asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, as a means of implementing the policy of proper consultation on replacement of the existing rating system referred to in his answer of 4 February, Official Report, col. 271, he will publish a consultation paper on the possible alternatives.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the possible alternatives to the present rating system currently under consideration by his Department.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) on 4 February, we are currently examining all potential alternatives to the domestic rating system. I cannot yet say when the review will be complete, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be public consultation on the outcome, and I will certainly bear in mind the idea of issuing a consultation document on the possible alternatives.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognises that the present rating system is unfair, illogical, undemocratic, inadequate and out of date and that almost any alternative is preferable to the present iniquitous impost. Will he bring forward a consultation paper, giving perhaps his initial comments on each of the various options to try to encourage a national debate so as to ascertain whether a consensus can be reached?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for producing some of the arguments against the domestic rating system. I am sure that he will understand that there are others. I shall want to ensure that there is the widest consultation on the Government's conclusions. The difficulty that I face is that many of the adjectives that my hon. Friend has used to describe domestic rates apply with equal force to many of the alternatives.

Does my right hon. Friend give credence to the concept of a local tax to be levied on all adults living within a county council or district council?

The recommendation of the Layfield committee was a local income tax, a concept to which I think the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has committed the Labour Party. That system has some attractions. The difficulty is to countenance all the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in lowering national income tax levels being put at the mercy of overspending Labour authorities, which would increase them again.

Until the Government have considered their new proposals, will the Minister consider extending the rate rebate scheme to cover water rates? Much of the criticism is directed to high water rates, which bear heavily on poorer people.

I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has come to that conclusion, since the previous Government of his party presided over such wide increases in water rates and had every opportunity to apply systems of the sort that he suggests. The House will recognise that the initiative of my right hon. Friend and myself in lowering water rates from 19 per cent. to 13½ per cent. this year was a real demonstration of our concern.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 70 Conservative Members have already signed my early-day motion calling for the Government to produce a Green Paper on reform of local authority finance? Does he accept that something must be done urgently while the production of a Green Paper is in process? Will he consider the advantages of taking the entire cost of education, or at the very least teachers' salaries, off local authorities, as an immediate measure of relief?

I am well aware of the interest of my hon. Friend and of many other hon. Members in this subject. If we transfer a substantial part of local government expenditure to central Government expenditure, it will be necessary to raise finance centrally to pay for it. We return to the dilemma: do we lower levels of expenditure or raise additional taxes? That will be the subject of the wide consultation process that I think will be necessary.

Although it is universally thought that rates are a regressive tax, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the alternatives might be a damned sight worse? Can he estimate the additional cost of a local income tax following the Layfield report, which estimated that the additional cost would be £100 million?

The figure would have to be part of the consultation process. It would be wrong to try to anticipate the options which the Government may want to put forward or to outline their conclusions in a piecemeal way. We should wait until the initial studies have been concluded.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek to amend the Housing Act 1980 to specify the maximum length of time which can elapse between an application being made by a tenant to purchase a council house and the sale of that council house being completed.

This is a possibility that we considered, but we decided that it would not be in the tenants' best interests, because of the likelihood that a specified maximum period would be treated by some authorities as the norm. We felt it preferable to rest ultimately on the Secretary of State's powers to intervene if he feels that tenants have or may have difficulty in exercising their right to buy effectively and expeditiously.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern about the length of time some councils are taking to effect those council house sales? Is he sure that his powers are being used with sufficient vigour?

I assure my hon. Friend that we share his concern about the rate of progress of certain authorities. I am glad to repeat what I said last Saturday to those authorities which are delaying and spinning out the sale of council houses. I said that if they will not sell, we will and that we would start the process soon.

Will my hon. Friend explain to the House and to the nation the position of tenants who wish to buy who have served their RTB 1 forms on their local authority, but have not received an acknowledgement since they served their notices? Will my hon. Friend explain how their position can be protected, bearing in mind that up to 3 April they can buy at the August 1980 valuation?

I assure my hon. Friend that as long as a tenant has submitted a valid right-to-buy application form, and provided he submits it by 3 April, under the present legislation he will automatically qualify for an August 1980 valuation.

Is the Minister aware that tenants of some houses owned by the Department of the Environment have been refused permission to buy?

As the hon. Member will be aware, various properties were excluded from the provisions of the right-to-buy legislation. Those properties are owned by Government Departments or county councils and the occupation of the properties is directly related to the job which a person is doing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's estimate of average rate increases in inner London for 1981–82 over 1980–81.

The average general rate increase in inner London will be 26·9 per cent. and the domestic 37·4 per cent.

Does not my right hon. Frend agree that that is a heavy burden on the ratepayers of inner London? Does he not agree that it is principally due to two causes—first, over-spending by many Labour authorities in inner London, and, secondly, the lack of an adequate safety net to prohibit the move of too much Government grant from inner London in this transitional year?

I am surprised that my hon. Friend left out the most significant factor in the rate rises in inner London, although he may have included it in his reference to Labour authorities. That is the expenditure level of the Inner London Education Authority, which has contributed enormously and disastrously to the level of rate increases. That could have serious consequences for London. He is right about the other authorities. If he checks the figures, he will find that—[Interruption.]

Order. Is the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) addressing me?

I was talking to the Minister.

I only want the House to know that I do not tolerate hon. Members coming up to the Chair when they have not been called.

Does the Minister not agree that, although there may be an argument in favour of local authority cuts, with which I do not agree, and although there is an argument for more spending, there is no argument for cuts combined with high rate increases? That is precisely what has happened in the Conservative-controlled authorities of Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and even my own authority of Hammersmith and Fulham. They did not have the guts to put up the rates by sufficient amounts to avoid a supplementary rate later in the year.

The hon. Gentleman should address himself more honestly to the problems which face inner London. The London borough of Lambeth receives the highest grant of any authority in inner London. Therefore, the idea that the Government are somehow working against the local authorities in grant distribution is wrong. Despite that, the rate increases are massive.

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton). Owing to the station break, I failed to answer the latter half of his question. He referred to the safety net and I understand his point. He will be aware that we discussed that during debates on the Local Government, Planning and Land Act and the rate order. London has done better in previous years. We thought it right to make a switch of distribution this year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the London borough of Wandsworth is to be congratulated on seeking to preserve jobs in the borough by passing on to ratepayers only increases due to the ILEA and not increases due to its own over-spending? Does he agree that it is grossly against ratepayers' interests if councils continue to spend wildly during the present economic depression?

I confirm what my hon. Friend said about the London borough of Wandsworth, which has done remarkably well in the present situation. None of the rate increases being requested of ratepayers in Wandsworth is due to the borough itself, but to external demands—principally to demands being made by the ILEA.

Has not the Minister forgotten to explain that one of the reasons for the difficulties facing the inner London boroughs is the effect of the Government's block grant system, which has taken away a large sum of money from inner London? Will he remind the House how much money has been taken away from inner London as a result of the Government's policy?

Our original projection was about £100 million, which was dependent upon sensible levels of expenditure being observed by authorities in London. The largest contributor to that figure being exceeded is undoubtedly the Inner London Education Authority, which has cost inner London no less than £50 million of grant.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what he expects will be the average council house rent during the financial year 1981–82; and how this will compare with the position two years ago.

The average council house rent for 1979–80 was £6·48 per dwelling per week. The figure for 1981–82 will depend on the decisions of local authorities within the framework of the new subsidy system.

Is it not clear that next year will show that an enormous increase has been levied by the Government? Is that not astonishing as the Government have committed themselves to what they describe as a moral crusade against inflation? Will those increases not include unacknowledged increases in administrative costs as a result of the Government's inflationary policies?

The hon. Gentleman must take into account the base from which rents are being increased. The previous Government ran away from their responsibilities on rents year after year. For four years out of five, rents increased less than the increase in earnings. As a result, by 1979–80, rents were only 6·4 per cent., of earnings which is the lowest proportion on record.

Is not the average rent increase of £5·35 a week in two years required by the Government almost entirely due to the removal of subsidy? Should not the tenants, who are angry, direct that anger not against Labour councillors but against Conservative Ministers, and not attempt to shoot the pianist who is required to play a rotten tune called by the Prime Minister?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the new subsidy system does not come into effect until today, which is the beginning of the financial year. Even in 1980–81, rents were still only 6·5 per cent. of earnings. The hon. Gentleman mentioned rent increases of more than £5. That figure ignores one key element in the equation, which is that about 46 per cent. of tenants receive help with their rents through either the rent rebate system or the supplementary benefit system—about 2·4 million tenants. A quarter of all tenants will have their rent increase met in full by the supplementary benefits system. Another one-fifth will normally have 60 per cent. of any increase in rent met by rent rebates. We have also just increased the rent rebate ceilings to £35 a week in London and £30 a week elsewhere.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that 1 million council tenants will face no rent increase?

I confirm that tenants receiving supplementary benefits will have the increase met in full through the supplementary benefits system.

Will the Minister deny the estimate that, because of the £3·25 increase which the Government have forced on council house tenants, the average council house rent will now be £11 a week—an increase of more than 70 per cent. over the last two years? How many housing revenue accounts will make a profit because of those high rent levels, and how many councils will have their general rate funds subsidised by the profits made from council house tenants?

