To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from consumer organisations about standing charges. [10026]

It is sad that, when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made his debut appearance at the Dispatch Box as a shadow Cabinet member, for the first time in memory no one rose to congratulate him, even on his own side. Let me therefore wish him the same success in his present job as he had in his previous jobs.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that the reductions in VAT on gas and electricity, and the announcement about changes to the gas levy, will effectively mean a vast reduction in bills for British families. Will he confirm, however, that the review that the President of the Board of Trade announced on 30 June, in relation to the regulation of the privatised utilities, will take into account the needs of the poorest consumers?

Yes. As my right hon. Friend stressed, the review will embrace all the concerns affecting consumers, including poorer consumers.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking in respect of the millennium compliance of computers. [10027]

The Department of Trade and Industry regards this as a very serious issue and is taking action in two areas. First, it is encouraging companies to note the implications of the date change and to make suitable preparations. The DTI helped the information technology industry to set up task force 2000, which is working vigorously to raise awareness of the issue. I recently hosted the IT skills summit, when I warned of the potential shortage of skilled resources to tackle the problem and called for the industry to report to me on fresh initiatives by September.

I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that the previous Government did too little too late on this issue and that as a result of that inaction many firms are totally unprepared for the disaster facing them in terms of the year 2000 time bomb?

I am very pleased indeed that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to this problem. It is a serious problem for companies both large and small. There will be serious implications even for companies that have adapted and made sure that changes are in progress if they are not sure that other—perhaps smaller—companies with which they deal have also changed.

The Minister would do well to recognise that the previous Government did flag up this problem. At that time, much of industry was unaware of the issue and many companies have done too little about it, which means that some of them will go out of business because it is almost too late. The crisis will come well before 2000 because of the very supply chain measures that the Minister mentioned. Will she confirm that the Government's target for adapting their own system, the dates for which were set by the previous Government—October this year for a full audit and December 1998 for full systems adaptation—will still be met, and can she give an indication of the cost?

I can certainly confirm that the measures that were undertaken will continue to be undertaken because they are extremely important, and I am happy to acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's contribution in relation to this issue. However, there is no room for complacency, because one of the great problems is the tremendous shortage of the specific skills needed to ensure that the problem is dealt with.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many retailers are selling computers that are alleged to be millennium compliant, whereas independent checks have shown that they are not? Is she further aware that many of the software programmes being offered to check on millennium compliance are also faulty? Does she have any plans to check those allegations?

Again, this is an important issue. The difficulty, as I am sure the House will be aware, is that the definition of what is compliant is very complex, and system performance depends on the interaction of different elements and how systems are used. I would urge industry to make the position as clear as possible to customers, and the Department will continue to do just that.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representation she has received about the shareholdings of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe. [10028]

None, other than from a few hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.

To clarify what has been going on, will the President of the Board of Trade say when senior officials and Ministers in her Department were notified not to raise with the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, the noble Lord Simon, any matters which it is said have a bearing on BP? When was that notification given?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "that notification". It has been evident from the day of the Minister's appointment that he was clear about the matter, that the permanent secretary was clear about the matter, and that the Department was clear about the matter—that he would not and could not deal with matters directly affecting the company that he had just ceased to chair.

Is it not of interest that the Prime Minister's challenge yesterday to Conservative Members to make these allegations outside has not been taken up? We can understand the reason for that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we require no lectures about sleaze or standards in public life from a party which in government gave peerages and knighthoods to heads of companies that contributed most to the Tory party funds? Was not the sleaze in which the Tory Government were involved during 18 years so disgraceful that people in this country are not likely to forget it for a long time to come?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Conservative party was dishonest and incompetent in government, and the campaign that it is running against my noble Friend suggests that it intends to continue in exactly the same way in opposition.

Will the President of the Board of Trade acknowledge that, although the noble Lord Simon may indeed have broken no regulation, and must certainly still be regarded as a BP insider, knowing of all its commercial intentions for the next couple of years, it would surely help to ease any public perception of a conflict of interest if he were to divest himself of some of his ministerial responsibilities, as other Ministers have done in the past?

