If she will make a statement on the future work of the World Trade Organisation. [2032]

The next ministerial conference of the WTO will take place in Doha from 9 to 16 November. The United Kingdom Government seek a broad-based new round. We believe that that is the best way forward for a world trading system that will benefit all countries, including developing countries.

Unprecedented public hostility and civil disorder have been provoked by the WTO plans for further liberalisation of trade, because they fail the basic tests concerning environmental sustainability, cultural diversity, the eradication of poverty and respect for human rights. This autumn in Doha, will our Government stand shoulder to shoulder with the poor and dispossessed peoples of this planet against the mega-rich corporate lobbyists, so that smoke from the streets of Seattle does not drift into the conference chambers of Qatar?

I understand the concerns that many people have about the exploitation of workers and the environment in developing countries by some multinational companies. The answer, as I know my hon. Friend agrees, is not violent protests such as we saw on the streets of Seattle; nor is 't to cut developing countries out of world trade. The answer is to develop a rules-based system for world trade that will help developing countries—and that is what the Secretary of State for International Development and I shall work to achieve in partnership not only with our colleagues in the European Union, but with our colleagues in developing countries. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to support us in those endeavours.

What reassurance can the Secretary of State give the House today that the conference planned for the autumn will be conducted safe from the rioting that we have seen on other such occasions? Mindful of the incidents during recent football matches in Copenhagen, can she reassure the House that the Government will convince their partners that the conference will be held in absolute safety and that conclusions will be reached?

I know that the Qatari Government are doing everything possible to ensure that the conference is indeed held in conditions of safety and security. Naturally, they are backed in those endeavours by the United Kingdom Government and our partners in the EU.

Does my right hon. Friend understand that for many of us the other side of the coin to the WTO is the International Labour Organisation? What efforts will she make to ensure that discussions at the WTO take account of the many unfulfilled obligations of this and other Governments attending the conference to commitments that we have signed up to as members of the ILO? There is a feeling in this House that under both the Conservative Government and this Labour Government insufficient attention is being given to our obligations to the workers whose interests are represented by the ILO.

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. Indeed, I have raised that very issue of the discussions that need to happen within the ILO with Mike Moore, the general secretary of the WTO, when I spoke to him recently. Of course we have to ensure that there are fair rules on labour standards and environmental issues as part of a framework for fair trade in the global economy. We must also ensure—this is of considerable concern to India and other developing countries—that the need for fair labour standards and environmental protection is not used as an excuse for protectionism by developed countries against the poorest countries.

The Secretary of State said that she would co-ordinate her approach with the Secretary of State for International Development. Will she assure me that she will also co-ordinate it with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

Of course.

What steps are being taken by her Department to support exporting by small manufacturing businesses. [2033]

Among the steps we are taking are £17.5 million of support to more than 9,000 UK businesses attending overseas trade fairs and meetings in 56 countries, £2.2 million on overseas trade missions, and a new £1.9 million pilot programme to support new exporters in each region of the UK. That is part of the Government's £66 million annual trade development and promotion programme.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. When I visit small manufacturing companies in my constituency, once we have got past the lengthy discussion about the weakness of the euro we get down to practical talks about what the Government can do to help small manufacturing companies to export. A common theme in most of those discussions is the need for more support for attending trade fairs. In particular, some existing rules restrict the number of times that a company can be supported in attending trade fairs. That should be re-examined. At a time when exporting manufacturing industries are finding things especially difficult, perhaps my hon. Friend's Department could look again at the existing rules to see whether further resources and assistance can be made available.

