To ask the Secretary of Stare for Employment what is the current percentage of people who undertake training for work who subsequently find employment.

Thirty-seven per cent.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. From my inquiries locally with the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council, it appears that the figure for young people in my constituency is higher—but it is the percentage of people who actually complete training courses. Is it not time that the Government did more to ensure that young people and those in training for work schemes complete their courses? They would then have a far better chance of obtaining employment.

I agree. I share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure at the fact that in the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC area the rate is higher for those who have completed training for work—it has risen from 40 to 44 per cent.—and I congratulate all those involved in the TEC on having done such a good job. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the fact that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by more than 10 per cent. since December 1992.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 70,000 youngsters who take part in the modern apprenticeship scheme each year get the best and most relevant training for work and stand a high chance of securing good employment thereafter?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The target of increasing from about 12,000 to more than 70,000 the number of youngsters each year who achieve national vocational qualification level 3 will provide a substantial number of youngsters to fill the skills gap at craft, technician and supervisory level. That is important for our economy as we continue to try to be as competitive as possible.

Are not a number of training providers highlighting a growing trend, in that the proportion of the budget allocated to direct training by each TEC during recent years has been declining because the TECs have to fund a number of other schemes and, unfortunately, a number of them are spending money on administration? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at their budgets and ensure that a higher proportion of money goes to direct training rather than to other areas?

I constantly seek to encourage a dialogue between the local Member of Parliament and the local TEC on what should be the local priorities. I do not want to prescribe, in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, more and more of the budgets. I want to find a way to remove some of the existing restrictions to give more flexibility locally. Although the hon. Gentleman did not say so, I know that he will be pleased that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 16 per cent. since December 1992.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the priorities for the sex equality branch of his Department.

The branch works to further the Department's key objective—to promote equality of opportunity for women in the workplace and beyond.

What help can the Minister offer my constituent, Mrs. Susan Craven, who was sacked by her employer Securicor after working as a cleaner at Queen Anne's school in York for eight years? She was sacked in the 34th week of her pregnancy because she was admitted to hospital with complications arising from the pregnancy. She has been offered a new job on lower pay and with no holiday or sickness entitlement. When will the Government's sex equality branch take real action to provide equal employment rights for women?

My first advice to Mrs. Craven would be to see what representations her Member of Parliament could make. I have received no representations from the hon. Gentleman that would enable me properly to investigate the case. Instead of raising the matter in the most public and superficial way, perhaps he will write to me making a proper representation so that I can then make a proper investigation.

If the Equal Opportunities Commission did not exist, no Conservative Government would conceivably set it up, so will my hon. Friend get rid of it? There is enough feminist claptrap around without the taxpayer having to pay for this nauseating, sexist institution.

I must disappoint my hon. Friend. We have no plans whatever to abolish the EOC; rather, we welcome a closer working relationship with it, as evidenced by the recent fair play initiative.

Does the Minister agree that one of the best things that the sex equality sector of her Department could do is to consider the provision of universal child care so as to allow women with responsibilities for looking after children to go out and work if they chose?

Child care provision is already increasing in just about every category. There is increasing day nursery provision, and increasing provision by registered child minders; there is also the Government's initiative to provide £45 million, through the training and enterprise councils, for after-school child care. The Government are addressing child care issues. Why do we never hear Opposition Members welcome those increases?

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the training for work programme; and if he will make a statement.

Training for work helped 294,000 people in England last year, which is over 20,000 more than originally planned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment has fallen yet again in the city of Chester? It is 6 per cent. lower than it was a year ago, and 35 per cent. lower than it was seven years ago. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the view on the ground, and particularly that of CEWTEC—the Chester, Ellesmere Port and Wirral training and enterprise council—that the training for work programme has had an important effect on employment, especially in regard to those with disabilities and learning difficulties?

I agree. The most important feature of training for work is that more than 85 per cent. of the client group are long-term unemployed. It is a very important programme, and has had a remarkable impact.

Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the work done locally. We share the same training and enterprise council, which is coming up with imaginative and exciting new ideas. I also pay tribute to the Employment Service, which places a substantial number of unemployed people in work. I believe that in Chester nearly 7,000 unemployed people have been placed in work over the past 12 months. I commend all who work in the local jobcentres for that remarkably good result.

Has the Secretary of State read a very interesting letter written by Mr. J. H. Pitman and published in the heavy dailies a few weeks ago concerning deficiencies in Britain's training programmes? Has the right hon. Gentleman asked to meet Mr. Pitman to discuss his concerns?

No, I have not. Inquiries are taking place, and the hon. Gentleman knows that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has asked on several occasions for anyone with evidence to come forward. As for the letter, I shall study it again and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Hertfordshire not only has unemployment fallen by 12.5 per cent. in the past year, but we have seen a tremendous result from the youth training guarantee? Delays have been reduced from 108 to just six in the past year. Does that not show that young people in Hertfordshire are being given a far better chance than ever before?

I agree. We must continue to present young people in Hertfordshire and elsewhere with an increasing range of opportunities. The new modern apprenticeship scheme will be at the heart of the Government's strategy, and our recent announcement that the opportunity to take part in the scheme is to be extended beyond 16 and 17-year-olds to 18 and 19-year-olds is an important step forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning this year's re-registration of trade union membership; and if he will make a statement.

If the hon. Gentleman's question is about check-off, various representations have been received.

My question is about registration and re-registration by trade unions and trade union members. Is it not time that some deregulation was introduced for our trade unions? Why do they have to jump through so many hoops in terms of their existence and organisation and in terms of being recognised and negotiating? And why is the Minister so vindictive towards railway signalmen, who all do a far more responsible job than he does?

The hon. Gentleman is out of sorts with the times and his potential party leadership. Gone are the days when the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) used to describe ballots as

"a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement".—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol.48, c.210.]

It appears that the hon. Gentleman has not caught up with the movement in his own party. The Government spoke for the British people and the vast majority of trade unionists when we reformed the trade union movement and gave it back to its members.

Although unemployment has been falling in the North Colchester constituency, the registration of trade unionists has not been one of the factors which may have assisted that. However, employers are worried about the succession of European Court cases that have been lost by the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Prime Minister that we need to look at the way in which the treaty of Rome is operating in this area with a view to reform in 1996?

As my hon. Friend knows, I always agree with the Prime Minister, particularly on that point. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, there is a link between falling unemployment in his constituency, as in every other, and our trade union reforms. It is because of our trade union reforms that we have been able to create a climate which has attracted 40 per cent. of all inward investment into the European Community into Britain, thus creating jobs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures in the United Kingdom.

Seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment fell by 20,100 last month to 2.661 million.

My right hon. Friend has already acknowledged the success of training and enterprise councils, based as they are on local initiatives supported largely by local businesses. Is he aware that the North Yorkshire TEC, which was four years old last Friday, has already helped more than 12,000 individuals and firms, helping many of them to get back into work? Does not the success of that initiative give the lie to the Labour party's claim that the Government are doing nothing about training?

I join my hon. Friend in commending his local training and enterprise council. I know of North Yorkshire TEC because my hon. Friend has just sent me a copy of its annual report which highlights a range of exciting and imaginative initiatives. Also, it is well known for its high-powered marketing approach and the way in which it extends the hand of help to so many in my hon. Friend's area. I commend the way in which he is working so closely with his local TEC.

Does the Minister accept that there is not the slightest reason for complacency on the part of the Government as regards unemployment? Far too many people, certainly in the west midlands but also elsewhere, suffer the appalling indignity of not being able to find work, with a substantial number having been unemployed for longer than 12 months. When will the Government recognise the injustice, indignity and humiliation suffered by people without employment and try to get the figure down to at least the level that existed when the Tories took office in 1979?