The level of rents is a matter for each individual authority. When referring to the surpluses in housing revenue accounts, the hon. Lady should also take account of the enormous switches that have taken place the other way. For example, in Manchester the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account in 1974–75 was £2·8 million, but last year it was £37·1 million. That represents an enormous burden on ratepayers. I wish that the hon. Lady was as concerned about rate increases which council tenants in Labour authority areas must bear as she is about rents.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the expenditure per capita of each local authority in England.

Local authorities' estimates of total rate-and-grant-borne expenditure per head of population for the 1980–81 financial year are shown in the publication "Financial, General and Rating Statistics 1980–81".

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures will show that in inner London and other major urban areas expenditure per head in Labour authorities is markedly higher than in Conservative authorities? Does he also agree that in inner London there is no appreciable difference in services for the extra money which it costs an average ratepayer to live in a Labour borough?

I con firm what my hon. Friend has said. I note that Wandsworth has the lowest expenditure per head of any inner London borough. At present, when so many inner London boroughs wish to preserve employment in their areas, it is clear that Wandsworth council is making a major contribution to that objective by minimising its rate bills.

Does the Minister not accept that expenditure by Labour authorities in inner city areas reflects the social need, disadvantage and deprivation in those areas and that by cutting many necessary services Wandsworth council is doing untold damage to the people that it is supposed to be serving?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to consider this issue seriously, rather than mouth political slogans, invite him to study the recent expenditure analyses of the London boroughs of Camden and Lambeth. They show that it is a total travesty to suggest that high levels of expenditure imply efficient value for money and high levels of service. In both cases, there is undoubtedly gross evidence of waste.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest available sales figures under the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980 in Tonbridge and Mailing and South Oxfordshire district council aeas; and what are the overall figures for England.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction gave him on 27 February.

The House will be interested to hear the Minister's reasons for the poor performance of both those local authorities, which have sold a derisory number of council houses. Instead of drawing up hit lists of local authorities which he does not like, would it not be far better to look a bit closer to home?

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman should think it is bad when Tonbridge and Mailing has sold 190 houses, all under the previous voluntary effort, and when all 37 applications made in the first quarter of the right-to-buy period have had offer notices. That compares favourably with Liverpool which received 1,601 applications but has made only 221 offers—15 per cent., compared with Tonbridge and Malling's 100 per cent. Incidentally, I am glad to note the hon. Gentleman's interest, since he voted against the right to buy on Third Reading of the Housing Bill.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Basildon new town more than 2,000 people have bought their homes from the development corporation, which I believe is the highest number of all the new towns in the United Kingdom? Is he also aware that 150 of my constituents living in Billericay and Wickford, who have the misfortune of living in homes owned by the London borough of Waltham Forest, are being frustrated in their desire to take advantage of the right to buy because the council has said that it will process only a handful of applications each month? At the rate it is going, it will take 25 years to process all the applications. Does that not mean that the Secretary of State should use his powers under the Housing Act to ensure that local authorities such as Waltham Forest sell as quickly as possible? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It is good, though.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. It is open to all tenants whose applications are being frustrated to register in the elections in May their dislike of what Labour authorities are doing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that all major Government building developments should be the subject of architectural competitions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to ensure that in future all major public building development shall be subject to architectural competition with the private sector.

I have already announced my intention of holding many more architectural competitions for Government buildings and I have asked other public sector bodies, and private developers, to hold competitions wherever possible. Not all schemes are suitable for this treatment, and I do not think that legislation would be justified.

Is it not ridiculous that town halls throughout the country are knee-deep in highly qualified architects, who are sitting around doing absolutely nothing except waiting for jobs from other local authorities? Would it not benefit ratepayers, the public and architectural standards if local authorities cleared them all out and gave the work to private firms?

My hon. Friend's heart is in the right place, although as an act of policy he may be inclined to go further than I would, all at once. I support his suggestion that there should be a greater emphasis on the use of the private rather than the public sector.

Will my right hon. Friend advise local authorities that, when they are about to embark on new building contracts, they should bring in private architectural firms rather than use their own in-house staff, especially as many provincial urban areas have as many as 300 architects in their departments? If the private firms were brought in, there would be much less standardised design, it would be far more exciting and it would boost private enterprise.

I support what my hon. Friend has said. I am doing everything that I can in the Department to show, by example, the possibilities which exist.

Given the likely absence of good architectural taste among Conservative Members, may we have a guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman will not choose the judges of such architectural competitions? For example, will he appoint the splendid judges who in Rotherham recently selected a public building in Sunnyside in my constituency, the architect for which is employed in the public sector?

It may be a relief to the House to know that I am unlikely to make many of these decisions. When one looks at some of the decisions which have been made in the public sector over the years, one could well believe that one has a small contribution to make.

I refute any suggestion of a lack of architectural taste among Conservative Members, and I declare an interest as a non-practising architect. Is my right hon. Friend aware that architects welcome his desire for more open architectural competitions? However, if they are held, public sector architects as well as private sector architects should be able to compete.

The House will recognise my hon. Friend not only as an expert in architectural practice but as a living embodiment of Conservative architectural taste.

Ancient monuments.

In trying to open up the architectural sector to more competition, there will be a wide opportunity for both public sector and private sector architects.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with progress on the transfer of assets in first generation new towns.

Yes, Sir. With some minor exceptions, housing in all the first generation new towns except Basildon was transfered to the appropriate district councils on 1 April 1978. The sale of commercial and industrial assets is proceeding, and we shall shortly announce our proposals for dealing with the first tranche of community related assets.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the disengagement of the Commission for the New Towns should be speeded up for the benefit of the local community, including those business men who wish to have an early opportunity of purchasing their premises?

As my hon. Friend will know, we have said that the commission will be wound up in due course. The timing is still under consideration. It still has major tasks to undertake in disposing of assets before it can be wound up. We hope that the commission, on a town by town basis, will do its best to dispose of the assets in the best possible way to assist local individuals and businesses.

With this experience in mind, does the Minister recall the statement made to the House yesterday on the transfer of housing assets from the GLC to certain London boroughs, in which there was no agreement and no terms? In view of the Government's record of reneging on their promises in respect of the repair of houses in the new towns, why should the new towns or the London boroughs believe a word of what the Minister says?

I think that they are more likely to believe this Government than the Labour Government, who failed to come to any arrangment on section 10 agreements during the last 18 months or so that they were in power. We have had rounds of discussions and we have now asked the National Building Agency to proceed so as to define a basis of offer not very different from that put forward by the Labour Government, who the hon. Gentleman supported as a Whip. He appears to be anxious to slip out of that now.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members were looking forward to the Commission for the New Towns being wound up? If it is not to be this year, will it be next year?

I can only say that it will not be this year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the North-East new towns.

I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) on 20 June last. The target dates for the winding-up of Aycliffe, Peterlee and Washington development corporations have all been set at 31 December 1985.

Does the Minister agree that those three new towns are the major job-attracting centres of an area which needs every job that it can lay hands on? Does he recall, with his right hon. Friend, telling me that the Government would sympathetically consider an extension of the date of winding-up, certainly of the Peterlee development corporation? Is he aware that because of the threat of winding-up, if I may so describe it, expert staff are already leaving the corporation, which has led to a deterioration of the job-seeking powers? Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, take on board the seriousness of the situation and reconsider an extension of the life of the Peterlee development corporation?

I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that we considered the position very carefully. It was because of the success in job creation of the North-East new towns that we decided that Aycliffe and Peterlee should continue until the end of 1985, and the target date announced by the Labour Government for Washington was extended by three years. The hon. Gentleman therefore cannot accuse us of not recognising the immense value of the work done. We have now put the three North-East new towns on the same basis.

Is the Minister aware that the new town development corporations were by far the most successful job-hunting agencies in the North-East? Is he aware that there was a net gain of 4,000 jobs in the new town of Newton Aycliffe in the period 1974–79? Is he further aware that with male unemployment rates of 19 per cent. in the town and 24 per cent. elsewhere in South-West Durham, and with the loss of special development area status, the demise of the new town is regarded as the last straw?

I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman is relaying is necessarily correct. If it was felt that Washington, for example, should have ended in 1982 and we took the decision that, together with Aycliffe and Peterlee, the date should be extended by three years, that demonstrates more clearly than anything else that we believe in the importance of job creation and the other functions of the North-East new towns. We have clearly shown that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, following the expenditure White Paper, he will give an estimate of the expected starts for local council houses in 1981–82.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is now the projected number of starts for (a) private housing and (b) council housing for the present year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now give an estimate of the probable number of starts in the public housing sector in the light of the public expenditure White Paper.

In the public sector the number of housing starts will reflect local authorities' decisions as to the proportion of their total single block capital allocation and their total capital receipts that they decide to use for new house building, and in the private sector starts will reflect the decisions of the house building industry.

Has the Minister any evidence to justify the disagreement of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the 1977 Green Paper's prediction that by the mid-1980s there would be a cumulative shortage of half a million homes? If he or his right hon. Friend has any such evidence, will he undertake to publish it forthwith?

The hon. Lady must consider the range of measures that we have taken both to make the best use of available accommodation in the public and the private sectors and to give local authorities the maximum freedom to use their capital receipts to add to their housing investment programme allocations.