I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty champion of manufacturers in his constituency and region. The existing support available is £2,300 for each trip to exhibit abroad. Exporters are entitled to up to three such grants over a set period. Indeed, the result of that spending is trade for UK firms estimated at £500 million. That represents a return of well over 25 to 1, and is money well spent. However, I shall certainly take on board the thoughtful points made by my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister confirm that Britain is now running the biggest deficit in traded goods since 1697, when records began? Small businesses feel completely frustrated by the extra red tape and regulation pumped out by the Government, all of which damage their competitiveness in international markets, thereby adding to that trade deficit. Is the Minister aware that the DTI's own regulation taskforce, headed by the Labour peer Lord Haskins, has now called the system unworkable and has criticised the Department's efforts—or claims—to be simplifying things as ineffective, and in some cases non-existent? What is the Minister going to do about that criticism? Will his Department simply carry on ignoring the criticism from his own side or will it finally do something about it?

We certainly intend to take Lord Haskins' suggestions seriously. I note that Francis Maude, when he was a Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is he still in the House? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is still with us—I apologise to him. He will be able to refresh our memory about the fact that in 1995 he used almost the same words as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wells does not pay tribute to the 170,000 new businesses of the past four years. I am also sorry that instead of going back two or three centuries, he does not go back to 1989. At present, the deficit is under 2.25 per cent. as a proportion of gross domestic product, which is much lower than the 1989 figure of 4 per cent. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

Under 1973 fair trading legislation, if a multinational company makes a bid for a UK manufacturing firm, it can be referred to the Competition Commission on the grounds of loss of exports. Will the Government retain that condition? If so, will they make use of it on occasion?

We will shortly be consulting on reform of the competition regime. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's points are noted and considered.

What representations she has received from business about the impact of the climate change levy on UK competitiveness. [2034]

The Department has received a number of representations from business about the climate change levy, including its impact on UK competitiveness. The levy has been introduced to help the UK deliver its commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, while safeguarding UK business competitiveness.

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box—and I now realise how old I must be getting—but can he justify placing that extra tax on manufacturing companies throughout the UK, especially when small businesses involved in manufacturing have been brought to their knees as a result of the policies of this rotten Government? Finally, will the Minister justify how those poor hard-working companies will be able to pay the extra £30 million in VAT on top of their existing liabilities?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the characteristic grace and generosity of his introductory remarks.

The Minister will be aware that the report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has been published today, shows that global warming is increasing at double the rate that the panel predicted five years ago, with the result of failing crops throughout the world and possibly a loss of a quarter of food supplies in the poorest countries. Does he agree that the issue is not the climate change levy and its impact, but the impact of inaction on humanity in the future?

I thank my hon. Friend for that very timely question. The latest work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms the very worrying trend, and the consequences for the world if we do not tackle the problem of climate change. That reinforces the Government's determination to take action on climate change. It is noteworthy that although the Conservative party was willing to countenance international agreements when it was in government, it seems to have lost that resolve in opposition.

is the Minister aware of the impact of the climate change levy on investment in fuel-efficient combined he at and power systems? This week I received a representation from British Sugar, advising me that its investment in combined heat and power was under threat not just from the application of the levy, but from the operation of the new electricity trading arrangements—as the Minister will learn if he can find the appropriate spot in his briefing notes. Will he give me an undertaking for British Sugar that he will carefully consider that matter and review whether, if he wants energy efficiency, turning off investment in combined heat and power is the best way to achieve it?

The position of individual businesses, including the one that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, will depend on the extent to which they take advantage of the various levy exemptions, the new capital allowances for energy efficiency investments, the energy support and the advice on the new carbon tax. If he wishes to write directly to me about the company that he mentioned, I shall, of course, ensure that the matter is dealt with.

Will the Minister consider British Sugar's representations? He will know that bringing new environmentally friendly combined heat and power systems on stream is a Government policy objective, and the present arrangements for the climate change levy on energy exports to the local network are causing very real problems.

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position as Minister. It gives me especial pleasure, as I think that I top him by about a quarter of an inch—[Laughter]—at most.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic generosity concerning my arrival at the Dispatch Box—matched only by his initial comments on my appointment to the Department of Trade and Industry.

