When she expects her Department's review of energy policy to be completed. [45049]

The review of energy sources for power generation is expected to reach conclusions soon, and we shall announce those conclusions in due course.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her approach to the whole question of energy. This Government are looking for a long-term policy for energy, whereas the previous Government were very much about the short term. As my right hon. Friend carries out her review, will she bear in mind the fact that the mining industry needs a fair and level playing field? When is the review due to be completed?

I hope that it will be very soon indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is entirely right to say that the mining industry, and indeed energy policy as a whole, needs a level playing field in which there is fair competition so that the consumer gets the maximum benefit. Of course, that is not what we inherited from the Conservative party.

Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents in Shoreham, where a development for a gas-fired power station in Shoreham harbour is blocked by the Government's refusal to issue a section 14 consent, that that consent will be issued as soon as possible, because the development is in any case on the site of the previous power station and will bring much-needed jobs and investment to the area?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I cannot prejudge the outcome of the review which, as soon as it is possible to do so, will be put before the House. I have heard his comments about the position in his locality, and he will know that the Government have always said that they will consider every circumstance carefully.

Will the President of the Board of Trade ensure that there is an early announcement, because the current coal contracts run out on 30 June? Despite reports to the contrary, will she ensure that the coal industry gets fairness, not favours, and has the ability to compete over the long term with other industrial sectors?

I know of my hon. Friend's long track record of work in this area. I share his view that it is vital for Britain's long-term future that we have a fair and level playing field and that we take a long-term strategic view of energy sources and resources. I assure my hon. Friend that that has motivated the Government throughout the review.

In this climate, in which Ministers have to deliver at least one leak a day, can the President of the Board of Trade help us a bit with her conclusions? Will she tell the House whether, in an effort to save up to 5,000 mining jobs, she is prepared to put at risk many billions of pounds of investment, and the construction jobs that go with them, and to risk the effect that it would have on energy prices for the consumer? If she does decide after all to go for the pro-mining option, does she feel confident that the Government can meet their Kyoto obligations and their even more stringent domestic emissions targets?

I am sure that you would be the first to object, Madam Speaker, if I were to take the step urged on me by the hon. Gentleman—which, of course, is not a course that I ever follow—of leaking things in advance, and especially leaking things before a statement is made to the House. I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman not to take too seriously many of the things that he reads. I have seen entirely contradictory as well as quite extraordinary suggestions about the conclusions that might be in the Government's review. Certainly the Government are mindful of employment considerations in respect of energy and of the environmental considerations that lie behind the Kyoto targets. All these will be taken into account. The Conservatives left such a mess that it is taking time and proving even more difficult than we had feared to clear the situation up and come to conclusions in our review.

What is the forecast United Kingdom content of the proposed Airbus A3XX; and what assistance she is giving to British Aerospace to aid its development. [45051]

The Government have already had preliminary discussions with British Aerospace and its Airbus partners about the planned development of the A3XX. Any application for launch investment for the project will be considered on its merits.

That is heartening news. I pay tribute to the Government for the help that they have given to Rolls-Royce for the development of the Trent engine and for Airbus. Is my hon. Friend aware that, over the next 20 years, passenger air traffic is expected to increase by a factor of three? The Airbus A3XX will carry 650 passengers in double-decker fashion. We need larger, quieter aircraft. That is another reason why the Government should support British Aerospace in developing the new aircraft.

I thank my hon. Friend, who has a track record of championing the industry on behalf of his constituents. We are well aware of the prestige and value of the project, which will take the industry much further forward technologically. It is too early to forecast sensibly the possible UK content of Airbus development, but there are major potential benefits for UK industry and I hope that our companies will be well represented in the project.

Although it may be too early to forecast the UK content, is it not the case that, the more substantial the British launch aid, the more likely it is that British Aerospace and other British companies will have a significant share of the work on the aircraft? The A3XX is the only gap in the full range of aircraft offered by Airbus to the civil market that remains to be filled. Will the Government look more favourably on any application for the A3XX than on any for the future large aircraft?

Requests for proposals on the future large aircraft have been issued to Airbus, Turkish Aerospace Industries, Alenia of Italy and Flabel of Belgium on a provisional basis, pending the formation of the Airbus military company. Any application for launch investment for the A3XX will be considered on its merits, subject to rigorous appraisal and monitoring to ensure that projects do not undertake or duplicate work that could be done elsewhere. No one is in any doubt about the significance of the project.

