What recent reports she has obtained on the state of business confidence in manufacturing industry. [49371]

I receive numerous reports from business about many aspects of economic performance, including the state of business confidence in manufacturing industry. I recognise that some sections of manufacturing have strong concerns at present, but that it is a more mixed picture than is sometimes suggested. For example, the Confederation of British Industry continues to forecast that manufacturing output and investment will grow both this year and next.

Will the Secretary of State study the alarming report published this morning by the British Chambers of Commerce, which tends to be a more reliable organisation than the one she mentioned? It shows that home sales are at their lowest for six years and that export activity is falling sharply on the last quarter, which was a record low, probably because of the problems in the European Union. Will the right hon. Lady remind the Chancellor that manufacturing activity is vital to the economy and that trying to make himself popular with a spending spree is a great danger if the only result is a further increase in interest rates, which would have a devastating effect on manufacturing industry?

First, while I bow to no one in my respect for the British Chambers of Commerce and I am aware of the survey, I cannot share the hon. Gentleman's view that the CBI is in some way an unreliable organisation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is extremely well aware of the position in manufacturing industry, about which we continue to liaise closely. Far from seeking merely to make himself popular with his announcements on Tuesday, he is laying a sound basis for reform, modernisation and investment in Britain's future. Far from embarking on some sort of spending spree, he is showing considerable responsibility and prudence, but he is also making the right choices to lay the right path for Britain's future.

First, is not it the case that our right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement on Tuesday has gone some way to encourage British manufacturers because, in the public expenditure increases, the emphasis will be on manufacturing and capital matters and we will see the beginnings of a turnround in those areas? Secondly, I do not think that any of us assumes that interest rates will reduce dramatically in the short term, but can we assume that in the weeks and months ahead, as the Government plan for the next Budget, a case will be made for investment incentives so that manufacturing industry can use the space that it has to plan for the future and take advantage of what we assume will be the better trading prospects throughout the world next year?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that trading prospects throughout the world and the impact of the Asian crisis are in part impinging on manufacturing. He is also right to say that it is important that the manufacturing sector of the economy continues to invest and plan for the future. I am confident that he shares my view and that of the whole Government that some of the announcements made this week—not merely the announcement for investment in the science and engineering base, for example, but the whole basis of the public spending settlement, with its three-year rolling programme approach and the split between capital and current spending—will help to create a climate in which everyone, including business, will feel better able to plan sustainably for the future.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the north-west chamber of commerce has consulted its manufacturers, who believe that the outlook is extremely gloomy and that the country will slide further into recession, for which they blame the strong pound, six interest rate rises and an increase in business taxation? Is she concerned that they are reducing the number of people in their work forces and that that will have an adverse effect on the plans announced in the House on Tuesday?

I am, of course, familiar with the some of the work of the north-west chamber of commerce, and I understand its wish to reflect the concerns and anxieties of its members, but I hope that the hon. Lady, who I know takes a great interest in these matters and wants to be accurate, will remind the House that three quarters of the increase in the rate of sterling took place before the general election and before interest rates were increased. Indeed—although I do not expect her to convey this information—the previous Chancellor should have increased interest rates before the election. People are aware of the concerns of manufacturing, but they are also conscious that the difficulties that are being experienced are a result of what is happening in Asia and of pressures on sterling because of concerns about the euro. The picture is much more mixed than the Conservative party pretends.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that there were 618 inward investment projects last year—the highest number ever—shows that foreign investors believe that the British economy has a stable future? Does she also agree that the £1.1 billion that has been made available to the university science base will help to anchor the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, for example, which rely on their collaboration with universities, and that that will lead to a strengthening of confidence in the British economy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely right. There is indeed an all-time record in inward investment projects. As he correctly said, 618 new projects were signed last year, which is the first time that the number has been above 500. That substantial increase is a sign of the confidence of inward investors in the future of this country; that confidence will be strengthened by the Government's announcement of long-term investment to create the basis for prosperity in manufacturing in the future.

The British Chambers of Commerce survey that was published today shows meltdown in manufacturing. Meanwhile, private sector earnings are going up by more than 6 per cent. a year. Labour has created a boom-and-bust economy—bust for manufacturing, boom for most of the other businesses. Will the right hon. Lady say how much of the money the Chancellor announced this week will be swallowed up in large, inflationary pay awards as the public sector seeks to catch up with the private sector? What impact will that have on manufacturing prospects? Will she urge the Chancellor, as Conservative Members have repeatedly done, to change policy on tax, interest rates and savings to give manufacturers some relief?