What steps she has taken to increase the productivity of small businesses in the north-west region. [2035]

We have established the Small Business Service in the north-west region to help small businesses enhance their competitiveness and profitability.. It works with key partners, such as the North West development agency, to champion entrepreneurship and minimise the burden of regulation.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply. He will agree that the Small Business Service is very useful. However, could we not also help productivity by cutting some of the burden of red tape? That would assist, and allow small businesses to grow into the medium-sized and large enterprises that we want in the north-west.

I agree with my hon. Friend in hoping that the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 will make it far easier to tackle outdated, overlapping and overburdensome legislation. Patrick Carter, who has considerable business experience, has been asked to recommend simplifications to the payroll system to help all businesses, especially, I hope, the 3.7 million small businesses.

Further to the sensible and caring question asked by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—it was a good question—is the Minister aware that on Monday, the British Chambers of Commerce announced the result of a survey of the north-west, which painted a gloomy picture for small businesses, particularly those hit by foot and mouth? Is he aware that tens of thousands of people in the north-west have lost their jobs in the textile industry over the past four years and that that trend is continuing, mainly because of the high value of the pound? Is he further aware that the problems and cuts in companies such as BAE Systems, Marconi and Cammell Laird are resulting in further job losses for the small businesses that supply them? The list goes on and on.

I do not want to take up more time in the House than I am due, but on two of the key issues the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. The Government have given an additional £3.65 million to the north-west to ensure that small farmers directly affected by the foot and mouth epidemic have access to good business advice through business links and other help. We are doing as much as possible to support businesses in the north-west, which now employ 3.1 million people—119,000 more than in 1997.

What action she is taking to help employees obtain flexible working arrangements. [2036]

Last month I appointed a new work and parents taskforce to consider how parents of young children and their employers can be encouraged to agree flexible hours that will suit them both. In addition, the Government's work-life balance campaign works with employers to introduce family-friendly working that meets the needs of both employees and business.

I welcome the establishment of the working parents taskforce. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last Parliament the Select Committee on Education and Employment recommended that women returning to work after childbirth should be allowed to go part-time unless employers could show that that was impractical? Does she agree that, as a minimum, a code of guidance should be drawn up requiring employers to give reasons for rejecting any request for flexible working arrangements? Will she also highlight the areas of skilled employment, such as nursing, in which there are staff shortages and in which greater flexibility by employers could help them to deal with the shortages by making it easier for people to return to work?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes an important point about the real advantages that businesses get by extending flexible working hours. I am also conscious of the Select Committee's excellent work on the subject in the previous Parliament. We consulted specifically on how we could help mothers with new babies and parents of young children to work part-time, and we were repeatedly told, especially by mothers and groups that work with mothers, that they did not want to be in a battleground of disputes and employment tribunals.

In welcoming the establishment of the taskforce, may I remind the Secretary of State what the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union said about it? He commented:

"I am amazed that in the 21st Century the government is portraying the right to ask as a major breakthrough. What if the employer says 'No'?"

As I made clear when I announced the establishment of the taskforce, the employee's right to make the request is accompanied by a duty for the employer to give that request proper and serious consideration. We are getting the issue on to the business agenda, so that employers and employees can produce solutions that suit them both. The approach has been welcomed by the TUC and the CBI, both of which are participating in the taskforce.

Another group of workers who need flexible working arrangements are the disabled and sick. At the moment, employers are far too ready to pension off those people on the grounds of ill health. What is often required is a more flexible approach, such as a phased return to work, shorter working hours or a change in the working environment. Will the Secretary of State assure me that she will encourage employers to adopt those practices, and perhaps consider including groups such as disabled workers in legislation on flexible working for women?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As more businesses consider flexible working and understand the benefits that it brings to them by making it easier to recruit and retain good workers, more employers will extend flexible working hours not only to parents with young children but to people with disabilities or some level of illness.