Why has the Minister taken refuge in evading the question and not giving figures? He knows that everyone is watching for the figures. Does he realise that in Sheffield alone there is a housing waiting list of 27,000 people and that the sale of council houses will lengthen that waiting list? Is he aware that when his hon. Friends talk about people sitting around doing nothing they should remember that 3 million people are being forced by the Conservative Government to sit around doing nothing when hundreds of thousands of them want to build houses for the people but the Government are preventing them from doing so by the disgracefully low grants that they are offering?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the city of Sheffield, as it illustrates my point in reply to the previous question. I hope that the hon. Member will use his influence in Sheffield to get the city council to start processing far more quickly the 3,000 right-to-buy applications sitting in in-trays in the council's offices.

Is the Minister aware that the rate of public sector housing starts has already fallen below the levels that the Select Committee on the Environment estimated in its report would occur only by 1982–83 and that the monthly approvals rate is already as low as the Committee's worst estimate? Will he have the honesty to admit that, as a consequence of his policies, it is estimated that housing starts are unlikely to exceed 30,000 in each of the next three years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—against an average need estimated by local authorities in 1979 and the housing policy Green Paper in 1977—

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is giving more information than he is seeking. It is Question Time.

—as between 110,000 and 120,000 and that his policies are reduced to providing only one-quarter of what is estimated to be needed?

The hon. Member must realise that local authorities can decide between new build and improvement. He has pointed to only one side of the coin. Last year the number of private dwellings that were improved was the highest since 1975, and the number of local authority dwellings that were improved was the highest since 1973. I hope that he will welcome the fact that in the last quarter the number of private sector building starts was up 20 per cent. on the previous quarter.

On that point, will my hon. Friend confirm that the latest figures published by the House Builders Federation show a significant and dramatic improvement in the rate of private house building starts?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has drawn the attention of the House to a very important trend which we hope will be sustained.

Does the Minister accept that Bradford local authority applied for a £35 million grant which was cut by the Tory Government to £21 million, which means that 800 planned starts, in an area with a massive waiting list in which houses are urgently needed, will not now take place in 1981–82? Is he aware that this also means that the building components industry will face further redundancies and that there will be more bricklayers and building workers on the dole, so that the Department of Employment will be paying out in dole pay money that should have gone to the local authority—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing the case instead of asking a question.

In view of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the availability of rented accommodation, I am sure that he will do his utmost to persuade his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) to reverse his commitment to repeal the shorthold provisions.

Instead of worrying too much about the national figure for starts, will my hon. Friend take a long, hard look at all the empty homes in the London boroughs of Islington, Southwark and Lambeth? Will he take the kid gloves off and get those boroughs to produce some modernisation programmes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As he will know, we have said before that a total of 23,000 local authority houses were vacant for more than a year. In view of the steps that we have taken as regards improvement for sale, mortgage guarantees and homesteading, there is no excuse for authorities to have that number of local authority houses vacant for so long.

Is the Minister aware that this year the number of housing starts in the public sector is the worst since 1924? Instead of telling council tenants in cities such as Liverpool, where 50,000 people are out of work, that they should buy their own homes, would it not be far better to embark on more council house building? In that way some of the 300,000 unemployed building workers could be taken off the dole.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities have decided to divert more expenditure into improvements. The number of local authority dwellings that were improved last year was the highest since 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total sums of money allocated to local authorities from 1981–82 under the rate support grant settlement and which some local authorities will not receive because their expenditure will exceed the grant related expenditure level.

A £9,027 million distribution as between authorities will depend on their relative level of spending.

Is it not a fact that the amount of money allocated to local authorities that will not now be made available to them—because of the working of the block grant system—must be at least £150 million and may well be in excess of that figure? As local government has borne a heavy share of the Government's expenditure cuts, should not the money which is not being made available to local authorities be made available to those authorities in need? Local governments should not have to bear such a heavy burden of the cuts.

I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The money that has been allocated under the rate support grant, and under our present proposals, will be allocated to local government. The only thing to be affected by the block grant system is the distribution between authorities. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. If he wishes to make some other point he should write to me and I shall try to explain the situation.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that several local authorities are concerned about the way in which the penalties have been based on the 1978–79 out-turn, which particularly penalises Conservative-controlled authorities that have complied with successive Government guidelines? Although it is too late for the current year, will my right hon. Friend consider whether some change in the system could be made next year to remove many of the problems that have been thrown up?

There may be a misunderstanding. We have no proposals for penalties against the 1978–79 outturn. We have given an exemption for the 1978–79 outturn against possible contingencies, but we have not yet put any such proposals before this House.

In settling the rate support grant, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that two factors should be taken into consideration as regards inner city areas such as the one that I represent? I refer first to the impact on the infrastructure. Is he aware that on the Park Royal estate small business after small business is closing down merely because the local authority cannot give the necessary support? Secondly, I refer to the way in which the cut in the rate support grant affects—in this, the International Year of Disabled People—meals on wheels, residential homes for the elderly and home helps. Will not the Minister take a compassionate view?

The most compassionate action that can be taken is to ensure that local authorities—like any other public bodies—achieve value for money and make efficient use of the resources available. The best aid that any authority can give to small businesses is to keep its rate demands low so that they do not represent a further financial charge on businesses.

Following upon the question asked by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), are not the Government's expenditure targets so demented that Cumbria, which has poor services, is liable to be penalised for a 20 per cent. overspend on the Government's targets while Suffolk, which also has poor services and which is Conservative-controlled, is liable to be penalised for a 10 per cent. overspend? Is it not the practice of a police State to impose retrospective penalties for alleged offences that are not offences, but entirely legal decisions? When will the Secretary of State stop acting like the Commissar of Local Government?

The target indicated to local authorities, which is clearly set out in the circular, is one of a 5·6 per cent. reduction against 1978–79 expenditure. To the extent that some local authorities do not achieve that others will have to do more if the overall target is to be met. We have made that clear to the House. There is no question of retrospection, as the right hon. Gentleman might care to admit. Nothing can be imposed before Parliament has approved it. In terms of local government, the word "commissar" is relevant only to the activities of some Labour-controlled local authorities which wish to make the possession of a party card the criterion for appointment to senior officer level. That is typical of the activity of a commissar. Nothing that we have done is.

If the right hon. Gentleman is denying that the Government are behaving in such a totalitarian way, will he openly and clearly state which local authorities he will penalise so that they know? Will he also state the penalties that they will be subjected to—which he does not know and will not announce although ratepayers will have to pay for them later in the year? This is the action of a police State and the right hon. Gentleman cannot deny it.

It is interesting to note how quickly the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues distance themselves from their late colleague the right hon. Anthony Crosland, who recognised the need for economies in local government in his speech to the effect that "the party's over." In that respect, we shall make clear to local authorities the targets that we seek. We shall put such information before the House. At present, we cannot provide any proposals because we have not had the revised budgets. As the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, this Government, like previous Governments, must observe the overall targets for public expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet in a position to make an announcement about the use of his powers under schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980 relating to fire precautions in hostels and lodging houses.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave him on 4 March.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Has he seen the recently screened BBC programme "Down and Out", which clearly showed that many people are in grave danger of dying in hostel fires because owners keep the fire doors locked? Is there not a sense of urgency about this matter? Should he not take action immediately under schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980?

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that local housing authorities already have powers under schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that both his reply of today and that of 4 March will disappoint those of us who are involved with hostels and hostel provision? Is he aware that many of the properties available to hostels and much of hostel accommodation are in need of renovation? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government's policy of forcing councils to cut improvement grants has a serious effect on the provision of hostels and on hostel accommodation? Will he use his influence with his right hon. Friend to ensure that there is an urgent review of the improvement grant allocation to those authorities that face such serious problems?

The hon. Gentleman must realise three things. First, we gave local authorities powers to act. Secondly, by aggregating all their capital, it is for local authorities to decide how best to spend their money. Thirdly, many authorities, such as Camden, would have even more capital to spend if they got on with selling council houses to tenants who want to buy them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), Official Report, 2 March 1981, col. 57, if he is now able to make an estimate of public expenditure to be incurred by his Department in connection with the forthcoming Royal Wedding.

No, Sir. Arrangements for the Royal Wedding are at a very early stage of planning and estimates of the costs of the services that the Department has been asked to provide have not yet been made.

As the Government are imposing savage cuts on housing, education and everything else, is it not absurd and indefensible that they should choose to spend unlimited amounts of taxpayers' money on a jamboree of this kind? Would it not be advisable for the Government to invite the families concerned to pay their own way?

It would be nice if occasionally the hon. Gentleman did not act in such a curmudgeonly fashion. Whether he likes it or not, there is evidence of vast public support for the Royal Family in general and His Royal Highness in particular. It is fitting that this should find expression on an occasion of such significance as the wedding of the Heir to the Throne. Far from it being a waste of public money it will bring substantial commercial benefits to the country as a whole.

Is my hon. Friend aware that what he has just said reflects the views of the vast mass of this nation? The questioner is in a miserable and tiny minority. Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole nation looks forward with great joy to that splendid occasion?

My hon. Friend is quite correct. Those who share the view of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) will doubtless have left the Chamber with him.

I agree with the Minister in all that he has said. Will he bear in mind that workshops for the disabled can do a great deal of work to provide bunting and other celebratory materials? Will he say that the Government will give those workshops the work they have in hand?

