What recent discussions he has had with representatives of business about the regulatory burden on industry and commerce. [105749]

Regulation is one of the many issues that I discuss as part of my regular contacts with business.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that spectacularly uninformative reply. Given that Labour has spewed forth more than 2,700 new regulations since 1 May 1997, adding £5,000 a year to the costs of the average small business, and that the number of business failures has soared by more than 20 per cent.—

Order. I require questions, not explanations of questions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now in which year Labour intends to honour its promise to stop lacerating small businesses and start liberating them?

We do that every year. The hon. Gentleman's tirade does not match the information in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development "Economic Outlook" published last month, which said that the United Kingdom had fewer economic and administrative regulations than any other OECD country including the United States. That report covered 1998. Less than 5 per cent. of all regulations affect business.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should start growing up when they talk about regulation? The Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is to be considered this afternoon, will do British commerce the power of good. Good regulation of the City of London means that we become an effective, better centre for international commerce. We have a good record—

Order. I mean to go on as I began: I want questions, not explanations. I am trying to get through more questions in the House. Was the hon. Gentleman asking a question?

Yes, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Gentleman agree that some regulation helps commerce and industry, and makes our economy profitable?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His comments concur with the British Chambers of Commerce document, which reports on confidence in profitability and turnover, and claims that it is the strongest it has been for three years. That view is supported by the CBI and the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply. That shows that we have a healthy economy. Business welcomes our action on regulation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House—in pounds sterling, not euros—by how much he intends to reduce the cost of regulation to business in this Parliament?

We have strengthened the operations that existed when we took over from the previous Administration. We have a new panel of Ministers, which will consider regulation—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] Indeed, if the previous Administration had implemented some of their taskforce's recommendations, the system would have been more effective. We have had to clear up that mess. The taskforce is chaired by Lord Haskins and its members include David Irwin—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] Madam Speaker, I am trying to show what the previous Administration did, and what we are doing about the 5 per cent. of regulations that affect business. If the Conservative party returned to power, would it remove from the statute book the regulations on the minimum wage or working hours?

What plans he has to ensure the confidentiality of encrypted material in electronic communications. [105750]

On Tuesday, the House gave an unopposed Third Reading to the Electronic Communications Bill, which will promote cryptography support services that guarantee the confidentiality of electronic transactions.

Does the Minister share my view that the growth of e-commerce is immense, and has tremendous potential? Does she further agree that the constraint on its development is security for individuals and for business, and that cryptography exists? Does she agree that we must ensure maximum security for commercial transmissions through e-commerce?

I entirely agree. That is why we are working with the Alliance for Electronic Business to put in place the T scheme to help give companies and individuals the assurance that they need about the security of electronic transactions.

I congratulate the Minister on the fact that it has only taken the Government three years to decide not to include in the Electronic Communications Bill the provisions on encryption, and on taking Conservative Members' advice about that. Will she assure the House that, as she has wisely not included those provisions in the Electronic Communications Bill, she will tell her colleagues in the Home Office to do the same in the measure on interception?

The previous Administration, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, made the proposal for mandatory key escrow. We refused to introduce that and have ruled it out from the Bill. On law enforcement, encryption—which protects all our credit card details, for example—also enables money launderers, paedophiles and other criminals to evade detection. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making proposals to ensure that when the police have the power to seize information they can get it quite properly, either in plain text or with the key to decode it.

Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), will the Minister explain which aspects of confidentiality will fall within her responsibilities and which will fall within those of the Home Office? Now that the e-envoy is at his desk at last—we welcome him to his new job—may I ask to whom he will report on such matters? Exactly what are his responsibilities; what is his job description; and what is he expected to achieve?

The e-envoy's responsibilities are set out extremely clearly on his website, which I recommend the hon. Gentleman visits. He has responsibility as the lead official in Whitehall for co-ordinating across government our efforts to make the United Kingdom the best place in the world for e-commerce. My role is that of lead Minister in co-ordinating that work across government.

On what date he received the Competition Commission's inquiry into the impulse buying ice-cream industry; and when he intends to publish its findings. [105751]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry received a copy of the Competition Commission's report on the supply of impulse ice-cream on 21 September. It will be published as soon as is practicable.

That is not a helpful response for the independents in the ice-cream distribution industry who have been waiting months for the report, which has been completed. I have one such distributor in my constituency. What message can I take back to that gentleman—the appropriately named Mr. D. Frost—whose business is suffering? Does the Minister agree that the Wall's stranglehold is anti-competitive and not in the interests of consumers and retailers?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finds my reply unhelpful, but it is the only one I can give. I am sure he is well aware that a number of companies in the ice-cream market are publicly quoted and I therefore cannot give any indication in the House on market-sensitive matters. The publication of the report is market sensitive. The Government are well aware of the difficulties, and I congratulate him on his endeavours, but he should know that it is not in the interests of the ice-cream industry to make statements in the House that could destabilise the market.

Much as I would welcome the publication of the report, does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be major repercussions for British jobs and the way in which customers perceive their ice-cream? There is no reason why we cannot have stability in the market, even though we need the report to be published as soon as possible.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He, too, has been vociferous on the matter, and all his points will be taken into account when the report is published.

