What measures her Department is taking to support British companies in respect of export promotion. [15389]

What new policies she will initiate to improve the prospects of those industries which export abroad. [15396]

Madam Speaker, I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is currently fulfilling an important engagement in Australia, where she will open the "UK Now" exhibition and promote United Kingdom companies.

An increasing number of small local companies are beginning to look abroad for markets for their products and services. LE-AL Furniture in my constituency recently fitted out the parliamentary buildings in Bratislava. What are the Government doing to support and encourage such companies?

We very much encourage small companies. On behalf of the House, I warmly congratulate the company in my hon. Friend's constituency on its fine efforts. Such companies can truly win for Britain.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, at £4 billion per annum, British Aerospace is a magnificent exporter? Does she also agree that £120 million launch aid investment in the proposed A340–600 project will add to British exporting success, create jobs and maintain our leadership in wing design over our German competitors? Even at this late stage, will she ensure that her Department seeks launch aid for that project, bearing it in mind that 2,800 of my constituents who make the Airbus wings deserve that vote of confidence?

I know of the strong interest that my hon. Friend takes in this matter. He led a delegation from the Broughton site to a meeting on 30 October. The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry was impressed by the quality of the presentation given by that delegation. No final decision on the provision of launch aid has been made, and discussions between British Aerospace and the Government continue.

Is the Minister happy with the current level of the exchange rate? What representations have she and other Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry made on this issue to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister on behalf of British industry, especially British exporters? Is she aware that all the appearances under the sun by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at export exhibitions will not make up for the severe damage that is being done to United Kingdom exporters by the Government's exchange rate policy, and by the inordinate delay in granting export licences owing to problems in the DTI?

The hon. Lady has asked me a number of questions. I shall be as courteous to her as I can, because she is that most important of parliamentary institutions, my pair.

May I point out to the Minister that the pairing system is not particularly valuable, given the shift system that appears to be in operation on the Government Benches and in her Department?

This Government and this party are determined to bat for Britain in any way that we can. Let me also tell the hon. Gentleman that the party of which he is a member, and which formed the previous Government, did a great deal of harm to our business interests by taking the attitude that it took on Europe. We are now reversing that, and making sure that we put British interests at the top of our agenda in order to help British business.

Will my hon. Friend raise with the President of the Board of Trade the urgent need for an initiative to attract British investment in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia? Compared with its German counterparts, United Kingdom Ltd. is very sluggish and tardy in investing in that market of some 60 million to 70 million people. Some leadership and initiative from the Department would be welcome, and it would also pay enormous dividends if we could show the way and demonstrate that central Europe is not on the other side of the moon.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made an important point. He will be pleased to learn that we have had meetings with our opposite numbers in some of those countries. We see great opportunities for British companies of all sizes there.

What assessment she has made of the effect of participation by British companies in formula one motor racing on the capabilities of the motor manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. [15390]

Participation in formula one is of fundamental importance to the highly successful motor sport segment of the motor manufacturing industry in Britain. The motor sport segment also makes a valuable contribution to the technical capacity of the wider motor industry.

If British participation in formula one was so important to the British motor manufacturing industry, why did the crucial meetings about the European Union directive that would have banned tobacco promotion at formula one events involve the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health, Chancellor Kohl, the British ambassador in Brussels, representatives of the Cabinet Office and of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Mr. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley—but not to my knowledge, and not according to press reports, any representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry? Could this be just another case of the phantom President in action—or rather, inaction?

This Government are rather more capable of joined-up thinking between Departments than the previous Government. The Department provided factual information about the motor sport industry and its vital contribution to the economy. Let me add that 50,000 people work full time in that sector, supporting some 30,000 who work in engineering.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the trade unions have also made a great contribution to the success of the British motor industry? Does he also agree that contributions to political parties from trade unions tend, on the whole, to be more benign than those from rich individuals?

Let me say first that formula one, and the whole motor sport industry, make a major contribution to Britain industrially. That involves suppliers in junior formulas, rally, training cars and carting—suppliers right through the supply chain. Their contribution is vital. Many people work in the sector. I would only add, in response to my hon. Friend's question, that I should like to see the Conservative party deciding now to join us in publishing donations that are above £5,000. Why cannot that be done so that we know where they stand?

