Lords Sitting of 19 October 1992

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Lord Eatwell
John Leonard Eatwell, Esquire, having been created Baron Eatwell, of Stratton St Margaret in the County of Wiltshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Lord Desai, and made the solemn Affirmation.
The Earl of Balfour—Took the Oath.

Messages from the Queen
2.48 p.m.
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships two messages from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The first message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1992 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
"I will comply with your request."
The second message is as follows:
"I have received your Address and, relying on the wisdom of my Parliament, I desire that my prerogative, in so far as it relates to the succession of peerages, should not stand in the way of consideration by Parliament, during the present Session, of any measure that may be introduced providing for an amendment of the law relating to hereditary peerages."

Traffic Offences: Automatic Cameras
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many police forces have introduced (a) speed cameras and (b) traffic light cameras, how many cameras are currently in operation and what is the total number of offences recorded to date.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, on 1st October 1992, three forces in England and Wales were equipped with seven speed cameras and 15 forces were equipped with 35 traffic light cameras. Cameras are operated at over 150 sites. Information on the number of offences which have been recorded is not yet available.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most helpful reply. I have noticed that there are signs in connection with some of these cameras but I understand that there is a difficulty about authorising the signs for use by all the highway authorities. Can he confirm that such an authorisation has now been given, or are the notices associated with the cameras purely experimental? I am sure he will
598
appreciate that it is the deterrent effect of these cameras that we wish to see rather than the catching of offenders.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the point of the cameras is of course to catch the offenders. If they deter some of your Lordships as well, then that is a double whammy. With regard to the question about notices, I cannot give my noble friend the answer but I shall find out and let her know.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the noble Earl indicate whether any cameras were situated outside No.10 today in order to measure the speed at which Mr. Heseltine made his escape? Can he indicate whether the total number of offences committed since April of this year has decreased since the cameras were introduced?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord's first question was rather frivolous and I do not think requires an answer. With regard to his second question, the cameras were introduced on 1st July. As I explained in my original reply, we do not have the information about the number of offences which have occurred since they came into operation.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether any instructions or guidance are issued to the police in regard to the use of these meters? If so, will he publish them in the Library?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not usually customary to publish all police guidance. The basic point is that the camera is put up and then works automatically. The cameras can record about 360 offences in an hour whereas the normal policeman can deal with only about three or four.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, are instructions issued in regard to their use? I am informed by a fairly prominent chief constable that no instructions are issued as to their use.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are certainly instructions with the cameras. Whether the police have been given particular instructions as to how to use the instructions on the cameras I cannot tell the noble Lord.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the police have deployed any dummy cameras in connection with this matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, these cameras can be erected on poles. One can have more poles than cameras. A pole may have a camera on it or it may not. The camera may not be in the same place today as it was yesterday. If those are dummies, my noble friend can conclude that they are in operation. But the point is that several—say six—sites can be serviced by one camera.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it true that in the trials so far thousands—literally thousands—of motorists have been caught for various offences, including speeding and going through red traffic

599
lights? Are all those thousands of people to be prosecuted; and, if so, will the police have time to do anything else?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the purpose of these cameras is to deal with speeding and traffic light offences. It may be that in the course of photographing a person turning right when he should not have turned right through a red light another fault such as careless driving or dangerous driving will show up. The point is to prosecute those who create the offence of jumping the red light or exceeding the speed limit. Anything else is incidental.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this system has been operating in New South Wales for quite a long time and has been extremely successful in minimising accidents, including fatal accidents?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords, the principle has been used in a number of other countries and has been successful. If one is a motorist one may feel that it is uncomfortable, but if one is concerned with saving lives the cameras have a very good record.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the Minister confirm press reports that many of these poles have been equipped not with a camera, because the cameras are not available, but with a flashlight arrangement? This flashes now and again to give the impression that a camera is near. Can he confirm that that is true? How many of those are in use?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords, I cannot confirm that, but it sounds a very good idea.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say whether these cameras—dangerous instruments—work at night?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think the noble Lord had better try to test it at night and see.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the idea of these cameras is to save police time? I make this point particularly in relation to a previous question. The photographs will speak for themselves and the police will not have to spend so much time giving evidence.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly right. The whole point is that these cameras can deal with a much larger number of offences than the police themselves can deal with. The majority will be dealt with by a fixed penalty notice of £40.

Property Services Agency International
2.56 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the forthcoming cessation of the functions of Property Services Agency International in Gibraltar, what plans they have for retraining PSAI staff, training for senior posts and restructuring the agency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, as from April 1993 PSA International will be replaced by a contractor appointed by MoD. PSA International has undertaken to help redundant staff find jobs and to give training to enhance their skills. We hope that the contractor selected will offer many of them jobs. Their skills have been brought to the attention of the tenderers.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he say how many persons currently employed by PSA International are being transferred to the MoD with their work? Have any final decisions been reached in the medium term as to what work will be available in Gibraltar, and what steps are being taken to find alternative employment in lieu of Ministry of Defence work?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that those who are not transferred to the MoD will face redundancy. However, it is too early to assess the numbers that will be taken on by the MoD. Jobs will be sought in other government departments as well as the MoD.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given that the MoD, to which PSA International staff can be seconded, is making its own staff redundant; given that Tarmac, to which PSA's 1,800 home staff are being seconded, will make half of them redundant; and given that the construction industry is currently making thousands of similarly qualified professional staff redundant—all good, hardworking, public spirited staff who will now have nowhere else to go—will the Government, who are laying waste our construction, mining, and manufacturing industries and the economy, please encourage the responsible Ministers to join these PSA staff and those in the rest of the country who face redundancy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that question has nothing to do with the PSA in Gibraltar.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, will the Government publish details as to the impact on the local economy caused by decisions taken now and in the future by Her Majesty's Government? I believe I am right in saying that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Mr. Archibald Hamilton, is currently investigating this subject and is due to report on the matter. Will this information be available to the public at large and also to Members of both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is too early to tell what the effect will be on the Gibraltarian economy. I say that because the contract has not been given to anyone. In my initial reply I said that retraining would be offered to local staff and that expatriate staff will be brought back to the United Kingdom where jobs will be sought for them. I shall have to ascertain whether a report is to be made by the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend on the matter.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the Minister made no reference to the Government of Gibraltar. Can he tell

601
the House what consultations Her Majesty's Government have had with that government? In recognition of the dramatic way in which the Government and people of Gibraltar have overcome many of the vicissitudes caused by the collapse of the naval dockyard in Gibraltar, what consultations have the Government had with the Gibraltarian Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the Gibraltarian Government have been kept fully informed about what is happening with PSA International. However, I should like to make the point that the local staff will be offered retraining in a substantial number of skills, including HGV training, forklift operating, welding, joinery, and glazing and re-glazing. That will give them an opportunity to find employment in Gibraltar.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the attitude of the Government of Gibraltar? Are they happy with the proposal?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend what their attitude is.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the Minister could be a little more explicit. He used the words "We hope" and referred to an assurance, but can he say whether or not there have been consultations with the Government of Gibraltar in the matter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot confirm that the opinion of the Gibraltarian Government was taken explicitly on the matter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on the matter. Is he really saying that Her Majesty's Government are unaware of the attitude of the Government of Gibraltar'? If they are not aware of it, are they not neglecting their proper job?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this Government's interest is in the British taxpayer. It is for that reason—protecting the interests of the British taxpayer—that the decision has been made on PSA International.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend really saying that the Government do not know what is the attitude of the Government of Gibraltar? Is he really saying that Her Majesty's Government have acted in complete ignorance of the views of the relevant local government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the point I am trying to make is that this is a decision for the British Government and for the MoD locally. The Government have ensured that the locally employed staff will be offered training so that they can find new jobs.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the impression he is giving as a result of his answers is not merely that the Government do not know, but that they do not care? Is that not all too typical of the Government's activities and actions in many matters?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the British Government did not care, we would not be offering the kind of skills retraining which will give so many opportunities to the people who, unfortunately, will be made redundant in Gibraltar.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the British Cabinet was made aware of the situation and whether it was a full Cabinet decision?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords.

