My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

Yes, my Lords, there are two such groups. First, there are the married women and widows who have opted to pay the reduced rate national insurance contribution. The rate of this contribution has been increased to finance their entitlement to statutory sick pay. Secondly, there are some employees whose current earnings qualify them for statutory sick pay but whose contribution record is insufficient to qualify them for sickness benefit.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware that noble Lords on this side of the House are always very glad indeed to learn of any generous gesture made by the Government at the moment, even when, as some of us suspected in this case, that gesture has been made by mistake? But it would appear that this has been done on purpose. So that we can know the extent of the Government's generosity, will the noble Lord be in a position to tell us at some time how much the Government have taken in by way of increased contributions from these people and how much they have paid out by way of statutory sick pay? That will enable us to know whether the Government have actually made a profit.

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord feels that it has been a generous gesture. It was certainly on purpose that it was done in this way. So far as figures are concerned, as the noble Lord will appreciate it is a little early yet, but at the end of the year there will be a return and that will tell us how much statutory sick pay had been paid out in the financial year. Perhaps when I have those details I can let the noble Lord know.

My Lords, we on this side are very glad when anyone gets any money from the Government for anything. May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he can tell the House about the number of exclusions—the completions of the exclusion form, the SSP1E? This entitles an employer not to pay sick pay under this scheme. Also, what information can the noble Lord give the House about non-payment of SSI?

My Lords, I do not think that I can give the noble Baroness information on the SSP1E, but I shall certainly find out and let her know. Will the noble Baroness repeat the second part of her supplementary question?

My Lords, it was to ask whether the noble Lord will be able to tell the House at some time about the number of exclusions and the effect on employees of these regulations, which relate mainly to low pay.

Yes, my Lords, in due course; but of course, the figures are not fully available yet. When they are, I shall let the noble Baroness know.

My Lords, may ask my noble friend whether he is aware that until this scheme started widows were unable to claim sickness benefit at all because of the overlapping benefit rule, and that throughout the country they are most indebted to the Government for bringing in the scheme?

My Lords, national insurance widows have always been able to claim and qualify for sickness benefit under the normal rules; but, as my noble friend says, the amount of benefit payable is limited under the overlapping benefit provisions to the greater of the sickness benefit and the widow's benefit. It is not really a question of having gained entitlement, but it is certainly a question of having gained more money.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, on 12th January, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,199,678, representing an unemployment rate of 13.4 per cent. An analysis by age shows that young people have the highest unemployment rate.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for that reply, but is he aware of the report published at the weekend which showed that over the past four or five years the group of people who have suffered most from job losses are the women of this country? If the Government have any schemes for job improvement or to increase job provision, will he seek to influence them to consider jobs for women as a top priority?

My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the evidence that we have is that the worst affected groups are young people. Nevertheless, unemployment is an evil wherever it falls, and I am of course sensitive to its effects in respect of any group in our economy.

My Lords, I was of course referring to the figures. The Minister referred to young people as being the groups most adversely hit. I am referring to all females, including those in the younger age groups. The figures show quite clearly that women as a group have lost more jobs than any other section in the community.

My Lords, does the noble Earl recall the many speeches made by Government spokesmen in the other place linking the rate of inflation to the rate of unemployment and saying that if inflation came down unemployment would also come down? As inflation has come down but unemployment has gone up, is there another explanation?

My Lords, this is precisely the point which the Government would never lose an opportunity to seek to make clear. The falls in the levels of inflation have coincided with a marked improvement in the rates of increase in unemployment levels. For instance, although it takes some time to feed through, over the past six months there has been an average monthly rise of 4,000, compared with an average monthly rise of 21,000 in the six months previously. Allowing for the two-year or one and a half year time lag that most economists now bargain for, that is a very startling effect indeed, and it is thoroughly to be wished that it continues.

My Lords, in the light of what my noble friend has said about juvenile unemployment—which I think many of us regard as socially the worst of all forms of unemployment—may I ask whether the Government have given consideration to the effect on it of the practice of the remaining wages councils of fixing rates of pay for juveniles very close to the adult rate?

My Lords, in December the Department of Employment published a research paper which conclusively showed that there was a relation between levels of pay on offer and the incidence of unemployment among young people. I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will reflect their concern about unemployment among the young or any other groups in society by seeking to persuade those who influence pay bargaining.

My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree—

Order, Order!

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Is the noble Earl aware that untypically he has not answered the Question on the Order Paper? The Question asked for the figures for unemployment and the noble Earl gave us the figures for claimants. Is he able to tell us the total number of unemployed in the country?

My Lords, I am not able to state that with precision because of course the only measure we have is those who claim. But it is certainly the case that without the very large sums of public money that the Government spend in order to help those who are suffering the evil of unemployment, the figure would be substantially higher.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that—as he has suggested—noble Lords on all sides of the House are deeply concerned about unemployment among the youth and that we are not particularly upset that there may be some who are employed and are under the protection of the wages councils? Would that they were all employed and under the protection of the wages councils! I think that every Member of the House would agree with that. Is the noble Earl also aware that some of the schemes on which the Government have embarked are not producing results? Will he please be prepared to consider the setting up of a national council, comprising representatives of the CBI, the TUC and other parts of industry, as well as some scientific experts and experts from our universities, who might be able to make a contribution as to what is required in order to get our youth gainfully employed?

Alas, my Lords, words do not create jobs; would that it were so! The fact of the matter is that only a stable currency and the recovery of the whole of the West from a very deep recession will actually generate more jobs in the real world.

My Lords, before we develop a national inferiority complex on this subject, when considering unemployment, which is rife all over Europe, ought it not to be borne in mind that our schemes for alleviating it are becoming the envy of the other countries? Ought not the other side of the coin to be taken into account? That is, that per thousand of the population this country has more people in employment than has any other European country, except Denmark.

My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that it does not help employment in this country if we persistently talk ourselves down. Of the 20 OECD countries for which regular unemployment figures are available, in the past 12 months only five had lower percentage increases than the United Kingdom. During that period unemployment has risen by 25 per cent, in Norway; 16 per cent, in Ireland; 15 per cent, in Spain; 12 per cent, in the Netherlands; 10 per cent, in Italy; 9 per cent, in Denmark; 5 per cent, in Belgium; and 4 per cent. here.

My Lords, in view of the fact that the rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland is considerably higher than in any other region of the United Kingdom, and in the light of the substantial amount of public funds invested in the ex-De Lorean factory near Belfast, which was purpose built for the manufacture and assembly of motor-cars, but which is now lying idle, will not the noble Earl agree that there is now what amounts to a moral obligation on Her Majesty's Government to do their best to direct the Nissan car plant to that factory?

My Lords, as a fellow Irishman, I admire the noble Lord's ingenuity, but that is another Question.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us regard the figures on unemployment in this country that have been given today by the Government as ridiculous because we consider that the Government are manipulating the figures of total unemployment, which we consider to be at least 5 million?

My Lords, in a previous reply I pointed out to the House—and I hope that as a courtesy to me the noble Lord will check this—that without the very considerable sums of money from central funds which the Government are spending on this great problem and evil, the rates of unemployment would be considerably higher than they are.

My Lords, does the noble Earl have available figures regarding the level of unemployment among the registered disabled? May I also ask him whether, as an example to other employers, Government departments are continuing to employ the appropriate percentage of registered disabled people?

My Lords, if the noble Lord will put that down as a Question I shall do my best to answer it.

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the number of places available under the community programme represents, in the Government's view, an adequate response to the increasing number of people aged between 18 and 24 who have now been unemployed for more than 12 months?