Why does the hon. Gentleman not take pride in the fact that since December 1992 unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 12 per cent? I, too, take pride in the fact that over the past 18 months unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by more than 300,000 while in the rest of Europe it has risen by more than 1.5 million. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that our policies are working and that we have 70 per cent. of our working age population in work, which is one of the highest percentages anywhere in Europe?

Given my right hon. Friend's personal commitment to ensuring improved employment opportunities for disabled people, will he examine the difficulties that training for work procedures entail for small specialist providers of training for disabled people? In particular, will he consider the possibility of providing regional budgets for disability training with a view to reducing the time, effort and cost involved for trainers and for training and enterprise councils in the present fragmented system?

I will continue to look at that problem as I want to ensure that all training and enterprise councils put equal opportunities and opportunities for disabled people at the top of their agenda. The Employment Service leads by good example: it sets a target on the number of disabled people to be placed in work, which is then divided among all the areas. In the next 12 months, the service aims to meet its national target of placing 55,000 disabled people in work and it is confident of achieving that.

Will the Secretary of State explain why the Treasury's summary economic forecast, published today, states that while

"unemployment has fallen…employment…has yet to show strong recovery?"

In view of what he has been telling the House about the fall in unemployment, will he explain why not enough jobs are being created and whether the fall in unemployment does not have far more to do with disillusioned people dropping out of the market than with the creation of new jobs to take people back into work?

The Opposition have argued that we should accept Labour Force Survey and International Labour Organisation measure of unemployment and employment. In the 12-month period between winter 1992 and winter 1993—the latest period for which statistics are available—unemployment fell by 180,000 and claimant unemployment figures fell by 187,000. In the same period, the number of jobs increased by 147,000. Those figures show that there has been a substantial increase in employment.

Given the determined efforts of the European Commission to impose social costs on British industry, will my right hon. Friend continue to do everything that he can to resist any measures from Brussels that would increase unemployment in this country?

My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will continue our efforts to persuade our colleagues in the European Union that the only way to create jobs and to overcome the rising tide of unemployment elsewhere in Europe is to ensure that we have measures to remove burdens on employers, that we have a stable economic background—the strength of which in the United Kingdom is shown by figures released today—and that we have a much more flexible labour market. That is the only way to ensure that we create jobs.

Can the Secretary of State explain why he refers to the level of unemployment while his Department refers to that of unemployed claimants? Why is a reduction in the number of claimants not reflected in the level of employment? Is it not just a fiddle by the Government? If they spent half as much time getting people back to work as they spend fiddling the figures, a lot more people would be back at work.

I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place and that he has made such a swift recovery from a rather unfortunate accident. I refer again to the statistics that I just gave, as I am not too sure whether he could have been listening. I referred to the ILO measure of unemployment, which shows that in the latest 12-month period for which figures are available unemployment fell by 180,000 while at the same time employment rose by 147,000. Instead of casting stones at the figures and insults at the statisticians, the hon. Gentleman might reflect for a moment on my answer, which disproves his allegation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage change in economically inactive adult males of working age since 1981.

There has been a 60 per cent. increase.

Is that not significant and does it not give an indication of the hidden level of unemployment? The economically inactive working age totals—the Department's own totals—show that more than 2.5 million adult men of working age, some of whom admittedly are disabled or sick or perhaps have taken early retirement, are being pushed off the official register by the Government's manipulation although they want to work. Why do the Government not have the investment policies to give them an opportunity to work? In Wales, for example, one in every three men is unemployed, by any measure, if we take the official totals and the economically inactive totals. That represents a grotesque waste of talents and abilities.

I am grateful, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be, for the hon. Gentleman's support for the reform of invalidity benefit. The hon. Gentleman will know that of that 60 per cent. increase in those who are economically inactive, two thirds of the people involved are registered as sick or long-term disabled. The biggest increase in recent years has been among students, as a result of the Government's determination to encourage more people to go into further and higher education. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to those figures.

In areas such as mine, and in Wales, where older traditional industries were restructured in the early 1980s, the Government have taken several significant initiatives to try to bring down the level of male unemployment. Despite the difficulty in training older men to learn computing and similar skills, have not many of those measures in the north of England been strikingly effective?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The great benefit of the job seeker's allowance, when it is introduced, is that it will ensure that every measure is used to encourage people to get back into the labour market, which will be good for them as individuals and for the economy as a whole.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the German Government, German employers and the German trade unions on ensuring that there are 600,000 young apprentices in their engineering and manufacturing industries? What hope can he give the 16 to 18-year-olds in Rotherham, who have pitifully few apprenticeships and traineeships in industry—the lowest number in the European Community?

I am astonished that Opposition Members should praise the German Government in the House, yet not praise my right hon. Friend for his initiative on modern apprenticeships in this country. I am also astonished that the hon. Gentleman did not find time in his question to praise the fall in unemployment in his own constituency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has made of the number of United Kingdom workers who would be affected by a statutory reduction in the working week to 35 hours.

The estimate is 14.75 million.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, which could not demonstrate more clearly the wisdom of the Government's robust rejection of the social chapter. Will he give the House an assurance that he will continue to reject the current conditions of that chapter, knowing the catastrophic effect that they would have on the success of British companies? That fact seems to have escaped the unreformed socialist party, in the shape of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

I give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance, and add that when the 48-hour working time directive originally came from the Commission it was designed to compel people to work no more than 48 hours a week. Mr. Ford, a member of the European Parliament on the Opposition side—

We are not the Opposition there.

Mr. Ford, who is from the Labour party, said that he would like to see—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East calm down for a moment and recognise that Mr. Ford has argued that instead of a 48-hour week there should be a 35-hour week right across the European Union? [Interruption.] I hear several voices approving that idea. That would mean telling 14.75 million people in the United Kingdom that they would no longer be allowed to work the hours that they chose. It would also impose costs of £20,000 million on industry, as well as a compulsory pay cut of £20,000 million.

Will the Secretary of State, therefore, tell us why 68 per cent. of those at work in the United Kingdom are forced to work the longest working week in Europe to earn a decent living wage? Those are not the hours that they want to work; they can earn a decent wage only in that way. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that since 1979, British income per head has fallen from the European average to below the European average? Will he remind us which party has been in government since 1979?

I have two points in answer to that three-pronged question. First, in the United Kingdom, the average working week is just less than the average working week in the European Union. Secondly, let us look at take-home pay. I have here the latest table for European countries, which I am very willing to place in the Library, which shows annual take-home pay in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in 1991. For a single person, take-home pay in the United Kingdom was the second highest in the whole of the European Union.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of the TEC movement; and what matters were discussed.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet TEC representatives to discuss a wide range of topics.

My hon. Friend will be aware that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid a successful visit on 6 June to Somerset training and enterprise council. She may also be aware that Somerset TEC recently commissioned a survey which showed that 79 per cent. of all recently started-up businesses were still flourishing 18 months later. Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of giving a high priority to bids under the single regeneration budget? They are extremely important to those who seek start-up funding.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the performance of Somerset TEC. I confirm that the survey showing that 79 per cent. of new businesses were still trading was extremely encouraging and correct. The business start-up scheme is now part of the single regeneration budget. All bids for the regeneration fund, which is now included in that budget, will be most seriously considered. It is worth recording that 650,000 business start-ups were successfully implemented in the past year.

When the Secretary of State arid the Minister met the TECs, did they discuss the London School of Economics report which showed that because of Government underfunding, the TECs were locked into delivering low-quality training simply for the unemployed? Does the Minister agree that if we are to begin to harness the potential of the nation's labour force and to enhance skill levels, we shall need considerably more than a change of direction by the Government. We shall need a change of Government.

We discussed not merely the LSE report, but far more up-to-date findings which show that the quality of TEC training is steadily improving. It is worth recording that there have been 165,000 youth training or credit starts since August, 650,000 business start-ups and 272,000 training for work a year. When we measure outcomes in terms of national vocational qualification level 3, which I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can call a derisory qualification, we find that the TECs are delivering training in very much the way that we hoped and that they are getting better at it all the time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to congratulate his local TEC on its performance.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the standards that the Department uses to measure the effectiveness of the TECs are adequate? Is she also satisfied that the performance of the best TECs is published regularly to enable TECs that are not so effective to catch up?

