subsection to be re-determined in manner prescribed by the order; or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

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