The right hon. Gentleman has failed to notice that commentators, who have some genuine concerns, have pointed out that recent statistics—on confidence levels and so on—are a repetition of what was shown some five or six years ago. At that time, of course, not only was the Conservative party in power, but I rather think he was in the Government and perhaps even in my Department, so I find his use of the word meltdown interesting, even though it is, of course, nonsense. There are real concerns, which is understandable, but, as I said, the picture is rather more mixed than his extravagant claims suggest.

Do not write home about it.

The hon. Gentleman may think that 0.1 per cent. is not a massive increase, but I should point out that over the whole history of the previous Government manufacturing output grew, on average, by only 0.5 per cent. a year.

What action her Department has taken to improve the competitiveness of manufacturing industry in Europe during the British presidency of the European Union. [49372]

My Department's priority during our presidency has been to promote policies, in partnership with industry, to improve European competitiveness and I believe that we have made a real impact. Key areas in which we have made progress include the single market, research and development, telecommunications and electronic commerce and promoting entrepreneurship and trade liberalisation. Competitiveness is now firmly embedded in the language of Brussels, helped in no small part by our efforts, and I am especially pleased with the profile given to economic reform at the Cardiff summit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain's new relationship with our European partners is already bearing fruit and that it is in stark contrast with the miserable legacy that we inherited from the Tory Government, who succeeded only in reviling Europe and alienating Britain from the rest of the continent? We have a much better future for manufacturing in Britain under the new Labour Government.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is absolutely correct to say that the Government have begun to turn round the appalling legacy of that rabble over there, who spent most of their time trying to close down British industry, and that we are spending our time building it up. Yesterday, it was announced that Britain is the No. 1 nation for inward investment for the first time ever, and the more than 500 new investment projects are a clear sign that we have the confidence of both the national and the international business community.

Why was no progress made on the chocolate directive, which has damaged the competitiveness of British chocolate manufacturing?

I cannot give the hon. Lady a definitive answer on the directive but, as someone who enjoys chocolate, I can assure her that nothing will be done under this regime to damage the British chocolate industry. A Mars a day keeps me at bay.

We may no longer be president of the European Union, but we can still set an example. In a threatened global economy, have not we set a good example this week? I may or may not be a parliamentary poodle, but I am an unreconstructed Keynesian. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need good old Keynesian investment? The United Kingdom showed the way this week by putting nearly £50 billion into our economy. If that does not stimulate our manufacturing industry, and European industry, nothing will.

Our No. 1 priority both here and in Europe has been employability: co-ordinating policies to deal with the 18 million people who are unemployed in Europe, more than half of whom have been out of work for more than a year. While we have been developing those policies with our European colleagues, the Opposition have fought tooth and nail against the windfall tax and the introduction of the new deal to get young people and older workers back to work. Once again, the Government are doing effective work throughout Europe and in the United Kingdom to get down the appalling levels of unemployment left by the previous Government.

What action her Department has taken to improve awareness among British companies of the introduction of the euro. [49373]

We have set up the euro preparations unit and DTI Ministers have taken part in a wide range of events to help business prepare for the single currency. Our officials are working to assist companies.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. May I draw to his attention the fact that many companies in St. Helens have still taken no action to prepare for the introduction of the euro? What action will the Department take to make those companies more aware of the problems and opportunities that will exist once the euro is introduced? Does my hon. Friend share my view that it is crucial that we show world leadership on this issue and that the divisions on the Opposition Benches on it are damaging to Britain and British industry? Does he agree that it is time the Leader of the Opposition came off the fence on this issue and showed real leadership qualities?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, he echoes the words of Sir Leon Brittan, who ridiculed the Opposition's view of the preparations for the euro. The euro preparations unit has been able to assist companies in my hon. Friend's constituency and all others. It has taken several measures to raise awareness among United Kingdom businesses about the practical changes that will come with the introduction of the single currency on 1 January. They include a series of fact sheets, a business-friendly diagnostic pack and an internet website, all backed by a dedicated phone line.

Given that the euro is not just another foreign currency, but the currency that will dominate 80 per cent. of the European single market and will increasingly be used as the base currency for business transactions in this country, will the Minister have a word with the various people involved in the business for sterling campaign that, much as we respect their right to express opinions and stir up debate, their companies must also prepare for the euro? Otherwise, there will be grave competitive disadvantages to the United Kingdom economy.