The measurements that we use measure skills gained, qualifications gained, successful outcomes and those in employment at the end of training. We believe that those measures are the best as they successfully establish what the outcome of training has been. We are satisfied that they are correct and we are satisfied that there is increasing performance by the TECs. Having published the league tables of TECs, which give comparative performance, we believe that the best practices will now be disseminated and that TECs that have poorer performances will be encouraged to improve.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his most recent estimate of the number of people who are counted twice or thrice in the employment totals.

Three per cent. of the employed work force have two or more jobs.

Was not it unfair of Mr. Alan Clark in his diaries to say that the Department of Employment did nothing but concoct useless schemes to con the unemployed off the register, ignoring entirely the imaginative, creative energetic work that takes place in the Department every month to fiddle the employment and unemployment figures? Should not the Department's headquarters be recognised for what it is; the country's biggest, most shameless, most disreputable massage parlour?

I am responsible for many difficult things, but, fortunately, I am not responsible for Mr. Alan Clark's diaries.

Has my hon. Friend any idea of the number of people who are registered unemployed or are registered for benefit who are working?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we are proposing to introduce the new job seeker's allowance, which will help to ensure that people are targeted and that we give them the help and support that they need to get back into employment. It is interesting that a number of those measures in the past have resulted in people leaving the register entirely. It is wholly proper that our resources should be concentrated on minimising the number of people who face unemployment and on helping those who face unemployment back into work.

Can the Minister explain why the Department's own statisticians have agreed that the adjustment to the unemployment criteria figures have reduced the claimants by at least 500,000 and that the double counting for the employment figures has increased them? Is that a pure coincidence or, by political design, just one, big, major fiddle?

The hon. Gentleman knows that he is talking nonsense. I cannot think why we have Question Time after Question Time when he makes the same points about the figures. Presumably, it is because he is not able to give the House any answers as to how he would deliver the full employment which he boasts he and his party can achieve.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to visit the Wiltshire training and enterprise council to discuss the reemployment of redundant service personnel.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to visit Wiltshire training and enterprise council. However, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will meet TEC representatives when he visits the Royal British Legion training centre at Tidworth next month.

I am sure that if my hon. Friend or, indeed, if my right hon. Friend were able to visit the Wiltshire training and enterprise council, they would be made well aware of the excellent job prospects which we now in have in northern Wiltshire. They would also be told of the concern over the future of the business start-up scheme. May I draw, again, to the attention of the House the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson)? There is considerable concern about future funding prospects under that scheme, especially for the ex-service men, who will be looking for work in the Wiltshire area in the near future. Is there anything more that my hon. Friend can say to give comfort to the TEC and to those potential beneficiaries of the start-up scheme?

At the kind invitation of my hon. Friend, I shall be delighted to visit Wiltshire TEC as soon as it is possible to do so. Meanwhile, may I tell him that, within three months of being made redundant, 80 per cent of ex-service personnel are employed or otherwise settled according to their own requirements. Indeed, that is given a high priority. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the help given to redundant service personnel by my Department. I can assure him that that will continue. In response to the question about the business start-up scheme, I can only reassure my hon. Friend that funds have been made available in the single regeneration budget and that all bids will be considered on their merit.

When the Minister is considering the re-employment of service personnel, whether at the Wiltshire TEC or anywhere else, does she put that into the overall structure? Has she or the Secretary of State discussed the sacking and redundancies among service personnel with the Secretary of State for Defence? If so, how many service personnel has the Secretary of State for Defence said are likely to be made redundant in the next six months?

There is constant contact between my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Defence. These matters are regularly discussed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Yorkshire and Humberside have been placed in work by the Employment Service in the last 12 months.

A total of 132,200 people have been placed in employment in Yorkshire and Humberside by the Employment Service. That is 16.7 per cent. more than in the previous year.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the investment in jobs in Batley and Spen by Thomas' of Europe, which was again recruiting for its work force, and the £1.5 million investment by Thomas Carr in new spinning machinery for carpet yarn, which will safeguard jobs and, we hope, produce more in the near future?

I am aware of that good news. I am not surprised that Batley and Spen has benefited from inward investment and growth in employment, and especially from having such an able Member of Parliament who never ceases to take the opportunity to bang the drum for their benefit and to support jobs in her constituency.

Between 1981 and 1991, Yorkshire and Humberside lost more than 110,000 full-time jobs. They have been replaced by 123,000 part-time jobs—a full-time job loss equivalent of somewhere in the region of 62,000 jobs. Are the Government proud of that record?

I am extremely proud of the Government's record in encouraging the creation of part-time jobs. If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, he will find himself in trouble with the feminist wing in his party because two thirds of part-time jobs are held by people who want part-time jobs, not people who cannot find full-time jobs. Many of them are women who are able to get back into work while maintaining their family responsibilities. That is the result of the Government taking on the vested interests for which the hon. Gentleman speaks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the careers service.

A new framework for providing careers services is now in place which should see a more flexible, effective and higher quality careers service, giving greater value for money for clients and the taxpayer alike.

My hon. Friend will know that the range of careers available to young people nowadays is much wider than ever before. In what ways is the careers service ensuring that our young people have a full grasp of that wide range of opportunities?

My hon. Friend is right: there are more opportunities for young people than ever before. They will be enhanced yet again in September when modern apprenticeship prototypes become available in a whole range of new opportunities. Government investment in the careers service has resulted in more impartial, more frequent and better quality advice. As the second round of the pathfinders exercise is completed, those good effects will spread. Not even Labour Members can resist congratulating the Government on modern apprenticeships, accelerated apprenticeships, the new careers guidance announced in the White Paper—

Order. The answer is far too long. I have other hon. Members to call.

While one has great sympathy with, and appreciates the work of, the careers service, can the Minister tell the House whether the advice of the careers service is to ensure that young people seeking assistance are warned that many of the jobs that they will be persuaded to take will provide salaries or wages of £2.20 an hour, as offered to some of my adult constituents, and would therefore allow the Minister to describe them as economically active? Would the Minister also describe them as economically and socially deprived?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no inaccurate advice is given by the careers service.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people have taken up training credits; and what plans he has to extend the scheme.

More than 100,000 young people in England have started using youth credits and we intend to extend them throughout England next year.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the volume and variety of training experience for our young people has increased through training credits, and that modern apprenticeships should further increase the scope of training opportunities for our young people?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only do we have one of the lowest rates of youth unemployment in the European Union—or well below the European Union average. In the new modern apprenticeship scheme, we now have some exciting new opportunities for all 16, 17 and, subsequently, 18 and 19-year-olds to start work-based training in an apprenticeship mode which I believe will be an example to the rest of Europe.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the proposed job seeker's allowance on the efficiency of the labour market.

The job seeker's allowance will encourage wider and more effective job search.

Does the job seeker's allowance encourage imaginative use of long-term unemployment? Does it also remotivate people who have lost their motivation through consistent rejection? Is it one more imaginative and exciting scheme from a party which is imaginative and exciting?

My hon. Friend is right. The introduction of the job seeker's allowance will mean that those people who have been unemployed for a long time will be given the help and support that they are entitled to expect to get them back into work and that those people who are resting on unemployment benefit will find themselves being asked to take more active steps to find work. That will be good for them and good for the economy as a whole.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will my right hon. Friend forgive me for injecting a little ray of sunshine so early in today's proceedings by drawing his attention to the economic forecast published this morning by the Treasury, which shows prospects of steady growth coupled with low inflation? Does he agree that that highlights the success of our economic policies and further shows that the policies of the Labour party, with their limitless public spending, would damage the economy, damage jobs and damage our businesses?