That is all very well, but how will it improve flexible working practices for the Government to accept the European Union directive on national works councils, which will cost industry £260 million every year? Does the Secretary of State, as the voice of industry at the heart of the Government, accept that the No. 1 concern of British business is the increasing and intolerable burden of regulation? If she is serious about wanting to tackle the problems, she will find an Opposition who are keen to assist her. However, if she simply continues to add more costs for industry, she will find resistance on both sides of the House, and in the country as a whole, as British business becomes increasingly uncompetitive and people's jobs are put in jeopardy.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the works councils directive, which applies to multinational companies that work across several EU member states. I have been struck by the number of business leaders from such companies who have said that in practice the creation of works councils has proved very useful. The hon. Gentleman may be thinking of the proposed draft directive on information and consultation. His bigotry about all matters European means that he has not bothered to check his facts. The information and consultation directive, on which we agreed a common position a few weeks ago, will not impose works councils on British companies. We have succeeded in making the directive more flexible to ensure that British businesses will be able to find solutions that suit them.

What steps are being taken to ensure that products resulting from scientific advances made in the UK are competitive internationally. [2037]

We are investing nearly £2 billion in the science base and about £250 million in strengthening collaboration between universities and businesses to ensure that scientific breakthroughs are turned into commercial success.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I particularly welcome the work of the international technology service. What further steps is the Department taking to ensure that UK companies have access to worldwide knowledge and information?

We are developing a number of initiatives that will give further momentum to entrepreneurial education for science and engineering students. A £15 million fund is available for a further round of the university challenge to enable good universities to access seed funds, which will assist in the transformation of good research into good business.

I am not sure about the phrase "brain gain" but I support the move that has just been announced. Does the Minister agree that scientific progress can be made only if we have free exchange of the benefits of research? To that end, can she tell me what progress ha: been made in securing international agreements to prevent scientific protectionism, such as the patenting of naturally occurring genetic material or genotypes?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an important issue, and we are in discussion with our European partners so as to make progress on it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that clustering is one of the best ways to develop scientific breakthroughs? Can she assure me that where clusters, such as the Oxford and Cambridge technology arc, cross regional development agency and Small Business Service boundaries, artificial constraints will not inhibit technological development?

I entirely agree that it is important to make clustering work, and I am sure that those working in science are keen that it should. We have been emphasising the role of regional development agencies in technology, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke to the chairmen of the RDAs earlier this week to stress their role in ensuring that business and science in the UK are successful.

What representations she has received from the labelling industry as to what constitutes packaging waste and production waste. [2038]

The Department has received six letters from businesses in the UK labelling industry which refer to the Environment Agency's decision to issue guidance noting that the backing paper of labels should be treated as a packaging material.

If the Government want to be helpful to the packaging industry, may I say that that is a very unhelpful answer, and suggest a way to resolve the problem? The Minister, accompanied by a sufficient number of experts and advisers, should get out of London and go to a proper factory where labelling is going on. May I extend an invitation to her to visit Pago Ltd. in Colchester, where she can see at first hand the difference between packaging waste and production waste?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the invitation. I am aware that he has assiduously been pursuing such issues with my fellow Ministers and the Environment Agency, and I believe that they have been dealt with thoroughly to date. We have elegantly transposed the definitions from the EU directive into UK implementation with the result, I am informed, that the cost in the UK is markedly lower than in any other EU member state. We recognise the value of the industry in the UK and we shall continue to work with it to ensure that implementation is as effective as possible.

My hon. Friend will be aware that timber and wood products are not included under the packaging waste regulations. A recovery target only is set for wood products because of the general feeling that timber cannot be recycled. However, there are companies, including one in my constituency, that recycle waste timber products and facilitate their further use. Unfortunately, such companies cannot take advantage of packaging recovery notes to generate income to help to establish the industry and increase the amount of waste wood that is recycled. Does my hon. Friend intend to look again at the regulations with a view to including such companies?

The Environment Agency is responsible for interpreting and producing guidance on the current directive, and now that it has done that it is probably not possible to accommodate my hon. Friend' s suggestion. However, a requirement of the directive is that it be reviewed, so it might be helpful if he makes representations to the Department, which I shall take up through my officials during future negotiations.