I am keen to endorse those sentiments on behalf of the Government and, indeed, to encourage the route that the hon. Gentleman so rightly advises. That is why we have set up a euro preparations unit. We are doing all we can to ensure that British businesses, in a market where, as the hon. Gentleman said, 80 per cent. of the countries and businesses will be operating in the euro, are well geared up to ensure they are not damaged by that prospect. It is important that they take advantage of the advice that is given through the Government's agencies without delay.

If she will make a statement about the future of the Low Pay Commission. [49374]

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced to the House on 18 June that the Low Pay Commission will be asked to continue its work, monitoring and evaluating the introduction and impact of the national minimum wage.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. More than 1,600 families in my constituency are delighted that at long last we shall see an end to poverty pay, which was the trademark of the previous Government. Will my hon. Friend explain how long he believes the Low Pay Commission will remain in operation? Does he agree that this is the real way to encourage people off benefits and into work?

The Low Pay Commission will continue and the best way to ensure that it does is to ensure that at the next election that lot on the Opposition Benches do not get elected again. [Laughter.] I say that in all seriousness because in our debate on Monday evening, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made it absolutely clear that the Conservatives would review all the new employment rights that we will provide under our fairness at work proposals, including the minimum wage. We assume that they will go into the next election fighting for wage cuts for the 2 million lowest-paid workers in Britain. What a shambles. What a rabble.

If it were discovered as a result of the monitoring exercise that the Minister has mentioned that one of the results of the introduction of the minimum wage was a loss of employment opportunities, a loss of jobs and, due to a maintenance of differentials, a general increase in wage costs, what conclusions would the Minister, the Low Pay Commission and the President of the Board of Trade draw?

The right hon. Gentleman should opt for sackcloth and ashes. As Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment, he was one of those responsible for getting rid of wages councils—thus ensuring that 2 million low-paid workers in Britain received no protection—and putting 3 million people on the dole. What nonsense. The Low Pay Commission was established to ensure that the minimum wage is implemented in a fair and effective way. Since the announcement of the rate, no one, except the Conservative party, has made other than positive remarks about the way in which the Government have gone about the matter.

Will the Low Pay Commission be a permanent body? Will its remit include monitoring and evaluating the variable rates for those under 18 and those in training? When will the Low Pay Commission next report? Will its conclusions be introduced free from political interference or influence?

First, I make it absolutely clear that the Low Pay Commission will continue because it has a job to do in monitoring and evaluating the introduction of the national minimum wage. From time to time, it will report to the Government on those matters. It is an important partnership body and it is central to the effective introduction of the national minimum wage. We went out of our way to make clear the commission's independence, and that independence led the Government to agree to its 24 recommendations—and they will be implemented.

If she will make a statement about her Department's policy on increasing the productivity of British industry. [49376]

Improving productivity is at the heart of the Government's drive to improve the competitiveness of UK companies. The responsibility for that lies largely with business itself, but the Government have a key role to play, which is why I set up six business-led working parties last year to make recommendations about how the Government and business could work together in partnership to promote competitiveness.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her partnership approach and on bringing industry to the heart of government. Do not the productivity figures produced by Professor Siebert of the Kiel institute in Germany, demonstrating that labour productivity in Britain is only 70 per cent. of that in Germany, give the lie to the Tory Government's claim that they left us a golden economic legacy? Does she further agree that British industry must lift its game, for example by improving research and development to the levels that obtain in, say, the pharmaceutical industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share his view, which is shared widely throughout British business and industry. It is necessary to raise our game and for British companies to become more productive and competitive. My hon. Friend is also entirely right to point out that the legacy of the productivity gap gives the lie to the propaganda put out before the election by the Conservative party. I fear that there will be more than one stark difference between our competitiveness White Paper and those produced by the previous Government. Not only will ours have been prepared in partnership with business, it will look at the whole picture—both sides of the balance sheet—instead of being simply a leaflet that says what a wonderful job the Government are doing.

Would not it have been more helpful in terms of increasing British industry's productivity if, instead of hitting the boards with the Chancellor, the President of the Board of Trade had persuaded him to introduce a package of expenditure measures that were appropriate to the increase in industrial productivity, rather than the contrary? Will not the spending splurge that he announced to the House, particularly the vast increase in social security spending and the likelihood that interest rates will have to go up from their present high levels as a consequence, gravely damage British industrial productivity, rather than the contrary?