My Lords, it is very much my view that the best way in which we can help the long-term unemployed is by setting the economy to rights and creating the conditions for higher rates of growth. But help is available through the community programme which is now providing up to 130,000 temporary jobs. Naturally, I would wish that help to be extended, but we have to take into account that the spending that would improve such a figure would also be to the detriment of recovery generally.

My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that his answer to the very pointed question of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, indicates clearly that the figure of claimants that he has given on behalf of the Government is a grossly understated figure in regard to the actual problem of unemployment and that most responsible sources consider it to be a million more? Is the Minister aware that, apart from youths whom he described as the main problem of unemployment, there are also people in the 30 to 40 age bracket who may never work again in view of the rate at which unemployment figures are proceeding at present? When will the Government really take on board the views of bodies such as the CBI, the TUC and even the Institute of Directors, which suggest a reflation of the economy to deal with this appalling problem?

My Lords, I am not sure whether the CBI or the Institute of Directors have been seeking a generalised reflation of the economy which in a trading economy such as ours could have a pretty adverse effect on unemployment and other areas. Leaving that point aside, I thought that I had made clear to the noble Lord and to the House that I think the overall problem of unemployment would be rather greater were the Government not tackling the matter in the way that they are.

My Lords, can the noble Earl give the figure of the total number of unemployed claimants who have been claiming supplementary benefit for more than a year and how many children they are responsible for supporting?

My Lords, I think that I would need prior notice to answer that question.

My Lords, in view of the Minister's original Answer that it is youth which forms the highest part of unemployment, would he not agree that apprenticeship is a sure way to employment as shown by the youth schemes in Germany and Austria? Will he say whether he is satisfied that British firms offer as many apprenticeships as possible?

My Lords, I agree that that is an entirely laudable objective. But for British firms to offer more apprenticeships they have to be secure in the knowledge of more orders. They have, in short, to be more competitive. Government policies are designed to create a climate in which they can become more competitive.

My Lords, I wish to put a very brief question. What do the Government intend to do to reduce the number of unemployed?

My Lords, as I think I said in my first supplementary, to create a stable financial environment and to operate both nationally and internationally in a disciplined manner so that the Western world can come out of a largely self-induced recession.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the steadily increasing daily attendance at your Lordships' House has added to the pressure on car parking space. This problem is constantly under review and the police and the staff of the House do their best to cope within the restricted space available.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for that reply, I should like to join with him in thanking the attendants of the House and the police for the assistance that they render to Members, especially those who are disabled, seeking to park their cars. As parking spaces become more and more scarce, and as the abolition of this House becomes more and more remote, could not parking space be created underground as has been done in the other place so that the approaches to this House may be more greatly enhanced?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the tribute that he paid to the staff and to the police. I am sure that it will be echoed thoughout the House. I doubt very much whether his idea of a further underground car park is really feasible, but we shall continue to do our best to provide as much space as we can.

My Lords, while agreeing with what has been said about the staff and the police, can the noble Lord help me over something that has always puzzled me in regard to the car park? Why is the statue there one of King Richard I? I never heard that he was much of a parliamentarian.

My Lords, it is perfectly true that Richard I spent only six months of his 10-year reign in this country but this statue was commissioned as a commemorative symbol of the Great Exhibition and exhibited by the sculptor Carlo Marochetti at the west entrance of the exhibition in 1951.

Eighteen fifty-one.

My Lords, 1851.I am reading but I am reading it wrong. In 1859, it was decided that the statue should be placed in Old Palace Yard and it has been there ever since.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if noble Lords would learn to park head to tail with the passenger doors close together and only one gap between cars it would be possible to park six cars where only five are accommodated at present? Is he also aware that if chauffeur driven cars would leave the car park as soon as they have dropped their passengers this would relieve congestion considerably?

My Lords, I am sure that those suggestions will have been heard and will be observed. I can only say that the staff perform an amazing job in getting a quart into a pint pot. There are 94 car parking spaces between the Peers car park and the Royal Court car park and very often 135 cars are parked in those spaces.

My Lords, the noble Lord rightly calls attention to the fact that demand on space has increased over the last decade or so. Am I also not right in saying that the space has been decreased since a pedestrian way was railed off? Is there not a demand for something more to be done?

My Lords, I think that marginally that was so. On the other hand, we did gain a few other places nearer to St. Stephen's Hall when the House of Commons began using its underground car park.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on Scottish shipping subsidies.

The Committee stage of the Telecommunications Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7.30 p.m. for about three-quarters of an hour. During this adjournment the Committee stage of the Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, the European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1984 and the District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to empower harbour masters to give directions to prohibit vessels from entering the areas of jurisdiction of their respective harbour authorities or to require the removal of vessels from those areas where those vessels present a grave and imminent danger to human life, property or navigation, to enable the Secretary of State to give further directions countermanding those first mentioned directions, to provide for compensation for damages suffered in certain circumstances as a consequence of those directions, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee in this Bill.

During the proceedings of your Lordships' Committee yesterday the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in the course of the debate on an amendment, indicated at col. 470 of the Official Report:

"We intend to make a statement to the House at a later stage of the Bill outlining the steps we propose to take to permit wider resale of circuits leased from BT".

That statement at the time aroused some anxiety in the Committee, and indeed some debate took place upon it. At a later stage the noble and learned Lord was moved to say that he hoped to have a statement made not at the Committee stage but at Report or Third Reading. That did not meet with the entire approval of the Committee and it did not quite quell its anxieties. So a little later in the proceedings the noble and learned Lord said that he hoped that the Government would be in a position to make the statement by the Report stage of the Bill.

Your Lordships will recall that there was still some widespread dissatisfaction with the situation, and that subsequently the Committee divided on the Motion, That the House do now resume. And the Government obtained only a very small majority. The situation is still very unsatisfactory. I have considered the matter with my noble friends on this side of the House and we now have formally to ask the Government whether the promised statement can be made at least 10 days before the Report stage of the Bill. Your Lordships will appreciate that this matter is of some consequence, not only in regard to amendments that have been discussed, but also in regard to those still to come, particularly those with financial implications. Therefore, it will be necessary, for the convenience of Her Majesty's Opposition—and indeed for other Members of the House—to have this statement in good time to enable the appropriate consultations to take place, so that the matter may be discussed in some detail, and in order that amendments may be put down in good time before the Report stage. Then the Government will have an opportunity of considering the reaction that results from their statement. We should be most grateful if the House can be given that assurance.

My Lords, I give the noble Lord and the House the assurance that it will be put before your Lordships' in good time.

My Lords, the noble Viscount has been kind enough to make that statement, but I wonder whether he can clarify the position rather more than he has done? My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has made a very reasonable statement and a very reasonable request to the House. What the noble Viscount has done is to leave us in the same state of uncertainty as we were left in yesterday. "In good time" is not quite good enough. We need to know that this will be in our hands a reasonable period of time before the Report stage. As my noble friend has said, this is a matter of the utmost complexity and importance. Therefore, we shall be most grateful to the noble Viscount if he can give us a rather clearer indication of when we may expect the statement.

My Lords, this is a very complicated Bill and I and Members sitting on this side of the House would like to support what has been said already.

My Lords, of course I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. When I said "in good time" I hoped that that could be interpreted as being in reasonable time and in proper time before the Report stage.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 109:

moved Amendment No. 110:

Leave out Clause 46 and insert the following clause:

Your Lordships will know that the party to which I have the honour to belong has a long tradition in strongly supporting matters relating to privacy and the human rights of the individual. Many of your Lordships will still remember the many interventions made by the late Leader of my party, whose sudden death we all so greatly mourn. Noble Lords will no doubt remember the many interventions he made in your Lordships' House on this very matter of human rights and questions of privacy. In view of the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with all of which I certainly agree, echoing as he has done the powerful words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, I shall be very brief. I merely want to say that if the noble Lord decides to move to a Division, then we on these Benches will certainly support him in that.