Order. That does not relate at all to the question.

Did the Minister have time to read today's press reports, which show that Mr. Mills still has strong links with formula one racing? Should not that rule out any further involvement by the Minister for Public Health in those matters on the ground of conflict of interest?

I understand that the permanent secretary has confirmed that there are absolutely no problems. It is a bit rich for the Conservatives to raise matters in this way when they will not even publish annual accounts although they have been requested to do so by their party members.

What plans she has to strengthen the viability of the post office network; and if she will make a statement. [15391]

The future of the post office network is an issue which we are considering as part of our review of the Post Office.

The review, which will extend commercial provisions in post offices, will be welcome, especially in many rural areas of my constituency. Would it not also help if more post offices could be agents for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency? Post offices in my constituency, such as those in Ashover and Danesmoor, would find it valuable to be able to provide such a service instead of having to wait until an agency becomes available, which is how the present system operates.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I wrote to him on 18 August advising him that Post Office Counters Ltd. is the agent for the DVLA and that, for reasons of cost, that organisation limits the number of post offices providing its service to 4,000 nationally. Consequently, Post Office Counters Ltd. gives the best possible geographical coverage within the limits that are set for it by the DVLA. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government are fully committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. As a consequence of that, and as part of a review, we shall seek to find ways and means to secure additional business in a range of areas for post offices in rural areas in particular. That is unlike the previous Government, who just wanted to privatise the Post Office and close it down.

Will the Minister look in particular at the interests of the small rural sub-post office? Will he perhaps go a little further than his answer suggested by seeking ways to extend the range of services that sub-post offices can provide? In particular, will he seek an acceleration of the introduction of information technology systems in sub-post offices to enable them to participate in much wider provision for rural populations?

Almost 60 per cent. of villages in the United Kingdom have a post office but only 5 per cent. have a bank. This week, a ground-breaking agreement was reached between the Post Office and the Co-operative bank which will give basic banking services to all post offices. I repeat that, as part of the review, we are keen to see the introduction of new services in post offices throughout the United Kingdom. My offer to the hon. Gentleman is that, when the review and the way in which we intend to take it forward are in the public domain, I shall welcome from all hon. Members ideas on how to encourage new businesses in rural areas. Post offices should be seen not simply from the narrow angle of post offices but as small businesses in their own right. We are committed to promoting that.

Given the Government's commitment to giving the Post Office greater commercial freedom and growing liberalisation in Europe, is the Minister considering the introduction of private capital to the Post Office?

We have already introduced private capital. A few weeks ago, we gave permission for a joint venture involving the catering services company Quadrant. That will ensure the introduction of private capital into what will become one of the largest and, we hope, the most successful contract catering organisations in Europe, providing services not just to the Post Office but to a range of public and private sector companies which can take advantage of the change.

If the provisions of the working time directive will apply to British employees of private companies.[15392]

Yes. The directive covers all sectors of activity, both public and private, with the exception of those involved in the following activities or sectors of activity: air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway, lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea, and doctors in training.

Does my hon. Friend agree that paid holiday is a basic right, which should be available to all civilised people in a civilised country, and that it is a scandal that the previous Government failed to bring that most basic right into United Kingdom domestic law, leaving 8 million people without paid holiday? Does he agree that the directive, which will bring paid holiday to 8 million low-paid workers, will be welcomed? Is it not a shame that the directive has not yet been introduced because the previous Government attempted instead a futile challenge in the European Court of Justice?

My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government tried to turn Britain into sweatshop Europe, as a consequence of their inactivity. I give a commitment that we shall end the exploitation. It is time to end the imposition of long hours for low pay, and to ensure that workers have the right to minimum paid holidays and decent working conditions. That is one of the reasons why we are on the Government Benches and Conservative Members are on the Opposition Benches.

Do Ministers support European Commission proposals to extend the scope of the working time directive by ending exemptions from it?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that consultation is taking place—the European Commission has issued a consultation paper, to which we shall respond. At the end of the consultation, we shall ensure that the British Government put the case in relation to those sectors. One thing is absolutely certain: we have made a priority decision to end the previous Government's opt-out on the working time directive and the young workers directive and to make resources available. We shall participate in the consultation process in respect of those sectors that are excluded, to ensure that workers in Britain will be covered in the same way as workers in Europe

What consideration she has given to setting separate minimum pay rates for different regions of the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [15394]

The Government intend to introduce a single national rate.