That is a point that I shall gladly bear in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the levels of rates so far announced for the next financial year.

On the basis of returns from 98 per cent. of authorities, the average level of general rates in 1981–82 will be 18·4 per cent. higher than this year. The domestic rate increases will be 19·8 per cent. I believe that these increases could have been lower had local government as a whole responded in full to the Government's guidelines.

Does my right hon. Friend have information on the breakdown of those rate increases as between Conservative-controlled and Labour-controlled authorities, bearing in mind, for example, the difference in the borough of Preston, where, from being the lowest rated authority in the United Kingdom, it is now predicted that the increase this year will be 163 per cent., with all the consequent effects for industry and the ratepayers?

My hon. Friend knows better than most the devastating effects on local employment prospects of electing a Labour council which reverses the prudent housekeeping of a previous Conservative administration. My hon. Friend asked me whether I could give a more detailed breakdown between Conservative and Labour rating decisions. It so happens that I have that information. In the metropolitan districts the Conservative rate increases are projected at 19·63 per cent. and the Labour increases in the equivalent districts are projected at 28·57 per cent. In the outer London boroughs the Conservative rate increases are projected at 24·53 per cent. and the equivalent Labour rates are 44·59 per cent. For the whole of London, Labour authorities are projecting 45·86 per cent., whereas the Conservative authorities are projecting 27·04 per cent. In all the rating authorities controlled by Conservatives in local government, the projected rate increase is 15·26 per cent. and the equivalent—

Order. I realise that the Minister was taken by surprise by the question, but even so he should not take quite so long.

Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but a large number of people are affected. I have only one more figure to give and that is the comparison between all Conservative-controlled local government authorities, where the increase is 15·26 per cent. and all Labour-controlled authorities, where the figure is 26·83 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which is Conservative-controlled, has imposed a rate increase of 50 per cent? What has it done wrong?

It had the misfortune to have ILEA precepting on it.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his previous spontaneous statistical answer. Will he now give extra impetus to the drive to get independent consultants and accountants into those recalcitrant authorities where the rate increases are excessive, including, regrettably, one or two cases where the authorities are Conservative-controlled?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have accountants investigating parts of the Department of the Environment. With the help of the accountants we have managed to reduce water rate increases of 19·6 per cent. to 13 per cent. next year. There is a substantial case for the use of such services by local authorities.

Is it not clear that in the poorer areas the needs are greater and therefore authorities should spend more? Secondly, can the Minister deny that in country areas, although there may be the same proportion of under-fives as in the poorer, deprived areas, the number of children being looked after in those poorer areas is far greater because their mothers have to go out to work? Therefore, the money must be spent.

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that for the first time we have given all the statistics relating to the distribution of grant so that one can have a fair and objective analysis of the way it is happening. Before the hon. Gentleman talks about greater needs, I wish that he and other Opposition Members would remember that the needs that should be considered at the moment are those of the unemployed and industry, which are being accentuated by these over-rating Labour authorities that are destroying jobs as fast as they can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy on footpath legislation.

The Government's policy on footpath legislation is contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, as amended on Third Reading in another place.

Is the Minister aware that very many ramblers and walkers are delighted that the Government have had a change in heart in the other place? Will he confirm that they will not seek to alter the Bill and to put it back to its original form? Will he further accept that it is important that the Secretary of State should have the final word on any footpath closures?

I agree that we shall not amend the legislation, except perhaps for a tidying-up operation. We accept the principle of the decision that was taken in the other place.

As a great deal of public expense is caused by people objecting to footpaths when they have never seen a footpath, will the Minister introduce legislation to ensure that people have a real interest before they can object?

I accept my hon. Friend's point but in the discussions that we shall have on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill we can no doubt highlight that difficulty and bring home to people that they should make only responsible objections.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what communications there have been between his Department and Wolverhampton borough council on the sale of council houses.

Correspondence has taken place between the Department and the council since February. The Department's most recent letter of 27 March indicates that Ministers regard the progress being made by Wolverhampton with referring valuations to the district valuer as unacceptable.

Is the Minister aware of the enormous amount of additional work that the sale of council houses causes to local authorities in examining applications and valuing the properties? What work does he suggest that they put to one side to do that? Alternatively, if they have to put the valuations out, how will they pay for them?

If the initial valuations are put out to the district valuer, there is no cost to the authority. I am sure that the hon. Lady will also be aware of the great demand in Wolverhampton from council tenants who wish to buy their own homes. I draw her attention to the fact that the latest letter we have received from Wolverhampton says that, in the view of the council, it will take approximately 60 to 90 weeks—that is nearly two years—even to refer the dwellings concerned to the district valuer for valuation, let alone to complete the sales. I make it clear to Wolverhampton and any other similar-minded local authorities that if they wish to spin out right-to-buy sales until the end of this Parliament the Government are working to a very different timetable.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that over 2,000 applicants now wish to buy their homes in Wolverhampton and that they are experiencing delays and evasions by the council, which show that it wishes to flout the law? Is it not time for the Secretary of State to intervene?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have carefully noted that point.

When will the Government show as much enthusiasm for allowing desperately needed council accommodation to be built as they are showing for selling existing dwellings?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will show similar enthusiasm for local authorities selling council houses, so that they can increase their capital receipts to add to the money available for housing investment.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to take Government new clauses 4, 3 and 2, Government amendment No. 27, and amendment No. 48, in clause 16, page 20, line 13, at end insert—

These new clauses, I believe, will be generally welcome. They set out the consequential stages of the liberalisation of the British Telecom monopoly.

I should like to remind the House what will happen after this Bill is on the statute book. After vesting day, some time this autumn, it will be possible for certain equipment to be offered direct and for sale for attachment to the British Telecommunications network. The monopoly of British Telecom will be retained with regard to the main communication network, the main trunk network and the right to attach the first telephone to that network. It will be possible, however, for private companies to offer for sale a wide range of equipment to be attached to the network. That equipment will range from simple handsets to answer-phones right through to small PABXs and large PABXs. That is the main element of the derogation from the monopoly of British Telecom.

The process of liberalisation, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear when he made his announcement in July last year, will take place over three years. We have chosen three years because we want to give an opportunity for the traditional suppliers to the Post Office, as it now is, to modify their equipment and to design and bring in new equipment which they will be able to offer for sale directly, and not through the Post Office.

The period of liberalisation, as I have pointed out previously, started from my right hon. Friend's statement last July, so the clock started ticking then. Over the three years from last July, the liberalisation period will be complete.

It is our intention to liberalise the simpler equipment first, so that later this year—I hope that it will be later this year—it will be possible to buy ordinary telephone handsets and other equipment of that sort, such as answering machines, which have been approved for sale from shops or companies. It will be quite legal then to affix that equipment to the network.

The Bill, through other clauses, will introduce two main changes. Other companies will be able to supply equipment to the customer, and that will undoubtedly increase the range of choice that is available to the British public. We believe very strongly that that will improve the quality of service and the range of equipment.

Secondly, the requirement that British Telecom should be the body which approves this equipment will be removed, because it would be quite wrong for BT to be in a position of approving both equipment which it is designing and developing and the equipment of the private competitors.

The approval bodies and the approval procedures which we have announced—this is known; I announced it some months ago—are that the British Standards Institution has been asked to draw up standards for this equipment and for a whole range of equipment, and I am glad to tell the House that that work is now going ahead, and that is being done with the co-operation of BT and the private sector. Once those standards have been published it will be possible for suppliers to submit equipment which they think measures up to those standards.

Will the question of safety be involved?

Yes. I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that safety is one of the prime requirements of the whole procedure, because it would be irresponsible and dangerous to allow equipment to be attached to the telecommunications network which would, for example, allow a very high electric charge to be passed down so that if someone were working on the line he could be killed. That is a very remote eventuality but, none the less, it is one against which we must guard. Therefore, safety is one of the factors in the procedures that I am explaining.

An independent approvals body, the British Electrotechnical Approvals Board, will examine the equipment and give approval, after it has tested it to ensure that it works properly and meets the safety requirements.

Another quango.

No, this body exists already, and I am glad to say that it exists in the private sector and has the support and confidence of many companies, including BT. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) should know, because the board has been in existence for several years, during his own period as a member of the Cabinet.

The board will examine the equipment. The purpose of the new clauses is to follow on from that stage. It 'will require equipment to be stamped either "Approval to be attached to the main network" or "Approval not given to be attached to the main network." All equipment that is to be offered for sale must bear either of those marks clearly.

Hon. Members may say "Why should we allow equipment to be marked 'Not approved to be attached to the main network'"? The purpose is to recognise what is now widespread practice—that many private network exchanges within companies, or within even nationalised industries, often attach to their networks equipment which has not measured up to the stringent requirements of the Post Office as regards attachments to the general network,,, because it is a private network and it is therefore very common practice to have equipment attached to that which today has not been approved by BT. That is the purpose of new clause 5.

New clause 4, which is based upon section 9 of the Trade Descriptions Acts, will enable the Secretary of State to make orders requiring that such information should also be given in advertisements for terminal equipment. Many hon. Members will have seen advertisements during the past few months in many papers and magazines, advertising various pieces of telecommunications or telephonic attachments. Some bear the mark that they have been approved. Some have no information on that at all We intend to make it obligatory, by this clause, that the information should be contained clearly in the advertisements so that the purchaser or the would-be purchaser knows from the start whether that equipment has been approved for attachment to the network.