I have already raised this case with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of my constituency company, County Labels Ltd. of Adelphi Mill, Bollington, just north of Macclesfield. I have to tell the Under—Secretary that she really needs to come down to earth and get in touch with the reality of competition from Europe and elsewhere. In Europe, the backing paper on labels is not classed as packaging owing to its functionality and the fact that it forms an integral part of the manufacturing process—article 21, section 8 can be quoted in aid of my argument. Will the hon. Lady ensure that the backing paper on labels is not the subject of an additional onerous burden on our manufacturing industry?

I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's grasp of detail—I congratulate him. We continue to work closely with representatives of UK paper and printing-related industries to resolve outstanding issues, but the fact is that the interpretation placed on the directive by the Environment Agency has been guided by a High Court decision and the agency is duty bound to give UK companies the best possible guidance in the light of legal decisions. May I also point out that the directive was agreed in 1994 by the then Conservative Government?

If she will make a statement on prospects for the steel industry. [2039]

The United Kingdom steel industry has experienced difficult trading conditions in recent years and many jobs have been lost as a result of restructuring and cost cutting. However, the industry has an excellent productivity record, a wide range of high-quality products and a well trained work force. All of that will help its competitive position.

I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he accept that there is widespread concern in the steel industry in my constituency and in south Yorkshire that very high energy prices and uncertainty about the euro are making the industry less than competitive in Europe? Is he surprised by the fact that, according to his written answer to me on 9 July, his Department does not even know or collect region by region import and export figures for steel and related industries? Will he ask the Department to sharpen up its act on behalf of the steel industry so that, as Members of Parliament, we can track properly exactly what is happening region by region with exchange rates, imports and exports in our core manufacturing industry?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. She has been a vigorous campaigner on behalf of steel communities, particularly in south Yorkshire. We are aware of the problems of the steel industry, but none of them can be solved instantly. They relate to issues which we are working hard to try to resolve.

With UK energy prices already higher than those of many of our European Union competitors, is it not insane to pile the climate change levy on the UK steel industry while it is struggling to compete?

We have already had a canter round the course on the climate change levy. Corus—and the UK steel industry in general—was very clear that the climate change levy did not lead to its recent difficulties. Indeed, we have negotiated an exemption for dual-use fuels. That is subject to a challenge because there was a complaint by a UK secondary steel manufacturer, but it was widely welcomed by the steel industry. We have struck the proper balance between pursuing environmental targets, on which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree, and ensuring that we have a competitive steel industry in this country.

Has my hon. Friend had any recent discussions with management and unions on the situation in south Wales, where we were particularly severely hit at Newport during the most recent reorganisation of British steel, in order to find out whether the Government can do anything further with Corns management and unions to promote the industry and ensure that there are no further job reductions in south Wales and in Port Talbot especially, which has a lot of good things going for it?

We announced a package of measures on 3 May to help steel communities throughout the country, but particularly in Wales. On my hon. Friend's specific point, I will of course be willing to talk to the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation and other unions, all of which have an excellent track record of taking a constructive approach to such problems. I would be delighted to talk to them to see whether we can assist further in the area that he has mentioned.

What reasons underlay her decision to agree to the information and consultation directive. [2040]

What recent discussions she has held with business organisations concerning the proposed European directive on information to and consultation with workers. [2043]

The Government have always believed that good companies inform and consult their employees. During negotiations on the proposed directive, our concern has been to avoid the rigid "one size fits all" approach. The agreement re ached in Brussels on 11 June meets that requirement. We have maintained a close dialogue with business organisations on the directive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has recently discussed it with the CBI.

The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) assured the Select Committee on 4 November 1998 that he would block the directive. However, the hon. Gentleman has paid for it, albeit with a post-dated cheque. What happened to the Government's policy? Did it go to the Back Benches with the right hon. Gentleman?