The Minister will be aware from his Department's figures that, if the minimum rate is not set quite low, as it is in the United States, it will cause wholesale unemployment, so does he agree with the recent recommendations of the Minister without Portfolio to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be wholesale exemptions, by both industry and class of worker—or does he disagree?

What a brass neck—a Conservative Member coming here and being an apologist for low pay. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, 5,000 families earn so little that they have to rely on in-work benefits, and 100,000 people in the west midlands earn less than £2.50 a hour. We won the last general election on the principle of a national minimum wage, no separate sector rates and no derogations for companies. It will be a national minimum wage. Within 90 days of taking office, the Government created the Low Pay Commission and soon we shall publish the Bill implementing the national minimum wage. It is a priority policy on which we are proud to have fought the election.

May I ask Ministers not to have any exemptions from the minimum wage? My constituency in Wales, north-east England and Northern Ireland have the lowest-paid workers—we are at the bottom of the pay league. The minimum wage will do a power of good to thousands of my constituents. We want a minimum wage with no exemptions, because exemptions create just loopholes for big and small business.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that is why we fought and won the general election on a policy of a national minimum wage. There will be no sectoral, regional or company derogations and it will be available from day one of employment. There will be a national minimum wage in this country. It is a priority policy of which the Labour Government can be proud. The 18 years of Tory government led to the largest differentiation between low-paid workers and those at the top. The Conservative party is the party of the few and we are the party of the many.

In that same letter to the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister wanted to exempt seamen, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wanted to exempt some fishermen and the Minister without Portfolio wanted variations by region, by size of business and by sector. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that a national minimum wage is workable when the rest of the Government do not? What is the point of setting up the Low Pay Commission when Ministers are secretly deciding those exemptions behind its back?

Tory Members cannot accept that they lost a general election on this issue. The position is clear. There will be a national minimum wage with no regional, no sectoral and no company derogations and it will be available to workers from day one of employment. We established the Low Pay Commission within 90 days of taking office. It is independent and is responsible for giving advice to the Government about the starting rate of the minimum wage. We await its report, which we have asked it to produce by the end of May 1998. As a consequence of that, this country will have a national minimum wage. Only Tory Members still oppose a minimum wage. The Conservative party was the party of the fat cats. The Conservative Government drove down wages. We won the general election on the clear and simple premise that there would be a national minimum wage.

Does my hon. Friend agree that thousands of people in Burnley and east Lancashire who are on low pay or poverty pay will welcome what he has said and the fact that, for the first time for many years, they will get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work?

My hon. Friend is correct. This is one of the most popular policies promoted by the Labour Government. That is why Tory Members are isolated. A large proportion of business in Britain now supports, in principle, the concept of a national minimum wage. Businesses throughout Britain are flooding the Low Pay Commission with evidence in support of a national minimum wage. The only people in Britain who are still apologists for poverty pay are Tory Members. I repeat that that is why they are in opposition and we are in government.

What representations she has received on the work of the Low Pay Commission. [15397]

I have received a number of representations on the work of the Low Pay Commission. It is well advanced on its programme of consultation to obtain views of employers, employees and other interested organisations and individuals on the national minimum wage through written evidence and by holding meetings.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the President of the Board of Trade, who said that wide-ranging exemptions would be well nigh unworkable and inconsistent with the idea of a national minimum wage? When considering all the submissions from industry, would the Minister care to look at the response of the British Hospitality Association, which is responsible for 2 million jobs—one fifth of the new jobs—and which gives many young people an opportunity to work? That association talks about the dangers of a minimum wage.

Having listened to the right hon. Lady's contribution, I can see why she was named the poorest Minister in the worst Government in living memory. I made it clear about 30 seconds ago, or less, that there will be a national minimum wage with no sectoral derogations and no opt-out for companies and it will be available from day one of employment.