Business of the House
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a moderately short Business Statement. As your Lordships will by now be aware, the Government are not proposing to invite the House to go into Committee on the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill today; nor, should I say, do the Government intend to set down the Committee stage for tomorrow. In view of the rearrangement of business, I have caused to be circulated an indication of how it is proposed that today's business will be conducted. Perhaps I may briefly outline that indication.
First—and indeed the only business on the Order Paper—will be the report from the Committee on House of Lords Offices which will follow this Business Statement. It is then proposed, subject to the agreement of the House, that my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield will repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the coal industry. As tradition has it, that will be at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m.
In the event of the business that follows this Statement not lasting until the Statement appears from another place, I propose to adjourn the House during pleasure, in the first instance, until 20 minutes to four o'clock. Immediately following the conclusion of that Statement, my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will, with the leave of the House, make a further Business Statement in which he will explain why the Government felt it necessary to rearrange the Order Paper at short notice today and also for tomorrow.
It may be helpful if, at this stage, I outline the business for tomorrow. At present, the only item on the Order Paper is the Committee stage of the Boundary Commissions Bill. However, I anticipate that your Lordships may, over the course of the day, identify a possible means of supplementing that business. It may indeed be that the House will become aware of some of those possible means during the course of our proceedings later today.
Your Lordships will know that I am in many ways an opponent of change. Radical change enthuses me even less; and radical change to the Order Paper is something that I have attempted to avoid at all costs. In those circumstances, I feel it incumbent upon me, as Government Chief Whip, to apologise to all in your Lordships' House for the fact that, due to the circumstances that arose, we found it necessary to

603
effect a readjustment of the business at this late stage. My noble friend the Leader of the House will explain the reasons for this immediately after the Statement on the coal industry. At that stage, I am sure that the House will understand why such precipitate action was called for.
Finally, I should like to say a word about food—without which the House would not be able to continue to function properly. I should like to reassure those of your Lordships who have made arrangements to dine in the House tonight that dinner will remain on in the Dining Room. However, in the pursuit of efficiency, the Refreshment Department wishes to provide that dinner in the Barry Room and, in an act of great generosity, the department will pick up the differential in cost between the former and the latter. The Refreshment Department remains a beacon of stability in a changing world.
3.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sure that the House will accept the apology of the Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, for the change in the Order Paper. In accepting that apology on behalf of my noble friends, I can only say that the change is greeted with the greatest resentment. It has been imposed unilaterally; it has not been agreed through the usual channels. It has deprived your Lordships of a debate on the coal industry which many of us were expecting to have at the Committee stage of the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill which the Government had set down for business this afternoon.
I can only say to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that, when I make this relatively brief intervention, it will not be the last intervention that comes from this side of the House. We shall take every opportunity to ensure that our views are properly expressed and taken into account by the Government. We shall also make sure that we fill the gap in tomorrow's business, to which the noble Lord referred, unless the Government do a complete U-turn on the coal-pit closures. I give that warning to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip while accepting the apology that he offered to the House.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, while accepting that apology and appreciating the difficulty in which the Government have placed the Government Chief Whip, and while not dissenting in any way from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, we will reserve our fire from these Benches until we come to the Statement by the Lord Privy Seal.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I had hoped that we would hear from the government Chief Whip. While I have no objection to not proceeding with the Bill—I hope that the Government will take it away and slit its ugly throat, as was said on a previous occasion—can the government Chief Whip give us an assurance that, should the Opposition or some noble Lord table a Motion, the Government will allow it to be included on the Order Paper and taken tomorrow?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, the reference I made in my Business Statement in anticipation of matters not yet on the Order Paper. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan too that there is no question of there being any prevention of any Motion being tabled on the Order Paper tomorrow.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is all very well. As my Front Bench accepted, I too accept the apology. But when business is taken off the Order Paper it is a serious matter. Many noble Lords will have spent the weekend preparing for today's debate. It may be that they will not be able to take part in the debate tomorrow. It has therefore gravely inconvenienced those Members who came today prepared to debate the matter and who may not be able to debate it tomorrow.
Had the decision been agreed between the two Front Benches, that might have produced a better feeling. As it was imposed unilaterally by the government side, there is cause for grave concern. Bearing in mind the extreme problems it will cause to some noble Lords, I hope that the Chief Whip can assure us that this will never happen again without proper consultation and agreement between all sides of the House.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am only the Chief Whip. However, my mother taught me at an early age that "never" is a dangerous word. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the reason there are two Business Statements this afternoon is in order to satisfy the burden of his argument after the statement on coal. The Leader of the House will then make his Business Statement, which I hope will address the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the Statement made by the government Chief Whip. Your Lordships may think it would be wholly idle and premature to enter into a Committee stage on the Bill before there had been a substantive debate on the question of the pit closures. Some noble Lords may seek an objective reappraisal, some, for various reasons, may wish to question the manner in which the decision was taken, and some may wish to discuss these matters in objective debate in your Lordships' House. At this stage it would be futile to pre-empt that objective discussion. I congratulate my noble friend the Chief Whip on his decision.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have received a personal letter from the General Secretary of the TUC, Mr. Norman Willis? Other Members of your Lordships' House may have received the same letter. Mr. Willis urges me to use my best endeavours to persuade the Government to postpone discussion on the Bill set down for today until we have had a statement from the Government on national energy strategy. I do not know whether my noble friend can explain why the Opposition are grumbling.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am always grateful for any information from my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. Although the Whip's Office may have a certain reputation, I can assure the noble Lord that we do not interfere with your Lordships' mail.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, can the Leader of the House or the Chief Whip give a firm assurance that there are no procedural difficulties as regards the tabling of a Motion for business tomorrow afternoon?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the answer is, yes, there is no difficulty.
Noble Lords: My Lords, it should he "no".
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the answer should have been "yes" without further addition or embellishment. The answer is no, with embellishment.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
3.15 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
I do not believe that the House would wish me to comment on items 1 to 15 in the report but I will of course try to answer any questions which your Lordships may raise in connection with them.
I draw the particular attention of the House to item 16 which reads as follows:
"ACCOMMODATION
The Committee has endorsed a decision of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee that there should be negotiations with the Commons to exchange the third floor of No.7 Millbank for Nos.6–7 Old Palace Yard and certain other accommodation. The Committee has agreed that its previous decisions about No.7 Millbank be set aside should the negotiations be successful".
The House will be pleased to learn that agreement has been reached with the Commons on the proposed exchange. In addition, five rooms in the Palace of Westminster will be made available to this House by the Commons in the near future. No.6–7 Old Palace Yard is a listed building and will be carefully restored and redecorated in consultation with English Heritage and other relevant authorities.
I know that the House will wish to express its gratitude to the Leader of the House and to the Government Chief Whip for their help in the negotiations with the Commons and to the various Commons authorities for their co-operation.
The House will also be pleased to learn that four rooms in the south return have now been vacated by the police, who have moved to No.1 Canon Row. Those rooms have been renovated to provide office accommodation for peers and will shortly be ready for occupation. It has been generally acknowledged that the lack of suitable office accommodation for peers has become intolerable. I believe that the measures which I have described will help to improve substantially in the future the accommodation and working conditions of Members of this House.
606
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to bring the House up to date on works carried out during the Recess. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the new under-gallery lighting which has been installed here in the Chamber is a great improvement and that the new remotely-controlled TV cameras are not too obtrusive. The cameras are controlled from a new control room in the basement of No.7 Millbank and so we have been able to remove the unsightly Portakabins from Black Rod's garden. Also in the Chamber many minor repairs have been carried out to the frets, and the frescos above the Throne and the Strangers' Gallery have been cleaned. Finally, your Lordships will be pleased to hear that a complete overhaul of the heating and ventilation system is all but completed. All that remains is to fit some carbon filters which have still to be delivered. The remaining work will be done soon, over a weekend.
The replacement of the microphones and the sound system in the Chamber remains to be done. We made a deliberate decision to await the outcome of trials being carried out in another place before embarking on any change. If all goes well with those trials we would expect to do the work next Summer Recess and deal with the dreadful acoustics of the Moses Room at the same time.
Outside the Chamber phase III of the kitchen enhancement has been completed, work progresses to time on the Victoria Tower and the pilot scheme for roof repairs has started. A particular effort has been made this year to increase routine maintenance and repairs throughout the House of Lords. Finally, the very outdated and inefficient clock control circuit has been replaced and I sincerely hope that in future all the clocks will be working and will be telling the same time.
I believe that the House will wish to congratulate most sincerely Black Rod and the Director of Parliamentary Works and their staff on all that has been achieved, especially bearing in mind the interruption they suffered because of the recall of Parliament last month. We must also thank Mr. Bibbiani and the Refreshment Department for the services the staff in that department provided during the recall while building work was going on round about them. I commend the report to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. (HL Paper 20).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. MEMBERSHIP OF SUB-COMMITTEES.
The Committee has appointed Lord Hollick to fill the vacancy on the Library and Computers Sub-Committee.
2. ADVISORY PANEL ON WORKS OF ART
The Committee has appointed the following Lords as members of the Advisory Panel on Works of Art—