My hon. Friend is right to be cheerful about the forecast this morning. Growth is higher and inflation is lower. We now have a clear chance of sustainable growth with low inflation for the period ahead. That is extremely good news for the British economy. It is a chance that lies ahead of us and we have no intention of letting it slip.

Does the Prime Minister agree with what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in Barcelona yesterday—that in Spain family ties are stronger and there is a greater spirit of local community than in Britain?

I do not have the same knowledge of Spain as my right hon. Friend has, but I can say that my right hon. Friend made an excellent speech in Spain yesterday—an excellent and serious speech and one of a series that have been made by my right hon. Friends, addressing problems of concern to everyone in this country.

As the Prime Minister has in effect endorsed the Chief Secretary's speech, I must presume that he agrees. After 15 years of Conservative Government, if family life in Britain is undermined, why does the Prime Minister think that that is the case?

All my right hon. Friends are concerned about the role of the family and how to maintain it. For us, family values and family life are central not only to our national life but to the existence of each and every person in this country. What my right hon. Friend has made clear and is self-evidently the case—[Interruption.]

Order. I will have order in this House.

What my right hon. Friend has made clear—I think that this is the kind of matter that we ought to be able to discuss without the sort of interpretation that the right hon. Lady puts on it—is that there are many areas of family life which are not the concern of Government and in which the Government are not the best arbiter. We have a responsibility for providing some vital services such as education, health and others, but the reality is that the essence of family life lies within the family itself. My right hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that.

It seems to me that the Prime Minister has yet again endorsed what the Chief Secretary said. I shall put to him for the second time what I put to him a moment ago. Why does he feel that family life and the spirit of community in Britain have been undermined in the 15 years his Government have been in power? I remind him of what he said in Los Angeles last year. He said:

"We have been here for 14 years. There is no one else to blame for anything else that has gone wrong."

Is not that the most truthful thing that he has said in years?

I think that the right hon. Lady has perhaps not read my right hon. Friend's speech in full. If she had—

indicated assent.

Well, I would be surprised if she had read it, but, if -she says she has, she clearly did not understand it.

If she had read it, she would no doubt have seen the rest of my right hon. Friend's speech. He made an excellent case for free trade, deregulation and economic policies which encourage innovation and self-respect. He made the point clearly that only if we do that can we sustain the genuine services necessary to sustain the family and those in genuine need.

I note the right hon. Lady's strong support for the welfare state. Perhaps she will set out the areas that she would seek to improve, and how she would propose to finance that improvement.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

My right hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty that there will be in justifying an increase in Britain's contribution to the European Community budget at a time when our defence budget is being drastically pruned. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the existing difficulties in explaining why soldiers, sailors and airmen are being made redundant at the same time as people working in the black economy continue to live at the expense of the taxpayers, drawing benefits to which they are neither entitled nor have earned?

I share my hon. Friend's concern to stamp out social security fraud, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has stepped up the fight against it. We are looking, for example, at the possibility of introducing personalised cards as one of the methods of ensuring that we minimise and, I hope, eradicate social security fraud against the taxpayer.

As far as the first half of my hon. Friend's question is concerned, he will no doubt be aware of the agreement that I reached in Edinburgh on the future financing of the Community, which set clear and rigorous limits, not for the traditional five years of an agreement but for seven years of an agreement, and at a lower rate of increase than in the past. It also safeguarded the British rebate which was at some risk from our European partners. That was money which we had to fight hard to keep. I might add that, had we not had a veto, we might not have been able to keep that money.

Given the present economic situation, is the Prime Minister opposed to further steps to increase the independence of the Bank of England?

I have made my view clear that I am not at this moment in favour of further steps to increase the independence of the Bank of England.

If the signalmen's strike is not settled soon, will my right hon. Friend consider making a ministerial broadcast on the subject—however much it might embarrass the Opposition to find someone willing to accept the right of reply?

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has finally broken cover on the subject of the strike, even though the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has been notably silent. The hon. Gentleman has said that he supports the strike, and so do 40 of his Back-Bench colleagues. It will be interesting to see whether any of the leadership contenders do the same. After all, 40 votes are 40 votes.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Is the Prime Minister reminded of the career of Frederick Augustus of York, who lost his job as commander in chief following a disastrous European campaign? Is not the Prime Minister's problem that he is neither up with those who make and shape European policy, and is too often down with those who would have Britain leave the European Union? Is not it the case that the Government's policy, like the grand old Duke of York, staggers from one crisis to the next and fails to protect Britain's longer-term interests?

I think that, from a party that would abandon the veto, talk of protecting Britain's long-term interests will sound pretty hollow to most people in this country. The Opposition's European policy is to find out what the others want and then agree with it so that they can claim not to be in a minority. I have been able to discover not one area of originality in their European policy. We have set out and will continue to set out our own vision of how Europe should develop. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will be surprised at the echo, right across Europe, of the nature of the European Community which we wish to develop.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday's announcement that parental choice will be extended by allowing the expansion of popular schools and grammar schools? Is he further aware that, despite their blurred rhetoric, the Opposition are still committed to the abolition of grant-maintained schools, hate grammar schools, and would deny parents the choice to which they are entitled?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Opposition dislike choice of almost any sort—they have a difficult choice to make in the next few weeks. Yesterday's announcement is excellent news for parents, giving them more choice and letting good schools grow. I regret the fact that the Opposition have such a negative education policy—the abolition of grant-maintained schools; the abolition of training and enterprise councils; the abolition of the assisted places scheme; the abolition of teacher training reform; and the abolition of performance tables. They would abolish everything that would provide more information for parents and a better education for children. However much they may dislike it, they should remember how they cut education budgets when they were in Government. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) came into Government because her predecessor declined to make cuts. She came into Government to cut.

The Prime Minister knows of the derailment of a train in Greenock on Saturday night. The driver—a young man from Glasgow—and a young lad from Greenock were killed instantly. They were murdered by murderous individuals who placed concrete slabs on the line. Since then, two copycat incidents have taken place in Cumbernauld and Duddingston, fortunately with no loss of life. Will the Prime Minister and his Transport Ministers assure the House today that Railtrack will do everything in its power to eliminate such murderous behaviour? Will they assure us that the safety and school liaison units will not be reduced, as some people fear, but given an enhanced educational role to reduce, if not eliminate, such terrible acts against train crews and passengers?

I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing my condolences to the family of the driver, Mr. McKee, and to Mr. Nicol, the passenger, who were so tragically killed. As the hon. Gentleman said, it appears to be an act of mindless vandalism that has resulted in the death of two entirely innocent people. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Strathclyde police are conducting an inquiry into the incident and treating it as murder. In addition, Railtrack and British Rail are conducting a joint investigation. The Health and Safety Executive inspector has already visited the site and the railway inspectorate is working alongside in the investigation. We will do all that we can to eliminate the possibility of such incidents in future and bring to book those responsible for this one.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no coincidence that, as soon as the chattering classes start to talk up the possibility of a future Labour Government, trade union militants start to rear their ugly heads? Does not the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers strike provide a timely reminder of what has always happened under Labour Governments and what would happen under a future Labour Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the House really wants to know is where Bambi stands on the rail strike?

Where is he?

I am prepared to take responsibility for the opinion of many people, but not for that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). He must answer for himself, when and if he returns to the House. [Interruption.] I think that most people will have noticed that the contenders for the leadership of the Labour party, although addressing every conference that presents itself up and down the country, will not be addressing the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers conference. One of them is sponsored by it. They seem happy to take its money, but unwilling to address it.

The Prime Minister is very keen to express his views on choice, and especially on market testing. Will he consider market testing his Government by having an election?

Certainly, in 1996 or 1997—and we shall win it.

I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (b), at the end to add

'(iii) any such liabilities, including environmental liabilities, arise in relation to coal mines and abandoned coal mines, in which case those liabilities shall be transferred to the Authority on the restructuring date.'.