Does it not make my hon. Friend's blood boil—it certainly does mine—that the strenuous objections to a minimum wage come from Conservative Members who not only receive a parliamentary wage, but in almost every case get extra money from outside sources? How can they possibly justify denying fellow citizens a decent wage when so many people in this country, especially in the west midlands, earn a starvation wage? It is a scandal. Conservative Members should be thoroughly ashamed of wanting to deny those people justice when they earn so much money themselves.

My hon. Friend is right. In fact, during the last Parliament, many Conservatives were part-time Members of Parliament. Some of them would not ask a question unless they were paid for doing so. The truth is that Conservative Members show double standards and hypocrisy. For 18 years, they drove down pay for the most vulnerable in the community. Now, this new Government intend to reverse that trend and introduce a national minimum wage, which will be a saviour for low-paid workers.

The Minister has included Northern Ireland in his remarks so, as an elected Northern Ireland Member, I do not think that I can be criticised for pressing the point. 1 trust that the Low Pay Commission will not be following our American cousins and recommending the lowest minimum wage.

The Low Pay Commission was in Northern Ireland this week, taking evidence. Its task is that, by the end of May next year, it must make proposals for the establishment of a national minimum wage. At that stage, we shall consider its proposals. Surely the most important point is that, within 90 days of the general election, we established the Low Pay Commission, which is now out in the country taking evidence and working with low-paid workers and employers to try to formulate proposals for the introduction of a minimum wage.

If she will make a statement about her Department's policy towards maximising efficient use of the radio spectrum. [15398]

The Government are committed to the efficient use of the radio spectrum resulting in the creation of wealth, competition, quality and choice, benefiting operators and consumers alike. The Wireless Telegraphy Bill currently before the House includes a number of new powers to improve spectrum efficiency.

I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Does she agree that this is yet another example of practical action by the Government in new technology? Will not that action benefit the whole economy? Does not this Government's action contrast starkly with the view of the Opposition who, through indecisiveness and backsliding, have managed to take two different views on the matter, one when in government and the other when in opposition?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill will provide the spectrum management tools to keep the United Kingdom at the leading edge of the information revolution. Our action contrasts with that of the Opposition, who have made a number of reverses on the Bill. When they were in government, they introduced a White Paper and also included proposals for the Bill in their manifesto at the general election. When we introduced the Bill in the other place, they welcomed it—but when it came to Second Reading in this House, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) denounced it and pledged vehemently to oppose it. However, in Committee last week, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) described it as a modest Bill and not of deep political controversy. I am looking forward to the Opposition's next U-turn on Third Reading.

Does the hon. Lady agree that, in reality, the Bill represents a tax increase of £1,500 million?

Absolutely not. That is an incredible suggestion given that the proposals were not only in the Conservative party's manifesto—I assume that the hon. Gentleman stood on that manifesto—but were trumpeted by the former President of the Board of Trade. The Bill is not a tax-raising measure and it has been warmly welcomed by industry.

If she will make a statement on the actions Ministers in her Department have taken to avoid conflicts of interest relating to private shareholdings. [15399]

Department of Trade and Industry Ministers have acted in accordance with guidance in paragraphs 109 to 123 of the ministerial code, which provide a number of alternative options for avoiding conflicts of interest relating to private shareholdings.

Why does the Minister not just say what shareholdings Ministers hold or have recently held, so that we can conclude which of them are disqualified from what?

Ministers have fully complied with the high standards set in the ministerial code. They have avoided conflicts of interest using options in the code. The difference between Labour Ministers and the Tories is a simple one: we are squeaky clean, but they are just squeaky.

The Minister will not answer the questions today, and the President of the Board of Trade never answers them. She has had to go all the way to Australia to ensure that, today, she is not put under pressure on those questions—so breaking another rule of the ministerial code, which states that, when Parliament is in session, Ministers should not go abroad on Cabinet day. She is running scared down under. Why will the Minister not now tell us the answer to a very simple question: which companies, issues and industries each DTI Minister cannot handle because of a present or past shareholding, or a present or past prejudice? He should tell the House and the public the answer to that question, because they need to know who—if anyone—is conducting business in the DTI.

True to form, the right hon. Gentleman is shooting from the lip. He has tabled 70 questions on all conceivable details of the positions held by Ministers—but he knows the position. Ministers have complied fully with the high standards set in the ministerial code.