B. Birk

L. Charteris of Amisfield

L. Crathorne

B. David

L. Fanshawe of Richmond

L. Gibson (Chairman)

V. Hood

607

L. Moran

L. Renton

B. Trumpington.

3. EXPENDITURE ON SECURITY
The Committee has agreed that the Commons should be invited to agree that the shared cost of security. in the Parliamentary Estate should be apportioned on the same 40: 60 basis as works expenditure from the start of the next financial year 1993–94; and that a review of security expenditure should be undertaken, if possible in co-operation with the House of Commons, to assess the mechanisms for control over expenditure and to examine the opportunities for more economic and efficient use of manpower without jeopardising security.
4. SECONDMENT OF STAFF
The Committee has agreed that the Clerk of the Parliaments should be authorised to arrange secondments of staff to outside organisations and exchanges of staff with such organisations.
5. CURATOR AND ASSISTANT CURATOR OF WORKS OF ART
The Committee has agreed that allied service arrangements for works of art should be ended. The posts of Curator and Assistant Curator of Works of Art are at present held by staff of English Heritage. Subject to the agreement of the House of Commons Commission, responsibility for these posts will be assumed by the two Houses from a date to be agreed. The posts will be funded under the Works Votes in the same proportions as other joint works expenditure, namely 40 per cent. House of Lords and 60 per cent. House of Commons. It is proposed that the posts should be tilled by the existing post holders on secondment from English Heritage.
6. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee has agreed that the House of Lords should meet 22 per cent. of the cost of funding the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) for three years and should provide accommodation for POST staff on the third floor of 7 Millbank. The remaining 78 per cent. of the cost will be met by the House of Commons.
The proposed funding will meet the salary costs of the Director, a Secretary and three scientists. In return, POST will undertake work such as "Technology Assessments" where an exhaustive analysis of an issue is carried out and possible policy options identified. The funding will cover work for select committees, except that committees should pay directly for any work commissioned by them which could not be undertaken by POST's core staff. POST will provide costings of its services, to facilitate the necessary value-for-money which ought to precede a decision on its long-term future.
7. SMOKING POLICY FOR HOUSE OF LORDS STAFF
The Committee has taken note with approval of a smoking policy for House of Lords staff which has been adopted by the House of Lords Whitley Committee. The policy is primarily directed at the rooms in which staff work, which in future will generally be "no smoking" areas unless the staff concerned request otherwise.
The policy will have no immediate implications for members of the House, except when visiting staff in their offices. But the Committee has agreed that the Administration and Works Sub-Committee should be invited to look at the general question of smoking in the House of Lords. The Library and Computers Sub-Committee and the Refreshment Sub-Committee will also be considering the matter.
8. JOINT COMPUTER OFFICE
The Committee has endorsed the recommendation of the Library and Computers Sub-Committee for the withdrawal of the House of Lords from the joint Computer Office which has hitherto served both Houses, and of which the House has paid a 22 per cent. share of the cost.
9. STAFF OF THE HOUSE
608
The Committee has approved the creation of additional posts. as follows—

(a) Temporary computer post of Higher Executive Officer

(b) Committee Specialist Assistant (formerly a temporary post)

(c) Attendants for 7 Millbank

The Committee instructed Black Rod to convey its appreciation for his contribution to increasing efficiency of security in the Palace of Westminster to Chief Superintendent GK Dark on his retirement as Head of Security.
10. NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS
The Committee has approved the introduction of new arrangements to replace the present contract with British Telecom (BT) whereby BT provides a Communications Manager and Deputy Manager and some 25 telephone operators to serve the Palace of Westminster. In future the Manager, Deputy Manager and Supervisor will be employed by the House of Commons (though serving both Houses and other occupants of the Palace), while the provision of telephone operators will be undertaken by a contractor.
11. REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
The Committee has approved the application of the following Civil Service memoranda to the staff of the House of Lords—

DEO letter of 24 March 1992—Remuneration of college based sandwich students

DEO letter of 16 June 1992—Pay of Legal Officers

CM/982—Pay of Clerical and Typing grades, and proficiency payments and skill supplements

12. INSURANCE FOR LORDS
The Committee has been notified of increases in the upper limits of personal accident insurance cover for Lords whilst engaged on parliamentary duty.
13. REFRESHMENT FACILITIES FOR MEPS
The Committee recommends that subject to review at the beginning of each session the arrangement whereby British members of the European Parliament are entitled to make use of the Peers Guest Room should be renewed for the duration of the present Parliament.
14. BBC TV DOCUMENTARY
The Committee has been informed of proposals by the BBC for a series of six documentary programmes on Parliament. Final approval for the series will be subject to further discussions with the producers and to agreement by the House of Commons.
15. CAR PARKING
The Committee has authorised Black Rod to investigate what permanent arrangements could be made to acquire additional car parking in the vicinity of the House.
16. ACCOMMODATION
The Committee has endorsed a decision of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee that there should be negotiations with the Commons to exchange the third floor of 7 Millbank for 6–7 Old Palace Yard and certain other accommodation. The Committee has agreed that its previous decision about 7 Millbank be set aside should the negotiations be successful.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I hesitate to speak on a subject such as this where I appreciate the work that is put in on these committees by Members of your Lordships' House. However, there are one or two points I wish to raise. As regards the paragraph in the report on the secondment of staff, I wonder whether the chairman could give us some examples of what the committee has in mind as regards people being seconded to and from this building.

609
As regards the paragraph on the curator and assistant curator of works of art, I shall leave to another time my growing concern at the way in which this Palace of Westminster is torn apart every time we have a Summer Recess, particularly when it always seems to look exactly the same when it is put together again. However, I notice that the two people who have been seconded from English Heritage are now to be taken on the staff as part of the complement. English Heritage is an estimable organisation but I wonder what two full-time people will do in the Palace of Westminster. I cannot help feeling they will be looking for work. I wonder whether perhaps the tail is not wagging the dog and whether it is not time that someone said the emperor has no clothes.
Your Lordships will know that in the Peers' Lobby there is a small box which is labelled "stamped outgoing mail only". It has been there ever since I have been in your Lordships' House and it has always worked perfectly satisfactorily. Everything I have put into that box has been delivered and it never occurred to me there was anything wrong with it. However, last week I came into the Peers' Lobby to find an elaborate wooden box there. I was told it was there for demonstration purposes and that we shall have some eight or 10 of those new boxes put round the Palace at a cost of £4,000 for each box. Things seem to be getting out of proportion.
As regards the Barry Room, for example, if noble Lords instead of turning right when leaving turn left and go through the arch, they will see a newly constructed ramp up which deliveries are made of alcoholic refreshments. I do not complain about that but the ramp seems to me to be ridiculously constructed. It is constructed at a right angle and I am told that the ramp cost some £8,000. At a time when we are faced with economic stringency it seems to me that another look is needed here as to whether we are getting things out of proportion.
As regards smoking policy for the House of Lords' staff, the report states:
"The policy will have no immediate implications for members of the House".
That seems to me redolent of the kind of remark that Judge Jeffreys might have made before adjourning the court for the day. I wonder again whether we are not getting things out of proportion. I asked the Library for a list of alcohol related diseases. The staff there told me the most comprehensive list they could produce was a list running to nearly two pages which covered all kinds of conditions. The Royal College of Physicians had drawn up the document in 1987. An admirable summary of the medical consequences of alcohol abuse and misuse is contained in the Lord President's report which was produced in 1991. I believe things have got out of proportion and the zealots have got completely out of hand. If we are talking about drug related diseases, alcohol should also be mentioned. I shall pass over the question of refreshment facilities for MEPs to show the objectivity for which I have such a good reputation.
As regards the proposed BBC TV documentary surely it would be sensible before the series of six documentaries has begun to wait until we have seen
610
the programme which is being prepared by the BBC for the series "Cutting Edge". We know from experience that such a process causes substantial disruption while the crews are working. It particularly causes impediments to disabled Members of the House. While it would be quite unseemly for the Palace of Westminster to receive any payment for providing facilities to the crews, I should have thought some kind of payment into the staff social fund would not be out of place, particularly in view of the astronomical payments that are made to some people who conduct BBC programmes.
As regards the accommodation at No.7 Millbank, the difficulty of persuading your Lordships to take up accommodation there could well have been foreseen. I recall that when this matter was first announced I asked whether the time allowed for your Lordships to reach the Division Lobbies would be extended. I think a little foresight here would have been most helpful.
My final point concerns the words "certain other accommodation" mentioned under paragraph 16. I must bring to the attention of your Lordships the fact that there is grave concern that the Houses of Parliament Sports and Social Club may have to be moved from its admirable premises. That club was founded in June 1922 and the club president is the Lord Great Chamberlain. It has been in its present position since 1938–39 and it has a substantial membership. It provides facilities for the staff of this building when other facilities are not available. I have always thought that the acid test of a body such as the House of Lords or the House of Commons is the way in which we treat the staff who serve us so faithfully. I hope it will be possible for the chairman to lay to rest the fears they have.
I cannot help contrasting the worries which the staff have over their social club with the concern which is constantly being expressed about providing a dining-room for counsel, particularly when petitioners come to Parliament to make representations. People appear in person in connection with contentious Private Bills. They often travel long distances and yet I know of no provision for them to obtain refreshments while they are on the premises. I may be in ignorance as regards this matter as it is quite possible that some arrangement has been made whereby the counsels' dining-room will be paid for by a proportion of the fees which counsel receive. In that case I apologise for raising the point.
I hope that the Chairman will bear these points in mind. I thank the committee for its work. When a report such as this comes before us it should not go through on the nod. We should examine carefully what is being done in our name.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I have the impression that the noble Lord is not exactly happy with the report. I calculate that he disapproves of 10 out of the 16 paragraphs. I shall try to deal with the points he made.
As regards secondment, that is a perfectly normal state of affairs whereby certain clerks and others are seconded to other parliaments. Other parliaments do the same thing in reverse. It is thought to be an advantageous practice and a public spirited act.