Some 3,600 of my constituents make the wings for all European models of the Airbus family and they hope to make the wings for the new super jumbo jet. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when he visited the factory in my constituency on Monday, he saw a modern, progressive, productive and loyal work force? They appreciated the ceremony that he carried out.

I was particularly impressed by the technical excellence of the work of the internationally competitive, leading-edge work force. That is encouraging. Airbus already provides £1 billion a year to the UK's trade balance, representing 1·5 per cent. of UK manufactured exports. We are doing well in that manufacturing sector and we hope to continue to do well for many years.

I am sure that the Minister realises that this is wider than a single-constituency issue, although I cannot fail to mention Aerostructures Hamble, which does a magnificent job overseas in the same markets. The British aerospace industry has a record of high added value and high skills, putting it among the leaders in British manufacturing. It is a world-class industry. Exports account for 75 per cent. of the production of our aerospace industry. That has been achieved through long-term investment over the past 30 or 40 years. Is the Minister aware that, over the past 15 years, the Government's partnership investment in the industry has declined to a fraction of the levels known in the 1980s? Does he agree that, if that continues, in 10 years' time we shall be in the sorry state of having no British ownership of the aerospace industry? What will he do about it?

To some extent, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. We do not want to be complacent. We want to ensure that there are skills to back up the industry and that there is private sector investment in the long term. All I would add is that the Government agreed public-private partnerships with British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce that were worth £320 million of investment last year. That is not an insubstantial investment to move the industry forward.

Obviously launch aid is important. The world needs this generation of aircraft. I hope that the Government will back it and look favourably on the military version of the Airbus for the FLA.

As I commented in answer to an earlier question, the requests for proposals have been issued. The formation of the Airbus military company is pending. The Government are discussing with our partners when requests for proposals will be issued to potential suppliers under, of course, competitive arrangements. A procurement decision will be made in the light of the conclusions of the strategic defence review. My hon. Friend's points were clearly made and will be taken on board, along with those of other colleagues.

If she will make a statement about combating bribery in international trade. [45053]

The Government played a leading role in bringing negotiations on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development bribery convention to a successful conclusion in December. We are playing an active part in the negotiations that are under way on anti-corruption measures in the European Union and the Council of Europe. We are determined to combat bribery in international trade. Corruption distorts competition and constitutes an unfair barrier to trade.

Does my hon. Friend agree with Adair Turner of the Confederation of British Industry, who said:

"Corruption's become a big issue because it just costs business so much more these days"?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining the need both to clarify the statute on corruption and to bring up to date anti-corruption legislation. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention.

Has the Minister estimated bribery and corruption by British companies abroad or, indeed, British personnel who work for foreign companies or multinationals—if, indeed, there is any? What powers do the Government really have to stop foreign personnel or foreign companies indulging in bribery and corruption? I know that we all want an end to it.

That is why we played our part in negotiations on the OECD bribery convention. I am not aware of any reliable estimates of the cost of bribery, which I know the whole House will condemn as anti-competitive and corrosive to the countries or their enterprises which may seek to offer bribes and to those who choose to take them.

If she will make a statement about the future prospects for the automotive industry. [45055]

Car production in Britain is increasing. This year alone, we have had announcements from Rover, Toyota and Honda, involving approximately £1 billion of new investment and creating more than 2,700 new jobs. In addition, Vauxhall's recent announcement that Luton will be one of the manufacturing locations for the replacement Vectra model should safeguard 4,000 jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Do he and the rest of the Department of Trade and Industry accept my heartfelt thanks, and those of the whole work force, for their efforts to ensure the long-term future of Vauxhall, Luton? Is he aware, however, that there is a skills gap in some parts of the automotive and engineering industries? Will he outline what measures he intends to take to ensure the on-going competitiveness of plants such as Vauxhall and the automotive industry generally?

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of her constituents. She is in regular contact with the Department and often brings her constituents in to meet representatives of the Department; they should be well pleased by her activities on their behalf. I take the skills gap seriously. My Department is working with the industry to identify such gaps, and we work with other Departments, including the Department for Education and Employment, to ensure that the training and skills needed to back up the industry are available. We work in partnership with industry in trying to identify its needs, especially in the metal industries, because we want to ensure that traditional skills are not squeezed out at precisely the same time as there is expansion in the industry. Britain currently has a productive and competitive car industry and we do not want it to be jeopardised by a lack of skilled labour.