Answer.

I am answering. Ministers have avoided conflicts of interest by using options in the code. The shadow Minister has failed comprehensively to get running an allegation and scare story that is completely out of order. Lord Simon, for example, has at all times behaved with complete propriety. That was confirmed by Sir Robin Butler, the Cabinet Secretary. The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), has a small shareholding because of a tragic accident, in which his father died. [Hon. MEMBERS: "A pathetic answerl It is absolutely correct. Consequently, my hon. Friend has acted with propriety.

If she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the ownership of the Rolls-Royce motor car company. [15400]

The sale of the Rolls-Royce motor car company is a commercial matter for Vickers. If the sale proceeds, it will fall to be considered by the appropriate regulatory authorities.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware of my deep commitment to manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom and the contribution that it makes to our economy and to employment. Is he not concerned that the last prestige United Kingdom car company could well pass into foreign hands, and that, if it does, decisions relating to its future expansion and employment might be affected by European regulation? Both manufacturing and employment could be taken out of the United Kingdom—out of my county, and out of the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Will he take a very positive interest in the matter, to try to protect British manufacturing industry and British jobs?

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has expressed a passionate concern for manufacturing during his time in the House; we acknowledge that and hope he knows that we share his concern. It is not yet clear whether anyone has made a firm offer. We believe that the company is an example of engineering excellence in Britain, and we hope that that will continue to be so, whoever becomes the owner.

Is it not a total disgrace, however, that the last remaining wholly British-owned car firm is now at risk of being taken over by German manufacturers who may or may not choose to keep that manufacturing unit in my constituency? The largest employer of the most high-quality engineers is now put at risk because of the greed and voraciousness of Vickers, which has walked away with millions of pounds of taxpayers' money without a thought for the future of manufacturing in this country and without taking any responsibility for this high-quality product.

To some extent, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is fair to say that the UK does not have an automotive industry, but there is a large car industry in Britain—it includes the whole of the supply chain and engineering excellence, and it employs many people. I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton): no bid has yet been made for the company, although there are rumours of a bid. At the appropriate time, consideration will be given to whether to refer it to the European Commission's regulatory authorities or whether it can be dealt with here.

What representations she has received about maintaining the size of the coal industry; and if she will make a statement. [15401]

We have received a wide range of representations about the future of the coal industry. Our objective is to have secure, diverse and environmentally sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. Deep-mined coal has a part to play in meeting this objective. Since taking office, we have taken several strategic steps to create a more level playing field for the industry to try to ensure that coal is not priced out because we remain convinced of the importance of the coal industry, which still makes a significant contribution to local economies and to the economy as a whole.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the three short years since privatisation, it has become apparent to all who work in the industry and many associated with it that privatisation has failed and that if we are to rescue what remains of it, it should be taken back into public ownership? In the meantime, as the Government are not likely to take that path, will they take three other steps: first, will they curb imports dramatically; secondly, will they get rid of the nuclear subsidy in its entirety; and thirdly, will they stop opencast mining and change the planning considerations that allow it? If the Government do some of these things, they will help those miners who are still hanging on to their jobs, some of whom have been threatened with the sack because they have the audacity to report accidents that happen half a mile underground. Whatever else the Minister does, if any money is going directly or indirectly to Budge, he should take a stake in the industry.

It was not just the coal industry that was privatised by the Conservatives, but the power stations, the grid system and even the means of buying electricity. In other words, the whole of the energy industry was fragmented, which is partly what caused the havoc that resulted. My hon. Friend asked what we can do—we are already doing it. In our six months in office, we have taken action by passing the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill through this place precisely to remove the advantages enjoyed by nuclear power and to tackle the import of nuclear energy from France via the interconnector. We have taken strong action to challenge the European Commission on subsidies for German and Spanish coal. I have asked for a review of the electricity pool to ensure that the playing field is not tilted against coal. We are also challenging the gas contracts, asking the regulator to investigate whether coal is disadvantaged in that respect. We are also working hard and making a practical commitment on trying to find a way to develop clean coal technology, which would guarantee a future for deep-mined coal in Britain. Opencast is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

In 1992, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that, as part of Labour's policy for coal, no more licences would be issued for gas-fired power stations. Why has BP recently been issued with a licence for a substantial gas-fired power station?