The hon. Gentleman would be right were it not for the fact that that is exactly what my noble Friend has done. There is no question of his dealing with issues that are directly about BP, and he has not done so from the day of his appointment. It is not true that he has, as Opposition Back Benchers are saying. That is totally untrue, as the Cabinet Secretary has confirmed. Obviously, my noble Friend cannot deal either with issues that could potentially give the company that he used to chair a competitive advantage. The steps that he has taken to ensure that there is no conflict of interest are absolutely parallel to those taken by Ministers in previous Governments, particularly Conservative Governments.

After all the contradictions, all the different stories, will the right hon. Lady now answer some simple factual questions for a change? Will she tell the House when she first knew that the Minister planned to keep his holdings in BP and other companies? When did she first know that there had been a very long delay in putting the non-BP shareholdings into a blind trust? When were all Ministers and officials in the Department properly notified, in writing, that anything with a bearing on BP must not be discussed with that Minister? Until the right hon. Lady can answer those points, the questions will continue and there will be suspicions.

We have answered some 58 nit-picking questions from Conservative Members on the subject. I have just explained that it was plain from the day of my noble Friend's appointment that he would not be able to deal, and would not deal, with matters which relate directly to BP or in which BP has a competitive advantage. That is all quite clear.

Having failed to answer those questions, will the right hon. Lady now answer this much easier question? Does she agree with the Minister for Trade in the other place that Jersey trusts are an excellent way of holding shares and not paying capital gains tax; or does she agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is the kind of loophole that should be stopped because he does not like such loopholes helping rich companies and rich individuals?

The right hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that a range of different issues can be described under the heading of trusts, many of which are held in Jersey. It is not true, as he and some of his hon. Friends have attempted to imply, that the trust in which my noble Friend, with others, has some shares held is a trust which avoids tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Keep going."] I am happy to keep going, because the right hon. Gentleman needs to know the facts.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will disseminate best practice to Government Departments in respect of the use of scientific advice. [10029]

Most would agree that in the past there has been a lack of co-ordination throughout Government. Science and policy making need to be co-ordinated. The Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Robert May, issued guidelines in March this year on best practice for Government in respect of the use of scientific advice and copies are available in the Library of the House.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the studies into Gulf war syndrome recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence? Does he agree that the previous Tory Administration totally failed Gulf war veterans by not seeking scientific advice when the problems emerged?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I seem to recall that she raised the matter many times in opposition, and I am glad that her persistence has paid off in Government policy now. Most will welcome the studies announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Ministry of Defence has now set in train two large-scale epidemiological studies. The researchers were selected following a scientific review by a panel convened by the Medical Research Council. The results will be made public—that is important—at the earliest opportunity, again subject to the usual review process.

As the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe will receive scientific advice which is relevant to trade, to competitiveness and to the energy industries, when did the Minister first know that the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe had retained his BP shareholding, that he had nevertheless signed a Brussels blueprint for gas liberalisation and common energy taxation, and that he had exploited, and continues to exploit, a tax loophole which the Government of which he is—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's first point was reasonable, as it related to the question. However, he strayed quite a bit after that. It would be nice if the Minister could refer to scientific advice.

I wonder whether the Opposition would recognise scientific advice if they saw it, given their inability to understand the Order Paper. I was well aware, as were most people, where my noble Friend Lord Simon came from. I suspect that that is why Opposition Members so deeply resent his appointment.

The Government are receiving scientific advice following recent revelations about radioactive dumping around the coast of Scotland. Does the Minister believe that a public inquiry should be held to allow full public scrutiny of that advice?

The National Radiological Protection Board and the nuclear inspectorate are taking seriously the allegations about the findings on the coast of northern Scotland. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the information should be made publicly available.

To follow the point raised by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), does the Minister agree that, in taking the best scientific advice, he must apply the precautionary principle and make sure that the environment and individuals are not damaged as a result of Government decisions? In those circumstances, why are the new Government not proposing to ban organophosphates in view of the substantial worries about those chemicals and the fact that when in opposition they suggested that they would do so?