Is the Minister aware of the damage done to the British automotive industry by unfair pricing practices and differentials and by the difficulty of making parallel imports to this country, which leads to higher prices in this country than elsewhere? Is he monitoring the impact on the automotive industry of the designs directive, especially the repairs article? That will impose a monopoly on spare parts for up to seven years, which will have damaging effects on the entire industry in this country.

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Action against anti-competitive behaviour elsewhere in Europe is a matter for the European Commission. We welcome both the action which has been taken and the current active discussions, because we do not want our industry to be priced out unfairly. We have a strong industry: the UK is the fourth-largest car manufacturer in Europe, with eight international companies, and the sector employs 719,000 people. It is a major sector of our economy, so we do not want unfair competition to undermine it.

I am sure that it was an oversight, but my hon. Friend did not mention the substantial investment by Ford in producing the new executive Jaguar at its Castle Bromwich plant in my constituency. I hope that he will find time to visit the plant in October, when it goes into pre-production. Will he say a word about the efforts made by Jaguar and other motor manufacturers to meet the properly tough and even more stringent emissions standards? What progress is being made by the group chaired by Ian McAllister of Ford?

Our Department participated in the setting up of the cleaner vehicles task force precisely to address that matter and to work towards ensuring that cars and other vehicles have a low environmental impact. The task force programme has been developed in partnership with the industry. I did not mention the Jaguar investment—£400 million in the new medium saloon car, the X200, which is to be produced in my hon. Friend's constituency—but that is because the sector is so productive and so much investment is going into it that, had I read out the whole list, you would have ruled me out of order, Madam Speaker.

How is the Minister's support for the car industry consistent with the Government's general approach towards the car and motorists? The Government have imposed about £9 billion of extra taxes on motorists and a new £25 first registration tax on every new car sold, yet the Minister purports to be in favour of the car industry. Will he tell his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that, if we have cleaner, safer and more fuel-efficient cars, there is nothing wrong with having more of them?

In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box after a period of absence, I seem to recall that the last time I crossed swords with him over the Dispatch Box was when I was an Opposition spokesman and the hon. Gentleman was the champion of the poll tax. However, I welcome him back, even though I cannot pretend always to agree with his analyses. The car industry itself is talking about low environmental impact and wants to contribute to our environmental targets. We see no contradiction in having environmental targets and an industry that works to match them to ensure cleaner air in our towns and cities.

What progress is being made on the foresight programme. [45057]

The aim of the foresight programme is to develop a practical vision of the future challenges, opportunities and needs and identify means of reaching them. It was set up by the previous Administration and we are working with the grain of the programme to use it as a catalyst for action. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade initiated a full audit of foresight activities across Government. In response, I called together a group of Ministers responsible for foresight from all Departments to provide top-level co-ordination throughout Whitehall and to drive the programme forward in Government.

The foresight programme is clearly important for driving bridges between industry and the science base. How are Government Departments using the results of foresight to form their strategies in relation to research programmes?

Previously, the purpose of the foresight panels, which were set up in 1994, was to tackle the relationship between industry and academia. We have moved the programme in-house and, on 16 June, the President of the Board of Trade published the first full interdepartmental progress report, spelling out how each Department is getting involved in the programme. I referred earlier to the cleaner vehicles project, which is headed up by our colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and is one example of the way in which foresight will be carried into Departments to knit into the themes that are their concerns. There is a connection between Departments through the ministerial foresight group, so that the theme of foresight can be brought into our principles, practices and ideas for future action as a Government.

): Does the Minister accept that there have in the past been complaints from industry that, although it was moving forward, the Government were lagging? Does the recent audit state that the Government are keeping pace with industry in the foresight plans?

The idea is to work together. In March, we launched a full consultation on the next stage of foresight, to find out where it would go. We spelled out key themes, including sustainable development, future cities, crime control, skills training and the shortages emerging there, as well as consideration of aging. We have put those topics forward for consultation with industry to ensure that the Government and industry keep together. That is part of an exercise to tackle the themes together, listening to the needs of industry, recognising the potential of academic research and ensuring that we translate ideas into practical action—into products and processes that deliver an improved quality of life and new jobs, as well as generating wealth.