The hon. Gentleman should lie down in a darkened room and take a couple of tablets; this is not the end of civilisation as we know it. In 1998, we opposed the directive because of its "one size fits all" approach. Perhaps the Opposition should get information and start consultation because, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, the European works council model appears to be confused with the directive. The directive does not introduce works councils; we have the flexibility to ensure that it can be moulded to each member state's requirements. There is a seven-year transitional period, which is only slightly shorter than the time that it takes to elect a leader of the Conservative party. We have substantially modified the European directive to benefit UK companies and their work force.

That was a pitiful answer. Why can the Minister not see that the directive remains flawed and inappropriate, as the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), said on 18 January? Does the Minister not understand that it is opposed by all major representative business organisations, which fear the £260 million recurring costs? When will he recognise that information to and consultation with workers should be decided either by individual companies or this elected House and are not the proper business of the corporatist dirigistes of the European Union?

I am glad to announce to the hon. Gentleman that that is what the directive now provides for; our negotiations in Brussels on 11 June provided exactly that outcome. On information and consultation, the hon. Gentleman may be on another march to the left. If I remember rightly, and to personalise this a little, when he came into the House in 1997, he was against the lowering of the age of consent, he was against the minimum wage—

Order. Those matters do not concern the House.

I am only saying that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is in touch with his feminine side, has read all the recommended books and, very soon, will be a great advocate of information and consultation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to achieve the brain gain posited by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) is to recognise the truth expressed by the managing director of a global company in my constituency, who said that the company discovered that with every pair of hands it got a free brain? Does that not underline the importance of the information and consultation directive? Will my hon. Friend ensure that nothing like Luton ever happens again?

My right hon. Friend has raised the crucial issue. I agree that you get a free brain as long as you ensure that you extract talent, imagination and energy from the work force. Some companies are better at that than others. However, the initiative will never work unless we bring employers with us. There have been two attempts at it—Whitleyism and the industrial democracy experiment in the 1970s, which did not work because both sides of industry ensured that they did not. With the directive, we are determined to ensure that there is a genuine change of culture so that workers are genuinely informed and consulted at times when that matters; there is an extraordinarily good business case for that proposition.

Following the final point in the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), can we be certain that, as a result of the directive, the kind of nonsense that took place at General Motors, when workers on the German works council were apprised of the company's plans while workers in Britain learned of them on British radio, will not happen again?

My hon. Friend has taken a great interest in this matter over a number of years. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) have made that very point. I think we are all determined that what happened to the Vauxhall work force at Luton does not happen to workers anywhere else in the country in future.

Rather than trying to rewrite recent history, will the Minister confirm that the Government were opposed to the directive, and said so repeatedly in the House? They were opposed to it on the ground that it breached the subsidiarity principle because it applies only to purely domestic firms and has nothing to do with EU trade or multinational companies. That objection remains valid. However, the Government have been outvoted. That happened when the Germans changed sides on the issue shortly after the British general election.

I reiterate that our aim in all the discussions from 1998, when the directive was mooted, was to avoid a rigid and legalistic framework. Our aim was to avoid the works council model that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) mentioned. It was in that sense that we argued about subsidiarity.

As my hon. Friend has acknowledged, this is a matter of deep concern to my constituents, including Vauxhall employees and former employees who experienced sacking over their cereal without being informed by General Motors of their fate. Will he ensure that as part of the directive there is on-going information and consultation involving employees, not simply at the point of their being sacked. which is far too late a stage? Will he recognise, and perhaps advise Conservative Members who are opposed to any extension of workers' rights, that information and consultation, as the research of the Industrial Society has shown, bring increased productivity to businesses as well as benefits to workers?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I reiterate that the directive is not only about information and consultation in relation to redundancies. A collective redundancies agreement already covers that. We are talking about information and consultation on all areas where the work force have an interest, such as change of work organisation and future plans for the company.

What plans she has to introduce legislation to implement the regulatory structure proposed in the Communications White Paper; and if she will make a statement. [2041]

I am pleased to announce that this afternoon the Government will introduce in another place the Office of Communications Bill, which will be a paving measure related to the draft communications Bill that was announced in the Queen's Speech. The communications Bill itself will be published in draft later this Session.