611
Parliaments in other parts of the world certainly welcome that practice. Therefore it would be a great pity if the Clerk of the Parliaments were not to be allowed to continue with that practice as it gives so much pleasure to many people.
The noble Lord also mentioned work being carried out in the Summer Recess. That of course is the only opportunity for major works to be carried out as we are working during the other eight months of the year. It would not please your Lordships if the builders were apparently to tear the place apart when the House is sitting. Therefore all major work has to be carried out during the Summer Recess. This is a 140 year-old building which is not as well built as might be supposed. When one tears a part of the walls down unpleasant things tend to emerge. The builders have enormous difficulties with this structure. I am afraid that it is inevitable that over the years there will continue to be an enormous amount of maintenance work.
The noble Lord is not pleased that we are taking onto our payroll the curator and his assistant. I can assure him that they are extremely hardworking individuals. That merely reflects a change of employer from the days when they worked for English Heritage. It seems to us that it is correct that this House should be accountable for those who work for us, in exactly the same way as we are taking responsibility for the work which we previously received on an allied service basis, for example, through the PSA and the Stationery Office.
I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question in relation to the post-boxes. However, I shall certainly find out and I shall write to the noble Lord. I shall leave a copy of the letter in the Library if the matter is of interest to other noble Lords.
The question of smoking is a matter entirely for the staff of the House. It was agreed by the Whitley Committee that the wishes of people who prefer that there should be no smoking in their offices should be met. That in no way affects your Lordships.
I turn now to the question of the television documentaries. I agree that it is most irritating if one bumps into a camera which is photographing somebody else rather than oneself. One may not even wish to be photographed. It was agreed by the Offices Committee that the documentaries are worthy, and in both cases they have been agreed by another place. I believe that it would be very wrong for this House not to go along with the proposal.
The noble Lord is probably right to say that there was little enthusiasm among noble Lords to install themselves in 7 Millbank. It is 300 yards away. The exchange which has now been successfully concluded is greatly more agreeable inasmuch as we shall merely have to cross the road. There will, of course, be a delay before we are able to enjoy the facilities of 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard. The noble Lord is probably right to say that the offices in Millbank were some distance away, but a number of people were willing to travel that distance.
I can give an absolute assurance that there has never been and is not likely to be a decision to move
612
the Houses of Parliament Sports and Social Club, unless it is with the consent of the club. Mr. Peeters, the manager of the club, is anxious to move to an alternative location. That alternative location is not presently available and the cost of the move would be considerable. I think that the noble Lord would disapprove if we were to spend large sums of money on that particular step in the present stringent times. He and I are in touch and there is no question that there need be any anxiety on his part that the club is due to be shifted.
A dining room for counsel is a matter that we should love to resolve, and we shall do so when accommodation is available. Such a facility is necessary for counsel and would also provide an additional facility for Members of the House. It would be wrong for us not to try to achieve that but it will await the availability of what is known as the south-east return, which is the part of the building which looks over Black Rod's garden.
I hope that I have answered most of the noble Lord's questions.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I shall delay the House for only a very short time. Did I understand the noble Lord to say that the improvements would include improvements to the ventilation in your Lordships' Chamber? I think that I am not the only person who finds the present standard of ventilation intolerable at times. If I am right in assuming that such changes are to be made, in making those changes is the noble Lord considering consulting the Warren Spring Laboratory? I understand from a notice in the press that the Warren Spring Laboratory has been carrying out tests on the quality of air in a highly scientific way. It might be advantageous to have that done at the same time as the proposed improvements are being undertaken.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may repeat what I said, because I may have spoken rather fast. I said that your Lordships would be pleased to hear that a complete overhaul of the heating and ventilation system in the Chamber is all but finished. That work was done during the course of the Recess. All that remains is to fit some carbon filters, which are not presently in the House. That will be done in the very near future, over a weekend.
I am not aware of the technical information which the noble Baroness mentioned, but I shall see that it is studied by the Department of Works. Even now we should notice an improvement and when the carbon filters are installed there should be a complete solution to the problem. I sincerely hope so.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees a brief question concerning paragraph 2 relating to the Advisory Panel on Works of Art. Ten noble Lords have agreed to serve on that important advisory panel. Of course it is not a political committee, but nevertheless it seems to me that the balance between the parties is not equitable. There are five

613
Conservatives, three Cross-Benchers, two Labour Peers and no Liberal Democrats, although I have often noticed in our arts debates that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have made notable contributions. In my time in the House I have never known a committee have such an extraordinary imbalance between the parties and so much weight be given to one particular party.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, answered his own question in his first sentence when he said that it is in no way a party political matter. It is expertise which one wants on such a committee. I cannot believe that an individual's politics could possibly affect the work that he was able to do in such a committee. However, if the noble Lord feels that there has been any insensitivity on the point, I shall certainly confer with the Chief Whip of his party, who may feel aggrieved, and with the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrat Party. These things are done in the normal way in the Offices Committee, but I believe that the noble Lord answered his own question in his first sentence.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees give us some idea as to how we shall know when we are on the air? The remote control cameras are rather difficult to understand. If we knew that we were on the air, that might sometimes enable us to shorten our speeches still further.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I fully appreciate the fear of my noble friend Lord Renton that Big Brother is very definitely watching. It must be assumed that Big Brother is watching all the time and therefore caution must be observed on every possible occasion.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the Chairman of Committees to the question of accommodation. As a member of one of the sub-committees dealing with that problem, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on his efforts so far. However, is it not the case that even if the most optimistic outcome is achieved in negotiations with another place, new Members of this House will have no chance of a room in the foreseeable future? While that is the situation in this House the Chairman of Committees must be aware that at the other end of the Palace Members are bombarding themselves with pots of money to increase facilities and accommodation, even, I understand, for new research assistants who will be employed with the extra money which Members voted themselves in July.
Is it not time that, as a corporate body, we stopped operating on the assumption that we are a poor relation? Should not Peers coming to your Lordships House to do a job receive some consideration? Accommodation is not the same as in another place; provision should be on a more equitable basis than the present arrangements, which by any standards are appalling. The situation should be put right as soon as possible.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's first remark. Of course I
614
share his feelings. We are making progress. We now have four more rooms. There will be an additional five rooms from another place in a short while. The accommodation which will be available in 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard is very agreeable. Depending on exactly how one handles the building, it amounts to 22 rooms. It will be a considerable addition to the accommodation available to the House. I agree that we will have to be patient and wait for the various permissions which have to be obtained and for the work to be carried out—we estimate that will take about 14 months—but it will be a very handsome building. It will be close to us and will make a considerable difference.
The noble Lord raises the delicate matter of the financing of these operations. I feel that we should expect the Treasury to take a favourable view of what we intend to do, which will be the minimum necessary in order to make conditions more tolerable for your Lordships to do the work that you all do.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, has the Lord Chairman anything more up-to-date to say about item 15 in regard to the provision of car parking? This is important to a number of Members of this House. The problem seems to be getting worse.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has to say on that subject. We are all conscious that there is a hideously difficult problem about parking, but I should be grateful if he did not press me at this stage. We are engaged in negotiations which, if successful, will alleviate, if not solve, the problem.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when we have finished cleaning the walls of this building can we start cleaning the windows a little more regularly?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I will bring that point to the attention of Black Rod to ascertain whether we can afford to have the windows cleaned more frequently. As noble Lords will appreciate, this is an extremely awkward building when it comes to cleaning the windows.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, following on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, it is true that Members of the House of Lords are extremely badly served in the matter of accommodation. Can the Chairman of Committees say whether the new accommodation will enable former Prime Ministers to be housed in a single room in a secure part of the Palace? At present they have to share a room. Frankly, I think that is deplorable.
My second point relates to heating and ventilation. Can I be assured that from now on Members sitting on the Benches here will not be subject to a cold blast of air, particularly in the middle of winter?
Thirdly, in relation to item 13—refreshments for MEPs—can I be assured that there will be reciprocal arrangements for Members of this House, and perhaps another place, in the accommodation occupied by Members of the European Parliament, wherever that may be at any particular time?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if correctly understand the last point made by the noble Lord to relate to the hospitality that we are proposing to make available to Members of the European Parliament, I can only say that I have recently enjoyed their hospitality in Strasbourg. They certainly reciprocated in the most lavish fashion.
Referring to accommodation, I can only repeat what I have already said. In regard to those who have previously occupied the highest office in the land—that of Prime Minister—I wrote to the Speaker of another place pointing out that I did not know how much longer I could hold out in a situation where ex-Prime Ministers had to continue to share a room with three others. I think that letter may well have assisted in achieving the agreement we have now reached.
On the second point, we shall have an adjustment made forthwith.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, after consultation through the usual channels it has been agreed that we should take a short break until 3.55 p.m. when we shall take the coal Statement. On that basis, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.45 to 3.55 p.m.]