Your Lordships will forgive me if I emphasise one matter since I have raised so many matters during the Committee stage of this Bill relating to EC and foreign laws. The passing of this amendment will in my view be a very useful and helpful method of enabling the Government to put themselves within the European law in relation to human rights.

I had no reason to think that I would be present this afternoon, otherwise I should have come prepared to deal with this vitally important constitutional matter. I have to say that my time in the Chamber must be limited to the next half an hour. I hope your Lordships will acquit me of discourtesy, because it is absolutely impossible for me to remain here. But I cannot be here for any time at all without submitting to the Committee that it is wholly unthinkable that in these days subsection (3) of Clause 46 in the Bill can be tolerated for a moment. It says:

"Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done in obedience to a warrant under the hand of the Secretary of State"—

no more. A warrant issued by the Secretary of State is a complete answer to the earlier provisions. That simply will not do. This is not a party matter; this is a matter of the greatest constitutional importance.

No Secretary of State in any Government must be able to say: "You cannot inquire into this matter at all; I have issued a warrant. You may consider, you may be convinced—indeed, it may be apparent to everybody—that there was no ground on which a warrant could be issued, but nothing can be done about it". Accordingly, all I can submit for the earnest consideration of the Committee is that nothing should be done which will lead to the acceptance of such a provision as is contained in subsection (3) of Clause 46.

For the first time I have seen the suggestion contained in the amendment proposed. It begins in subsection (3) by placing a fetter upon the action of the Secretary of State. It is not simply his ipse dixit, to say that a warrant will be issued. He is required to be satisfied of at least certain matters. Whether or not the formula, if he is satisfied, et cetera, is quite acceptable in the light of the trouble caused by such cases as Liversidge v Anderson is a matter which I think demands very careful consideration hereafter, but at least the amendment has the virtue of placing or seeking to place some degree of fetter upon the power of the Secretary of State—if he is satisfied that it would assist in the detection of a serious offence, and so on.

I apologise for the total inadequacy and the shabbiness of my intervention at this stage in the wholly unforeseen circumstances of my being present here this afternoon. But I implore the Committee to see that something is done on the lines of subsection (3) of the amendment to Clause 46, at least, and that the clause in its present form does not go through.

The noble Lord who moved this amendment referred us to the earlier occasion when a very similar amendment was debated and when his noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones moved the corresponding amendment. The argument is very much the same now as it was then, subject to the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, only yesterday the European Court of Human Rights were hearing the oral submissions arising out of the case of Malone, which was dealt with on the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry, to which the noble Lord referred. As is the custom in the European Court of Human Rights, the decision has been postponed for some time, so it will be some little time before the judgment of the court upon this matter in the case of Malone will be available. It would certainly seem to the Government that this would not be an appropriate time at which to attempt to deal with this matter in legislation, when there is a case pending which is absolutely germane to it. The arguments of the Attorney General have been referred to already on that matter.

I think it is important to remember that the essential point we are discussing today is not the need for interception for the purposes set out in the White Paper, the detection of serious crime and the safeguarding of the security of the state, but the way in which it is controlled to ensure that the power to intercept communications is exercised only in clearly justifiable cases and that the use made of it is limited to what is strictly necessary.

In my submission to your Lordships it is not completely right to say that telephones can be tapped without proper control. Both the clause in the Bill and, of course, the amendment moved by the noble Lord provide that telephones may not be lawfully tapped without a warrant of the Secretary of State, and that anyone tapping in the course of their duties without such warrant would be guilty of an offence. There is a point between us possibly about what the penalty should be, but there is no question that unwarranted telephone tapping is an offence under the provisions of the Bill already. The only question is whether the granting of a warrant by the Secretary of State should be subject to controls which are set out in the statute, or should be a matter of the personal administrative responsibility of the Secretary of State for which he is answerable to Parliament under provisions of an administrative character which Parliament have set up, to which I shall come in a little more detail in a moment.

The Government's case against the detailed regulation of interception by statute rests on the proposition that interception, to be effective, must be secret. This means that both the fact of interception and the information which led to it must be secret. But if the detailed criteria for interception were laid down in an Act of Parliament then the whole process would become subject to much more open scrutiny. The inclusion in this Bill of this amendment would give private individuals the right to sue the Secretary of State in a civil suit in the courts, and the courts would be obliged to adjudicate.

To enable the courts to determine these matters fairly all the relevant information would have to be exposed in evidence because the procedures which are set down in the amendment require that certain information should be before the Secretary of State before the warrant is granted, and if that is to be adequately tested it would require revealing precisely the information which must be kept secret for the interception to be effective. Secrecy and litigation are difficult to reconcile, because the basic principle of our litigation is that it is completely open whereas secrecy of course goes in the opposite direction.

The Government believe that the present system under which the power of the Secretary of State to authorise interception under warrant is specifically recognised by legislation, and the White Paper, The Interception of Communications in Great Britain, which sets out detailed administrative procedures and safeguards for interception on behalf of the police, Customs and Excise, and the security service, avoid the unacceptable consequences of legislation while indicating clearly the strict controls on interception for these purposes.

In addition—and this is the further matter to which I made reference earlier—there is the further safeguard of the independent judicial monitor. Lord Diplock's report published in March 1981, Command 81/91, found that the procedures set out in the 1981 White Paper were being strictly observed. In addition, there is the undertaking that the Home Secretary will inform the other place of any changes in these arrangements. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, has now taken over from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, the task of maintaining a continuing independent check on individual cases. In the Government's view this scrutiny by the independent judicial monitor ensures that the arrangements set out in the 1980 White Paper continue to be scrupulously observed, while at the same time it preserves the secrecy which is the central feature of these arrangements.

It is not easy to elaborate upon this matter. These are the essential features of the argument and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, they have been elaborated many times. A further safeguard of course is the position of British Telecommunications itself. They need the confidence of their customers and would not put it at risk by allowing any kind of snooping on those customers' communications, and apart altogether from that there is the criminal sanction to which I have already referred.

In that situation I would suggest to your Lordships that the position which the Government have consistently taken up is one to which your Lordships should give effect at this stage. As I said, the effect is that the Court of Human Rights is in the course of dealing with a particular case on this very matter at this moment. It would seem to be a singularly inappropriate moment at which to indulge in detailed legislation. I should remind your Lordships that in the passage quoted from the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry, he indicated that legislation of this kind would possibly be simpler than legislating the right of privacy completely, but it is apparent from the way in which he expressed himself that he did not anticipate that legislation in this area would be particularly simple. In that situation the view of the Government is that this amendment should not be given effect, and that the clause as it stands in the Bill should stand part.

Is the noble and learned Lord the Minister aware that the view could well be taken that British legislation should by and large support anything that comes from the Court of Human Rights in Europe but that we certainly ought not to hold up any legislation to wait to see which way that court jumps? If we start on that caper, we would hardly get any legislation through this House whatsoever. However, we have to take full cognisance of what the Court of Human Rights says.

The other thing which the Minister ought to take into account is the able speech to which we listened from my noble friend Lord Mishcon, and the tremendously powerful words from learned people in the world of the judiciary that he quoted. They made us all think. Then we had the notable contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies. Those of us who are not lawyers but who have listened to the words of these eminent people will realise that they are all opposed to the Government doing this. When one realises what we have heard said this afternoon in this Committee, and that the Opposition parties have declared themselves in support of the official Opposition against the Government, one is compelled to think that the safeguards which the noble and learned Lord read out are more excuses than safeguards, and that we should not be put off our duty.

Our duty lies in the firm belief that the ordinary people of this country are dead against any form of phone tapping except perhaps within the parameters outlined by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. It is on that basis that I support this amendment this afternoon. I believe that the mass of ordinary Britons in this island of ours support the judges who were quoted by my noble friend, and support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies. I hope that the Government too will come round to agreeing to the amendment.