That is a load of rubbish. My right hon. Friend made it absolutely plain that modernisation and reform in the public services and beyond are the basis of his programme. Competitiveness and productivity are matters for companies, although the Government have a role in ensuring that the legislative framework does not impede them. The Chancellor's announcements, particularly on science and engineering investment, will help British business. The pharmaceutical industry had urged such steps before my right hon. Friend published his proposals, and it has welcomed them since.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on helping to increase United Kingdom productivity. Yorkshire was devastated by pit closures caused by the previous Government, and that has left pockets of pain. When my right hon. Friend creates partnerships, will she have regard for west Yorkshire in particular and for Yorkshire in general as the region requires the encouragement of partnerships with engineering and manufacturing industry to regenerate jobs?

I have the highest regard for west Yorkshire and for its people. I am mindful of its glorious history and of the need for the Government to do all we can in partnership with business to ensure that it has a glorious future. A great deal of our work is focused on the need for investment, for innovation, for the spread of best practice and for British industry to be encouraged to raise its game to create greater opportunities for employment that would help to relieve the difficulties to which my hon. Friend drew attention.

May I wish the President of the Board of Trade a happy holiday during the summer recess? Before she goes, however, does she agree that she needs to raise her productivity for the sake of British business? With her in tray stretching to the ceiling, British business does not know the answers to fundamental questions about Government policy, which it needs to know if it is to raise productivity and investment. Will she promise us an energy policy? Will she promise us a competition policy that can work in detail? Will she promise us a policy that will allow the Post Office to expand? Will she promise us a water competition policy that will allow new entrants to the markets? Will she promise statements on all those things before she goes away? After a year of her dithering, industry needs the answers.

In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I wish the right hon. Gentleman a happy holiday—unless he is going to waste his time giving more misleading information to the press. I shall not be taking a two-month holiday, as he alleged I did last year. I have never had a two-month holiday in my life. Perhaps I might look forward to such a thing when I retire.

What proposals she has for the future of regional assistance. [49377]

Regional selective assistance can play an important role in regional regeneration. We want to ensure that we use it most effectively.

The future of regional assistance from Europe and from home is under review. Will the Minister say something about the report of the coalfields task force? We owe a particular debt to coalfield areas. The Government deserve congratulations on setting up and welcoming the report, which provides a framework for regeneration for all the pit closure areas. Will my hon. Friend ensure that regeneration of the coalfield areas is central to regional policy and that it is a central objective of the new regional development agencies?

The coalfields task force has brought together three Government Departments with coalfield representatives, English Partnerships and the chief executives of local authorities. The task force has recommended a wide-ranging plan of action to help coalfield communities, including continued objective 2 and RECHAR funding. The Government strongly support those objectives.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the view of the Trade and Industry Select Committee that, as the proposals stand, the UK's share of the European Union structural funds is set to fall further? What guarantee can he offer the House that he would resist any reduction at all, and that he and his right hon. Friends would readily apologise to the House if they had to concede such a reduction?

I fear that the hon. Gentleman has confused selective assistance with European structural funds. In that confusion, he undermines the case that the British Government are putting to Europe to ensure that as many jobs and as many areas as possible are protected. That is the priority of the Government.

When my hon. Friend considers ways of using regional funds to support the former coalfields and the recommendations of the coalfields task force, will he take particular note of the problems of the east Kent coalfield and the closed pits of east Kent, which were closed by the Conservative Government without apology or compensation? Will he take note of the isolation of the east Kent coalfield and of the fact that, in the past, the area missed out on RECHAR and on the Conservative Government's measures of support?

I have visited my hon. Friend's constituency more than once and I know of his concern, which he continues to press on behalf of his constituents. In the light of what he has said, it is important to ensure that there is an integrated approach to the matter by Government Departments, if we are to be as helpful as possible to industries that have suffered, such as those in his constituency.

What assessment she has made of the implications of her energy policy for employment in the coal industry over the next three years. [49378]

Purchasing and sourcing coal are commercial decisions for the coal-fired generators. Obviously, it is up to the coal industry itself to respond to market opportunities. Our task as a Government is to ensure a level playing field and fair market conditions for competition in coal. That is exactly what we are now delivering.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but does he agree that one of the greatest threats facing the coal mining industry comes from cheap imports of coal? Will he tell us what he has done to speak to the German and the Spanish Governments in particular to stop their unfair subsidies to their coal mining industries?