The Coal Industry
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like now to repeat a Statement being made in another place by the President of the Board of Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the coal industry.
"Last week I agreed that British Coal should announce that it would cease production at 31 pits over the course of the next five months with the loss of up to 30,000 jobs. I very much regretted that British Coal had had to reach this decision but I accepted its advice that these steps were necessary in order to bring supply closer into line with demand. I then announced myself the outline of a package of redundancy and special assistance measures, the further details of which I am now able to give the House.
"Originally I intended to announce details of the new coal contracts with the electricity supply industry and the future employment prospects for British Coal to the House before the Summer Recess. This timetable was not achieved. I would have liked to have made the announcement to the House today. But the electricity industry has still not agreed contracts for coal after 1st April 1993. In the meantime pressure on British Coal, fuelled by reported leaks, intensified and I therefore agreed to allow it to proceed. I regret this discourtesy to the House.
616"
I accept full responsibility for that decision as I do for the consequent events.
"Madam Speaker, remorseless changes in circumstances have been reducing demand and employment in the coal industry for the last 80 years. The fastest rate of decline was in the 1960s when 300,000 jobs were lost in a decade, including 186,000 under the Labour Governments of 1964 to 1970. At present, British Coal is producing 88 million tonnes, with 65 million tonnes going to the electricity generators. It is most unlikely that British Coal will be able to sell more than 40 million tonnes to the generators as from next April. The economic case for a substantial reduction in capacity therefore remains compelling.
"Nevertheless the Government recognise the concern at the speed of the run-down and about the very great difficulties it would cause to the communities involved. We have therefore concluded that, for the time being, British Coal should be allowed to proceed with the closure of only 10 pits which it has told me are currently loss making and have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future. The pits which fall into this category are Vane Tempest, Grimethorpe and Houghton Main, Markham Main, Trentham, Parkside, Cotgrave, Silverhill, Betws and Taff Merthyr.
"Nevertheless it is clearly important that British Coal demonstrably meets its statutory duties to consult and notify and take account of the result of consultation. No closure will therefore take place until after the statutory consultation period has been completed.
"In the case of all other closures and redundancies, I have asked British Coal to introduce a moratorium until early in the New Year except for those which may be agreed by the workforce at the pits concerned. This will provide time for negotiations to continue, and hopefully to be concluded, on the new coal contracts. During this period there will be no compulsory redundancies, although voluntary redundancies will be allowed to proceed under the terms announced by British Coal last week.
"During this moratorium the Government and British Coal will set out the full case for the closures which British Coal planned and to which I agreed. The Government will also provide an opportunity for honourable Members to debate the issues. In addition, we will carry out widespread consultation with all those concerned over the next three months. We will then announce our conclusions following these consultations to Parliament in the New Year. If, following this process, the Government and British Coal's judgment is confirmed then British Coal will proceed with a phased programme of colliery closures aimed at reducing surplus capacity as soon as possible.
"Madam Speaker, it is clear that many coalfield communities will continue to suffer significant job losses. I am now able to give the House more details about the package of measures to assist those communities.

617
In the short term people will need immediate help to find jobs, to retrain and to construct a new future for themselves. In the longer term these areas will need help with infrastructure to attract new industries and business.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has written to the Chairman of the Employment Select Committee with details of a package of measures worth approximately £75 million over two years. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.
"The training and enterprise councils in the areas concerned will have a major part to play. They will want to ensure that all those affected are offered help from the relevant agencies including British Coal Enterprise and Government departments. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be taking similar action in Wales.
"One of the best ways of attracting new industries and long term investment is the creation of enterprise zones. The Government intend to introduce new enterprise zones, in the areas where they would be most effective.
"Last week I said that we would ask English Estates to advise on a programme of property and sites provision. On the basis of preliminary discussions with English Estates, the Government have decided to make available to the corporation—and in due course to the Urban Regeneration Agency—£75 million of additional money over the next three years. In addition the corporation will in this year spend around £10 million in these areas.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is also making nearly £2 million available today to the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation. This will enable it to make an early start on the further extension of the Sunderland Enterprise Park and the new Viking Industrial Park in South Tyneside.
"We have already announced that three areas—Doncaster, Barnsley and Mansfield—will get enhanced status when the new assisted area map is announced in the New Year. More areas will be upgraded in the review. This will ensure that firms interested in investing there are eligible for grant assistance. We will continue to look at other areas.
"These major initiatives will be underpinned by further smaller regeneration measures. I intend to extend the coverage of regional enterprise grants to all coal closure areas. This will help small businesses there with investment and innovation projects. I will strengthen inward investment efforts in these areas. I will see that additional resources are available to local development agencies.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is also acting immediately to alleviate the effects of the closures. He is today setting up a coalfield areas fund. Up to £5 million will be made available for expenditure in this financial year and next. My right honourable friend is writing to all the local authorities in the affected areas asking them urgently for proposals on how this money can best be spent to help those
618
made redundant. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making a separate announcement on resources in Wales.
"I am aware that these closures will have a serious impact on coal industry suppliers and we are already discussing with them ways to assist diversification and the identification of new markets.
"These measures will all bring new money to the affected areas. We are talking about £165 million altogether. I know that this will make a major impact in transforming the economies of these areas.
"These programmes will be carried out by a number of separate agencies, each with established expertise and a track record of achievement in its field. But it will be important to ensure that the programmes mesh properly together, leaving neither wasteful overlaps nor damaging gaps. For this reason I have decided to appoint a distinguished national figure, who will be an adviser in my department, to act as co-ordinator and facilitator at the national level. He will also assist my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
"I am pleased to tell the House that the noble Lord, Lord Walker, has agreed to accept this important responsibility.
"The decisions which I have announced today have been difficult. I understand the anguish that will be caused for the coalfields concerned but there is no economic alternative. The Government will now proceed to work for the long term future of all those concerned.
"I have arranged for copies of this Statement to be made available in the Vote Office".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, copies of which we were handed a few minutes ago. No doubt the last-minute U turn which it contains reflects not only the total disorder which appears to exist in central government but also the horror and indignation—and nothing less than that—which has been felt across the nation and the political spectrum, as Government Whips well know, against the proposals to butcher the coal industry through brutal and ill-considered closures.
Those last minute concessions may perhaps satisfy some Conservative Back-Benchers in another place—we shall soon learn. However, I cannot believe that they will bring lasting comfort to the 100,000 workers in the coal and related industries who remain threatened, because the moratorium prolongs uncertainty. The moratorium of three months continues the uncertainty and prolongs the agony for all those who work in the coal industry and related industries. Therefore, it blights the industry and destroys confidence in its future.
The proposals should be dropped. But if they are reconsidered that should not be done through the consultations that have been mentioned—we heard about the full consultations which were conducted