On one matter I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would have persuaded us that he was right, and that was that telephone tapping is desirable on some occasions in the national interest. First, it is clearly desirable when there is a case of espionage, or suspected espionage. Secondly, it is desirable when there is a belief that it is the only way of bringing to justice some group of criminals involved in the international trade in narcotics. Thirdly, it is right when there is a belief by the Home Secretary that it is the only way to bring to justice people who are involved in grave criminal offences which, if carried through, will cause loss of life.

In those three cases I think there is no doubt that telephone tapping and mail interception are right. But I have rarely heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate less persuasive on an important issue which this Committee is discussing, particularly following the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate turned to deal with the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry, he in no way began to answer the point made by Sir Robert Megarry in that judgment.

What he said—and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reminded us of it—was that telephone tapping cries out for legislation. The answer, in so far as there was an answer from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, was that Sir Robert Megarry had also said that legislation would not be easy to draft. No doubt it would not be, but that frankly is no answer at all. The Government have a clear obligation to bring forward legislation of their own. If they do not like the amendment, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will listen to the balance of the argument that has been deployed in this Chamber this afternoon and indicate that at a later stage he will bring forward legislation. What is involved here is this country, yet again, being dragged to the European court.

It is quite obvious what the judgment of that court would be. We already lost our argument in the European Commission when we were defeated very nearly unanimously. What will happen is that later this year the European Court will bring forward a judgment which, once again, will cause great damage to the international reputation of this country and will give rise to some dark beliefs held by some people—I do not share those beliefs—that there is something very mysterious and wrong going on in this area of telephone interception. There is no point in saying that there is little risk involved in not having legislation.

I shall deal with one case that has not been touched on. It was a disciplinary case brought against a barrister some years ago. The noble and learned Lord may remember it. What was discovered on that occasion was that the telephone conversations of a member of the Bar had been intercepted and had been used as evidence against him in disciplinary proceedings. As a result of that a committee including the late Lord Birkett and Lord Gordon-Walker, were appointed to investigate this matter and produce a report. Following that report which the Government of the day accepted, there still remain grave doubts and uncertainty about the way in which the Home Secretary utilised his power. I do not believe there is a mystery. I believe that successive Home Secretaries have behaved wholly honourably in this matter, but there is so much public disquiet that it is the responsibility of the Government to bring forward a sensible amendment of their own, if they do not like this one, and put this whole issue on a statutory basis. That was what Sir Robert Megarry recommended and I hope the Committee will take that view this afternoon.

The Committee is always entertained by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to powerful speeches and effective reasoning. I am afraid I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that on this occasion he did not quite come up to that standard. It is not because of any lack of ability of the noble and learned Lord; it is merely that his mind was speaking but his heart was not in it. That was completely obvious.

I shall take up two points rapidly while paying my tribute to the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies. Is it not an extraordinary answer from the Government, that the reason that this is not timely is that we are waiting for the judgment of the European Court? I follow completely what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. Are we again to be forced into legislation, as it is quite obvious we are bound to be, because the court has found against us? Or are we to adopt an amendment of this kind which would mean without any doubt that we would not then be in breach of the convention? If the Government want to be put into that undignified position, may I be allowed to say in all humility that I do not think that the majority of the citizens of this country will welcome the indignity of legislating on that basis.

The second point that the noble and learned Lord rather haltingly made was that this might involve the judicial process. If there is one department in the whole of the Government that appears time and time again to fear the process of judicial review, for some uncanny reason it is the Home Office. It is as though one does not ever have in mind that if security matters are involved there is an adequate procedure for the proceedings to be held in camera. Our judges are astute to guard the security of this country with their usual consistent ability and therefore the noble and learned Lord need not tremble on grounds of publicity. I repeat that this amendment (and the noble and learned Lord was unable to say otherwise) follows completely the procedure that was laid down in the White Paper; no amendments, no new thoughts, purely and simply a safeguard for our people, and a safeguard, too, for our reputation in the world, especially in Europe, in relation to human rights.

This is an opportunity for all of us to act in accordance with our conscience and to do our duty upon this occasion without regard to what seats we occupy in your Lordships' Chamber.

The noble Lord was suggesting that a complete answer to the problem that I raised about secrecy was the fact that the courts can sit in camera. I can understand that that is an important manner in which the courts can deal with security questions to prevent publicity. But it is not publicity that is important in this case. It is that the person who may be the subject of the inquiry should not be informed about the nature of the information upon which the warrant was based or, perhaps even more important, the source of that information. The sort of matters being dealt with under this procedure are matters of the highest importance and on which people's lives may be at stake.

The second point I wish to make follows from what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was saying. Because of the manner in which this amendment has been constructed, as I understand it what has been done is simply to put into statutory form what are the present arrangements under the White Paper. Therefore there is no suggestion whatever that the arrangements will be carried out differently from the present arrangements. All that is happening is that the present arrangements set out in the White Paper— which were monitored first by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich—instead of being purely in an administrative White Paper are to be in the statute. They are exactly the same, as I understand what is attempted, as are presently in the administrative arrangements which have been fully described and monitored.

The third point is that the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Mishcon, are forecasting what the court's judgment will be. That is an undertaking that I should not be prepared to take on board. One might have some views about the broad thrust of the judgment, possibly; but we are quite unable to say at this stage what the precise criticisms, if any, the court will have of our present arrangements. The noble Lord is saying with confidence that his amendment would precisely meet any judgment that the Court of Human Rights might deliver. I find it hard to know how he can say that with any confidence. These are all matters of importance certainly, but I would urge your Lordships that the Government view is a perfectly appropriate view to take at this stage and that the amendment should not be supported.

I am sure that the Committee would want its opinion to be taken.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:

My Lords, I think the House should be grateful to the Minister of State for repeating that Statement. It is a very important one indeed, covering not only the current on-going situation in relation to finance but the whole future structure of the support that is to be given to the Scottish Islands, mainly the Western Isles, the Orkneys and Shetlands.

I should like first to deal with the current situation. I do not think anyone could be anything but relieved that the Government have given the measure of support that they have. It does of course mean a 5 per cent, increase, and as to whether that 5 per cent, will be equally divided between freight and passengers we do not know. I hope it may well be possible that in respect of passengers there will not be any increase at all, but we shall have to wait and see. I certainly have no complaint in respect of that.

When the Government go on to tell us that it is a three-fold increase from 1978–79, lots of things have happened since then and there may well be new elements within those subsidies, bearing in mind the much increased traffic in certain of those islands related to oil and the bulk that has now got to be taken up there which would not be considered to be really related to the normal, ordinary life of the people of the Highlands and Islands.

Now, shall I congratulate the Government, or shall I not, on finally having made up their minds about RET? For those of your Lordships who wonder what that means, it is "road equivalent tariff". It has been a war-cry in the Highlands for long enough—and who shouted loudest for it? It was the Government, the Tories. They had it in one of their manifestos—I think it was 1973—but suddenly they have seen the light. There always was a certain amount of confusion about how you interpreted RET; but the Government have now taken belated advice somewhere or other. I fancy that what spelt the doom of RET for the Government, although it will disappoint many of their own supporters, is the fact that it was going to cost more; it was going to stimulate demand, and it might have led to a demand for new ships. If there is any place where you want to stimulate demand and stimulate interest in people to go there, surely it is the Scottish Islands. So if they had turned it down they would have given the worst of all reasons for it. I would ask the Government whether this is the end of it, or whether there is the possibility of some kind of structure, based upon that, which will eventually be put forward.