Together with new clause 5, new clause 4 will enable the Secretary of State to require that purchasers of attachments receive adequate information and guidance about terminal equipment and its use so that damage to the network and, indeed, injury to BT employees will be avoided.

As the Minister knows, I was a member of the Standing Committee for only a short time. Therefore, I am not au fait with what went on. I ask the Minister one question. Who will be responsible ultimately for the testing of the equipment beyond the prime instrument? Will that responsibility lie with BT?

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman was promoted off the Standing Committee when I was promoted on to it. I know that he is very knowledgeable about Post Office matters. The testing of the equipment, in the approval process, will lie with the British Electrotechnical Approvals Board. It will have that responsibility. In the initial stages of the liberalised regime, the board may call upon BT and other research bodies to assist it in that process. I think that that is likely. But the board has taken on this obligation.

I think that all of us understand the points that the Minister has been making about the testing of the equipment, whether it be handsets or anything else. I think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) is concerned about, as I am, is who is to test it once it has been fitted to the entire system. After all, BT has an interest in the entire system and in preserving it. We want to know who, once it is connected, will test it. Secondly, does new clause 4 contain—I cannot see it, closely as I have looked at the clause—the power of entry to ensure that such a test has taken place?

The testing of equipment after its original approval is the job of the BEAB. If it is approved for attachment to the network, if it is the first telephone in a home, BT has the obligation to attach it, but it could be a private telephone. If subsequent attachments are needed, as long as the equipment is approved it could be attached by either BT or, in private companies, by other suppliers. I made that clear in reply to a question yesterday.

I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) wants to raise the question of maintenance at this stage. I think that it will probably arise later.

I am sure that the Minister will be answering my question on new clause 4. I was speaking purely of testing. Does the new clause contain the power of entry so that such a test can be carried out once a connection has been made?

I have nothing more to say on testing after the equipment has been tested, installed and commissioned. For domestic homes it will be installed by BT. I reconfirm that BT will have the monopoly for the single telephone instrument in the home. This is a central part of our proposal, and has been generally welcomed by the Post Office Engineering Union and by suppliers and users, all of whom are concerned about the integrity of the network.

I shall hunt the hon. Gentleman on this point. Let me give him a practical example. I do not know how many shared lines still exist, but I believe that there are quite a few. If BT fits the primary instrument on a shared service line and another company later adds other instruments to the shared line, it is possible that the system would work, because a shared service works through ringing to earth. But unless a balanced test is made from a central point—the test desk in the exchange—the calls of one subscriber could be metered on the other subscriber meter. The testing must be done centrally. It cannot be done at the prime instrument. One has to ring the exchange and have a balanced test done. If a private enterprise organisation were to fit any plan set numbers from the prime instrument, would it have to ring British Telecom's test desk and ask for it to be tested? If that happens, will it be done on an agency basis?

That is nothing new. In fact, the matter was debated in Committee. That argument is always used in connection with shared lines. If, in the example that the hon. Gentleman gave, there were a dispute about whether the part that BT linked to the network was faulty, or whether a part linked by the private contractor was faulty, both parties might need to be involved in the test process. That is quite possible. Much of the testing in future will be done by BT, as happens now.

I turn to new clause 4, which deals with advertisements. As in the case of the Trade Descriptions and Consumer Safety Acts, suppliers or advertisers who do not comply with orders under either of these clauses will be guilty of an offence and fined up to £1,000 and, if convicted on indictment, sent to prison for up to two years.

New clause 3 provides for prosecution of a person who misleads a supplier into infringing a marking or information order and creates statutory defences where a supplier or advertiser unwittingly commits an offence. This, too, is based on provisions in the Trade Descriptions Act.

Before dealing with powers of entry, I shall explain new clause 2, which is being taken with amendment No. 27. It is consequential upon new clauses 4 and 5, which introduce marking order and information order provisions for telecommunications attachments. It is a standard provision, which enables the responsible individual to be prosecuted when a body corporate commits an offence. Otherwise, technically, only the body itself could be proceeded against. We want the provision to apply to offences under new clauses 4 and 5, as it applies to offences against similar provisions in the Trade Descriptions Act. It already applies to offences under clause 12(3). The simplest method is to introduce this new clause, which will apply to all offences under the Bill, and remove subsection (3), which will be done by amendment No. 27.

We consider that this is an effective regime to police the quality of equipment that is offered for sale. It is a matter of real concern in the new liberalised regime that the equipment should not only work but be entirely safe. It should be clear to anyone who is offered the equipment for sale whether it is so approved.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned enforcement powers. We are still considering the matter. We have been advised that the existing powers under the Trade Descriptions Act are sufficient and that the powers of entry are sufficient. However, I wish to be certain that that is so, because the powers of entry will be to the premises of retailers—and possibly suppliers, wholesalers and manufacturers—to ensure that the equipment that they are offering for sale is properly marked. I accept that the clauses, as drafted, do not include specific enforcement powers of entry. We are considering whether specific powers are necessary, and if we so decide we shall add them in another place.

Considerable doubt has been expressed on the question whether the powers are necessary, and I want to satisfy myself before asking the House for new powers of entry which are extremely wide. Certainly, we have doubts about them where they affect retailers, because the evidence could be easily acquired by someone going into a shop and buying the equipment. It will be marked "Approved for attachment" or "Not approved", or there will be no mark at all. So the evidence will be there. However, there may be difficulty if the equipment is not offered for sale through a shop. I am considering the matter, and I hope that what I have said will satisfy the Opposition.

Fraudulent or incorrect marking will be enforceable under the Trade Descriptions Act whenever it amounts to a false trade description. It will be in the interests of the private suppliers of equipment, just as much as in the interests of BT, that the approval procedure that I have outlined should be properly followed. It is in the interests of BT for obvious reasons. It is in the interests of private suppliers because they go through an elaborate procedure and a long process of design and developing equipment, and they do not want their equipment, to be undercut by equipment which does not meet the specification and which may be faulty.

I hope therefore, that the Opposition will welcome the new clauses. I gave undertakings in Committee to bring forward proposals on those lines, and I hope that they will be found satisfactory.

Before I call the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), I wish to say that I looked with care at new clause 8 while the Minister was speaking. Bearing in mind the arguments that were advanced by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), I propose to allow new clause 8 to be discussed with amendment No. 54 and the group of amendments that are being taken at the same time. Therefore, the main debate on amendment No. 54 will be brought forward. The discussion will take place on new clause 8 together with amendment No. 54, amendment (a), amendment (b) and Government amendment No. 53. It will be possible for hon. Members to vote both on new clause 8 and on amendment No. 54.

I thank you for that decision, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is elsewhere on business affecting the Bill. Your decision means, of course, that new clause 6 will be discussed after the debate on this group of new clauses, and it thus alters the seriatim of the debate. Your decision is most welcome.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. My decision may please him more than it pleases other right hon. and hon. Members, but it means that new clause 8 will now be debated after new clause 6, and that the series of amendments on telephone tapping will be taken at the same time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) raised an important point on the development of private industry which could be brought into the home—a point on which the Minister was trying to offer protection. I hope that the hon. Geentleman's assurances are better than those that he gave about PABXs in Committee, because he has obviously changed his mind on that point.

We shall be discussing the detailed and central issues on later amendments and therefore we shall not pursue the matter on the new clauses. The Minister has gone some way to meet the case that we put in Committee, but we shall debate that in detail on later amendments.

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

With this, we may take Government amendment No. 56.

The effect of the new clause and the consequential amendment is to extend clause 54, which already enables the managers of welfare funds to change their rules by resolution, to allow past or present employees of BT or its wholly owned subsidiaries to belong to the trusts or to allow their dependants to receive benefits.

The proposal removes the need for what may be a lengthy formal procedure to make such changes. The clause is to be extended so that similar changes can be made in respect of employees of any subsidiary of either BT or the Post Office. The extended clause will relate to both corporations and therefore has to be moved to part III of the Bill. Clause 54 will then be unnecessary.

There seems to be no reason why welfare funds should not be able to extend their coverage in this way without undue difficulty, and I hope that the House will agree with the obvious good sense of the new clause.

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

As will be observed, the clause concerns itself with the rights, as employees, of 400,000 postal and telecommunications workers. I argue that those workers are largely a loyal and dedicated group of public servants. They are industrial moderates, and by no stretch of the imagination could one describe them as industrial militants.

I contend that it is unjust, discriminatory and unfair that postal and telecommunications workers, almost alone among Britain's 8 million trade unionists, face the possibility of legal challenge if they exercise what I believe to be a basic right that is enjoyed by every other group of organised workers—the right to withdraw their labour and participate in industrial action.

4.15 pm

The legal challenge to which I have referred stems from legal provisions that were never intended for that purpose. The clauses of the Post Office Act 1953 that expose postal and telecommunications staff to legal penalties go back to 1710, when the General Post Office was first established, during Queen Anne's reign. At that time the legal provisions were aimed primarily at footpads and highwaymen, but those same provisions have become a convenience for organisations such as the National Association for Freedom and individuals such as Mr. Gouriet to launch legal actions against the staff of the Post Office and telecommunications corporations exercising their rights as workers and trade unionists.