619
previously—but through an independent inquiry. Otherwise the same Ministers will continue to find the argument for closure compelling. That was reaffirmed by the Secretary of State yesterday on television and it is written into this Statement.
The human tragedy involved in the 31 closures is too awful to contemplate. Whether there are 10 or 31 closures, why are the Government still contemplating them? Why have they not abandoned them? There are no compensating economic advantages in these callous measures. However many closures—whether 10 or 31—they hurt Britain, economic growth, the balance of payments and public borrowing. They are economic lunacy; why are they occurring?
The Minister repeated in the Statement the tired assertions that the closures are the remorseless logic of the free market because there is no market or there is an insufficient market for coal. Will the Minister not now admit that that is nonsense? Is she not aware that there is no free market for UK energy? The customers in electricity are quasi-monopolistic. Coal's competitors in gas and in nuclear have privileged access to the market. Therefore, the Government still do not have and have not presented to this House an argument for the closures which stands up to scrutiny.
More particularly, I wish to ask the Minister certain questions which are fundamental to exposing the economic and social lunacy of what is still being considered; that is, the 31 closures. I hope that she will answer them because the Government have not yet published any cost-benefit analysis of their proposals. We have had no White Paper, although I asked for one in our debate in the summer. Why have we not had published a cost-benefit analysis for 10,20 or 31 closures? Will such an analysis be published before the so-called moratorium ends? Will there be a White Paper?
Will the Minister address today the questions which such an analysis would bring? What will be the total number of people unemployed as a result of these proposals—whether there are 10 or 31 closures—including indirect unemployment from related industries? Does the Minister accept the widely propounded figure of more than 100,000? What will be the cut in GDP resulting over one to three years? Does the Minister accept that it will be a reduction of 0.5 per cent. per annum, which will more than eliminate recent benefits of interest rate cuts? What are the true costs of the closures? Will the Government publish those relevant figures, including the indirect costs, the liabilities and the balance sheet write-offs? Do they accept that the total costs have been estimated at £7 billion? In relation to that, what would be the true cost of keeping all 31 mines open? Does the Minister accept that it is approximately £1 billion; only half the cost of closing them during the first three years?
In relation to the aid package, how much extra will there be for local authorities in the blighted areas which will carry the burden? As British Coal Enterprise will have a major role, who will be responsible for that after privatisation? Will the Minister not accept that this package is totally
620
inadequate when compared with the scale of the tragedy which is contemplated? As regards a national energy policy, do the Government put no value—no value at all—on having long-term security in domestic energy supplies, including coal?
If the House receives full and accurate answers to those questions, it will be clear that there is no logic behind the proposed closures, whether there are 10 or 31. There is no economic logic, no social logic, no energy logic and above all no human logic. The moratorium does not alter that; it simply prolongs the uncertainty. Will the Minister suggest to her Secretary of State that this House, like the whole nation, wants the proposed closures totally abandoned? Will the Government come forward with a rational energy strategy, including a future for the coal industry? When will they do that?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, about the way in which the original proposals were made. During a long period in the coal industry I never experienced an announcement of closures made in such a way; I refer to the closure of 31 pits in five months. The Minister referred to the number of closures and redundancies which occurred during the 1960s and her numbers were correct. However, as she will no doubt recall, the circumstances were then quite different. First, there was almost continuous consultation. Indeed, I spent most of my time in meetings with union representatives discussing charts and details of all the pits. Secondly, that was a period of continuous full employment and therefore alternative jobs were readily available. The distinction is that on this occasion there has been no consultation and there are no alternative jobs.
The Government have now come forward with modified proposals which are more satisfactory. However, I should have preferred the postponement of all the closures during the moratorium, and I ask the Minister to consider that. There is argument about the viability of some of the pits on the list which she has mentioned. No doubt that will arise in the normal consultation procedure which she has assured us will be restored. However, I am anxious in particular about the point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that the inquiry will not be independent. The Government conducted an inquiry when formulating their plans for privatisation. I do not believe that this House or another place will be satisfied with yet another inquiry conducted by the Government.
So many issues are unresolved. No one is clear about the relative competitiveness of the existing coal-fired stations, which have long since had their capital costs written off as compared with the gas-fired stations. There is argument about whether the gas-fired stations would be competitive at the original gas price. But would they be competitive at the higher gas price? There are arguments about the proper position of nuclear power. Indeed, because electricity is generated by virtually every kind of primary energy

621
that we have at our disposal, the electricity industry raises the major issue of an energy policy. It cannot be escaped.
Therefore, I put it to the Minister that the Government should give serious thought to establishing an independent high-powered body which would look at the whole question of energy policy. That should report by the end of the year and the inquiries presently being conducted by the Director-General of Electricity Supply, which he said will not be available until some time towards the end of next year, should be speeded up so that we know the impact of the contracts for electricity supply being conducted by the regional electricity companies.
In the meantime, I should have thought that the closures should be conducted on the normal basis, as they were previously. No pre-ordained list of pits should be closed and only when the inquiry has been completed, submitted to the nation and to both Houses and fully debated, should we decide what should be done. I hope that the Minister will give us a view on that issue.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is precisely because the Government are anxious about the future of Britain that these difficult decisions are being taken. We want to achieve the largest economic coal industry that the market can support in the longer term. The Government aim to ensure that the nation has adequate, secure and diverse supplies of energy at competitive prices in the forms which people and businesses want. A competitive market, operating within a framework of arrangements to safeguard health and safety and the environment, provides the most effective and efficient mechanism for meeting our energy needs.
Our strategy is clear. It is to open up the energy sector and to respond to market forces so that British industry and British consumers have access to diverse sources of energy at competitive prices. We are lucky to have a number of energy sources in this country: oil, gas and coal as well as access to imports. It is right that we should seek to take advantage of all those and that the market should be able to decide to what extent it wishes to draw on them.
The Government believe that energy prices should, wherever possible, reflect their true economic cost, otherwise we should simply put up the prices of our products and lose jobs as a consequence. Since 1979 the Government have supported the coal industry to the tune of £18 billion, £8 billion of which has allowed them to modernise and mechanise. For the coal industry to survive it is important that it should concentrate on its future. At present, money is being spent on bringing coal, for which there is no market, above ground at a cost of about £100 million each time. Stocks already at the power stations and at the pit heads are in excess of what is required. It is because we wish to protect the future and because we believe that the coal industry has a part to play in energy policy, that we were faced with difficult decisions. We expect that the consultations will be with those concerned, with those with the knowledge, with those who have been running the pits and with those
622
working in the pits. I believe that that will mean that satisfactory answers will be given to noble Lords and to another place.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem is the excessively centralised and inflexible structure of the industry? Secondly, was it not at least the source of the difficulty that the decision was made to put the cart before the horse when the privatisation of electricity preceded that of the coal industry? Thirdly, was it not nonsensical—and some of us warned about it quite clearly at the time—to put two generators in such a position of power in the name of creating competition? Will the Minister apply her mind to the role which is now being given, or which it is proposed to give, to gas in the first instance and the preference to nuclear in the second? Under that I include also the role and the contribution which will be made by Electricité de France.
The Government make much of the fact that in the past 10 to 12 years they have invested £18 billion in the industry. Do the Government now feel that it was a mistake to continue for so long with that process of investment? If they do not believe that they were in error, why did they not wait a little longer for results to come to hand?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Peyton for those questions. I agree that the flexibility of the operator is central to its efficiency. I stress also that no one could have made more efforts than my honourable friends to ensure that the electricity contracts were in place so that those matters could be discussed before the Recess. It is important that in due course the coal industry joins the privatised sector to give it the strength to negotiate.
The question of gas stations has been raised already by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It seems to me that the judgment has been well made by those whose task it is to supply the country with economical electricity. They have made their judgments and have invested in gas stations.
Of course, the nuclear issue will not change if we stop production. The costs arise on decommissioning. That is probably best managed on operating stations for as long as that is appropriate.
The process of investment has identified what can be achieved. The money spent has meant that the workforce and management have done much to improve the industry's position. I came from a background and a school where people considered it fortunate that by the year 2000 no one would have to go down a pit. Fortunately expenditure has been such that safety records have improved out of all proportion. By using the investment, we have identified where a competitive and profitable coal industry can be based.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble Baroness must be aware that so far in her answers she has not attempted to reply to the questions asked but has merely read out a supplementary statement