The other point I should like to raise is this. We are told there is going to be some new kind of structure towards which they will move as regards Caledonian MacBrayne and the Orkney Islands shipping side. What is this going to mean? Any change in that structure may well affect routes, some of which are already threatened. It will affect charges; and I think I am right in saying that at present Caledonian MacBrayne tends to take into account the sparsity and distance of an island and not relate it purely to the cost. In other words, the more popular routes will help to maintain the less popular routes. I hope that flexibility will remain.

The Government cannot blame Caledonian MacBrayne about this, because every year the Secretary of State has to approve the routes and charges, so if there have been any defects in past years they stem from the Secretary of State. I certainly shall hold fire in respect of the new changes until I see what is promised. When will we see the new fares and routes in this coming year? Am I right in thinking that one of the dangers, as we move towards that, is that the less popular and more distant routes will be threatened? But they are still the lifelines of the people; and that is a thing that we have to remember when dealing with future policies in relation to fares and charges.

My Lords, we on these Benches should like to thank the noble Lord for the Statement made this afternoon, and to congratulate the Minister on achieving a further subsidy for this important service in a period when there is so much talk of Government cut-backs in one way or another. At the same time, I should like to ask one or two questions. I notice that the subsidy to MacBrayne is £7.2 million, while that to P & O is £3.65 million. Both companies carry freight, though MacBrayne carry both passengers and freight. I am wondering how the costings were calculated which provided the £3.65 million subsidy to P & O as against the £7.2 million to MacBrayne, when one considers that MacBrayne has a much more substantial service to the islands and carries a greater number of passengers and freight. It would be interesting to know how those computations were made.

Secondly, I think the Minister will pay tribute to the operational efficiency of MacBrayne, not only because it was able to keep the fares increase to 5 per cent, as a result of the increased subsidy but because it is a reflection of the fact that MacBrayne has been able to contain its costs, which is a very creditable performance in these days.

The Minister might agree that the increased costs which MacBrayne is carrying this year, which necessitate the increase in fares, are due not to operational problems but to the fact that new tonnage has to be depreciated heavily and involves high interest charges, while it is financed under the ship mortgage scheme. If we are looking forward to new investment, which we very much welcome, I should be interested to hear from the Minister what kind of impact there will be on future fares, if there is to be an increasing burden of depreciation and interest in the years ahead with the new and desirable tonnage.

I very much welcome the logic of the decision that the RET system should be departed from and that we should adopt the more logical system which is recommended by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The new structure is desirable, is better understood than the RET system and makes for a more equitable distribution.

Finally, may I just echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said? What we are talking about is the lifeline of people in the outer islands, and any increase in fares is a tax on those people. Therefore, I hope that that will be kept in mind. It is their only connection with the mainland. It is their only opportunity for exporting their goods and moving around or back to the mainland. That involves a very substantial social obligation which should weigh heavily in any decision that we make about the future of MacBrayne.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for their general welcome to the Statement which I have made this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, acknowledged that the Government have made a substantial investment, and will be making a substantial investment this year, so far as help to shipping services to the islands is concerned. As I said in my initial Statement, the sum is £13.35 million—an increase in real terms of 9.9 per cent.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, asked whether this is the end of the road equivalent tariff. Of course, it would be a brave person who committed his successors in respect of the future, but certainly, so far as we are concerned, we have taken the decision that the road equivalent tariff system should not be proceeded with, and that it should not be proceeded with for a number of reasons which I need not go into now. But the principal issue which determined the Government's final decision was that, although the road equivalent tariff might be a very easy way to conduct our affairs for the future and would undoubtedly bring benefit to some islands, there is no doubt that it would leave others severely disadvantaged. Therefore, the Secretary of State took the view that the selective approach which has been the method over the years was the more desirable to maintain.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, mentioned Caledonian MacBrayne and the Orkney Islands Shipping Company, and said that we would wish to acknowledge their activities, as did the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I willingly acknowledge the service which they give. So far as the future fares structure is concerned, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out this is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State on a year to year basis. We feel confident, as was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that the new structure of fares will be more satisfactory than the road equivalent tariff. Indeed, when we talk about the road equivalent tariff we must recall that as far back as 1980, when the consultative paper was produced, there were a great many people who were unhappy about it, including the Shetland Islands Council, the Western Isles Council, Strathclyde Council, the Scottish Transport Group and a number of other influential bodies.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked me how the breakdown of the £7.2 million support for Caledonian MacBrayne and the £3.65 million support for P & O was arrived at. If he will bear with me, that is something which I shall write to him about and explain in detail, because I cannot give him that information at this time. Again, I am most grateful to the noble Lords for their welcome of this decision by trie Government.

My Lords, is my noble friend able to give some indication of how these grants, which are clearly welcomed by noble Lords opposite, compare with the rather more limited financial support which the Government give to sea transport to the Isle of Wight? It is all very well noble Lords laughing. For these people, too, it is the lifeline. I suspect that the Scottish amounts that we have heard about are proportionately very much larger. I wonder whether my noble friend has any idea of how they compare.

My Lords, I am, of course, very interested in what my noble friend Lord Mottistone has to say on that subject, but I cannot give him any comparison at the moment. I have no doubt those who read the reports of our deliberations will take note of what he said. If they do not, I shall remind them so that they can write to him. But I must say that I find my responsibilities for the Scottish Islands just as much as I can cope with at one time.

My Lords, the Minister may have noted that my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock expressed doubts as to whether the Government deserve congratulations. On the whole, I think that he ought to give the Government some credit, for this is by no means a new controversy. I doubt whether anybody else in your Lordships' House can recall, as I can, the controversy at the beginning of the century when MacBraynes exercised a monopoly over the Western Highlands traffic and the traffic south of the Highlands. It was one of my tasks, as organiser for one of the seamen's unions, to try to persuade the men on the MacBrayne vessels to become members of the organisation. We had a frightful row with MacBraynes about it, but now something has happened. I am not so sure that past Labour Governments made a very effective contribution, in spite of the remarkable efforts of my noble friend and some of his colleagues. Nevertheless, they made some contribution. There are always bound to be anomalies in connection with shipping, particularly in matters of this kind. On the whole, we might give the Government some credit and hope for the best.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for his generous remarks.

My Lords, my memory certainly does not go nearly so far back as that of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, but I remember that the MacBrayne monopoly was broken during the early 1970s while I was Secretary of State. Is not the principle of RET being abandoned—many people thought at the time that this principle ought to be fully examined—because, when applied to some sea journeys and some distances, it means that less financial help would be given than would be made available under the existing system?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I remember well the contribution which my noble friend made to the general administration of these services when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. My noble friend is perfectly correct. It would not have mattered how we tried to adjust an RET system; the result would have been that any adjustment would have benefited some areas and disadvantaged others. As the pattern changed in years to come, we could foresee this happening over and over again. It was one of the major reasons for the Government's deciding not to proceed with it.