The good thing about science is that it enables Members to ask questions on such a wide range of subjects. This question has been put to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the hon. Gentleman received a response with which I concur. We intend to ensure that there is co-ordination of scientific advice throughout the Government. That is the difference between ourselves and the previous Administration. We cannot put Rome right in a day, but we have taken up the issues and started to tackle them. The previous Government swept them under the carpet.

Can we now have a straight answer from the Minister? Given that high-level Government scientific advice must have been made available to any Minister signing a document on the single market action plan, which covered gas liberalisation and common energy taxation, will the Minister tell us what scientific advice Lord Simon has had access to and if it has had a bearing on any oil, gas, chemical or other matters which have a bearing on BP? We want a straight answer now.

The straight answer is that the Conservative party is grubbing around trying to find any means that it can to undermine the integrity of my noble Friend. As the hon. Lady well knows, scientific advice is given across a range of matters in government all the time. Her question is not about scientific advice—she is trying to find a hook on which to hang her scurrilous attack on an honourable member of the Government.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to develop links between higher education and the business community in order to aid investment, assist development and create jobs; and if she will make a statement. [10030]

My Department is active in fostering links between higher education and business by encouraging partnerships in areas of strategic research and through programmes, such as the teaching company scheme introduced in 1975 under the last Labour Government to encourage undergraduates and graduates to work on short and medium-term projects in companies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that Lancaster university in my constituency is a world-class centre of research excellence? Does he agree that the Government have a major job on their hands in channelling research excellence towards practical business use, given the utter failure of the previous Government? Would my hon. Friend be prepared to assist me in my task by coming with me to talk to the local authority, the university and the local business community, which are keen to pursue business uses and research excellence?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that Lancaster university is one of the leading universities in Britain in terms of the quality of its teaching and research. I am more than happy—as, I imagine, are my colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment—to support initiatives taken by Lancaster and other universities in promoting the Government's policies on excellence.

What on earth has happened to the Government's plans for internet and computer links in every education establishment? Has the regulator told the Government that their much-vaunted deal with BT cannot be done?

This Government have done more in the past 12 weeks to invest in skills and technology than the previous Government did in 18 years. The hon. Lady should watch this space. The present Government, unlike their predecessor, are committed to such investment, and will invest.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to promote science, engineering and technology careers for women. [10031]

There is a massive under-representation of women in science, engineering and technology, especially in senior positions in universities and companies. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that she will work to dispel the common perception that science, engineering and technology are career options for men only. We are pursuing that objective through the Department's development unit on women in science, engineering and technology, which is within the Office of Science and Technology.

I thank my hon. Friend for taking the situation seriously. May I draw his attention to a recent peer group review in Sweden which showed that women scientists applying for research grants had to be two and a half times as productive as men to achieve the same peer group rating? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is shocking, and will he undertake similar research to find out what the position is in this country?

Yes, I will, in the light of that information. It is interesting to note that, although only 13 per cent. of engineering degree students are women, in Britain women perform better on their courses and obtain better degrees than men. I will put that information together with the research that we need to carry out. We want to ensure that many more young women take science and engineering seriously and see it as a positive career option.

Would not the resignation of Lord Simon be a good idea, as it would create an opportunity for a career move for a woman Labour Member of Parliament, who would be able to do the whole job—including dealing with matters relating to BP?

When I sat down after answering the main question, I thought that the only way in which hon. Members could relate it to my noble Friend Lord Simon was by doing a bit of gender bending—and that is what has happened. I think that occasionally we ought to acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is herself—[HON. MEMBERS: "A woman."]—a scientist. [Interruption.]

Order. The Minister said "a scientist".

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking to ensure that beer drinkers receive full liquid pints in public houses. [10032]

The Government support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South—East (Mr. Turner), which will ensure that beer drinkers get the full liquid pint.

Is not the real reason to do with profits for the brewers? Is there not a £9 profit on every keg that is brewed, which means excess profits for the breweries? Although we are new Labour, we are not really against profits—[Interruption.]—but does the Minister agree that excess profits at the expense of the consumer are wrong?

I am not a prophet, but I agree with my hon. Friend. His point has been made to me by publicans who run breweries. It is important to take account of the matter, and that is one of the reasons why we are determined to support my hon. Friend's Bill.