623
bearing no relationship at all to the points raised either by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, or by my noble friend Lord Ezra.
Will the Minister apply herself in particular to the point made most powerfully by my noble friend Lord Ezra that an independent inquiry is required? The Minister announced that the Government see no possible logic in a demand for more than 45 million tonnes of coal. That is tangled up with a curious competitive structure in relation to the electricity industry, and to some extent the gas industry, which arises out of the method of privatisation that the Government chose to pursue. Unless there is an inquiry into the whole matter to try to disentangle the position there will merely be a stay of execution without a hope of survival.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not hear me answer the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I said that the consultation that we propose to have with the people involved will provide the answers. The situation now is that, whether privatised or not, coal is being mined for which there is no market. In all the millions of column inches which have been written over the past month no one has come up with an answer to that problem.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, last week's announcement was, and is now clearly seen to have been, a panic stricken measure. It was totally irresponsible. It was delivered in a cowardly fashion while Parliament was in Recess. It was a statement, monstrous as it is, with such serious national implications and with repercussions reverberating all around the country, that was not agreed by the Cabinet. That statement outraged the nation. One can now readily see what a callous, insensitive uncaring statement it was. Most Conservatives have been ashamed. The miners and their families are shocked and incensed. The whole nation feels aggrieved.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, even now, we have not yet had a reasoned presentation from the Government, who are still determined that the coal industry is virtually to die. This is only a temporary pause, is it not? Yet we import 20 million tonnes of coal annually. Why? It is foreign coal. We are importing unemployment.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am asking questions. That is equivalent to 20,000 miners' jobs. We are producing 15 million tonnes of open-cast coal. The Government's legislation will increase that to 25 million tonnes. We are importing nuclear power from France. That is equivalent to the output of five coal mines: 5,000 miners' jobs. No case for the "dash for gas" has yet been made out. Coal has to compete with heavily subsidised nuclear power and German coal. We are closing coal mines which are producing the cheapest coal in Western Europe. Do we not see a use
624
for coal? The Germans do. Do not the Government see that one of the reasons for coal being stockpiled is that government policies are removing British Coal's markets? It is obvious that there is a case for a halt and a rethink about those pit closures. Is it not vitally imperative that all the closures—and three out of the 10 which it has been announced are to close immediately are in South Yorkshire and Barnsley—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. He may not be aware that 20 minutes only are allowed at this stage, and that it is customary for questions to be asked and not for prepared speeches to be made.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I conclude by asking the Government to ensure that a full examination is made of all aspects of the impact of the proposed pit closures on job losses, energy costs, energy deficits in the balance of payments, the future security of supply and the cost in terms of unemployment benefit and lost tax revenue. I believe that the Government have miscalculated seriously. I urge them to present to the House the results of an examination.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety. He has done a great deal of work in the area from which he comes to help the change which has been relentless throughout the coal industry. The discussion we are having today is not about new policy but about the change that has taken place. Given the noble Lord's knowledge, I am surprised that he should raise the subject of imports. About 90 per cent. of the coal used in power stations comes from UK mines.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, why not 100 per cent.?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, is the noble Lord proposing that we should restrict imports, a policy which would mean that we were interfering with the GATT negotiations? We cannot restrict imports. By continuing to use the coal appropriate for the job—it does not always come from British mines—we are looking after our own industries.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on doing something which I believed to be impossible—to ally the middle classes of Surrey and the rest of the South of England with Arthur Scargill and make them his fan club. But is it not true that the Government's judgment on this matter has been seen to be badly lacking? It is essential that there should be a proper inquiry into whether the market for fuel for electricity generation has been rigged, which is what appears to be the case when one reads the newspapers. To ask us to trust the Government's judgment at the moment is, I am afraid to say—I do not like saying this as a Conservative—not very pleasant.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend should doubt the ability of

625
the Government, British Coal and the other people involved in the industry—those whom the proposed consultation will include.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I fully understand the Minister's difficulty in answering some of these questions today. We must not confuse the message with the messenger. I shall leave for another occasion the fact that the Government's handling of this matter beggars description and has brought unnecessary disquiet, terror and fear to thousands of homes in this country.
I should like to ask the Minister one simple, straightforward question. Perhaps she will give an answer if she is able to do so. I understand that the Government are a 40 per cent. shareholder in the electricity industry. It seems clear from all that is emerging that it is the position of the regional distribution companies and generators that is imposing certain rigid constraints upon the coal industry. Will the Government therefore use their influence as a 40 per cent. shareholder in the electricity industry to ensure that that industry does not take irrevocable decisions during the period of the consultation that would prevent changes in government policy which would give coal a fairer chance? Finally, will she represent to her colleagues that in the light of what has happened many people believe that there should be an independent inquiry?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I assure him that I shall represent to my right honourable friend the President to the Board of Trade every issue that has been raised today and in particular the one that he has mentioned. However, I must stress that the Government's responsibility is to make this country efficient and competitive and to ensure that it has a future.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, that is what we want.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, to do that the supply of electricity to our industry has to be competitive. It is important to take some of the doubt out of the issues and to ensure that the contracts with the generators are signed. We have been working towards that end and will continue to do so. Our overall view must concentrate upon the future of the economy.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the changes which have been made in the pace of any closures. Will my noble friend assure me that, in the consultations which will follow, two particular points will be borne in mind? The first is the importance of the cost of energy to the whole of industry in this country. To apply an artificially high price for the social consequences could be extremely damaging to all industry and employment. That must be borne in mind.
Secondly, as regards the social consequences, can she assure me that it will not just be those consequences to the miners'? Historically they have very generous redundancy terms, pensions, and the
626
like. The social consequences to the communities in the affected areas where such support is not available should be very much in the Government's mind in such an inquiry.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Boardman for identification of the fact, which I have been trying to get over, that we shall be looking to the future of the whole economy. As the industrial scene changes we must support those with growth opportunities for employment, potential, and opportunities for our young people. That is the key. I also assure my noble friend that the social consequences to the areas and the people involved who are not just those employed in the coal mines, will be matters that we shall take very closely into account in our employment programme.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, from all the questions that have been asked today the one thing that strikes me is the demand that there should be an independent inquiry. The noble Baroness has said that there will be consultation on a piecemeal basis as regards the pits and those affected. That is not an answer to the request that has been made. Will the noble Baroness seriously consider the demand which has been made on all sides—I stress on all sides—that there should be an independent inquiry to report on the whole situation?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have tried to indicate that we are not suggesting piecemeal consultation. I have heard the view of the House as regards an independent inquiry. I will convey that matter to my right honourable friend. However, we believe that the matter itself is well known and well traced by the people involved.
Lord Varley: My Lords, is it not a fact that the market for coal has been deliberately rigged over the past few years, largely as a result of the way in which the electricity supply industry was privatised? Can the noble Baroness say what kind of economic sense encourages, as the Government are doing, the building of another 43 gas power stations which, in the middle of this decade, will result in something like a 55 per cent. over-capacity in power generation. It means that the cost of that extra uneconomic generating in relation to coal will be passed to the consumer. Why are the Government resisting an independent inquiry? It is no good the Minister saying that she will make representations on the matter. Why does she not say now that the case has been made out?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Varley, knows that that is something that sounds very good but it is not a practical suggestion. Perhaps I may also say that 43 power stations may have been suggested, but that is not the number being built. If rigging the market means that a gas-fired station takes two years to build and a coal-fired station five years, I suggest that that is not government activity.

Business of the House
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, the time allotted for supplementary Questions has elapsed. It is right that I should now, with the leave of the House, continue with a further Business Statement.
I fully understand that a number of your Lordships have made strenuous efforts to be present today to discuss the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill. I can only apologise to your Lordships and to the House for the inconvenience which the rearrangement of business has caused. However, I am sure that the House will understand, in the light of the Statement which we have just heard, why I considered it unwise to ask the House to proceed today to discuss the Bill. I welcome the opportunity to explain my decision now.
As your Lordships will know, the Committee stage of the Bill was set down in July, before the Summer Recess—from which I hope your Lordships have emerged refreshed for the Session ahead. The Bill is, of course, a largely technical measure which confers on the British Coal Corporation and on the British Railways Board powers to participate in the implementation of the Government's proposals for the privatisation of British Coal and British Rail.
Though the Bill does not directly address the issues of how the Government propose the privatisation programmes will be followed through, it has become increasingly clear to me that, since the announcement of the pit closures made last Tuesday, many of your Lordships consider that the context in which the Bill is to be scrutinised by the House has changed since the Second Reading debate.
Though it is my view that the issue of pit closures and the subject matter of the Bill are separate, I recognise that this perception may not be widely shared by your Lordships. In these circumstances, and particularly in view of the relatively short time which has elapsed since the pit closures' announcement, it appeared to me that the House would find it difficult to fulfil its function effectively as a revising Chamber should it be asked to proceed into Committee on the Bill today.
My feeling was reinforced by the fact that the pit closures policy itself is currently under legal review. Two legal actions are pending in the High Court. One action by the National Union of Mineworkers has been adjourned until tomorrow. A separate application by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers for judicial review will be heard on Thursday. Moreover, as your Lordships have just heard. the Government have proposed further adjustments to the policy. In the light of these developments, and the uncertainty they necessarily engender, I considered that the measured consideration of legislation, in which the House plays such a valuable role in Parliament, would not be possible.
The Government will invite your Lordships to consider the paving Bill in due course, and following discussions with the usual channels. Your Lordships
628
will then have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in detail. I also anticipate that your Lordships may wish to debate the pit closures policy itself. I would be happy to arrange for the House to debate this policy in Government time. Perhaps I may also add that I shall ensure that the House has a further opportunity to debate the policy in the light of the review which is to be undertaken.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has discussed and proposed a course of action in this House which we find extremely difficult to accept. He has tried to make a case for the postponement of the Committee stage of the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill, but we on this side of the House see no valid argument for that. As the noble Lord said, the Bill has been on the Order Paper for a long time. Noble Lords have been summoned here today to debate that Bill and some have travelled a long distance to do so. There was no other business before us. We resent this arbitrary way of treating the House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, the revision of legislation is our primary business and to tell the House at a few hours' notice that we cannot proceed with a Committee stage is in my estimation offensive to noble Lords and to the House. The Government's closure policies were no reason for postponing consideration of the Bill. If they were, then, as the noble Lord conceded, this business could have been deferred several weeks if not several months ago. The Government are responsible for the current crisis and they should not have deprived the House of the full and constructive debate which could have taken place on the first amendment which my noble friend Lord Donoughue had tabled.
In view of this, the Government have left us with no alternative but to table a Motion for debate tomorrow to consider the crisis in the light of today's Statement by Mr. Michael Heseltine. As I have said, the Government have had several days in which to make a decision about today's business. Their failure to do so, to have a proper discussion and to reach agreement with all the Opposition parties may lead to difficulties in the future over arranging the business of this House. I regret that all this has happened.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I suppose that, considered against the background of the Government's monumental mishandling of every issue that they at present touch, the question of the business in your Lordships' House today is a relatively minor one, but it is nonetheless unfortunate to have got this wrong as well. It occurs to me that it would have been eminently sensible to have proceeded at any rate from the first amendment—a paving amendment—to a general discussion on energy strategy.
In my relatively brief period—now five years—in your Lordships' House I have been struck by the fact that, while your Lordships' procedure has many advantages over that in the other place, by its