My Lords, I would ask for a little patience, in the sense that the Minister is having an unusually pleasant experience today when perhaps he had expected an unpleasant one. I should like to take the opportunity to run the narrow line between the interrogative and the assertive. The Minister indicated that the Government have concluded their review of the road equivalent tariff and the implications it will have for the expectations of the islanders both in Orkney and Shetland and in the Inner and Outer Hebrides. The view was forced upon them that the road equivalent tariff led straight to Heaven and carried with it a very substantial reduction in fares on the ferries. There was a Conservative Party promise during the 1979 election that the road equivalent tariff would be put into operation. Quite rightly the Minister said that it has been subjected to so many interpretations that the Government finally decided to abandon it. This will raise many questions. Not only the local authorities but the Highlands and Islands Development Board take a very strong view about it. Is the Minister aware that Caledonian MacBrayne have been investigated by the Price Commission and by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Would the Government now allow Caledonian MacBrayne to get on with their work?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donnet of Balgay, for his contribution. He is not, perhaps, fully informed on this matter. Even at the outset considerable reservations were expressed about the whole concept of RET. Two of the bodies which the noble Lord mentioned— for example, the Western Isles Council—had great reservations about it, because under RET the southern routes to the Western Isles would have been very adversely affected. The Shetland Island Council shared similar doubts. The noble Lord asked me what this will mean for the people in these areas. It will mean a steady fare structure for them. It means that the capital expenditure from which they will benefit will go ahead. We must bear in mind that until 1979 Orkney and Shetland received no subsidy for their shipping services. They will have £3·5 million for P & O in the coming year and £1·3 million capital assistance towards the refit of the "St. Clair". The Western Isles will similarly benefit. There has been a major breakthrough with the new Hebrides vessel which has recently been announced and the consequential pier works, costing up to £5 million, at Uig, Tarbert and Lochmaddy. Therefore, the commitment which the Government have shown to the islands will be fully appreciated by these islands. It is our intention to make quite sure that they are looked after in a fair and reasonable way.

My Lords, will the example of Caledonian MacBrayne—of placing their orders in British yards—be drawn to the attention of other companies which may enjoy a subsidy of this kind?

My Lords, this must be a matter for each and every company to decide for itself, but I have no doubt that the policy of Caledonian MacBrayne will be highlighted by what the noble Lord has just said.

My Lords, I wonder whether I could press that point, knowing how important it is that the delivery of new ships should hit the correct part of the season. I had the unpleasant experience, in another capacity, of having to defend a ship going to another yard because delivery at the correct part of the season could not be guaranteed. Would the Minister make it clear to the Scottish Office that forward planning, and even forward ordering, should be resorted to, particularly since there is spare capacity in Scottish and British shipyards, bearing in mind always that for these purposes a ship must be delivered at the end of March or at the beginning of April?

My Lords, my stand on those matters when I was Minister of State for Energy is probably well known. On many occasions I did my utmost to try to persuade people to place orders in British yards. I shall certainly continue to do so, provided always that the prices are competitive and that delivery is guaranteed.

moved Amendment No. 111:

I wish to speak against this amendment, for I suggest that it is totally impracticable. For every telephone area, there are at least four people dealing with number allocation. It is a very complex business. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, does not realise—perhaps understandably—that certain numbers are allocated in blocks because of the type of equipment used. There are special relay sets for big business users, and their numbers come in blocks—and they cannot be split up. Business users are allocated a certain group of numbers to allow them to grow. The other problem with number allocation is that one quite often has a number that cannot be used, perhaps because it is a recently-ceased business number. It would not be good business practice to issue that number again to someone who is in business and who may be in competition with the person who had that number before.

Such as the Foreign Office?

Giving this duty to the director of Oftel, who would have a staff of 50, would be totally impracticable. I see no reason why British Telecom should not continue with the issue of numbers, with the allocation of numbers, and with the access codes—allowing it to negotiate with other companies or with other cable providers, as it does now.

My noble friend referred to helpful comments which had been made by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur at an earlier stage in our proceedings on the Bill now before us. I only hope that my noble friend Lord Mottistone will be able to bear with me while I attempt to answer the amendment he has moved.

I will stress at the outset that the Government support the general aim of the amendment moved by my noble friend. Indeed, we intend to include a condition in the BT licence, and in other licences, giving the director ultimate control over numbering arrangements. We believe the amendment to be unnecessary because the Bill as it is drafted gives the Government all the powers needed to exercise ultimate control over numbering arrangements.

The method of control suggested in the amendment—which is direct administration by the director—would be costly in terms of public service manpower and involve an unnecessary degree of interference in what are essentially commercial arrangements. So while the broad aim of the amendment is acceptable, its detailed approach gives rise to a few problems. The Government hope that British Telecom, Mercury and the cellular operators will be able to agree on such arrangements as they may wish to make, and on long-term numbering agreements for the new digital exchanges of the future.

So far as regulations are concerned, we intend to adopt the same approach we have taken regarding the interconnection of the public networks. We believe that it is right to leave to the operators the mutual negotiations which will give acceptable numbering arrangements. It is the operators—and I am sure my noble friend agrees—who have the technical expertise and a commercial interest in the outcome; so we believe that it is the operators who are more likely to get it right than the Government. But if the operators fail to agree, the Government intend the director to have powers to intervene and to specify what the national numbering arrangements should be. We intend to achieve this result by including a new condition in British Telecom's licence, and we are now discussing its precise terms with British Telecom.

I hope that I have gone some way to show why it is that, since the powers to regulate numbers are already contained in the Bill—and since the British Telecom licence will contain a new condition on numbering—I have to advise my noble friend that we cannot accept his amendment today.

The Government will have to make up their minds whether they are making real concessions to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, or whether they are cosmetic concessions which the Minister is making. Part III of the Bill is perfectly clear in its intention. It says that there is the right of appeal to the director against any abuse of the powers and responsibilities of operators. That, surely—as I thought was implied by the Minister's statement—is a clear enough defence of the rights of subscribers. It is clear enough that they have a right of appeal to the Director General of Telecommunications.

The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has made it clear that it would be inappropriate to accept this amendment and to transfer to the director responsibility for the actual operation of the numbering plans. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, made it clear how totally impracticable that would be with a staff of 50 in Oftel. If that is the case, it would surely be equally wrong to insist on writing into British Telecom's licence a further guarantee which simply duplicates that which appears already in Part III of the Bill. The proposed amendment is simply a recipe for duplicate bureaucracy. The Minister's statement gives me no confidence that the Government are setting themselves firmly enough against such duplicate bureaucracy.

I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, missed out the one essential point in the amendment—and I am not sure that it was even mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It is, that there must be a single, central authority for the allocation of numbers. Otherwise, there is likely to be confusion and overlapping between various authorities and various operators. There must be a single, central authority for the entire country.

Are not the Government providing British Telecom with a very easy method of discriminating against smaller users of specialist groups of numbers? It is so easy for British Telecom to say that no numbers are available. I understand that is something which they are already doing. So I hope that the noble Lord will think again on this one.

First of all I am very flattered to be elevated in rank; I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was referring to me as the Minister of State, or possibly he meant the Minister in the other place. Well, I am not there yet, but I live in hope! I would stress to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—and indeed to the noble Lords, Lord Somers and Lord Spens—the key point of my reply. We believe that this problem of numbers and numbering and access to networks is something for the commercial interests and the operators to mutually negotiate an acceptable solution. I stress that to the noble Lord, Lord Spens. If they fail to agree, the Government intend the director to have powers to intervene and he will be the ultimate authority; he will be able to specify what the national numbering arrangements should be.

If there are problems, I hope that these will be minimised as the networks grow. I am sure even the noble Lord, Lord Spens, would agree that with advancing technology there might well be problems with numbers not being available yet to satisfy the demands. But as far as this amendment is concerned, the Government believe that it is for the commercial operators to come to an agreement. We believe they will be able to do it, but the ultimate sanction will be with the director.

I understand that there are 999 million numbers which could be made available. I cannot believe that there could be any shortage of groups of numbers.

I do not know whether the question I want to ask is pertinent to the amendment. Is there any chance of our going over to the system which exists in other countries by which the code number of a single locality is the same wherever that particular locality is telephoned from? In England, apart from larger towns, the code number varies according to whether you are ringing from London or Cambridge or Oxford or various other places. It would be a great simplification if each town or locality had one code number for the whole country.

