LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 28 July 1977)

§ Lord STRABOLGI
My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4.

§ Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH
My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord should give no explanation as to why the Government are not able to agree to the writing in of assurances. Certainly this may be something of a repetition of what has been said on many occasions, but I find it disappointing, particularly as we have only argued that this is not a question of changing what the Coal Board could or could not do but a question of the securing within the Bill itself of assurances.
During Committee stage I asked why it was that on so many occasions Ministers considered that oft-repeated and serious assurances should be satisfactory. I have said previously that this may be well understood by Members of your Lordships' House and of another place, but interested parties outside prefer to deal with matter of fact. Why is it, therefore, that these matters cannot be written into a Bill? That would not stop the Coal Board from exercising its powers under the clause in question. All it would have meant was that there would have been an adequate notice given to interested parties that this might happen, and representations could then be made.
1173 I find the whole history of this Coal Industry Bill rather a sad one. It arrived in your Lordships' House rather late and it had, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, a "pathetic debate" on Second Reading, and then we wound a rather wearisome way through Committee and other stages. I remain unconvinced by the assurances given. In talking to colleagues in that part of the industry in which I normally work, I find they are not entirely happy, and therefore it remains to be seen as the years advance whether these assurances are as good as we might think they are today.
Is it not surprising that the Government should point, as proof of their good will, to the fact that the extension of powers illustrates the assurances they gave nearly 10 years ago? They can write those in; they can bring forward into what is essentially a financial Bill additional powers which are written in on the strength of assurances given some years ago; but they cannot write into the Bill assurances which they give today, and I, for one, am deeply and sadly disturbed and sorry about it.

§ Lord DRUMALBYN
My Lords, I think it is worth saying once again that it is better to put something into a Bill rather than to give an assurance about it. May I give a reason for saying this: an Act of Parliament—

§ Lord STRABOLGI
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I think at the moment we are considering Amendments 1 to 3, but the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, if I may anticipate him, seem to be speaking about Amendment No. 6 which refers to Clause 10. At the moment we are dealing with Clause 9.

§ Lord DRUMALBYN
No, my Lords, I am talking about the assurances to be given as to the proposition's being … commercially reasonable and in the national interest ". We say they should appear in the Bill because this will be an Act of Parliament which gives the coal industry a power to do certain things. It is entirely within its own discretion whether or not it exercises that power. If my noble friend Lord Lucas were to put a question to the noble 1174 Lord on the Front Bench, the noble Lord would be in a position to say, "This is a matter for the day-to-day working of the Coal Board: a matter in which the Government cannot interfere". It is such a matter because it is a power which is given to it.
Of course, the noble Lord has said to us: "We have given these assurances and we shall see that they are observed ". And in effect he says he will see that they are observed because application will have to be made for approval of the capital expenditure involved. Of course, that will be true, but it does not in any way modify the desirability—and that is a word which is included in a good many of the Reasons for not accepting Lords Amendments just now—of having it in the Act of Parliament so that the Coal Board itself can see what the limitation of its powers are and the powers for which it would have to obtain approval. That is the reason for having these Amendments. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that, in these circumstances, it is desirable to implement the assurance in the Bill, rather than for the Government to be put in the dubious position of having to try to persuade the Coal Board afterwards—because that is what it amounts to—to adhere to an assurance that the Government have given, which is not binding on the Coal Board.

§ Lord SANDFORD
My Lords, we have a reason of a sort from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for declining these Amendments of ours. But we still have no reason at all for not accepting in the Bill assurances which were given repeatedly and emphatically, and which we on the whole considered satisfactory, so far as they went, during the passage of the Bill. We are still left entirely dissatisfied on that point. But it is too late now to press these Amendments, and we must accept the ruling of another place.