If she will make a statement about the work of the Low Pay Commission. [45058]

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement to the House later this afternoon. The Low Pay Commission presented its recommendations on the national minimum wage to the Government on 27 May. The Government are grateful to the commission for its report and recommendations. The national minimum wage, along with other measures such as the working families tax credit, is part of a strategy to make work pay.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and look forward to hearing the full statement from the President of the Board of Trade later. Does he agree that the introduction of minimum pay will start to end poverty pay? Does he also agree that the Conservative party has a lot to be held accountable for, bearing in mind the fact that the Conservative Government delivered low pay and low skills to Britain and that this Government are trying to change that process in the short period of 12 months?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, I must tell him that I have not yet been made right honourable, but I will pass his suggestion on to the Prime Minister—that was a joke.

The hon. Gentleman, in again coming to the Dispatch Box and ranting on in the way we all love, clearly has sight of what will be announced at 3.30 pm—it will not fulfil his commitments to the House and to his hon. Friends. Has he written his letter of resignation yet, as he clearly will not be able to stand there and look us in the eye on this matter?

I will stand on a box at any time and look the hon. Gentleman in the eye. I can see only one person in the Chamber today who went to a Prime Minister to resign—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The difference is that, when I see my Prime Minister, I always come out with agreement. He did not, and look at him now—a mere shadow of his former self.

What assessment she had made of the impact of the current strength of sterling on the competitiveness of United Kingdom exports. [45059]

The Government understand exporters' concerns about the level of sterling and appreciate the difficulties that it is causing them. However, the level of sterling is not the only factor affecting the competitiveness of UK exports. In particular, business needs a stable macro-economic environment in which it can make long-term decisions. We are working in partnership with business to improve that and all aspects of British competitiveness.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Two weeks ago, I attended the first of a series of briefings at the Foreign Office, jointly hosted by the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, for Members of Parliament and representatives of exporters in their constituencies. The presentations that evening were excellent, especially those by the exporters, large and small, and I was left with the distinct impression that the support services for our exporters are first class. However, it was no surprise when one of the exporters raised the question of the strong pound, asking, "How are we expected to win contracts abroad when our competitors have a price advantage simply because of the differences in the value of national currencies?" How can my right hon. Friend and her Department best help British exporters to be competitive in such a climate?

I, too, have had many similar conversations with people in the business community, particularly exporters. They are aware of the Government's view that a stable and competitive exchange rate is what will be most beneficial to them in the long term; they are also aware that we have taken steps that we—and, indeed, the markets—believe will produce such an outcome. Of course we all recognise that, in the short term, the level of sterling can cause problems, although its effect, as shown in the trade figures, is more patchy than one might expect.

Is it not both extraordinary and encouraging that, at a time when many of the most successful exporting countries are desperately anxious about the weakening of their currencies, we should be more concerned about the strength of ours? Is that not an enormous endorsement of the great success of the previous Government's policies?

I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman arrives at the conclusion in his final sentence. I certainly agree that, in the past, people have bemoaned the weakness of sterling—it is always a moot point whether a high or a low exchange rate is good or bad. Given what I know to be the breadth of his experience, however, I think that he is likely to share the view that a stable exchange rate is often the most beneficial, as it enables business to plan for the long term—we are certainly working to achieve that.

A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend intervened speedily and decisively to win 350 extra jobs in my constituency at Black and Decker, a world-class manufacturer and exporter, but is not she a little worried that the present excessive reliance on interest rates is undermining what I assume would be her preferred economic strategy of growth being driven by exports and investment rather than consumption?

It has certainly been the aim of successive Governments to achieve growth driven by investments and exports. We take the view that our policies will, in the long term, bring about such an outcome. We are continually working with the business community, and we held discussions at a series of seminars, co-sponsored by the Treasury and ourselves, to try to deal with the long-seated problems that the previous Government so plainly failed to overcome.

The President of the Board of Trade is quite right to say that high sterling is not the only threat to jobs and businesses in manufacturing. Wage inflation is up; taxes are massively up; regulatory costs, imposed by the Government, are up; interest rates are up; and, yes, sterling is up as well. What is her Department's forecast of the likely number of job losses in steel, automotive development, textiles and all the main areas of manufacturing in the next couple of years?

All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that, if industry had been in as good heart as he says, he would be on the Government, not the Opposition, Benches. The picture that he presents is not one that anyone would recognise. We are aware of the concerns that have been expressed in some parts of manufacturing about interest rates, but we inherited a legacy of inflationary pressures and of failure to raise interest rates when it would have been right to do so, in the run-up to the general election. We hope and believe that, over time, we shall be able to overcome that legacy.