629
procedure this House is relatively inflexible in being able to react quickly to major events of national importance. Here, by accident, was a golden opportunity to overcome that and to have a debate of great contemporary and national interest. Deliberately to have prevented our doing that seems to me to be a grave misjudgment.
I should have expected the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal to have wished to address this House at the earliest possible moment. He is, after all, not only a member of the Cabinet but one of the architects of the policy that has produced the current situation in the energy industry. I was frankly surprised that on an issue as important and difficult as this today the noble Lord did not repeat the Statement but left it to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, to do the best she could with a very difficult brief. I should have thought that, in view of his record on these matters, the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal would wish to explain himself to the House as soon as possible.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it would probably be for the convenience of the House if I were to respond now to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I imagine that we can then continue with the questioning.
Of course I fully accept the responsibility for the change in the business that I have invited the House to accept. I did my best in speaking to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition but he made it quite clear that he did not think that that was the right course. I was under no illusions about that. Therefore, I fully accept the responsibility for making the decision that I made. It was a difficult decision and if the House thinks that I have got it wrong I can do no more than to apologise and to say that I am very sorry.
In my view it was not going to be possible for this House to fulfil its very important role in revising legislation in the then current atmosphere, with a major Statement to be made to the House—by whoever should repeat it, and probably after the debate had begun—which would have changed the matter substantially. I did not think that that was the best way for the House to proceed. That is why I took the view that I did.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that it is important that this House should find an opportunity to debate these major issues. From what I gather from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition such an arrangement has been made. If the indications that I have heard are correct, we should be able to have a significant debate on the coal industry tomorrow—the day before the other place discusses these matters. I should have thought that your Lordships might feel that that was a convenient way of dealing with these major issues before we proceed with the legislation.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I attempted to intervene before my noble friend the Leader of the House answered because I did not want to give the impression of merely reiterating what he said. I feel
630
that we should react against the advice that has been given by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Common sense tells us that the atmosphere in which we would have considered the detail of the Committee stage that was planned has completely changed.
Briefing letters from the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress—I have no doubt that many other noble Lords have also received them—made very impressive points, but they have been completely changed by what has happened during the past three or four days, and especially in the light of the Statement that we heard earlier this afternoon.
It is unreal to pretend that the contributions that would be made during a Committee stage now would be anything like the same as they would have been given the overriding feeling of despondency that has resulted from the Statement and all that has happened. It would be wise to recognise that. Although it will be a disappointment and perhaps an inconvenience to the many noble Lords who had expected to comment in Committee stage terms, their inconvenience comes very much second when it comes to applying common sense to the changed situation. Common sense tells us clearly that we should not carry on with the Committee stage as though nothing had happened.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for putting that point in the way that he did. I am sure that the substance of what he said is right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
The Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, as for the past—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it should be our side, but I defer to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, as for the past, I do not expect that my noble friend will attach any value to my support, but personally I can only say that faced with that very difficult situation I should have done exactly the same myself. That may be regarded as a condemnation, but I must honestly say it. Equally. if I had been the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition I would have taken exactly the same position as he did on this matter and I happen to think that, from his point of view, he was right.
In a curious and funny way, as happens so often in your Lordships' House, I now believe that we have probably reached the right answer. We have spent a considerable time today discussing the Statement. All that would have been lost if we had continued with the business as planned. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is right to put forward the idea of a Motion for consideration tomorrow. What could be better for your Lordships' House than to consider such a Motion the day before the other place? We could put our views tomorrow on the big issue facing us today—and a very big issue it is. It seems to me that that is getting the best of both worlds in the final event. I only hope that the House will now decide to accept what seems to be the best of both worlds.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I must say to the House that I feel considerably comforted by the fact that my noble friend believes that I made the right judgment at the time and indeed that the Leader of the Opposition also made the right judgment. I was seeking to find a way to pray in aid the letter from Mr. Norman Willis that my noble friend Lord Colnbrook mentioned earlier on, but I do not think I need bother to find a way now.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to have to speak again on this issue but the fact of the matter is that the Leader of the House cannot get away with it. If our business is now to be decided on the basis of atmosphere, where will we get to? Our business is decided, or has been decided, on the basis of agreement between all sides of the House as to what shall be on the Order Paper. If the Leader of the House and noble Lords on his side can suddenly come along and say that the atmosphere is not right, just exactly where are we getting to? Can I have his assurance that this will not occur again?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord has spent probably more years in the mysteries of how business is organised than I. This is a most unusual set of circumstances. I apologise profusely for it having come about and I have no plans for a reoccurrence if I can possibly avoid it. As my noble friend the Chief Whip said, "never" is a word which I do not think it was right for me to use. But I do not anticipate it happening again.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the question surely arises now as to when we will reach the Committee stage of the Bill. The reason for the postponement today is the uncertainty that has been created. The uncertainty will remain until the report—some of us had hoped for an independent inquiry—comes out at the end of this year, is then fully debated and a decision made about the future of the coal industry. Does the Leader of the House have in mind that the postponement might go on well into next year?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, before I came here today I felt the right and proper thing to do was for the House to have a general debate on the current situation in the coal industry and then to discuss through the usual channels the best way to proceed with the Bill. That is the right way. After the debate on the coal industry tomorrow, which I very much welcome, I shall have discussions through the usual channels to decide on the best way to proceed with the Bill.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated a certain degree of flexibility about the use of the usual channels in determining the business of the House. As is well known, the country is in the grips of controversy at the moment about the constitutional position of the United Kingdom in relation to the European Community. It is well known that there appears to be a degree of agreement on this matter between Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition. May we have an assurance from the noble Lord that those of us who take a rather
632
more independent attitude towards these matters, particularly those of considerable national gravity going right to the roots of the British Constitution, will be able to have some say as to the arrangement of the agenda for Parliament to discuss these matters?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there are important matters involving constitutional questions about which there are strongly-held views. There are not, I hope, similar strongly-held views about the constitutional position of the usual channels. But if we go on debating the usual channels for too long, that will happen as well. I hope that the usual channels will continue to facilitate the good workings of this House for many years in the future and I hope that the slight blip in the arrangements will be forgotten and forgiven before too long.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, understandably, we have concentrated on the coal industry today. Another important industry—the railway industry—is affected by the Bill and a great deal of uncertainty therefore extends over the future of that industry. Can the Leader of the House indicate when we shall be able to consider those elements as well?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is an important Bill. We want to get on with it as soon as the House believes proper. I shall certainly arrange for discussions as soon as we have had the debate tomorrow.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wish to thank the Leader of the House for his Statement. The way things seem to be evolving is eminently sensible in terms of the business of this House. However, something else needs to be recognised. Following the Government's Statement earlier this afternoon, it appears that they are going to tough it out. Effectively, we are seeing a rift between the government of this country and the people of this country. One of the points that concerns me is that from all over the nation people will be coming to London on Wednesday to lobby Parliament against the pit closures. There will be an enormous number of people outside the Palace of Westminster on Wednesday. We must recognise that those people have a legitimate right to lobby Parliament and to complain about the actions of the Government. I make a plea for the Leader of the House to speak to the Commissioner of Police who I believe has responsibility for keeping the highways open for access to Parliament and to advise the commissioner that his men on duty on Wednesday should treat with great sympathy and understanding the people of this land who will be lobbying Parliament against the pit closures. I urge that that information be transmitted to the Commissioner of Police.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am very happy to convey the noble Lord's views about that matter. I am sure the whole House would want any lobby of Parliament to be conducted in a peaceful way, for the police to be supported and for those who want to

633
exercise their democratic rights to do so in a peaceful and, from no doubt their point of view, persuasive way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the context of tomorrow's business, no mention has been made of any Statement about the Birmingham meeting of European Heads of Government. Will such a Statement be made tomorrow?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my understanding is that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is likely to make a Statement on Birmingham in another place tomorrow. If that is the case it will be repeated in this House if the House so wishes. I should be happy to do that should it be the wish of the House.
House adjourned at eight minutes past five o'clock.