Yes. We have supported the claims of companies that have protested about unfair imports, whether from Germany or elsewhere, through the European Commission. That is rather more than the previous Administration did. The hon. Gentleman talks about threats to the coal industry; I think that the previous Government was the greatest threat to the coal industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons for his having to deal with the remnants of the coal industry—a maximum of 24 deep-mined pits—is what happened during those past 18 years, especially since 1992, when the previous Government, for the first time ever, actually closed pits themselves? Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the closures made by the previous Secretary of State—who now sits somewhere on the Back Benches, when he turns up; he must be on some sort of productivity drive—there are still pit villages with more than 30 per cent. unemployment? The only way in which we can deal with that problem is to ensure that we keep those 20-odd pits working. We must also ensure that, in the process, we do not stuff the pockets of Mr. Richard Budge, who had his pockets filled by the previous Tory Government, when they handed over the remnants of the coal industry.

We have no intention of stuffing anybody's pockets. We inherited a deeply flawed market for power generation. We have tackled that flawed structure and proposed a programme to reform it, which is out for consultation. That reform will ensure that there is a genuinely fair market for coal. To be fair to the coalfield communities, they asked us not for favours, but for fairness. We are delivering that fairness and it will ensure that there is a place for coal in the market. Where communities have suffered as a result of policies in the past, our actions such as those in respect of the task force on regeneration, to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs referred, should make some practical, positive contribution.

We have some sympathy with the Minister and the Department for having the coal deal fixed for them by the Paymaster General. Now that the Minister has had a month to reflect on the deal, will he tell the House whether the proposals in that consultation document will affect the mining of one additional tonne of coal? If so, what will be the implications for the Government's Kyoto and domestic emissions targets?

One week, Opposition Members are in favour of public spending; the next week, they are against it. One week, they are against the coal industry; the next week, they are in favour of it. We inherited from the hon. Gentleman's Government, who privatised the coal industry and the whole of the energy sector, a deeply flawed market which was not working.

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done in his ministerial position over the past 12 months to achieve a fair market for coal. We have never asked for anything other than a level playing field. Last May, our Government inherited a market that was rigged against the coal industry as a result of political decisions taken by the previous Government. Those coal miners who are left are thanking God that we have a Government who want to restore fairness. My hon. Friend should take no notice of Opposition Members who talk about coal miners' jobs, because they got rid of thousands of jobs in my constituency in a short period.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends who made representations on this matter. The new energy markets are incredibly complex. We accept that, but we have calmly and quietly injected a dose of common sense into the debate. It is important that we consult, not the Conservative party, but industry and people working in the sector so that their views are considered. We can then make proposals for long-term sustainability to ensure that we shall have diverse, secure supplies at competitive prices well into the next century.

What steps the Government are taking to ensure that there is effective competition in the market for directories for information technology. [49379]

I believe that there are no comprehensive directories available for electronic mail and internet website addresses. They are typically obtained by means of special search engines which can be easily accessed on-line. They are numerous and independent of companies that provide the most popular web browser software packages. The market for information technology directories is emerging and barriers to entry are low, and at present we are not aware of any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour.

Will the Minister acknowledge that there is a potential threat to the public interest from private monopolies being established in information technology, as we have already seen from the software standards of Mr. Gates's companies and the decoding of satellite signals by Mr. Murdoch's companies? Will she further acknowledge that the company that first develops an effective directory system will effectively have control over access to the whole e-mail commerce system? Will she reassure the House that the Department has the capacity to anticipate and react quickly to threats to the public interest and competition in the information sector?

May I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government treat competition issues in this area very seriously? He will know that, under existing United Kingdom competition law, the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for investigating claims of anti-competitive behaviour. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence in that regard, he should notify the director general. These are clearly the industries of the future, and we want to see more and more entrants because that must be good for consumers and for business.

What assessment she has made of the barriers to fair competition facing the UK cycle industry in the domestic market. [49380]

My Department makes every effort to ensure that fair and competitive markets are maintained for all sectors of industry in the United Kingdom, including the bicycle industry, which my hon. Friend champions.