Is not the real task for British industry to become world class? We need more world-class companies. The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce spent three or four years designing a working toolkit for tomorrow's company. Is it not about time that we gave it a hand to ensure that every small, medium and large enterprise can implement that toolkit, becoming innovative and successful in exporting?

I know of the tremendous amount of work that my hon. Friend has done, including in some cross-party groups in the House, to promote the cause of British companies and manufacturing. I certainly agree that it is enormously important to continue to discuss what can be done to improve competitiveness and to encourage people in businesses large and small to learn from each other, to benchmark the best and to spread understanding of what will best promote the competitiveness of individual companies and hence of Britain as a whole, and I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.

If she will make a statement on the implementation of the part-time workers directive. [45060]

The directive was extended to the United Kingdom on 7 April. We now have two years to implement it. During that period, we shall consider the options for how best to do so and, in particular, to ensure that both employers and employees enjoy the benefits of the directive and that the status of part-time jobs is improved. We intend to consult extensively on the best way of achieving that.

Is it the Minister's view that the terms of the directive should apply equally to casual workers as to other part-time workers, and, if so, has he made any assessment of the likely cost in casual jobs?

The hon. Gentleman raised the same point in the Education and Employment Sub-Committee, on 1 June, when I made it clear that the directive has the potential to cover forms of casual work. The most important point about the directive is that 90 per cent. of employers have already expressed support for the principle of ensuring flexibility in business through part-time working. In addition, part-time work gives flexibility to many workers, including those who have child responsibilities, and gives them the opportunity to continue to make a contribution to an enterprise. The directive will assist competitiveness and provide good employment rights and standards in the workplace.

Is not the Government's implementation of the directive a clear message that the Labour Government believe that the growing number of part-time workers are entitled to fair conditions, while the Conservatives could not care less about their conditions?

When we got rid of the previous Government, second-class citizenship for part-time workers went with them. Every worker in Britain will now have the same rights. There will be no more second-class citizens. We want people to make a contribution to the United Kingdom economy, and we shall ensure that they do.

What steps she is taking to promote innovation in United Kingdom small and medium enterprises. [45061]

The Department is committed to the promotion of innovation, particularly within small and medium companies. On 11 June, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade launched the 1998 round of "Smart", the grants scheme for innovation and development in small firms. Many more of the Department's schemes, such as the teaching company scheme, also operate in that area. Innovation and technology counsellors in business links also have an important role in enabling small and medium enterprises to innovate.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. May I tell her that Otodynamics, a company in Hatfield, recently won the Queen's award for technological achievement for its portable equipment for testing the hearing of small babies? That equipment can be used in many locations around the world because no computer or other equipment is needed. It was produced by a company begun by a husband and wife a few years ago, in conjunction with University college, London. Will my hon. Friend comment on how we can promote further projects that are likely to lead to worldwide success in technological development among small businesses? How can we promote further the use of our universities to support and help such development?

I congratulate the business mentioned by my hon. Friend, which is a good example of what can be done when the barriers between business, finance and the academic and science side are broken down, and when the transfer of technology is encouraged. The Government are examining this area, believing that small and medium businesses, especially in the high-tech sector, have the ability to win for Britain. We are working closely with universities, financial institutions and businesses.

In seeking to promote innovation in small and medium enterprises, does the Under-Secretary agree that the European Commission's proposals for bureaucratic national works councils for companies with as few as 50 employees will offer no help to those companies, and could be a great hindrance to them? Does the hon. Lady agree that, when the President of the Board of Trade was challenged by John Humphrys on how she would cope with the Commission, her response of, "Well, er, we shall see how things go," was spectacularly feeble?

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that I have heard the same tired old rhetoric from him before. He cannot answer the points that regulation increased under the previous Conservative Government, and that it is the Labour Government who have sought to tackle excessive regulation. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, during the UK presidency of the European Union, we set up the Best committee, chaired by the well-known British entrepreneur Chris Evans, who has dealt with cutting back European regulation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to congratulate the Government on our achievement.

Will my hon. Friend have regard to the fact that mining areas now rely on small and medium businesses to create well-paid jobs; the Tory Government destroyed the mining industry and well-paid jobs? Will she do all that she can to help small and medium enterprises in Yorkshire and Humberside to develop science and technology, so that skilled and well-paid jobs can return to our area?