If I may briefly reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, it is something that has always fascinated me. If I may take one example, I think what the noble Lord is seeking does work, not just in England—I say this as a Scot, and it works in Scotland too, and Northern Ireland and Wales. I am not too sure about the Republic of Ireland, but I will leave that for the moment. The noble Lord mentioned Cambridge, which I think is his home town, if I can call it that. As I understand it, if the noble Lord is ringing a number fairly near to Cambridge the code number might be a little different. But if the noble Lord is ringing my home in Scotland from Cambridge I can assure him that the number is the same code from Cambridge as it would be from London. I think these codes tend to vary in the immediate vicinity.

I have been given some more detailed advice: I am told that the numbers are wired into the exchanges and they cannot be changed cheaply. So there might be a shortage. I am advised that area codes will be possible with digital technology, but not yet. But on Lord Kaldor's point, as far as I am aware, the code numbers are the same for a given locality, but possibly not within the immediate environs of that locality.

I do not want to hold up the proceedings, but this is not my experience, except for the code numbers for major towns which are printed in the little book which gives the trunk dialling numbers. If what the noble Lord says is correct, why it it that a different small book is produced as regards telephone numbers from each locality? I have one in Cambridge and it is quite different from the one issued in London.

If I may reply briefly, if the noble Lord looks in his Cambridge book he will find a fascinating number, which has the name of one of my noble friends: he will find Trumpington. Whether it has an exchange, I do not know. Possibly if we looked in a book at my home or in London we would find a different number from Trumpington, but this is because Trumpington or its local exchange is immediately within the Cambridge area where the noble Lord lives. I would have thought that this anomaly would not apply outwith a radius of from 15 to 20 miles or something like that. If I am wrong, perhaps we may pursue this further by letter; but it is an interesting point and I promise to take it up.

My noble friend Lady Mar threw the Government a lifeline which they grasped with great speed. She pointed out that this amendment could not be carried if the staff were limited to 50. But of course 50 is not a magic number, it is only a number referred to in the preamble to the Bill as it was originally conceived. It would be a non-sequitur to say that we cannot increase it. If we assign a fresh duty to Telecom the staff to discharge that duty must be increased, too.

I think that the point the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, has introduced is a very valid one. The Post Office, when it designed the subscriber trunk dialling system in the 1950s, allocated two types of number, a first-class service for those in the major city areas whose codes were the same whether they were dialled from outside that area, outside the country or whatever, and those outside the major city areas, who in general end up with a telephone number which is preceded by one of three possible codes; first, a very short code for local exchanges to dial; secondly, a slightly longer code for dialling that particular exchange from anywhere in this country, usually different from the last digit of the first prefix; and, thirdly, you may find that you have yet a third prefix which people dialling from outside the country must use.

If you are running a business in competition with somebody next door to you and you are outside the major city area and your competitor is inside the major city area, as far as the telephone numbering system goes you have a second-class service. You cannot put your full telephone number on your letter heading either for people within this country or for people dialling from abroad. This is one very good reason why British Telecom should be overseen in their allocation of numbers, the fact that they so totally ruined the system when they designed it in the 1950s for subscriber trunk dialling.

I am sure we are most grateful to those noble Lords who have introduced technicalities into this. Perhaps I could return to my noble friend the Minister's remarks. I am grateful to him for coming some way towards me in saying that the director will be the ultimate source of administration of these numbering plans and access codes. That I think satisfies the immediate point. The important thing is that there should be an impartial ultimate source. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says there are parts of the Bill which allow appeal, but I think it is also necessary that there should be in the administrative sense somebody who is keeping an eye on it all to make sure that impartiality rules the day now that British Telecom is to be made part of the competitive market, albeit with too large a share of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 112:

moved Amendment No. 115B:

Alter Clause 49, insert the following new clause:

We certainly fully understand the intention behind the amendment moved by the noble Countess, but hope that we can reassure her that the Bill already contains the safeguards that she is seeking. First of all, subsection (1) of the amendment seeks to impose a duty on the director to investigate written complaints from public telecommunication operators; but we believe that this is already covered by Clause 51, which places a duty on the director to counter any representation made to him relating to telecommunication services and apparatus. This is a wide-ranging duty, and includes complaints made by public telecommunication operators about the connection of apparatus. This new clause also seeks to make connection of unapproved apparatus a criminal offence and to give the director power to institute proceedings. But here again we believe that the Bill already contains provisions which meet what we believe are the aims of this amendment.

I should like to draw the Committee's attention to Clause 5 of the Bill, which makes it a criminal offence to connect or permit the connection of unauthorised apparatus to any licensed telecommunication system. Part 4 of the draft licence for British Telecom makes it clear that British Telecom is authorised to connect to its system only apparatus approved under Clause 22. Therefore, connection of unauthorised—that is, unapproved—apparatus will be a criminal offence under the Bill as drafted, and the director already has powers under Clause 5(7) to institute proceedings in respect of any offence under Clause 5.

It is also the Government's intention to include in the licences for the public telecommunications systems to be run by Mercury, Hull and the cellular radio companies similar provisions to those in British Telecom's draft licence authorising only the connection of apparatus approved under Clause 22.

I hope that this short explanation meets the noble Countess's concern. But there is one feature which we think is really undesirable. This new clause would make it an offence not only to connect unapproved apparatus to systems whose licences forbid it but to any telecommunication system. I do not think this would be appropriate, because in practice there will be many private telecommunication systems, including both systems exempt under Clause 6 and licensed systems, where there is no reason whatever for regulatory control over what apparatus may and may not be connected. This is why Clause 22 applies only to those systems whose licences specifically refer to it.

But this amendment would require approval of apparatus to apply to all systems, including the private systems I have mentioned, and would make a criminal offence any infringements of such rules. We do not believe it should be an offence to attaach an unapproved telephone to a private intercom system, and, indeed, I do not think that in fact this is what the noble Countess is seeking. What we want to do is to prevent unapproved apparatus from being attached to the major public systems, and I hope I have gone some way to explain how this will be achieved by the Bill as it stands.

I thank the noble Lord the Minister for answering my worries so succinctly. It really was a probing amendment. I think he has covered everything, and I wish to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No.117:

Page 47, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

I entirely appreciate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is making. I shall endeavour to table the amendments at the earliest possible date. I should think that the right course would be for the noble Lord to study the amendments after I have tabled them and if there is then any point that he wishes to raise on them, we can come back to them at the Report stage. I hope that that meets the very legitimate point that he is raising.

I am happy to accept the assurance of the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 117A:

Page 47, line 9, at end insert ("(a)")

I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak not only to Amendment No. 117A, but also to the batch of related amendments, which in fact are Amendments Nos. 118A, 118C, 120A, 121AandNo. 123AA.

[Amendment No. 123AA: Clause 53, page 47, line 39, after ("functions") insert ("(including, in particular, those affecting persons who are disabled or of pensionable age)").

I am happy to say that I am able to accept all these amendments of my noble friend. I think that if we accept them, two other amendments, Nos. 119 and 122, fall by the wayside. This is purely a matter of drafting.

The Government are fully committed to protecting the interests of the disabled. These amendments will further strengthen the safeguards in the Bill. They will also ensure that in addition to the disabled, the interests of the elderly—or in legal phraseology, persons of pensionable age—are looked after. Concern about this matter was expressed in the Second Reading debate.

The obligation imposed by the amendments to set up an advisory body especially for the disabled and the elderly will ensure that the director is kept fully informed of the needs and requirements of two very important groups of people. The advisory body will be required to make an annual report to the director, and this in turn will be published in the director's annual report. The positive requirement on the director to include in his own report a review of developments and activities in telecommunications in so far as they affect the disabled and the elderly is also to be welcomed.

I should like to express my appreciation of the part played by my noble friends Lady Macleod of Borve and Lady Lane-Fox in taking the initiative to improve the Bill in this way. I am sure that the amendments will meet with the universal approval of your Lordships' Committee.

moved Amendment No. 118:

Page 47, line 10, after ("bodies") insert ("representing users").