I know that my hon. Friend is aware that the Raleigh Cycle Company is located in my constituency and provides some 90 per cent. of United Kingdom bicycles. Is he aware of the legacy of unfairness left to this Government as a result of the Tories' treatment of the United Kingdom cycle industry? First, they refused to tackle the abuse of the quota system, which allowed foreign competitors to dump bicycles from south-east Asia on the United Kingdom market. They refused to take action equivalent to that initiated by the French Government to end that practice. Secondly, the previous Government refused to tackle the unfairness in the tax system, which requires United Kingdom manufacturers to pay tax on imported gearing systems while competitors are not required to do so.

Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's question to the Minister?

I am asking whether the Minister is willing to re-examine the legacy of unfairness in the tax and subsidy systems, which saw the Tories subsidising competitors for the provision of screwdriver assembly sites for bikes while disfavouring United Kingdom manufacturers.

Raleigh is a world-renowned company, and we want it to remain so. The United Kingdom bicycle industry has been under pressure from far eastern imports. As a result of complaints and investigation, action was taken recently against bicycle imports from China, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia and duties have been imposed. I understand that the European Commission is investigating the dumping of bicycles by Taiwan. That issue was discussed at a member states meeting in an advisory committee in July. Once it is proved that there is a clear case of substantial damage, measures will be taken. We shall continue to oppose unfair trading practices in an effort to ensure that Raleigh has a successful future.

The Minister anticipated my question by referring to cheap far eastern bicycle imports. What instructions have the President of the Board of Trade and her team and Foreign Office officials given to our commercial attachés in the People's Republic of China and other far eastern countries about keeping a close look-out for the dumping of cheap far eastern bicycle imports, which skews the market for home-made bicycles in this country?

Commercial attachés are under instruction to keep a "close look-out", as the hon. and learned Gentleman puts it. In order to prove a clear case of substantial damage and dumping, we must do our homework. We shall look out for unfair trading practices to ensure that our industry is not damaged unfairly. I cannot say more than that.

What measures she has taken to enhance protection for consumers; and if she will make a statement. [49381]

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have taken a number of measures to put consumer interests and consumer protection at the heart of Government, from banning dangerous laser pens to tackling time-share touts and protecting British loaf weights. Among other things, we have targeted rogue directors, introduced a Competition Bill, moved to allow consumers' organisations to take representative actions in our courts and improved protection for low-income consumers seeking credit.

I know that my constituents welcome this active approach to consumer protection, especially the swift action that the Minister took last autumn to tackle unsafe fireworks, which led to the largest fall in firework injuries in 23 years. However, will he share my disappointment and anger at those Opposition Members who, by talking out the Fireworks Bill, stopped him building on that track record, and thus put their petty politics before public safety?

I certainly share, as do firework safety campaigners and the Confederation of British Industry, my hon. Friend's anger at the activities of the former Conservative consumer spokesman, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), and his Conservative friends in talking out that measure. When the hon. Gentleman was a Minister, the number of firework injuries rose by 46 per cent. and 335 more people ended up in hospital. Fortunately, the Government are able to use secondary legislation to outlaw bangers this year.

The Minister will be aware of the problems faced by consumers who purchase home-working packs with the promise of making large amounts of money and then find themselves ripped off as the income does not materialise. Does the Minister have any plans to tackle the problems faced by such people, including my constituents in Sheffield, who have found themselves ripped off by unscrupulous home work offerers?

The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and I have launched a national campaign on home working. We share the condemnation of the abuse of home workers and we believe that the national campaign will offer real protection by ensuring that people are steered towards projects of proven worth, not projects such as the hon. Gentleman refers to.

I know that the Minister is aware of the difficulty that many of my constituents have had resulting from international lottery draws, whereby individuals are targeted from abroad for lottery winnings. Those are, of course, largely fraudulent acts. I believe that the Advertising Standards Agency has no rights in that regard. Will the Minister turn his attention to such acts originating from Australia, the far east and eastern Europe, to protect consumers in my constituency and throughout the country?

I am glad to have the opportunity to warn every member of the British public against falling for these unfortunate scams. We are seeking international co-operation on advertising, and in this case the abuse of advertising, to ensure that such scam schemes are prohibited from entering Britain and are put out of business altogether.