I believe that common justice demands that those legal impediments should be removed. In November 1976, when the postal workers boycotted mail to Grunwick Processing Laboratories, doubt arose whether postal workers could legally withdraw their labour. In order to stop the postal workers' boycott the NAFF took out an injunction alleging that postal workers were committing a criminal offence by being in breach of the Post Office Act 1953.

On the assurance that the company would agree to arbitration, the postal workers suspended their industrial action, but the issue was not put to the test until January 1977, when the NAFF asked the Attorney-General of the day to institute an injunction against the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office Engineering Union over plans to boycott post and telecommunications to South Africa.

The Attorney-General refused that application, but the NAFF obtained the support of the Appeal Court, presided over by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning. The court decided that the unions were violating the Post Office and Telegraph Acts and issued an injunction. Lord Denning stated that it was clearly an offence to

"wilfully delay or detain the mails"

to interfere with telephone calls, or to procure others to do so. Although the House of Lords decided in July 1977 that the Appeal Court had acted wrongly in granting the injunction, the issues at stake were not primarily about the right to strike. The Law Lords endorsed Lord Denning's view that it was a criminal offence to black mail or telephone calls. The issues before the Law Lords concerned the question whether the Attorney-General's discretion should be challenged by the courts and whether any citizen could bypass him and obtain an injunction against a trade union.

Therefore, the unions' victory in the House of Lords prevented postal workers from being the target only of civil injunctions. They remain to this day as vulnerable to criminal prosecution if they decide to withdraw their labour. As Lord Diplock put it:

"that such conduct by postal workers would constitute a criminal offence punishable upon indictment by imprisonment or a fine is plainly beyond argument."

The object of the new clause is to remove the legal anomaly afflicting workers in the Post Office and British Telecommunications by ensuring that they cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution when engaged in industrial action. Existing provisions would remain in force to prevent strictly criminal interference with mail and telecommunications. The clause merely seeks to exempt industrial action from the type of legal provisions to which I referred.

In Committee we were privileged to have the presence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General to give us the benefit of his knowledge and guidance in considering a similar new clause that I moved at that stage. With the greatest respect, I question whether the advice that we received from him helped either the Committee or the Post Office workers. The Attorney-General said:

"There is no fetter under the Post Office Act 1953 or the Telegraph Act 1863 upon Post Office workers … to withdraw their labour as such."

Counsel's opinion obtained by the Union of Communication Workers in 1977 stated that in the event of an all-out strike the position was, at best, too uncertain for comfort and, at worst, made it illegal for Post Office or British Telecommunications workers to contemplate such action. Tom Jackson, the general secretary of the UCW, on 17 March 1981 sent a copy of that counsel's opinion to the Minister of State, and I am confident that the hon. Gentleman received it.

I hope that Ministers read that opinion carefully. Here we have two conflicting opinions on a serious issue. The implication is that if a prosecution were ever launched against postal or telecommunications workers, one judge might interpret the law as did the Attorney-General whereas another might agree with the counsel's opinion that has been submitted to the Minister of State. That would be an impossible situation, and I ask the Minister to accept the clause, which is modest in its scope and effect.

I stress that we have the benefit both of counsel's opinion in 1977 and the legal advice given by the Attorney-General in Committee. I can only repeat what I said previously, that the Attorney-General's opinion expressed in Committee did not satisfy either side of the argument.

Counsel also stated something that the Attorney-General and the Minister, in his letter to the general secretary of the UCW, conceded, namely, that anything less than a complete withdrawal of labour would be illegal. That position is intolerable. Why should postal and telecommunications workers be penalised for involving themselves in overtime bans, for working to rule, refusing to cross a picket line, or for short-term stoppages? What possible justification is there for imposing legal penalties in those circumstances of industrial difficulty?

In Committee the Attorney-General said:

"Some forms of industrial action which fall short of strike action, while such employees remain at work, may fall foul of the law … It is impossible to advise the Committee in firm terms which are also general terms, because every case must be looked at on its own facts, and industrial action which falls short of full withdrawal of labour may take a number of forms."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B,3 March 1981; c. 581–2.]

The Attorney-General said that a ban on voluntary overtime could not attract legal proceedings. But what of postmen and postmen higher-grade who perform overtime as part of their normal duty arrangements which are agreed with management? If they engage in the withdrawal of labour, can it not be legally construed as breaking their contract of employment?

What a ludricrous position the Attorney-General and the Government are supporting. They are saying, in effect, that it is "all out or nothing". They suggest that postal and telecommunications workers should take 100 per cent. strike action or not bother at all, because lesser forms of industrial action might land them in court. What started as a discussion in Committee about the right to strike finished with almost an incentive to strike. Why should they bother to work to rule, which might make them liable to criminal prosecution, if they can go on all-out strike and suffer no such legal impediment? That is the logic of the argument that we heard in Committee.

I hope that the Government and the Minister will accept the clause, for one central reason—the views expressed on this issue not in Committee, not on Second Reading in December, but by the Conservative Opposition spokesman in 1978. The then hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who is now a Minister, spoke for the Conservative Opposition during the Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr.Buchan), which sought to do precisely that which I am doing in the clause. He said that he supported the restricted right of industrial action against the employer and made this very telling point:

"We recognise that Post Office workers feel that they are in a unique position. They feel that whilst others, such as the electricity workers, have the right … the Post Office workers are in an anomalous position, and I should find it difficult to argue that Post Office workers are more like policemen than like power workers … When Post Office workers say that they are in the almost unique position of not having the right to strike, it should be pointed out that they are also in the privileged position of being a statutorily protected monopoly; and if it is right to reconsider the sanctions against strike action, it must be also right that the position of the monopoly should be reconsidered."—[Official Report, 17 February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 885–92.]

The Bill takes steps to alter the Post Office and telecommunications monopoly. Let the Government accept the clause and restore the legal right of postal and telecommunications workers to exercise the right enjoyed by every other group of organised trade unionists. I ask that in the interests of fairness and justice.

The Attorney-General attended the Committee to give us free legal advice. I wish that we had paid our 7s 6d and received fuller advice. It was disturbing to listen to the Attorney-General, because he could not tell us whether industrial action or other action was legal. It is important for the Post Office and British Telecommunications trade unions to know whether it is legal to take action.

I was disturbed to hear that when the 7s 6d was paid for further advice, the advice put us in further uncertainty. That uncertainty should be removed by the Government accepting the new clause. The trade union movement regards the Bill without the new clause as totally hostile. Trade unionists believe that when they go to court they never have the benefit of the doubt. Because of the prejudices of judges, if there is an element of doubt in legislation the court will find against the trade union.

The Attorney-General is huffing and puffing on the Front Bench. I remind him that he is here to give an impartial opinion. The Government should accept the new clause so that Post Office and British Telecommunications workers are certain about their right to strike.

I did not add my name to the names of those who support the new clause; nor did Ito a similar amendment in Committee. The reason is clear. The Post Office Engineering Union does not believe that the clause goes far enough. It relates only to industrial matters. It does not give Post Office and British Telecommunications workers the right to strike on political grounds. That is not satisfactory. Post Office and British Telecommunications workers should have the same right to strike as have other workers. The right to strike should not be restricted in that way.

I appreciate that the drafting of the new clause includes workers in British Telecommunications and the Post Office and protects permanent and full-time officers of the trade unions. However, I wish that the new clause were stronger. I wish that it afforded a complete right to strike to British Telecommunications and Post Office workers. Because it is imperative that the right to strike is laid down in statute, I shall support my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) in the Lobby.

I wish to make only three points in support of the new clause. The first is wide and general and applies to many Bills. The issue has been discussed in the House and in Committee many times. It is directly applicable to the Bill and the new clause. It is that the more the majesty of the law intervenes in industrial relations the worse industrial relations become and the more danger there is of severe industrial disruption.

People should think back. They should remember Ernest Bevin's attempt to use the law against the Kent miners, in the delicate period towards the end of and immediately after the war. If ever there were a time when the law could have been used against people who were thought to lessen the war effort by absenting themselves from work, that was the time. Ernest Bevin invoked the law against the Kent miners.

What was the upshot? A few miners were proceeded against under the law. A few went to prison. That was all very fine, except that nobody dug any coal. One can do many things with the law but one cannot dig coal with it. Lawyers can do many things, but they cannot dig coal. Ministers who feel that they are tough guys because they have the power of the law behind them can do many things, but they cannot dig coal. They cannot deliver letters. They cannot connect telephone circuits. History, starting with Ernest Bevin, shows that if work is not being done because of an industrial dispute one cannot get it done merely by invoking the law.

There was only one way to get the coal out of the Kent coalfields, and that was to get the Kent miners out of prison. The only way to get them out of prison was for the fines to be paid. But it was the non-payment of the fines that resulted in their going to prison. The miners refused to pay the fines. The then permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Labour recounts, in a brilliant document printed as an annex to the Donovan report, how he went to the prison to beg the miners' leaders to come out. They did not want to come out.

If the law were invoked today I am sure that the present Minister would find himself in exactly the same position. It is no good arguing about the difference between criminal and civil law, because in the end sanctions have to be applied and chaps will not pay fines. In the end the Government have to do something.