A number of power station application consents were under consideration at the time of the general election. There were 25 close to completion. Some have been granted; others are still in the pipeline. The Conservative Government let through 44 gas-fired power stations. The policy was that each should be decided on its merits, after consultation with local communities. That remains our policy. There was no preferential treatment for BP. Some companies are complaining that we are not processing the rest fast enough.

Did not the previous Government privatise the coal industry and the electricity industry? If there are difficulties with the new contracts expiring on 31 March, is not the problem the fact that the whole industry is in the private sector and the Minister has very limited opportunities to intervene to save the coal industry?

Buy it back.

Conservative Members shout, "Buy it back." At the time, they were shouting, "Sell it." The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, was once the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Energy. He has said on television, "With hindsight, we privatised things in the wrong order. Perhaps we ought to have privatised the coal industry first. It should be run like a business and I wish we would hand it over to a great mining company in this country like RTZ. It is all about going out and finding the cheapest source of power, not about employing people in mines." How can the Conservatives complain about employment in the industry?

Will the Minister give a clearer answer on his policy on the dash for gas? In opposition, Labour said that it would stop the policy to protect the British coal industry. How much capacity will he licence? How many pits will that destroy? Is it not true that the only major plant that he has licensed is the BP plant and that at least 25 others are awaiting a decision? Why the different treatment?

There is no different treatment. Others have been accepted. The BP application was one of the first ready for a decision after the election. Seven applications have been determined since the general election, one of which involved the use of orimulsion in Pembroke. We referred that to a public inquiry because we did not think that it should go forward without one. The company then withdrew the application. There is no set timetable for completing consideration of the applications. Each one is considered on its merits against the background of section 36 and section 37 consents. In assessing those applications, we have to address local issues and ensure consistency with our wider objectives of secure, diverse and sustainable supplies.

How many are there?

There are another 27 in the pipeline. I am prepared to read the right hon. Gentleman the whole list. His allegation that the BP application was the only one accepted is not true.

What progress is being made in the designation of United Kingdom regions for the latest round of European objective 1 aid. [15402]

On 16 July, the European Commission published some suggestions for the future of structural funds after 1999 in its communication "Agenda 2000". We expect the Commission to publish detailed proposals next year, which will then need to be negotiated in the Council of Ministers and approved by the European Parliament. The final regulations will determine how individual regions and areas become eligible for structural funds.

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. What assurances can she give the people of Cornwall and other regions with economic and structural difficulties that negotiations on the designation of NUTS—nomenclature of units for territorial statistics—level II regions will be brought to a speedy conclusion? Is she prepared to prioritise potential objective 1 regions on the basis of need? Is she prepared to recognise that the future of economies such as Cornwall's, which has suffered a great deal, very much depends on a speedy and effective conclusion to the negotiations?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern and I recognise that Cornwall, like many other UK areas, faces specific economic and social issues. The Government's statistical service examined United Kingdom boundaries used for European regional statistics because of recent local government changes and made proposals to Eurostat for changes during the summer. One proposal was to separate Cornwall from Devon at NUTS H level. The Government's statistical service is still in discussion with Eurostat. The hon. Gentleman will also be interested to know that the United Kingdom is pushing the Commission to take into account gross domestic product in assessing eligibility for structural funds.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the clarity with which she has expressed the Government's concerns. Will she go beyond the issue of the map and tell us whether there is any prospect of the sums involved in attracting industries into the United Kingdom being reviewed? I understand that they have not been looked at since the 1980s. It has been suggested that the figures—£17,000 for objective 1 areas and £6,000 for objective 2 areas—are out of date and put us at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the European Union. Will the Minister look at the sums involved, as well as the map, because they are important in influencing where companies invest?

I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is looking for fairness and equality in the process. We also want to ensure that the procedures are as fair and as simple as possible so that there can be a clear understanding of the policies.