Why is the Minister so sickeningly self-satisfied? May I draw his attention to two examples of failure—first, his refusal to respond to the request of the Consumers Association to add consumer issues to the remit of Action 2000 and, secondly, his absolutely supine attitude in Europe? Not long ago, he boasted at a conference that he had contributed strongly in the Consumer Council towards the aim of creating a people's Europe. How is that rhetoric consistent with today's European Court of Justice ruling preventing ordinary people from having access to the designer clothes so beloved by Labour MPs?

I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to two questions because both were so poor.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the criticisms of Opposition Front Benchers would have rather more weight if they had not sat on their hands and allowed their Back Benchers to derail the Fireworks Bill? The CBI said that the derailing of that Bill was likely to lead directly to an increase in firework-related injuries. Will my hon. Friend ask Opposition Front Benchers whether they will now co-operate in ensuring that the Bill comes back to the House and is given a "fair wind", to use their words, so that the number of firework-related injuries continues to go down, rather than going up again as a result of their irresponsible actions?

This should not be a party political matter. I invite Opposition Members to reflect on it and to support any such Bill. It is noticeable that there were more Opposition Members in the House to block that Bill than the 13 or 14 Back Benchers present this afternoon to discuss that issue and other important matters, such as British manufacturing. They simply do not care.

What assessment she has made of the impact of the strategic defence review on Britain's defence industries. [49382]

Our Department was closely involved with the strategic defence review so that we were able to analyse carefully the implications for the UK defence industry of the emerging proposals. Industry was also closely involved, which led to widespread agreement on how to modernise our defence procurement processes and the White Paper, which has been warmly welcomed.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Did he see in the SDR reference to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency? Has he had time yet to read the report on the agency by the Defence Select Committee, which concludes that, in view of the sensitive work that it undertakes and the importance of preserving its impartiality and critical mass, it is a part of the public sector that should not be privatised?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I have read the Defence Select Committee report and the Government have announced proposals, as was set out in our manifesto before the election, to set up a defence diversification agency within DERA to foster, in partnership with industry, a greater two-way technology transfer between the military and civil sectors. Decisions on the way ahead will be announced when the results of the consultation process have been assessed. I understand that industry is involved in that consultation, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments and those of the Select Committee will have been noted.

Is the Minister aware how much the strategic defence review has been welcomed by those in the steel industry, because of course steel is the raw material to be used in the new ships and aeroplanes discussed in the review? Has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1563 on the Order Paper today, in my name and the names of about three dozen other hon. Members, which draws attention to the productivity record of the British steel industry? Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the steel industry prepares for our new defence procurement programme, it is getting little help from the Conservatives, who did nothing for that industry while they were in power and do everything to talk down the steel industry and manufacturing now that they are in opposition?

My hon. Friend champions the steel industry at every opportunity, and he is welcome to do so. He represents his constituents and the industry well in doing that. The Defence Industries Council welcomes the partnership that was offered by the strategic defence review. It stated:

"The defence industry welcomes the Government's firm commitment to a partnership with UK industry to acquire equipment and services for the armed services more cost effectively."

I welcome the modernisation of the defence procurement plans. Does the Minister agree that the Raytheon project, which is a combined project involving large parts of British industry, is important, and will he support it as it progresses?

Contracts are out for procurement and I obviously cannot comment on them. The defence review is good news for industry as a whole and has been welcomed by industry. In combination with the work of DERA and the defence diversification agency, it will contribute to manufacturing success in the UK in the future.

What considerations she took into account in formulating her proposals to amend procedures on arms export licences. [49383]

The White Paper on strategic export controls was published on 1 July. In drawing up the proposals contained in it, the main consideration has been to develop the right legislative and procedural framework for effective, clear and accountable strategic export controls. The Government have taken account of the recommendations contained in the Scott report and the views expressed by the 38 respondents to the consultation document published by the previous Government. Views on the proposals are invited by 30 September.

Does the Minister recognise that there is deep concern about the confusion of having six Departments of State involved in arms control, that we have succeeded in selling arms to regimes that are deeply unpleasant and sometimes deeply insolvent, and that there is a lack of transparency and clarity which means that the outside world cannot tell whether a licence is issued for an armoured car or a packet of washers? Is it not time to review the arms control regime completely and produce something that is open to proper scrutiny, and particularly scrutiny by Members of this place?

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would take the time to read the White Paper in detail. It responds to the criticisms made in the Scott report, which the Government are committed to dealing with. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary published the criteria that he did a year ago and why the Government are committed to much more transparency, which is why we are committed to publishing an annual report on this vital work.