The same applied to the "Pentonville Five". Hon. Members whose memories do not go back as far as the Kent miners might remember the Pentonville Five. The law that operated then was brilliant—much better than that contained in the Bill. The Act under which the Industrial Relations Court was set up, and its powers, were carefully thought out and perfectly drawn. They gave the Administration total power to deal with chaps who went on strike. The power was exercised and five dockers found themselves in court. Then they found themselves in Pentonville.

I do not know how they reacted to that—perhaps they were not worried about it—but the Government reacted with enthusiasm. They thought, "This is it. We have solved all the problems." They had solved the problems except for one small difficulty—that as long as those five fellows were in Pentonville no cargo was being loaded or unloaded at the docks. Apart from that small difference, everything in the garden was lovely. The law had come down in all its majesty on these wicked sinners and shown them where to get off. Over and over again exactly the same thing happens.

When we discussed this matter in Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) said that there had been a situation similar to that of the Pentonville Five in Australia. I reminded him that if we were crossing the waters we did not have to go as far as that, because a few years ago electricity workers in the Republic of Ireland came out on strike and their leaders were put into gaol; the Irish Government had copied the powers that we had and they put the strikers into gaol. That was fine, except that there was no electricity.

The Irish Government had another problem which Her Majesty's Government did not have—they did not have an Official Solicitor. In the case of the Pentonville Five, somebody in the Government—I dare say it was one of the predecessors of the Attorney-General—discovered in some dusty archive a reference to the Official Solicitor, a being that nobody knew existed, but who had powers, apparently, to do almost anything. So they dug up the Official Solicitor from the recesses of the cave in which he had doubtless been immured and sent him to the Industrial Relations Court to get the Pentonville Five out. But the poor old Irish Government did not have an official solicitor so how were they to get those electrical union leaders out of gaol?

The Irish Government knew that the minute the leaders were out of gaol, or the following day, there would be some electricity. So what happened was that a high-level ministerial deputation went to Mountjoy gaol to see those criminals, those convicts, and to beg them on their bended knees to walk out of the prison. They said that, the Governor had been given a chit which said that he could let them out.

The leader of the electrical workers looked at his watch and said, "We can't go out now; the buses have stopped; it is too late and we would have to walk all the way home." The leader of the ministerial delegation said, "Don't worry about that. We will get you some taxis to take you home" whereupon the leader of the electrical trade union said, "We can't have that; that would be a terrible waste of taxpayers' money. We had better stay in the jug until tomorrow morning." And they stayed in the calaboose until the following morning, so the absence of electricity continued for several hours longer than it otherwise would have.

That is the sort of idiotic situation which we get into when we try to use legal prohibitions to replace the skills of man management in industry which should create good relations between management and workers. That is the sort of mess that we have always got into, and that is the sort of mess that we will get into again, without these proposals.

That is the first general ground on which I support the new clause. I come now to the second general point.

Whenever we discuss this matter, people say, "Yes, the right to strike, the right to withdraw labour, as a last resort, must be permitted in a free society." After all, the row in Poland is about exactly that. All that my right hon Friend is asking for is the same rights for members of his union as Mr. Lech Walesa is demanding for members of his union in Poland, to the great plaudits of all the British press and everybody else in this country—not least members of the Conservative Party.

That is all we are asking for; that is all my right hon. Friend is asking for. It seems that all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are in favour of a worker having the right to strike in the last resort—as long as he is a Polish worker and not a worker in the British Post Office. If that is not the case, I shall be grateful if the Minister will explain the difference.

4.45 pm

Solidarity in Poland has achieved recognition of the right of workers in the Polish postal service to strike. They have that right, but it is being denied to workers in Great Britain, and Conservative Members will make weekend speeches saying what a lovely free country ours is compared with a wicked Communist country like Poland. It bears thinking about, does it not, even by right hon. and hon. Members opposite?

At one time, when work was less specialised than it is today, a case could have been made for saying that there were certain essential services from whose workers this general right should be withheld because they were vital to the maintenance of the realm. But the situation in industry has changed—not because the workers have changed it but because the employers have changed it, and for a good reason. It has changed largely because of the great advances in technology and because in using those advances we have carried the economic division of labour further and further in our industrial and service processes. More and more, industry is being carried on by a larger and larger number of smaller and smaller processes. A single break in the chain, which may involve a single process and only a small number of workers, can often bring the whole lot to a standstill.

I will take a simple trade to illustrate that point. The older ones among us can recall the days when tailoring was done—I remember when I first went to the East End of London—by a chap sitting on his haunches on a table. He measured the customer, marked out the cloth, cut the cloth, felled it together for a try-on, sewed it, finished it and then pressed it. He did everything, all the way through, perhaps with the help of his wife or his daughter. Nowadays, in a modern clothing factory, it takes 148 separate processes to make an ordinary two-piece suit.

In the more technologically advanced industries—the metal-working industries, the industries in which shop progress and control are carried out automatically and electronically by computers—that tailoring analogy is carried to the nth degree.

There is now not one manufacturing industry in this country in which a major process, perhaps involving thousands of people, cannot be stopped by half a dozen people. Are they essential workers or are they not? For example, if I were organising workers in the engineering industry I would never call out on strike an engineering factory with perhaps 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 people in it. I would call out the 8 or 10 tool grinders. All the rest could go to work and they would be working away cheerfully until all their tools got blunt and there was nobody to regrind them; then the place would stop. Those are clearly essential workers. No one is demanding that the right to strike should be withdrawn from them, because no one can define them. It is not possible to form a clear enough definition to make them the subject of statutory action.

It is true that soldiers, sailors and airmen cannot strike, but half a dozen computer operators in the Ministry of Defence could make all our soldiers, sailors and airmen idle. Those computer operators have the right to strike and some of them are striking now. No one is taking any disciplinary action against them—let alone any civil or criminal action in the courts.

Post Office engineers are essential workers. We should suffer great loss and inconvenience without a telephone service or a postal service, but what would happen if sewerage men came out on strike? Those workers have the right to strike. They have recently obtained a wage increase by threatening to strike. If they came out on strike the result would be not loss or inconvenience but an epidemic. Are sewerage workers less essential than postmen or telecommunications engineers?

A relatively small work force is employed in our public health laboratories. They protect millions from epidemics. They have the right to strike. How does the Minister justify those workers having that right when postmen are not to be given it? That is a simple question and I hope that the Minister will answer it.

The Minister may say, "We are concerned that postal and telecommunications workers could bring the machinery of government to a halt if they went on strike." The machinery of government could be brought to a halt in the next few weeks, with all the postmen and telecommunication engineers working, by the Government going skint, running out of money. I have read that 80 senior tax bods have gone out on strike and that those few workers have reduced the Government's revenue by £300 million a week. Are they essential workers? Are they doing less damage to the running of the country than would be done by postal workers at the East London district sorting office, in my constituency, deciding to go on strike? Who decides who is an essential worker and who is not? I have given some examples but anyone in the Chamber could list 30, 40 or 50 classifications of workers from whom, the right to strike could be withdrawn on the same basis as from postal and telecommunications workers. Why is there such discrimination? Why are the postal and telecommunications men getting it in the neck?

Not all postal workers are being denied the right to strike. It is only the employees of the Post Office who are being so deprived. Under the Bill the monopoly is being broken. There will be private postal services as well as companies operating the private postal services as well as services provided by the Post Office. Employees of the companies operating the private postal services will have the right to strike. Is the Minister saying that they will have the right to strike because their work is less essential than the work of the postmen who will be working for the Post Office?

I imagine that the first development of private postal services is likely to be in the City of London. The City of London could be brought to a halt by "postmen"—they will not be called that, but they will be de facto postmen—working for private postal delivery companies. Those chaps could feel aggrieved with their lot at the same time as the postmen working for the Post Office feel aggrieved with their lot. One lot would have the right to strike and the other lot would not. How could such a situation be jusified?

The very provision which is being made for breaking the monopoly ought as a logical consequence to lead to the conclusion that as we cannot deny the right to strike to a certain class of worker working for one employer we cannot deny that right to an identical class of worker working for a different employer. We know that the Government will break their necks to favour the private sector against the public sector on all counts. However, even they must baulk at such outrageous discrimination.

Those are the three grounds on which I hope that the House will give full support to the clause.

I rise briefly to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikado), which were particularly well said. I support the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), as I did in Committee. I do so because we are confronted once again by an example of double standards, namely, some groups of workers being treated differently from others. We are dealing with one of the last vestiges of the relationship that the Government believe managements should have with their employees, one that is not dissimilar from the relationship enjoyed by the barons when dealing with serfs in medieval times. It is about time that we ridded ourselves of these last vestiges and accepted that postal workers should have the same rights as any other group of workers in terms of industrial relations.

It seems that the Government believe that postal workers will be irresponsible, will exercise no discretion and will rush into endless strikes, thus sabotaging the nation's affairs. That I dispute. In Committee many hon. Members, including Conservative Members, said frequently that they accepted postal workers as being responsible members of the community who make a great contribution to the nation's affairs. If they believe that, why do they seek to deny postal workers the rights that have been given to others? In discussing the new clause we are talking about confidence in postal workers as well as the basic principle of the right to strike.