I agree with my hon. Friend that small and medium enterprises are a good example of things that are helping to regenerate areas where industries have disappeared and new industries are coming in. What is good about those high-growth, high-skilled industries is that they are based on the skills that are in those communities in abundance. We shall do all that we can to support those industries, and I am delighted that recent polls show that the small business community is feeling very confident about what this Government have achieved so far.

What steps she is taking to safeguard jobs in manufacturing industry to take account of the current strength of sterling. [45062]

The Government recognise the difficulties that are created for exporters and manufacturers by a strong pound. The Bank of England has taken those into account in deciding the level of interest rates, and the whole purpose of the Government's strategy is to deliver a stable macro-economic framework in which business will be better able to plan and to secure competitiveness for the long term. Ultimately, however, our ability to compete in world markets depends on Britain producing high-quality goods and services. We are working in partnership with business to develop measures that promote the competitiveness of British firms and we shall publish a White Paper in the autumn.

In the real world, there will be a feeling that that was a somewhat complacent response, as was the right hon. Lady's response to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). Would the President of the Board of Trade care to comment on the fact that, this month in my constituency, Paxman Diesels had to make 10 per cent. of its work force redundant? We all know what happened under the previous Government, but many of us were hoping that a change of Government would lead to better things. Discussions with her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence in relation to the placing of orders would benefit Paxman Diesels, as would discussions with the privatised railway industry, where orders for locomotives seem to be lacking. Discussions between the President of the Board of Trade and other members of the Government might help my constituents.

I am well aware, as I expect that the hon. Gentleman is, that the diesel industry has been undergoing difficulties for some years. I share his view that part of the aftermath of the long-drawn-out privatisation of rail was a dearth of orders of a variety of kinds in the manufacturing industry, which affected my constituency as well as his. I assure him that I am in continual contact with colleagues who deal with other policy areas that impinge on those matters. We are all anxious to see British manufacturing succeed and we do work with such companies to try to achieve that.

Is not the simple truth that, if we had not tightened the fiscal stance—if we had followed the policies of Conservative Members—we would have had a higher exchange rate and higher interest rates?

My hon. Friend is, as so often, entirely right.

Earlier this week in my constituency, one of the most modern and efficient saw mills in the country made an entire shift redundant due to difficulties that had been caused by the level of sterling. In reply to an earlier question, the President of the Board of Trade said that what was necessary was stability in exchange rates. Would she be happy with exchange rates being stable at their current level? Is that what she seeks?

No. If the hon. Gentleman will recall, what I said was that the Government would like stable and competitive exchange rates but, of course, difficulties do arise from time to time and no one is more concerned than Labour Members when, as a result, people lose the opportunity of employment. However, it is our determination and wish to make this economy more competitive. That, in the long run, is to the benefit of all.

Will the President accept that, when manufacturing industry is struggling with the higher taxes, higher sterling and higher wage inflation that she will do nothing about, it should at least be able to expect stability from the DTI on regulations and competition law? Is she aware that her original Competition Bill produced much fear and diversion of effort in industry? While the Opposition welcome the four fundamental concessions that Ministers have made to improve the legislation, it is still wrong. Will she look again at this muddled and meddlesome Bill to help give industry more certainty? Above all, will she consider the absence of teeth against monopolies and public sector activity that is another extraordinary feature of the Bill and that will not help business to become more competitive against this miserable background for industry?

I am sorry—I almost interrupted the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He accused me of being responsible for higher wage inflation that I would do nothing about. Wage settlements are very much a matter for employers in manufacturing and outside. I am interested that he thinks that the Government should be doing something about them. I look forward to hearing more. On the Competition Bill, I am never sure whether he is mischievous or just incompetent. If he paid attention to the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and in another place, he must know that the amendments to which he referred were flagged up by the Government and that we had said that they would need to be made from the beginning. Indeed, he has been complaining about the absence of some of them for weeks.

How many groups of public sector workers, when dismissed unfairly, cannot appeal to an industrial tribunal. [45063]

Public sector employees with a contract of employment are generally able to complain of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal, subject to any qualifying period of continuous employment that may apply. Groups in the public sector who cannot do so include members of the armed forces and office holders who are not employees, including those in the police and the registration services.