My question has nothing to do with the drinking habits of Lord Simon.

That is a nice change.

It is important that drinkers get a full pint of beer, and the Minister will agree that the United Kingdom's traditional beer is of high quality. Does he also agree that it is important for people to be able to enjoy the traditions of English public houses and that the traditional names of public houses should be retained?

I strongly support the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans her Department has to encourage the recycling of motor vehicles. [10033]

My encouragement has been very positive, and on 15 July I participated in a signing ceremony with key representatives of the motor trade and car recyclers who aim to ensure that 95 per cent. of car parts are recycled by the year 2015.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure he appreciates that the issue is much more complex that the matter of recycling parliamentary questions or press releases. Many car breakers already do an excellent job in making sure that many parts are reused. Much of the metal from cars is recycled. Does the Minister agree, however, that the more we keep old cars in use rather than replacing them with new ones, the more we keep old technology, which leads to high fuel use and volatile organic compounds emissions?

My hon. Friend is right: about 75 per cent. of old cars are recycled. He brings to the House his vast experience as the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, and I am sure that he and his colleagues have carefully considered the issue.

Does the Minister not think that the Department of Trade and Industry might be better advised to produce plans for recycling certain Ministers rather than cars?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that was very witty indeed.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from small business organisations in favour of a statutory right to interest on outstanding debts. [10034]

I have met a range of business organisations representing all sizes and types of business and I have received many letters in support of the proposed legislation.

Is the hon. Lady aware that small business organisations—eight out of nine—strongly oppose statutory interest? The consultation process shows that small businesses are most anxious not about statutory interest, which the hon. Lady highlights, but about the return to local control of business rates, which in the 1980s under Labour local authorities drove many small businesses into bankruptcy.

I am astounded by the second part of the hon. Gentleman's reply. [Interruption.] It was his reply to my response. Opposition Members should listen more carefully. The previous Administration's system of business rates was widely loathed by the business community. That was said during its own consultation process. The statutory right to interest is supported by 80 per cent. of businesses and by some Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I am delighted to announce that all small business organisations support our proposals to tackle late payment.

Small businesses in my constituency are very pleased that the Government are at last taking action to ensure that other companies pay them their moneys. The previous Administration walked away from the problem and did not look at it at all—because, I assume, the then Deputy Prime Minister made his money by advocating that those firms did not pay money to smaller firms. We welcome the measure, and I urge the Minister to press forward with it as soon as possible.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said in answer to the previous question, all the small business organisations have joined us in a year-long campaign to deal with the problems of late payment. One of the measures that the Government will be introducing is the statutory right to interest. We are consulting on the best way forward and looking forward to the responses. Unlike the previous Government, we know that we need to do something about the problem.

Does the Minister not realise that, this autumn, businesses already face a wave of new legislation, including that on the minimum wage, paternity leave, union recognition and works councils, and that the last thing that small businesses want is to be encouraged to sue their customers? If legitimising late payment in this way is such a good idea, why does she think that, on Tuesday, The Independent described her plan as

"smelling of legislation for legislation's sake"?

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not read all the responses to the proposal. Nor does it appear that he has at all read the Green Paper, which is surprising considering that it came out on Monday, but let me put him out of his misery and tell him that, rather than imposing any burden on small businesses, it gives them a choice. I thought that that was what the previous Administration were all about.

Will the Minister accept that, although the statutory right to interest on late payment is one way of tackling this endemic problem, consideration should also be given to requiring companies, particularly public companies, to publish in their accounts the degree of their late payment—through 30, 60, and 90 days—in an effort to expose those larger companies that continue to ensure that they do not pay their bills on time?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is one of the matters that we are discussing with the small business organisations that have come together with us. I am delighted to announce that we shall consider publication with the private sector of such league tables, and we have discussed the matter with the Federation of Small Businesses.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what her Department's policy is towards improving access to information technology for small and medium businesses.[10036]

Many recent studies have emphasised the importance of new technologies to the competitiveness of smaller firms. Many people—in Government, in business support organisations and in the private sector—have a role in getting that message across. Within Government, we are pressing ahead with our support for the information society initiative programme for business, which places particular emphasis on offering access and awareness opportunities for small and medium enterprises at locations throughout the UK.