With this, we may consider the Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1: in page 13, line 7, at end insert—

'(5A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in exercising his powers under this section to make a restructuring scheme in accordance with which any person other than—

(a) a person mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d) above, or

(b) a body of whom all the members are appointed by a Minister of the Crown,

is to become subject to any liabilities, to have regard to the fact that it would not be appropriate for the scheme to provide for the transfer of any of those liabilities to any person except where it is reasonable to believe that that person is a person who will be able to finance their discharge.'.

Opposition amendment (b) to the Lords amendment simply seeks to square assurances given by Ministers many times, but not yet acted on. It seeks a full transfer of liabilities from British Coal to the Coal Authority on the restructuring date.

We are all aware that coal mining is not like any other business. We are all aware that it leaves behind long-term liabilities; we are all aware of its tremendous impact on the physical environment—subsidence, polluted water and contaminated land—and know that those effects can persist for decades.

We are also aware that, in the past, British Coal has taken action to control, prevent or even remedy that legacy; but what will happen when British Coal ceases to exist? Where will the responsibility lie? Will not the coalfield communities that will exist long after the pits have gone suffer unduly unless the liabilities are dealt with by another responsible body, such as the Coal Authority referred to in the Bill?

The amendment seeks, in a limited but important way, to ensure that communities are fully protected from circumstances in which environmental damage is allowed to continue because the legally responsible party is unable to pay for the necessary remedial work.

We all know of the work that has been done up and down the country—especially in County Durham—to rid the county of dereliction from its coal-mining and industrial past. It could be said—as Durham county council says—that that has been an outstanding achievement by a partnership between central and local government going back 25 years.

As a consequence of that partnership, residents and businesses have been able to pick themselves up and involve themselves in new types of investment—sometimes in overseas investment. Our amendment will ensure that the upward curve of investment and improved environment in the coal communities will continue, by providing for environmental liabilities to be transferred to the Coal Authority.

What we seek would be in line with the Minister's own commitment in a letter to the leader of Durham county council, dated 8 November 1993, to establishing a long-term framework to deal with water pollution from coal mines in the context of coal privatisation. The amendment would clarify that framework in respect of pollution related to abandoned mines of all kinds.

We know—this relates to the Government's amendment—that none of the transfer schemes will work in Durham, because there is no deep mining left there. There will be no private buyers to take on themselves the obligations laid down in that amendment. Who, then, will be responsible? Will it be the county council, the National Rivers Authority, some other Government Department or the appropriate river purification board? Will there be another review? The Department of Trade and Industry moves the problem from one pair of hands to another, not even stopping to wash them, as did Pontius Pilate.

I am aware of the statements made in the other place by Lord Strathclyde on 26 April this year, when he sought to assuage the anxieties of his colleagues. He recognised the concerns that arose

"about the threat of water pollution from coal mines and about the effects of privatisation."

I doubt whether he reassured many of his noble Friends. There is no legislative commitment to meet the residual liability for British Coal's past actions. There is no legal obligation upon British Coal to continue to pump and there will be no private buyers.

He recognised that

"continued pumping is required to prevent a serious pollution incident; or at all events, to give an assurance that such an incident can be avoided."

He was certain that there must be a commitment to maintain pumping for as long as it was needed in order to prevent the risk of serious pollution. Again, we have no legislative commitment. Those who sat on the Committee considering the Bill asked for such commitments repeatedly, but we were never given them.

According to Lord Strathclyde, we were soon into the area of spending—limited resources, Exchequer restraints and the hand of the Treasury over-arching across the Bill, as it does so many other measures.

We have all read the speech made in Spain by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It seems that, if we want to know what the Government are thinking, we must look at speeches made as far away from these shores as possible. That is what the Chief Secretary did. He told the Spaniards that markets should be controlling Governments.

Here at home, there will be no resources, or at least only limited resources, to decide whether pumping continues in County Durham and elsewhere. The noble Lord Strathclyde said:

"noble lords on all sides will recognise that its resources will be necessarily limited."

He wanted to assure the other place that the Coal Authority would

"in due course have a specific budget earmarked for these purposes".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 1994; Vol. 554, c. 541–42.]

We have a liability that pumping will continue, contingent upon there being resources. Again, we have no legislative commitment, we have nothing in writing, nothing in the Bill and nothing on the statute book.

I know that the noble Lord Strathclyde is not in the second-hand car business. However, I have read how one of the candidates for the deputy leadership of the Labour party buys himself a new car every 18 months and drives 40,000 miles in a few weeks. I am sure that he would not buy such a car from the noble Lord Strathclyde.

If we would not buy a car from him, why should we believe anything that he or the Government say when it is not written down on the statute book? Why should those who may have to live with the consequences of water pollution believe them? Why should the people of Durham believe them? Why should the people of other coalfield communities where there are no longer deep mines believe them?

If anybody doubts my hon. Friend's description about what is going to happen in Durham, I invite them to visit my constituency to see the filth that is pouring out of abandoned mines now. Pumping has already ceased in that area. Ferrous oxides are staining the rivers and killing all the life. Incidentally, those rivers have been cleaned up through the heroic efforts of local authorities.

The Government's amendment misses the point completely, and would not deal with the situation described by my hon. Friend and others. Their amendment is based on the premise that there will be a licence, and that there will be a Coal Authority. It does not take into account what happens when there is no longer extraction and the deep mines no longer exist. When the Coal Authority is gone, everything is gone.

Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that there has always been concern about the safety and pollution of beaches? When there are no pits left in coalfields such as south Wales, Durham, Derbyshire, and so on, there will be a problem of river pollution that could be 10 times worse than the problem with the beaches. The National Rivers Authority found nothing in the River Doe Lea, because it never looked for anything until the Coalite business occurred and there was dioxin contamination.

It is conceivable that the rivers will be heavily polluted, particularly when the mines are closed. Nobody is responsible for them. The NRA will go only if there is a serious complaint, as was the case with Coalite. Unless something is put into the Bill, we will face a problem with all the rivers and streams in coalfield areas such as that which arose with the beaches before the European directive.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose vast knowledge of the coal industry goes back many years, and whose interventions in the House have helped the Opposition but have irritated Conservative Members.

I represent the former coal-mining area of Durham, whose beaches have gradually become despoiled in the past 50 years and are now perhaps the worst in the United Kingdom. The pit at Londonderry and the Joicey Coal Company are no longer with us. The National Coal Board became British Coal, which will have gone by the end of the year and will be replaced by some nondescript shapeless body called the Coal Authority, which will be devoid of form and financial substance when it carries out its works.

Despoiled water is percolating into the grounds of Auckland castle, the palace of the Bishop of Durham. The problem has been increasing over a number of years. No one appears to want to take responsibility for dealing with it. I agree that the Minister is an honourable gentlemen, but I doubt whether he will still be in his job to honour assurances that were given in Committee. We want our proposals to be included in an Act of Parliament to give us some protection.

I testify to the despoliation of the beaches near Horden colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings). As a child, I spent my holidays walking along those beaches; seeing coal on the beach is not a sight that I will forget.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) links with that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington. In the past few years, the Government and local government have tried to rectify the environmental damage. In the House, in Committee or in the other place, we have heard bland statements that somehow, someone, somewhere will deal with pollution. When one reads the fine print of the Bill, one does not find a definitive promise, commitment or assurance that someone, somewhere will be specifically liable to continue the work of cleaning up the environment.

The problem exists not only in coalfields in England and Wales but in Scotland. We are still tackling problems that arose before nationalisation. I want to add my weight to the appeal to the Government to include concrete provisions in the Bill. They should not do a Pontius Pilate. I know that the Minister is not listening. I hope that my hon. Friend will insist that Scotland is covered and that the amendment will be written in tablets of stone rather than left to the discretion of some unknown person.