I declare an interest as the unremunerated patron of the National Society of Registration Officers. I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he consider correcting, in liaison with the Economic Secretary, who is responsible for registration officers, the anomaly whereby registration officers cannot go to an industrial tribunal when dismissed? The registrar-general himself appears to favour reform.

We want a system of fairness, transparency, clear standards of decision making and proper redress. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall consider the matter with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary in the positive context in which he approached it.

Will the Minister confirm that people in the public sector, in addition to being able to go to industrial tribunals, can usually go to the Civil Service Appeal Board? Will he seek to ensure that, when the board recommends that a person be reinstated, that person is reinstated and the recommendation not ignored, as appears to have happened in several institutions, particularly the Prison Service?

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot go into individual cases. An independent assessment is made of disputes and that should remain independent of ministerial responsibility.

What assessment she has made of which Government policies have had the greatest impact on the balance of trade position since 1 May 1997. [45064]

The Government want to create the right environment to ensure that British business can thrive in both domestic and overseas markets. The most important steps that we have taken to create that framework are those to implement a new framework for macro-economic policy to secure long-term stability on the basis of low inflation and sound public finances. That should generate growth, provide employment and help trade.

The fact is that, since the Government came to power, the balance of trade has suffered a sharp and steepening decline. Does the hon. Lady not realise that the Government's high taxes have been the spur to higher wage costs and the Government's higher interest rates have cut the sort of investment that raises productivity? Will she at least concede, in the climate that the Labour Government have created, that this is no time to be implementing the minimum wage proposals; and that those who wanted to implement the proposals of the Low Pay Commission in full were extremely foolish?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his well-considered diatribe, but he appears to have forgotten a few things. The first is that about four fifths of sterling's appreciation occurred under the previous Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House then, so perhaps that passed him by.

Resisting the temptation to launch into a diatribe, may I ask the Minister to consider putting in the Library an assessment of the impact on British trade of American-led sanctions against Libya and Iran?

I thank my hon. Friend, whom no one would ever accuse of launching diatribes—he is one of the most courteous Members in the House. I also note what he has to say. We shall accept any recommendations from him and carefully consider them.

In assessing the impact of Government policies, has the hon. Lady looked at the 3i enterprise barometer, seven tenths of whose respondents are exporters? It is now negative for the first time since the end of 1992. The companies surveyed say that the

"climate is now less favourable to starting a new business or expanding existing business activity than it was a year ago."

I do not know what it is about the Conservative party, but Tory Members seem to have terribly selective memories for facts. They forget that the CBI still expects extra volume growth. Barclays' start-up figures for the first three months of this year are more encouraging than ever; and the Lloyds bank survey has found that most businesses and new businesses say that they have enjoyed a much better macro-economic climate under this Government. I do not know what is happening to the Tory party, but I am certain that some medical expertise would come in useful.

What further steps she intends to take to give support to businesses preparing for EMU. [45065]

I am pleased to announce that, among the further steps taken, my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe this week published some explanatory fact sheets to support businesses in preparing for the euro; 15,000 of them have been distributed to organisations representing businesses, and to individual firms—especially small and medium enterprises.

The Government's pragmatic approach to European monetary union is the correct one: we should join only if and when that is in Britain's interests. Will the Minister comment on the statement by Commissioner Leon Brittan last month, that the attitude and approach of the Leader of the Opposition to European monetary union is fundamentally flawed—a shrill and emotional reaction to it? Will he also join me in asking the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) whether he agrees with the Leader of the Opposition or with Sir Leon Brittan about speaking up for British interests in Europe?

Yes, and I shall also give the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redmond), the shadow Secretary of State, the opportunity to agree with John Entwistle, the president of the British Chambers of Commerce, who said yesterday,

"We are for the euro."

Is the Minister aware of the advice that has been given to the President of the United States that it is absolute folly for the countries of the European Community to form a single currency within 12 months of trying to deal with the problems associated with the millennium bug? Will he take notice of those people in this country who are advising that, if one of those two problems could be postponed, it would be sensible to do so?

It is very brave of the hon. Gentleman to raise the subject of the millennium bug when the record of his party in the previous Government shows that it did nothing about it. By contrast, this Government took the necessary action and appointed Don Cruickshank to head the committee that is ensuring that business is properly prepared for the millennium. We welcome any support that can be given, however belatedly, by Conservative Members.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. I take points of order after statements, and we have three statements today.