That is good news. The introduction of the Bill is long overdue. Its delayed introduction has been holding back the development of information technology. The Minister will know that many people in the industry welcomed many parts of the White Paper, which was issued in December last year.

Although I am happy to acknowledge to the House that there is close joint working between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the matter, it is a matter with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is dealing. I shall be happy to pass her observations on to the hon. Gentleman.

I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon. Does he agree that the urgency of the matter is paramount, especially for areas such as the Rhondda, where broadband access is still denied to the whole of the constituency, and where the growing digital divide between the information-rich and the information-poor is a problem that should worry every part of the country?

I agree that we should strike an appropriate balance, making sure that there is the necessary consultation with the various partners who will be involved in the detailed discussions concerning the draft Bill, while maintaining the necessary momentum through the paving Bill, which I understand will be introduced in another place this afternoon.

What action she is taking to increase the payment of compensation to former mineworkers; and if she will make a statement. [2044]

We are making real progress in speeding up medical assessments and compensation payments for retired miners. We are paying out about £1 million in compensation every day, and shortly we will have paid out £500 million across our country. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shorts (Mrs. Liddell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) for all the work that they did when in this Department to ensure that British miners receive the justice which they deserve and which was so long denied to them by the Conservatives.

What action does my right hon. Friend intend to take in response to representations about claims that have been outstanding for four or five years? Constituents of ours who art in their mid-80s are still waiting for compensation. Some people fear that they will not receive the benefit while they are living. It is unacceptable that claims made four or five years ago have still not been met. Will my right hon. Friend take action to ensure that those long-standing claims are met without further delay, so that our constituents receive what they are entitled to while they are alive?

I entirely agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. We have already put in place a system to prioritise the compensation claims of the oldest miners and the sickest miners, so that they go to the top of the queue for the medical assessment that has to be done before the compensation can be paid. We are determined to ensure that those assessments are made by spring next year. We are carrying them out as quickly as we can, because that is the right thing to do.

I entirely accept the right hon. Lady's good faith, but will she be a little more expeditious and try to ensure that all the claims are settled by spring next year? It is extremely important that they should be.

The scheme is the largest personal injury compensation scheme that has ever been established in our country. No one has ever done that before. We have already received 150,000 claims. We do not know how many more will come in—they are still coming in every week. If those cases had been pursued individually through the courts, the miners would have waited up to 15 years to get their compensation. We have prioritised them. We will deal with the oldest and sickest miners first. We have recruited more medical specialists to carry out the assessments. We will go on dealing with the matter as quickly as is possible, but I cannot give an end date by which we will have finished dealing with all the cases, because in some cases we have not even received the claims.

Is the Secretary of State aware that more than 300 lawyers are involved in the settlement of the claims—a lot more than would have been involved if the NUM areas had remained intact? They include a lot of fly-by-nigh lawyers. Will my right hon. Friend tell me how much they are likely to get out of the £4 billion that has been set aside for claims in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema and vibration white finger? Can she tell us whether some of them are dragging their feet deliberately? All of them receive a handling fee that is provided by the Government and comes from the taxpayers' pocket. When my right hon. Friend looks into ways of speeding up the claims, will she deal with those legal people who are holding up a lot of claims in order to line their own pockets?

I think that the problem of having 300 lawyers involved in the claims has been very real. We are now dealing better with the solicitors' group and agreeing a faster way forward to get the cases resolved and money paid out. Mr. Justice Turner, the High Court judge who has been hearing the case, confirmed last November that we had to have a complex system in order to achieve fairness. That means, for instance, that we have to pay lawyers for up to one and a half hours' legal advice to help claimants to fill in the assessment forms, which are necessarily complex. Our objective is to get fair compensation to those miners as quickly as possible. We will pay the lawyers a fair fee, but we will not let them hold up the process.