Clearly, the Government are progressing many information technology initiatives, which will benefit small and medium businesses, including the Budget's doubling of tax credits for capital investment. What does the Minister make of a small business that, on its web site, admits to managerial disputes and the loss of confidence of its shareholders and of its public, a business whose managing director directs his market research from the back of a taxi in Newcastle airport? It is recorded on the web that that business is the Conservative party.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to my attention, but, in the end-of-term spirit, perhaps it is not my role to intrude on private and deep personal grief.

If the Government wish to improve information technology in small and medium businesses, would it not be a good idea if Ministers visited businesses? According to a written answer from the President of the Board of Trade, as of 23 July, in nearly three months in government, three of her Ministers—one of whom was the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe—had not visited a single business. That is a disgrace.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, but he really must get his facts correct. What is true is that the Conservative party cannot stand the fact that the Labour Government have the confidence of the business community, which the previous Government had lost totally.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the Government policy on the future of European aid to regions of high unemployment in the United Kingdom [10037]

As part of its package on EU enlargement and Agenda 2000, the European Commission has published proposals for reform of the structural funds. The Government will be working to ensure that the detailed arrangements for the funds take due account of the United Kingdom's disadvantaged regions, including those with high unemployment.

Does the President of the Board of Trade recognise that serious unemployment remains a desperate problem in areas of older industries such as the coal mining industry in Northumberland, and that therefore objective 2A remains extremely important to the United Kingdom? Is she finding that the case that we hope that she is putting forward is being undermined by the use of the discredited claimant count, which dates from the previous Government and which does not give an accurate picture, comparable to that used by other countries, of the level of unemployment in such areas?

We share with the right hon. Gentleman the view that it is important that proper account is taken of high levels of unemployment and that those levels should be accurately and consistently measured across international boundaries. One of the things that we are urging on the Commission is the use of internationally comparable statistics, not the discredited statistics produced by the previous Government.

One of the ways in which the Department of Trade and Industry helps areas of high unemployment is through regional selective assistance. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to review the map of regions to ensure that regional selective assistance goes to those areas which most need it?

I know of my hon. Friend's long record of concern about and interest in those issues. The matter must be considered not just across the United Kingdom but across Europe as the reform of structural funds is considered. We shall be looking at those matters, but we are very much at the beginning of that review process now.

If the right hon. Lady believes that aid from Europe can reduce unemployment at all, would that not show that the great bulk of aid should come to London, which, regrettably, now has a much higher unemployment rate than many other regions of the United Kingdom?

We are bound by the criteria which existed under the previous Government, within which aid does flow to some parts of the United Kingdom. However, as I said earlier, we shall be looking at what is happening in the south—in London and elsewhere—in the proposed review.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that Leicestershire is one of the most textile-dependent counties in Britain and throughout the European Union. Is she also aware that Leicestershire did not receive Retex funding under the Community initiatives programme during the 1980s and 1990s because it did not have objective 2 status? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, during the consultation period up to 2000, the existing Community initiatives such as Retex and RECHAR will be maintained to ensure that places such as Leicestershire, particularly Loughborough, benefit from European Union assistance?

As my hon. Friend will know, we do not wish to see the type of changes that would pre-empt any results from the long-term and fundamental review. We are anxious to ensure that, under this review, across Europe and particularly in the United Kingdom, we receive fair treatment for different areas. I understand and sympathise with the points made by my hon. Friend about the impact on areas such as his own which has been affected by textiles. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that one thing we do have going for us is that at least we now have a Government who are prepared to speak up for Britain in Europe.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about her Department's efforts to secure EU objective 1 status for the UK's poorest regions. [10038]

The Commission's Agenda 2000 package includes proposals to reform the structural funds after 1999. The Commission will now need to make detailed legislative proposals, which will then have to be negotiated and agreed. The Government will then put forward those United Kingdom areas that meet the prescribed criteria.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her reply. Does she acknowledge that Cornwall has a high level of unemployment, the lowest wages in the country and the lowest gross domestic product per head? If so, will she give Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly top priority in her negotiations with the European Union so as to secure objective 1 funds for those regions?