We are trying, if not to get commitments in tablets of stone, then to get them on the statute book, but vague promises and statements have been made on the subject. In his wind-up speech, the noble Lord Strathclyde said in the other place:

"Civil liabilities of the corporation will stay with the corporation on the restructuring date. When the corporation is ultimately wound up, those liabilities will be transferred elsewhere in the public sector before British Coal is dissolved. British Coal cannot be left with liabilities when it is wound up. We must find a home for those liabilities and we shall do so under the restructuring scheme."

That will not be done under the Bill, The Government have not given commitments to the House, to the other place or to coalfield communities, which are looking to hon. Members to ensure that such commitments are written, if not in tablets of stone, then in the Bill.

Lord Strathclyde continued:

"By becoming the freehold owner of coal and coal mines, the authority will automatically acquire the responsibilities, including environmental liabilities, running with that ownership, which it will pass on to mine operators under the terms of the lease in respect of areas which it licenses for coal mining."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 1994; Vol. 556, c. 208.] That misses completely the point about the deep mines that no longer exist, and from which coal is no longer extracted, but where mine water still needs to be pumped.

In Blyth Valley, as in all the other constituencies, we have a problem. Unfortunately, that problem is not so much water but gas. When Bates colliery—our last pit—was closed, we found underground workings filled with water, which pushed out the gas. We had to drill and put shafts in to relieve the air pressure, because people were being gassed.

We had a bit of a job to persuade British Coal to take responsibility for that at the time, although eventually it did. But what will happen in the future we do not know. There is nothing in the Bill. If those workings are not maintained and fall into disrepair, gas will escape and gas everybody in Cramlington and Blyth Valley.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He will remember that we first met at Bates colliery one Saturday morning in 1978; I cannot remember the time or the exact date. He has made a good point about the uncertainty. The Bill engenders uncertainty among coalfield communities and people who wish to protect the environment, and uncertainty for individuals. Lord Strathclyde missed the point completely, because, where the deep mines are no longer extracting coal, there is no successor authority to British Coal. That is the problem that faces the House, and the Opposition are trying to define it clearly.

It all boils down to nothing more than guidelines. We have Government assurances, and they mention broad objectives and reasonably practical standards; protection is to come second best to resources, and an enhanced environment is to be dependent on everybody from the National Rivers Authority to "appropriate river purification boards", but not on the Government.

Of course, as the Opposition have strongly argued, if the Bill had contained strong environmental safeguards and a proper environmental framework, the Government would not need to rely for safeguarding the environment on voluntary agreements over which they have no legal control, and we would not have had to table the amendment to the Lords amendment.

This is not a party political point; it is not high politics or high drama; it is a sensible decent amendment designed to alleviate the worries of people in coalfield communities and provide proper assurances for the future of those communities. There would be assurances concerning the control of mine water, and people would be less likely to suffer the consequences of mine water pollution. If the amendment were accepted, it would make the Bill clear. To eradicate doubt and uncertainty is one of the functions of the House, and the House will be at its best today if it accepts the amendment.

I shall be extremely brief, but it would be remiss of me not to add weight to the case for the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). His speech was well structured but, regrettably, the Minister was too busy gobbing when he should have been listening. If he had listened, he might have learnt something. Regrettably, yet again, our words have fallen on stony ground.

The amendment is important because of the Government's past practice. When they have relied on voluntary agreements, those agreements have failed. If we are to believe the Government, the environment is vital, not only to this country, but to the rest of the world. Here the Government have the opportunity to practise what they preach. The onus is on them to introduce legislation to bring improvements.

Don drainage in Doncaster, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) knows, was the result of extra money being paid by local people. If subsidence occurs and interferes with that drainage, there will be an impact on the environment. Pollution is bound to follow. I suggest that, for once, the Minister listens to Labour Members and accepts the amendment.

One of the problems is that the Government propose to leave the matter to the voluntary sector. Mine owners in the past did nothing to ensure that we had a healthy environment. Given that, the Minister must accept the amendment if we are to ensure that future generations will have a proper environment.

Does my hon. Friend recall that in his area, as in mine, spoil heaps in mining areas have been an important issue in the past 20 to 30 years? Happily, Governments have taken action to deal with spoil heaps. The majority of spoil heaps, certainly in my area, were created in the days of private enterprise, but over the past 30 years the Government have had to accept responsibility for dealing with the problem, which they did not create. We face a similar problem now. The industry was nationalised from 1947 until now. Many of the water pollution problems need to be dealt with by the organisation that owned the industry—the British people, through the British Government.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point about spoil heaps, which is a valid one. The coal tip at Yorkshire Main pit caught fire. The pollution caused was not water pollution, but air-borne pollution which caused serious environmental health problems for a number of my constituents downwind of the fire. The Minister should look at the past voluntary agreements, which have not worked, and he should also consider other privatisations carried out by the Government. Leaving matters to the voluntary sector has not worked, so I suggest that the Minister accepts the amendment. Let us move forward to a better future.

A number of my hon. Friends will recall that my interest in the environment of the coalfields, especially the South Yorkshire coalfield, is long standing. When I entered the House in 1970, I made a fuss about the disgusting condition of our main rivers in South Yorkshire—the Rother, the Dearne and the Don—which were in the lowest category and were little better than open sewers. The Yorkshire Rivers Authority gave a pledge that our rivers would be brought to recreational standard by the mid-1980s. In the mid-1980s, the authority promised that they would be brought to a decent standard by the year 2000. I now wonder whether that standard will be reached.

The reason for my doubt is that many of the streams that feed into the rivers were maintained to a more decent standard than the rivers they joined, because of the work of the National Coal Board and the South Yorkshire mines drainage unit. Those bodies controlled the discharge from abandoned pits.

I remember spending time with Mr. Ditchfield and his colleagues at the South Yorkshire mines drainage unit, which was based in my constituency, and being lowered to the bottom of a shaft of a colliery which had closed in 1873. The shaft had to be kept open for the purposes of pumping. Unfortunately, because of British Coal's economising, the mines drainage unit was closed and the responsibility was passed to Silverwood colliery in my constituency.

But Silverwood colliery is about to close, and the industry will be privatised. The responsibility will accrue to the Coal Authority, and we have not had any assurance that the Coal Authority will have the resources, or the legal power, or the interest, or, in fact, the size of membership and staffing resources, to enable it to do its job.

The Minister is somewhat less enthusiastic about the privatisation of the mining industry than he was when the Bill was first produced.

indicated dissent.

Oh, no. When the Government wanted to privatise the pits, they were a great deal more enthusiastic and cheery. But, as the months of consideration went by, they began to realise the scale and liability which would accrue when the public sector's interest diminished—the liability of the legacy of hundreds of thousands of men who suffered or may suffer the consequences of industrial disease. The liability to the environment may be greater than that. It is such a great liability that I do not think that any private insurer would offer a policy.

It is little use the Government and our local authorities devoting resources and giving priority and a great deal of attention to promoting our economic revival as a result of the closure of our pits if not enough is done to prevent the devastation which can follow in the absence of a proper exercise of responsibility. All my hon. Friends who have intervened—a great number already have—will have surely drawn the Minister attention's to the fact that the Coal Authority must have the capacity, in terms of law and resource. It seems essential and, in the interests of those areas affected, the amendment must become part of the Bill.

I hope that, in replying, the Minister will give us that assurance and also give the coalfields of Britain—and former coalfields—the assurance that the authority will have the capacity to exercise properly the responsibilities that the Minister and his colleagues will have placed on it.

The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I share with him, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), the constituency responsibility for Breich water and the Almond. One needs only to go along the Almond now, which, incidentally, used to be a clean river because it was cleaned up, and one can see bubbles of iron oxide. There is a real ferruginous pollution problem.

I do not believe in muscling in on the Committees of other Bills on which hon. Friends have worked extremely hard, so I shall content myself with one question, when I have the Minister's attention. I shall ask the question when I have the Minister's attention.