Strike action is not the most desirable way of settling an industrial dispute. In Committee we had a memorable debate on workers having a say in the running of their own affairs, worker participation and the need to involve the work force to a greater extent. If the Government meant what they said and if they did not merely mouth pious platitudes, this is an opportunity to put their theories into practice. I do not believe that the use of bully-boy tactics or industrial muscle is normally associated with postal workers. In the main they have always shown respect, integrity and great discipline in the running of their affairs.

The hon. Gentleman is in some danger of equating strike action with bully-boy tactics. If he is seeking to equate the two, he should not use such language.

I am glad that the hon. Member made that point.

There are occasions when strike action is misused. We have all seen examples of its being used wrongly by workers as a first resort rather than a last resort. That is often unofficial strike action, wildcat strikes, and so on, for which I have no time. Official union action, when it is seen as the way in which to bring an industrial dispute to a reasonable conclusion, has been fought for for over 100 years. We must maintain that. Over that time, trade unions have improved working conditions and have obtained better remuneration for their workers. They must be proud of that. Sometimes strike action has been the only legitimate way to achieve that. That is why people should have that right. It is not a right which is lightly used by trade unions. I do not want to give that impression. That right is usually used by most responsible trade unions in a discreet way when no other action can be taken.

5 pm

The clause is about our attitude towards our workers. The Secretary of State normally talks about confrontation in industry. If anyone knows anything about that it is the Secretary of State, because he seems to believe in sending a gunboat on every possible occasion. He abides by the principle that if two wrongs do not make a right, try a third. He constantly resorts to confrontation rather than co-operation.

This is an opportunity for the Minister to tell his right hon. Friend that in this matter he can show some respect for postal workers and people in whom the country has had utmost confidence in the past. The Secretary of State can show that we accept that postal workers are responsible people who would not use the right to strike irresponsibly and that we accept that they would use that right only as a last resort, as any other worker or striker would be able to do. Therefore, we should not have double standards among different groups of workers.

I listened carefully to the Minister and to the Attorney-General in Committee, when the Minister defended his opposition to the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris). It became clear in Committee that there was some doubt about the exact status of the law in this area. It reminded me of all those occasions when there has been some doubt about the law on industrial relations.

In almost every case of industrial action, a judge in a court has made a decision. That decision, which may have been legally right, has resulted in problems for the industry concerned, for its workers, for the law and problems concerning respect for the law. The history of industrial law has been bedevilled by judges who, sometimes deliberately but more often because of the obscurity of the law, have proceeded on the basis that the workers must be wrong.

It takes two to make an argument. It is not necessarily the case that the fault is on one side or the other. All that we are asking for in the new clause is that Post Office workers should have the same rights as every other worker in this country and the same rights as every other worker in any country which calls itself democratic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said, they should be the same rights as those possessed even by workers in a Communist country such as Poland. That is all we ask—nothing more.

If the Minister is to support his contention that the new clause should be voted down, I invite him at the same time to state clearly the intentions of the Government on industrial relations law relating to every other section of workers. Is he saying that the Government's attitude to the clause represents Government policy on industrial relations in general? Will all employees be subjected to the Government pushing through a draconian law which will prevent them from exercising their legal and democratic right in a democratic society to say to an employer that they will not work for him on the terms offered by him, that they are not prepared to accept his edict, that they want to talk about it and, if he will not do so, they will not work? We are confronted by that situation today. It is a question not only of the rights of postal workers but of the Government's attitude to the rights of all employees in this society. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to answer that point.

If the Minister is saying that he is picking on the Post Office workers as a group particularly prone to industrial action, he has picked on the wrong group. The industrial history of the Post Office has been one of the best, not just in this country, but in any country. Industrial action in the Post Office has occurred only in the face of the most blatant provocation. Is this law a precursor for other draconian laws on industrial relations? Has the Minister a specific problem with the Post Office? If he has such a problem, what is it?

As I am not a lawyer, I approach with great humility any debate on the law relating to industrial relations because it is a complex area of law. I appreciate that the Labour Party feels that the law should intervene as little as possible in that area. I have not counted the number of pages of industrial relations legislation in the statute book, but I dare say that more has been put on the statute book by the Labour Party than by the Conservative Party. I am only too well aware that the changes over the years often make complicated positions more complicated because the circumstances of each dispute are often so different and complicated.

I appreciate the moderate and sensibe way in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) spoke to the clause. I do not want to be associated with the allegations that Post Office workers are irresponsible and militant, because they are not. They have served the country well under successive Governments for years.

As hon. Members are aware, this matter was discussed at considerable length in Committee. On that occasion, the Opposition expressed their deep concern that if Post Office and British Telecom workers were to take industrial action in furtherance of a trade dispute with their employer they could be held to be committing an offence under one of several provisions of the Post Office Act 1953 and the Telegraph Act 1863. Effectively, therefore, they argued that Post Office workers did not have the right to strike. That point was argued by the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton).

We were fortunate to have the attendance in Committee of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who took great pains to give the Committee his impartial interpretation of the legal position.

He said that in his view,

"There is no fetter under the Post Office Act 1953 or the Telegraph Act 1863 upon Post Office workers, or whatever they will become when the Bill is enacted, to withdraw teir labour as such."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 March 1981; c. 581.]

That disposes of the argument that there is a double standard.

However, my right hon. and learned Friend went on to say that some forms of industrial action falling short of strike action while such employees remained at work may—I emphasise the word "may"—fall foul of the law. Expanding on that remark, he said that although each case of industrial action short of total withdrawal of labour would have to be considered on the facts, he did not consider that a conviction would be possible under any of the provisions in question where it could not be proved that the employee was in breach of his contractual obligations.

Several examples were raised in Committee. For example, withdrawal of voluntary overtime and genuine working to rule do not, in my right hon. and learned Friend's opinion, amount to an offence. However, he considered that discriminatory action against particular individuals or countries would justify prosecution, although none had been launched to date. Indeed, no prosecutions under a wider area than that have been launched in the history of this legislation.

My right hon. and learned Friend suggested that the Committee might not welcome legislation to create an immunity for such activities. That is certainly the Government's view. In sum, the Attorney-General felt that there was no need to clarify the legal position, as he had no doubt that Post Office workers had the right to strike. I emphasise that.

Does the Minister agree that the right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that this all turned on what was meant by "wilful delay"? On a number of occasions he emphasised that this issue turned on the interpretation and construction placed on the word "wilful".

"Wilful and negligent", in fact. However, that has been the position since the Telegraph Act 1863. If this matter is of such vital concern to Labour Members, I remind them that between 1974 and 1979 they had plenty of opportunity to introduce legislation along these lines. After all, a great amount of industrial legislation went through the House at that time.

This issue did not arise until the Grunwick dispute, when legal action was threatened against the postal workers for delaying mail and not delivering it to that firm. It then became evident that a flaw existed.

I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman that that dispute took place in 1977 and that there was not a general election until 1979. Therefore, there was plenty of opportunity to do something under the Lib-Lab pact. After all, the Liberal Party has thrown its support behind the Oppositon today. It is no good saying that the Labour Party was in a minority. If Labour Members felt so strongly, they had two years to do something about it, but they did nothing. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet. Is he telling us that he put forward proposals for the new clause and the thinking behind it?

Despite what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) said, the Liberal Party was not prepared to support trade union legislation. We had great difficulty in carrying the Liberal Party with us on a series of issues. That ought to be made known to the House.

We do not even have to await the right hon. Gentleman's memoirs on this interesting period of the Lib-Lab pact I never imagined that we would get a cameo of what happened during that time. At present, the stock in trade of the leader of the Liberal Party is to say that those two years were the glorious Utopia of post-war British politics. Yet on the authority of a former senior Cabinet Minister we are told that the Liberal Party was not prepared to support the proposals which have been advocated this afternoon.

The Minister will appreciate that I was not a Member of the House during the period of the Lib-Lab pact. I have checked with the Liberal Chief Whip, and I can assure the House that at that time the Government never made proposals to repeal the law along those lines. We would be reluctant to see the introduction of the kind of trade union legislation which some members of Labour's Left wing would like to see, and we would of course exercise a restraining influence in such circumstances.

We now have volume 2 of the memoirs. The hon. Gentleman cannot hide behind the argument that he was not a Member of the House, because he was fighting to get into the House.

I do not know whether members of the Social Democratic Party have any views. Two of them are in the Chamber, and it would be interesting to know whether they have any views about the necessity for this piece of legislation.

The antecedents and credibility of the Opposition are suspect, because they had the opportunity to do something about this matter.

I remind my hon. Friend that during the period to which he referred a Private Member's Bill was introduced to give effect to this proposal. It was widely supported in the Lobby by everyone, from Cabinet Ministers downwards, but it never had the imprimatur of Government approval.

I shall refer to that Bill in a moment, I confirm my hon. Friend's recollection.

Since our debate in Committee I have had correspondence with Mr. Tom Jackson, who courteously sent me the legal opinion that he received. I thank him for it. I studied it carefully and sent it to my right hon. and learned Friend. We have discussed it together. After careful consideration of that opinion, he saw nothing in it which led him to change his view.

Who will determine whether the Attorney-General is right or whether the legal opinion given to the Union of Communication Workers is right?