I should like to support the amendment. A subsequent amendment in my name not only encourages the participation of users as consumers of the service; it also encourages the users to become shareholders in the new company under preferential terms which would ensure a wide distribution of share ownership. However, the present amendment prefers simply that the advisory body should have consumer representation. That seems to me to be logical and I hope that unless the point is to be covered in some of the proposals that will be brought forward in connection with the consultative council which is planned, the Government will feel able to accept the amendment.

I think that at this stage I can refer to my Amendment No. 121, which also asks for the advisory bodies to represent users. If we agree to Amendment No. 118B, as I hope we shall, there will be an advisory body for small businesses, but that will not cover all the users who are small in comparison with British Telecom, but large in comparison with the normal small business. I should therefore like to see this amendment carried.

I do not think that there is any difference between what we have in our minds and what the noble Lords, Lord Somers and Lord Spens, have in their minds over what we believe to be the purpose of Amendments No. 118 and 121. Both seem to us to wish to ensure that the advisory bodies established under Clause 52(2) will be concerned with consumer matters. My noble friend Lord Cockfield made clear earlier to the Committee that he accepts that this clause needs amending to strengthen the role of the national advisory bodies. In our earlier debate, I think on Amendment No. 62, my noble friend proposed two changes: first, that the national advisory bodies should be appointed not by the director but by the Secretary of State in order to emphasise their independence; and, secondly, that the terms of reference of the national advisory bodies should be extended to underline the fact that these bodies would be primarily concerned with the interests of consumers. These two concessions, I believe, go a long way to meeting the understandable concern of the noble Lords and also of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, underlined in this amendment as well as in Amendment No. 121.

My noble friend has emphasied "users". It depends what you mean by users. POUNC talks about users, you and I. But there is also the question of business users. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, will, I think, agree with me that Amendment No. 121 which I, too, believe should be discussed now, really refers to business users. May I ask the Government, when they are rethinking this clause, to give thought to that fact, recognising that business users represent 85 per cent. of the telecommunications revenue and are therefore very important. Indeed, their strength in using the modern technology and the communications is vital to the wellbeing of the country. If our businesses are not successful, we have no money to live on. It is important that business users of all sorts should not be overlooked in any recasting of Clause 52. I go only that far. The Government can perhaps take what I say into account in any re-wording that they have in mind.

We are grateful to be reminded by my noble friend of the wide definition of the word "users". We shall study closely what he said and bear his comments in mind.

I am grateful to the noble Lord and for the support of all my noble friends on whatever Benches they may sit. They are my noble friends. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 118 A:

moved Amendment No. 118B:

I am most grateful to the Minister for tabling these amendments. They satisfy our worries very well. I support them wholly.

moved Amendment No. 118C:

moved Amendment No. 119:

I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that this has been covered in the other batch of amendments. It is simply the way in which the amendments have been drafted. Amendment No. 119 and Amendment No. 122 fell by the wayside to use the particular phrase that I had adopted. They are subsumed in the other group of amendments, Nos. 117A, 118A, 118C, 120A, 121A and 123AA. I wonder whether, with that explanation, my noble friend would see her way to withdrawing this amendment. Otherwise, it is simply duplication.

Before withdrawing the amendment, may I thank my noble friend the Minister for so graciously helping us in this regard. It will be widely appreciated throughout the country by those people affected now and in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 120:

I should explain to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that if this amendment was agreed to it would conflict with some of the amendments already agreed to.

In that case I shall not move the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 120A:

moved Amendment No. 121A:

moved, asanamendmentto Amendment No. 121 A, Amendment No. 121B:

The next amendment is Amendment No. 122, which has already been spoken to.

moved Amendment No. 122:

I think that Amendment No. 122 has to be withdrawn.

Does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw Amendment No. 122?

Yes: with the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 123:

Page 47, line 18, after ("Director") insert ("and to give public comment").

As your Lordships will be aware, we have already spent some time on Clause 52 and therefore I hope that I can be reasonably brief in trying to explain what is in our mind so far as the amendment is concerned. We are not entirely sure what it is trying to achieve, but what we think it does is to place a duty on the advisory bodies, whenever they offer advice to the director, to "give public comment". We are not quite sure of the precise meaning of those words, but they seem to require the advisory bodies to publish comments on their advice to the director. We do not think that this is entirely what noble Lords would wish to do, because this would surely destroy the nature of the relationship between the director and the advisory bodies. Also, what if the bodies wanted to give advice of a confidential nature to the director? If it were to be published it would harm the relationship between the bodies and the director.

We believe that the Bill is right as it stands. Each of the advisory bodies will have an opportunity to make their views and findings more widely known in the annual report which they are required to make. These reports will be included in the director's annual report which will be published and will also—and I stress this to the noble Lord, Lord Somers—be laid before Parliament.

However, there may be instances where an advisory body wishes to bring something to public attention sooner than by its annual report. In such circumstances there is already a duty on the body to advise the director on this. Depending on what the matter is, the director will take the appropriate action. For example, if it concerns a matter on which he—that is, the director—thinks there should be a licence condition, he may seek to impose one. Alternatively, he may consider that it is not a matter for a licence, but should be drawn to the attention of consumers. In this second case he can use his powers under Clause 48 to publish information and advice. In this way it can become known not only to consumers in, for example, Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that with that brief explanation I have been able to satisfy the fears which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Somers.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that very long and clear reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Before the Committee gives the noble Lord leave to withdraw his amendment, I should like to say that I am still not satisfied with the Minister's reply. One of the virtues of POUNC is that from time to time it is able to pass public comment upon various aspects of the service that is provided.

I do not really follow the reference to confidentiality to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has referred. I was rather hoping that, living as we do—or as we are supposed to do—in an era of open Government, if a body of this kind feels that it has public comment to make, there is no reason why it should not be allowed to make it. Indeed, I see no reason why a duty should not be laid upon it to do so, otherwise one gets a very cosy little relationship—if one can describe it thus—between the Secretary of State; the new director of Telecom; possibly the managing director of the new successor company to British Telecom; the residual manager of British Telecom that will remain there until it is finally extinguished; and also the various advisory bodies. I am all for an air of easy informality to govern the relationship of these various interests together, and would not wish to encourage anything that would inhibit that. But every now and again I think that it is wise that an advisory body should be able to pass public comment without fear or favour.

Comments very often are embarrassing to Ministers and they may indeed irritate Ministers. Ministers in recent times have shown an increasing irritation at any kind of criticism against their divine judgment—"my mother, the Almighty and me", to repeat the phrase of the Prime Minister. I should have thought that, on the whole, it is in the public interest that advisory bodies ought to be able to do this, and I cannot understand, following the benevolent interest which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has shown in these proceedings, why the noble Lord cannot accommodate himself as regards what I feel quite sure is the feeling of the Committee as a whole.

The last thing that I would want to do is to irritate a Minister and so I still beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 123A:

Of course, we appreciate the purpose of this amendment. I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that this is no party matter. Indeed, I had the privilege of making two fairly lengthy statements from this Dispatch Box on Amendments Nos. 37 and 82 which gave rise, I regret to say, to a great deal of hilarity, as regards the inductive coupler. So I have expressed my views on that matter at considerable length. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, may not have been in his place at the time, but certainly too many people were! Anyway, he does not need one today because we are speaking very close to one another.

However, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern, but I should stress to him and to the Committee that we think that the amendment has been overtaken by the amendments which have been proposed by my noble friend Lady Macleod and my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, to which we have just agreed. These ensure that there is a separate advisory body for the disabled and the elderly which will make its own annual report. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will see that under Clause 52(5). Therefore, there is no need for the national advisory bodies to include any mention of the disabled.