Who is responsible? Lengthy correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland and talking to Scottish Ministers has not identified who is responsible for the cleaning up of the Almond and Breich water. It is a simple, straight question. If those in the Box cannot answer it, I would hope to receive a letter from the Department.

The arguments have been well rehearsed over the past months while we have considered the Bill. However, even at this late stage, it is important to press the amendment for the people who live in the coalfield communities, because, over the years, they have lived with pollution and dereliction. People who live in coalfield villages and towns have high aspirations for their children and for their environment. They have seen enormous dereliction over the past few months.

Over the past year, the Nottinghamshire coalfield has been laid waste by a closure programme. The people of Nottinghamshire now want to see the environment lifted, and the amendment would provide a way of doing that. It would secure the future over contaminated land and pit spoil heaps.

The people in Nottinghamshire want to see Sherwood forest come again. They have an ambitious scheme to create a new community forest—a forest that will be planted on the spoil heap. Some of the spoil heaps may pass into the ownership of voluntary bodies. The people of Nottinghamshire do not want to be left with commitments that they cannot meet. Assurances have been given by the Minister and his colleagues in another place, but the amendment would secure that future.

The amendment also brings to a head the issue of mine water, which has been pursued relentlessly by my hon. Friends. At Annesley, all the water from the western side of the Nottinghamshire coalfield and from Derbyshire is pumped up. Annesley colliery is now closed. Discussions are now going on between the National Rivers Authority, British Coal and other partners about its future.

Annesley colliery lies next to Newstead village—next to Newstead Abbey, the home of Lord Byron. It is an area where local authorities, led by governing borough councils, have made major changes. They are lifting and building the environment. Unless the issue of mine water is resolved—and resolved quickly—there will be real problems. The amendment before the House would secure that future. It would put some real commitments in the Bill.

I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). The Minister has talked about the importance of the Coal Authority. Now that the Coal Authority has a chairman—and I understand that a chief executive will be announced shortly—it is essential that it is properly resourced and has adequate personnel to tackle these issues. At present, the feeling in coalfield communities is that the Coal Authority could be a lame dog—a dog that will not bark. Our amendment aims to back the Coal Authority and ensure that things happen in coalfield communities to give them a better future.

In the past, the Minister has argued—indeed, he may well use the same argument this afternoon—that the amendment would wreck the Bill and cause difficulties for the private sector. I do not believe that that is the case, because my discussions with the private sector suggest that it is anxious about privatisation. Private sector companies are anxious about the liabilities that might have to be picked up. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that he is talking to private sector companies about that issue.

We want a better environment for coalfield communities. Even at this late stage, the amendment should be accepted.

This is an important amendment. I hope that the Minister is prepared to take it on board. He will recall that the issue was raised time and time again during the long Committee stage.

At one point, I explained to the Minister the situation that has arisen in my constituency as a result of the River Don being polluted by a colliery that closed down in the latter part of the 1960s. That is something which the community opposed over a long period, but it has been unable to get anything positive done. That could easily be the situation with many of the collieries which have already closed, and those which will close in the future, unless we have a similar amendment.

I dra w the Minister's attention to a situation that occurred only a few weeks ago in my constituency. Once again, it illustrates the sort of situation that we may face time and time again in mining communities. The Worsbrough reservoir is fed by a beck that runs down the countryside from Silkstone. It is also added to by many abandoned mine workings.

One of those mine workings, the Stafford mine, which closed down many years ago, is the low point for many of the collieries around. It has pumped into that beck some 1.5 million gallons per day. In October 1993, British Coal decided that it would stop the pumping operation. That has had a catastrophic effect on the reservoir, because one of the local sewage plants also feeds into the reservoir. That is adding immensely to the problems in the reservoir which have been experienced by local anglers.

I wrote to the Minister on the issue. When Lord Strathclyde discussed the amendment in the other place, he made the point that problems such as that at Worsbrough reservoir would become high priorities. Therefore, it is essential that the Minister tells us today whether he is prepared in circumstances such as we face at Worsbrough to give a direction that the pumping should be restarted. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he will give a direction that the pumping should be restarted at the Stafford colliery to alleviate the problem in Worsbrough reservoir.

I should also point out to the Minister that this morning we received a letter from the National Rivers Authority stating that it was prepared to spend £35,000 on aeration equipment to try to alleviate the problem. However, that will by no means ease the problem, because the reservoir is also the source of the River Dove in Yorkshire. As the reservoir becomes polluted, so does the River Dove. It is essential that we have aeration equipment, and that pumping is restarted at the Stafford mine.

I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is prepared to accept the amendment, and that pumping operations will be restarted at the Stafford colliery.

I should like the Minister to deal with one issue in respect of environmental liabilities. When we are talking about flood water, it is easy to see what the specific problems are. The particular problem to which I wish to refer is now becoming commonplace throughout coal mining areas, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent, North. It is the issue of mine shafts and adits. The problem is not quite subsidence, and is not easily visible. It seems to me that the problem has come about as the result of a specific disagreement between British Coal and the Law Society.

Some time ago, British Coal had an obligation to say whether there was a former mine shaft within 5 in of a property, although 5 m was never specified. It seems that there is now a voluntary agreement, under which, if there is a mine shaft within 20 m of a property, British Coal has to disclose the fact. Only since the property market has started to move again and the new arrangement came into force have we begun to understand the extent of the problem in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. Many houses currently on the market have been blighted simply because British Coal has said that there is a shaft within 20 m of the property.

In his reply on the overall environmental liabilities, I should like the Minister to deal with the issue of mine shafts. How is it anticipated that the costs of searching for mine shafts will be met? Anyone who bought a house before the new agreement came into force had no idea that British Coal would come up with the information that there was a mine shaft within 20 m of the property. I understand that the cost of carrying out the search amounts to about £800. I might add that the search is a fairly dangerous undertaking.

When we talk about transferring costs from British Coal to the new authority that will take its place, we must make certain that, at the heart of the legislation, we ensure that the costs of identifying former pit shafts, adits and so on has been met. People—many of whom have given their lives to the coal industry—must not find themselves with a property which they cannot sell, simply because they fall within a 20 m rule. I can well imagine the Minister saying that the matter might in some way impinge upon the regulations which relate to subsidence, but the technicality of it is that those mine shafts are not quite the same thing as subsidence.

4.30 pm

We need an undertaking from the Minister today that, if we do not get the matter sorted out as we reach the final stages of the legislation, he will consult the Coalfield Communities Campaign and local authorities to make sure that individual home owners do not have to meet those enormous costs. They must not be prevented from moving on and selling their homes. We are talking about contaminated land and about a legacy of environmental dereliction, and I want some firm assurances from the Minister today in that respect.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for not being here when he opened the debate, as I was on my way back from an engagement in my constituency.

As hon. Members have said, this matter has been argued in this place, in Committee, on Report and in the other place. I say to the Minister that the issue between us—which is addressed in the Opposition amendment tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team and signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and myself on behalf of our party—is whether the undertaking given in the other place is written into the Bill, and is not left as mere words uttered in debate in Parliament.

The key issue is to make sure that the liabilities are perceived to be liabilities which do not lead to risks arising unintentionally on people who cannot bear them. Do the Government have a clear policy about the issue in relation to their privatisation of energy? For example, is the attitude evidenced by the amendment in the name of the President of the Board of Trade intended to be a precursor to a similar attitude in relation to the nuclear industry? What is the Government's policy towards risk arising from environmental liabilities on privatisation?

The difference is simply that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government have came to the House and asked us to accept something which says that they think that the risk should arise

"except where it is reasonable to believe that that person…will be able to finance their discharge."

That is the only time when the transfer of liabilities will carry that guarantee. It is an objective test, and the Minister will know the difference between one and the other is the difference between an objective test and a subjective test. The "reasonable to believe" test introduces a characteristic that is a lesser protection than that which was put into the Bill in the Lords.