We shall do everything we can to assist, and to press the case for all eligible regions. I very much welcome the implications of the Commission's proposals and review, which are to simplify the administration and contain costs. We believe that that will release more funds for worthwhile projects.

Is there not a real need for the European Commission to undertake a revaluation of all indices that it takes into account when deciding not only objective 1, but objective 2 support? In reality, when looking at individual areas throughout the European Union—not just the UK, but countries such as Italy and France—can we not clearly and rapidly identify mistakes in the way that the work is being carried out? Those mistakes are being carried forward to the Commission's decisions on the allocation of funds to individual regions. It is a matter of ever-increasing concern to hon. Members.

I am very well aware of the many occasions on which my hon. Friend has raised those issues and expressed concern, especially on behalf of his constituents and his locality. I share his view that it would be wrong for any mistakes in the existing regime to be carried forward into future decisions. We are consistently pressing the Commission to ensure that there is a thorough statistical and geographical basis for any decisions that underlie the scheme. It is partly for that reason that there is a fundamental review, and we shall continue to press those matters.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that the Government are not bound by the criteria? The whole purpose of Agenda 2000 is that the criteria can be negotiated between the Government and the Commission. Will she consider widening the criteria to cover areas currently not covered, such as unemployment in port-related activities and, in particular, in the tourism sector?

The hon. Lady is right to say that the criteria are not yet set and will have to be negotiated. That is partly why I told my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) that matters were at an early stage. In all my answers, I have said that levels of unemployment must be taken into account. We are mindful of the different sorts of areas and the impact of those issues on different areas. We shall bear those matters in mind during the review and the negotiations.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from recent trade missions to Libya. [10040]

I was made aware of the proposed visit by the British Libyan business group through its letter to me of 17 July. Officials in my Department have since received a very brief account of that visit over the telephone.

For the reasons deployed during the elongated Adjournment debate last Wednesday, and against the background of real doubts about whether Libya was responsible either for Lockerbie or for the brutal murder of Yvonne Fletcher, will the Department reflect on whether real harm is being done to British industry, which is suffering from not receiving orders from decision makers, most of whom were educated in this country? Has the Department reflected on how those huge orders are being creamed off by, in particular, France?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising—[Laughter.] I am sorry that Conservative Members laugh, because it is a very serious matter. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's concern to the attention of my colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, he will be aware that, since the murder of WPC Fletcher, we neither encourage nor discourage trade with Libya.

Is the Minister aware that—regardless of whether the market is Libya or anywhere else—UK exporters are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain a competitive advantage because of higher interest rates, and particularly because of the increasing value of the pound sterling? What is the Board of Trade's policy on the matter? Is it monitoring the number of jobs being lost by UK exporters because of the pound's competitive position? What policies will the Board of Trade follow to ensure that UK exporters are not persistently disadvantaged against other European Union member states?

We are giving full support to our exporters, both large and small. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that exporters want a stable economic situation, which is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is giving them—in contrast to the previous Conservative Administration's cycle of boom and bust, which did no favours for UK exporters.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will reconsider the case for an independent inquiry into the past conduct of the committee and council of Lloyd's of London. [10041]

My hon. Friend has already received a full response on the subject from my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, and I have nothing to add to that reply. As for the future, however, the Government will be considering further the regulatory arrangements for Lloyd's in the context of the wider changes to financial services regulation that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 20 May 1997, Official Report, columns 507–11, and the changes to insurance regulation that were announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 23 July 1997, Official Report, column 676.

I welcome the Minister's comments on bringing Lloyd's under a single powerful regulator and enforcer of regulations in the City of London, because such action will strengthen the City's case in world markets. However, serious questions about the past remain. Have Ministers received recent new evidence about the date on which the true extent of Lloyd's long-term liabilities arising out of American contracts became known to some members of the council and committee of Lloyd's and about what they did with that information? Has that evidence dealing with serious matters reached the Government? Are Ministers considering an inquiry under the Financial Services Act 1986? Have they referred the new evidence to the Serious Fraud Office?