What measures her Department is taking to promote competition. [15403]

The Government's commitment to competition is demonstrated by the introduction of the competition Bill, with new laws to focus on genuinely anti-competitive behaviour. It will remove the current bureaucratic laws on cartels. The Confederation of British Industry has welcomed our broad approach.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the competition Bill will ensure that companies that face anti-competitive behaviour will have a stronger hand in tackling the problem? Will he confirm that the Bill will bring us into line with our European partners? What do consumer groups feel about the Bill? I am sure that they, too, will welcome it.

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We have received more than 160 responses to our consultation document. Our approach has attracted broad support across the spectrum from businesses, from consumer organisations and from competition practitioners. The Bill will create the right conditions for the success of British businesses in the global marketplace.

Will the Minister give the House a guarantee that he will protect local pubs, petrol stations and newsagents from the threat to their trading that the competition Bill poses?

I think that we all noted that a note was passed to the hon. Gentleman by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The hon. Gentleman would have done well to have read the Bill and followed its proceedings in the Lords. If he had, he would know that he has just raised a red herring.

Answer.

I am answering. This is part of the clear smear that the Conservatives have mounted to frighten small businesses and others. There is no truth in his allegation.

I welcome yesterday's announcement by the President of the Board of Trade of the decision to allow the setting up of a merged ferry company, which will provide better opportunities for ferries sailing from my home port of Dover to compete with the channel tunnel. Is my hon. Friend aware that, if the proposals had been rejected, it would have caused far more redundancies than the 1,000 faced by my constituents? Does he understand the anger felt by people in Dover when they see a bankrupt channel tunnel, with £8 billion-worth of debt around its neck, continuing to steal trade from the successful ferry fleet and destroy jobs in Dover?

I shall of course pass my hon. Friend's welcoming comments to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Will the Minister consider introducing measures similar to those in other European countries which would prevent retailers from selling their goods below a certain level in order to protect and enforce fair competition?

We have no plans at the moment to introduce such measures. We are guided by the key principle that competition should be fair and should be seen to be fair.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about promoting competition, and especially about the way in which small and medium-sized enterprises should be supported as opposed to larger public companies. Will he investigate a contract which I understand is being tendered this week for the DTI export sales leads service? Will he particularly examine the way in which his Department has dealt with the Cequel Link consortium in my constituency, which has tendered for the project but seems to have been met on most occasions by civil servants who were keen to question the capacity of a consortium comprising small and medium-sized enterprises to run the service, rather than to consider the substantive nature of the positive aspects of the bid? This is an extremely important matter to my constituency.

I have listened with care to my hon. Friend. My colleagues and I will certainly give careful consideration to any further evidence that he cares to submit.

Given that when considering competition issues the President of the Board of Trade should listen to all sides of the case before reaching a conclusion, why did the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs tell the Sunday Mirror on 31 August that he was going to slash the prices of electrical goods more than two weeks before the consultation period on electrical retailing was completed, thereby prejudging any outcome? Has he not totally undermined the President's obligation impartially to consider all representations on competition matters and totally destroyed the industry's confidence in that impartiality? The Minister has already stood aside from three competition inquiries. Will he now stand down from all competition matters to save any further embarrassment?

It is a shame that we spend a great deal of time ensuring that the hon. Lady gets copies of DTI press releases. If she had read my right hon. Friend's welcoming comments about the inquiry, she would know that the usual procedures were followed in full and that my right hon. Friend will be considering the matter objectively, as ever. It was interesting to note that the hon. Lady contacted officials at the Department of Trade and Industry twice this week to find out how the procedures worked. I should have thought that someone of her experience—a senior Front-Bench spokesperson—would have known that. Perhaps she should come in for a seminar. I offer her the opportunity.

What measures her Department is taking to support British exporters. [15405]

As well as the measures that my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry described earlier, the Department of Trade and Industry sponsors the overseas trade services, export development counsellors and a range of other pro-business measures.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What is he doing to encourage small firms, especially those that do not currently export—which includes about 85 per cent. of the firms in Northamptonshire? Is he prepared to encourage closer links between the overseas trade services of the Department and business links, which have become well established in Northamptonshire and had some success in gaining export orders?

My hon. Friend is an ambassador for business links. The Department of Trade and Industry has funded export counsellors and 75 are in place in business links. The one in Northamptonshire works with a strong international team and benefits from invaluable expertise from the chamber of commerce