People clearly want the best protection against environmental risk, and I hope that the Government will accept that there must be the best protection. Whether the Government think that protection should reside with the Coal Authority—as is argued from the Opposition Benches—or somewhere else, I hope that they are consistent with what they always say elsewhere, and that the best environmental protection will be guaranteed.

Therefore, if that is the case, there is no argument but that the amendment passed in the Lords should be the amendment sustained. The Government amendment, which weakens that provision, should not be adopted by the House.

My view is that, if the Government do not do anything about water pollution, it will be a disaster waiting to happen. It might not happen next week or even in a couple of years, but in three or four years somebody will ask what we were doing in Parliament to allow this to happen.

My mind goes back to Aberfan. We had a nationalised industry at that time which meant that we could do things in an emergency. But Aberfan was a disaster, and people asked what was going on. As everyone knows, they piled up all the stuff on top of a mountain and more than 200 kids in the village school were swamped. Fortunately, because it was under public ownership, a direct grant for clearance programmes could be set in process. We had such a slag heap removed in Clay Cross when I was on the local authority.

Under private ownership, the potential owners of 19 or 20 pits will not carry the can for such problems. When Silverhill colliery next to my constituency was closing, I was told that every pump used to pump water out of the pit cost £5,000 a week to run. That is a lot of money, and I think that Silverhill colliery has two pumps.

All my colleagues and others well versed in mining procedures know that that amount can be multiplied countless times in every coalfield, given the amount of pumping that went on. In Derbyshire, for instance, there are no pits left. I believe that one pump is operating at Creswell colliery for the whole of north Derbyshire. It is laughable.

The net result is that the water is rising at Bolsover and a land slip has already occurred. Six houses have been demolished. British Coal and the Department of the Environment say, "It's nothing to do with us." But six people have lost their houses and many more are placed in jeopardy. We want £1,500,000 from the Government so that the county can start a drainage scheme. That kind of thing will be the pattern in every coalfield.

Some people may argue that that is relatively clean water, but what happens in areas where the water is polluted? Those of us who are old enough remember the days before public ownership. I would have my earhole belted because I used to jump over little streams which we used to call "ochre water" because they were a dirty yellow colour. The water poured off the tips of privatised pits. That is the sort of feature that will occur in future.

The Government send people to Rio and all those environmental conferences, but do not care tuppence about the environment when it comes to the test. They have dogmatically pursued their privatisation scheme without thinking it through and now they have a problem.

Remarkably, in a series of votes today, Labour Members of Parliament will support amendments on the side of country landowners—they are involved in trying to save the property, whereas we are doing it because we know that it is morally right—while the Tories will go into the Lobby to attack their own people. The issue is not just about playing partisan politics. It is about the morality of allowing all that pollution to take place, as my hon. Friends have said over and over again.

Nuclear power gets £1.3 billion. We think that it is for production purposes, but the Government tell us that it is for decommissioning—for what happens after the production process. Is what we are discussing the same as the nuclear argument? We are asking who will clean up the mess once the production process has been completed. The decommissioning of the coal mining industry is the same argument.

We are told that the Government must find up to £22 billion in the next several years to decommission all the nuclear power plants. We are not asking for that kind of commitment today. All we are asking is that the Government come to their senses and understand that there will be major environmental pollution in every coalfield in Scotland, Wales and England. It is time that they accepted the morality of the amendment, which will go a little way towards resolving the problem, not for today or even next week, but for generations to come.

I am sure that the House will not misunderstand me when I say that this is a re-run of a re-run of a re-run of a re-run of previous debates, and that there is a fundamental difference of view between Conservative Members and Opposition Members.

It is straightforward. Opposition Members believe that the Coal Authority should be responsible for all liabilities, even liabilities that arise in areas that are owned by private sector coal companies. Conservative Members say that the Coal Authority should have responsibility for all liabilities except those that arise in areas that are the responsibility of the private sector.

We debated the issue in Committee, at the very beginning. At that stage, I was able to put several hon. Members' anxieties in perspective, at least, and I firmly established that the Coal Authority is responsible in the vast majority of cases. It will, in practice, be an exception for a private sector mining company to have responsibility; the exception will be where it has purchased the assets.

Much as I enjoy the contributions of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—this time as ever—I think that he did not recognise that fundamental position.

I am grateful to the Minister for telling us what he told us in Committee, but he is still missing the point—that, where there is no licensed operator, in relation to deep mines from which coal is no longer extracted, the responsibilities and liabilities of British Coal end in limbo.

indicated dissent.

Perhaps, as the Minister says, they will become the responsibility of the Coal Authority.

indicated assent.

The Minister nods. The Opposition are arguing that it is not in the Bill. If he says that responsibility lies with the Coal Authority, why should he not now accept our amendment? Then we shall all know that it is in the Bill and that it is the responsibility of the Coal Authority, and we can all rest reasonably in peace.

It emphatically is in the Bill, because the Coal Authority, under clause 73, takes over the ownership of all unworked coal and coal mines, including all abandoned mines. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely clear that, where the private sector does not own the assets, the liabilities and such assets as there are are transferred to the Coal Authority.

The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) seemed to me to be identifying the core point, which is about the resources—funding and manpower—that will go to the Coal Authority. I attach much importance to that, and I have very much taken on board the points that he made.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned a specific, important matter in his constituency, and I will write to him about that.

Scottish law is slightly different. The highly competent Lothian river purification board and its officials, such as Mr. William Halcrow, do not know where responsibility lies. Will the Minister give the undertaking that one of his expert senior officials in Scotland will sit down with the board's officials and consider what is an urgent ferruginous pollution problem?

As the hon. Gentleman makes a specific request of that nature, I undertake to pass on his anxieties to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and to ask that the problem be investigated at a senior level and that, if possible, a satisfactory outcome be reached.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) raised a specific point about mine shafts' interrelationship with the Law Society. It will become the responsibility of the Coal Authority, as I understood the thrust of her remarks, and I will ensure that it tackles that specific issue because I have not come across the specific issue of "undiscovered" mine shafts before. I am grateful to her for mentioning it, and I will ensure that we follow that up.

Finally, I think I signed a letter to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) at the weekend. I am sorry that he has not received it, but. from memory, I think that active negotiation and discussion is going on between British Coal and Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. British Coal acts as agent for Yorkshire Water at present, and discussions are going on about the way that the issue should be handled. The hon. Gentleman should have my letter soon. I am sorry that he has not received it yet. I hope that that will set his mind at rest.

We accept the basic thrust of Lords amendment No. 1, although the precise wording might give rise to problems—it would introduce some uncertainty as to whether the Secretary of State had discharged the obligation. We have therefore proposed Government amendment (a). I understand that the proposer of the Lords amendment accepts that our amendment meets the fundamental point that he wished to address. I think that it is more precise, and I therefore hope that it will be acceptable to the House.

4.45pm

This is a familiar debate. I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming than I have been able to be on previous occasions. I am convinced that the Coal Authority will discharge its liabilities appropriately, and that the anxieties that have been mentioned by many Opposition Members have been—

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I make certain what he proposes in answer to my point—that he will ensure that he meets all those people who have expertise about the problem, and that we can have meetings to discuss the issues that I brought to his attention?

I cannot give the hon. Lady a firm pledge that I personally will be involved in the meetings, as I am sure she will understand. I am sure that my officials are aware of the matter, but I personally am not. I understand the origin of her concerns, and I will ensure that the matter is inquired into. If there are what I would call "loose ends" to it, I shall do my best to ensure that they are sorted out.

I hope that, with that assurance, the Opposition will withdraw their amendment.

I have no intention of withdrawing it. Clause 73, to which the Minister drew my attention, deals with interests, not obligations. It deals with coal that is in the pits which may be used again by the Coal Authority, but not the environmental liabilities about which we have spoken.