When I receive from my hon. Friend or from anyone else any new evidence of fraud or alleged fraud, the Department and I shall pass it to the Serious Fraud Office. We expect any such evidence to be passed to the Serious Fraud Office for consideration and appropriate action.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to review the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the supply of bus services in Glasgow and Central Scotland. [10042]

FirstBus has requested a review of my predecessor's decision—which he announced on 24 January 1997, following the MMC's merger report—on its acquisition of SB Holdings Ltd. I have asked the Director General of Fair Trading for his advice on the request.

I am glad to hear the Minister's answer. He should be aware of the widespread concern in the city of Glasgow about the cowboys from Stagecoach, who were assisted in every way by the previous Government to muscle in on a bus market that was already being well served by Strathclyde Buses—which has an excellent relationship with its large work force, with the city's users' groups and with the general public. Stagecoach is freely riding the range in Glasgow without the assistance of the provisions of the MMC report; therefore, arguments about competitiveness are no longer applicable.

I shall certainly consider carefully FirstBus's request in the light of advice given to me by the Director General of Fair Trading.

When was the Minister last a fare-paying passenger on a bus?

Last weekend, when I paid 60p in Edinburgh.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her policy with regard to further liberalisation of electricity markets. [10043]

The Government inherited an electricity programme that had been left in drift by the former Administration. A top priority was for us to sort out the programme and, within weeks, we have done that because full competition in the UK electricity market and completion of the single European market in electricity remain key priorities for the Government.

Is the Minister aware of the difficulties with the settlement system in 1994 when the 100 kW market was opened up to some 50,000 customers? Is he absolutely confident that, on 1 April 1998, when some 23 million customers will have access to the pool, the settlement system will operate effectively? What steps has he taken to ensure that that will be the case?

We were well aware of exactly what was happening because we were pointing it out to the previous Government when some 5,000 commercial bill payers did not get their bills on time. We told the Government that that would happen if they did not put proper systems in place.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she proposes to report on the tax-exempt status of those independent research and technology organisations which she is currently reviewing. [10044]

I expect to approve new arrangements for approving bodies under section 508 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and to issue guidance for applicants by the autumn. I shall then deal with the outstanding applications for approval.

I thank the Minister for that reply but suggest that there is considerable anxiety among scientists that, in widening his net for soft targets, which recently included pension funds, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has his eye on such admirable institutions as the National Physical Laboratory in my constituency. They contribute enormously to the science base of the country and plough back all their surpluses into scientific investment. Will the Minister give us clear assurances that they will be kept free of taxation?

The matter that the hon. Gentleman questions under section 508 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 was raised by the previous Government who, to be fair to them, set up a review of how to tax research establishments. They published their proposals for comment on 28 April 1997, before the change of Government, but research associations will be affected. I know that the Association of Independent Research and Technology Organisations, which represents research establishments, is lobbying hard on this matter. I have met its representatives and, as far as I understand it, it is working constructively with officials, hoping to come to a mutually acceptable conclusion to ensure that genuine research is properly supported through the tax system, not priced out.

Is the Minister aware of the success of AEA Technology which, as a result of being floated and becoming a private research organisation, is expanding its employment and activities? Has he any further plans to float other Government-owned research organisations and to encourage them with the suggested tax exemptions?

I welcome the success of AEA Technology, but the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the doorstep selling of mains gas. [10045]

I am concerned that some doorstep sellers seem to be engaging in misleading practices. I trust that the Director General of Gas Supply will put a stop to that. We intend to ensure that gas consumers get a fair deal and are not hoodwinked in the newly emerging energy markets.

To ensure that future gas competition delivers benefits to the many, not the few, will my hon. Friend the Minister look at the recent request by the Gas Consumers Council for a licensed code of practice? That is needed before the extension of liberalisation to the electricity market.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I welcome her comments because I know that she has taken an interest in those matters and has championed consumers for a long time. I welcome the establishment of the Energy Selling Association and its code of practice, which is aimed at enhancing standards. Suppliers will need to make an effort to ensure that their agents act properly. We shall shortly announce consultation on proposals to strengthen the general law on doorstep selling. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that.