Under the Competition Act 1998, a company can be fined up to 10 per cent. of its annual turnover. Out of the blue last August, the Government announced that that could apply to three years' annual turnover, effectively tripling the fine to 30 per cent. Was that always their intention, before and during the passage of the 1998 Act, or is it a new policy departure?

In all their deliberations on competition, the Government take into account best practice and the best possible conclusions that we can reach to achieve a truly competitive market. The hon. Gentleman of all people should know that it is very important to ensure that adequate and proper competition is in place in the United Kingdom.

How many people have contacted the minimum wage hotline since it was inaugurated. [105752]

There have been 150,000 calls to the national minimum wage hotline.

I suspect that a good number of that 150,000 came from Pendle and north-east Lancashire which is a low-pay black spot. Is the Secretary of State aware that when the national minimum wage came in last April, 8 per cent. of all adults in employment in Pendle received a pay increase, as did no fewer than 30 per cent. of all part-time women employees? Not only did that have huge practical importance: for the Labour party and the Labour Government it had huge symbolic importance. Will the Secretary of State let us know whether there will be an annual uprating of the national minimum wage which people in my constituency and across the land fully expect?

I am delighted to hear that so many workers in my hon. Friend's constituency have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. The important message that we can both put over to them is that they stand to lose that if the Conservative party is ever returned to office. In answer to his question, the Government have made it clear throughout that it is not their policy automatically to uprate the national minimum wage annually. Any increase will need to be considered in the light of the economic conditions at a particular time. I know that this cautious approach will be criticised in some quarters, but it is important that this radical change in the labour market is introduced successfully—as it has been. We must not take any steps which will disadvantage its successful introduction.

Does the Secretary of State agree that despite reservations expressed about the national minimum wage, by me among other people, it has proved to be a success and has been accepted as such across industry? In the same spirit of consensus, will he agree that there needs to be a mechanism for increasing the minimum wage at least in line with inflation over the past two years and for removing discrimination against younger workers aged between 18 and 22?

I welcome the Liberal Democrats' decision on the minimum wage. They described their own policy as being economically illiterate and politically inept, and that was absolutely right. Their policy was exactly that, in line with many of the policies that they pursue. The hon. Gentleman, who opposed the national minimum wage and the way it was introduced, is now calling for an annual uprating. It is important to remember that the national minimum wage is not a state benefit. It is paying people for work. That means that an increase will be linked to the economic circumstances of the day. It has made a break with state benefits, which are annually uprated. The minimum wage is about making work pay for people. That is exactly what we are doing and what we will continue to do.

While I congratulate the Government on introducing the minimum wage, does my right hon. Friend agree that £3.60 an hour is too low? In view of the profits of various companies and the fat-cat increases, does he accept that it is time to increase the minimum wage and link it into a mechanism where it is increased annually, at least in line with the rate of inflation? I suggest that it should go up to £5 an hour.

An increase from £3.60 to £5 an hour would be an increase rather in excess of the rate of inflation. I know that my hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate of the minimum wage for many years—and in the years when it may not have been so fashionable to support it. The Low Pay Commission was kept in being after it made its first recommendations partly to monitor continually the impact of the national minimum wage on the labour market, and levels of employment in particular. It has just reported to the Government and we are considering our response, which we hope to make in the next few weeks. We will undoubtedly need to consider the questions of uprating and the youth rate.

We know from previous answers that thousands of people have gone from low pay to no pay as a result of the Government's policies. Does the Secretary of State regard the thousands of people who have lost their jobs as a result of the minimum wage legislation as a sign of the success or failure of his Government's policy?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is allowing his prejudices to get in the way of the facts, which are that there is higher employment in this country than ever before and that our introduction of the national minimum wage has taken well over 1.5 million people out of poverty pay. All that would be put at risk by the policies that his party pursues.

If he will make a statement about the use by businesses of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. [105753]

The latest review of credit management activity shows that 5 per cent. of firms have already used the legislation—up from 3 per cent. six months ago—and that 11 per cent. are planning to use it.

Does my hon. Friend have any reliable survey evidence to show that there has been any improvement in Britain's historically lamentable payment culture since 1 November 1998, when the Act came into force?

There are several surveys, not all of them consistent. I am glad to say that the survey by Dunn and Bradstreet, one of the most comprehensive, shows that 60 per cent. of companies are paying on time, compared with only 54 per cent. in 1997. That has taken us up to third place in the European Union league table on payment of debts. It is still not good enough, but we are going in the right direction.

Has the Minister been able to do a survey or analysis of the sort of businesses that are using the legislation? What percentage of small businesses are using the legislation against other small businesses that are late in paying their debts?

I think the hon. Gentleman does not entirely understand the legislation. As currently in force, it allows small businesses to pursue large businesses because that is the real problem that we identified and set out to put right. The introduction of the rest of the law is being phased. The intention is that, from 1 November this year, small businesses will be able to use the law against other small businesses, and that, from 1 November 2002, all businesses and public sector organisations will be able to use the law, but we continue to keep those phasing arrangements under review.

Does the Minister agree that the Government should take a lead in promoting early payment of debt, and that it is regrettable that the Bill did not reflect that? Will she provide us with statistics showing the Government's record at both local and national level?

Of course Government must take a lead and that is what we are doing. Every Government Department has signed up to the better payment practice code. Most paid almost 97 per cent. of their bills on time in the last financial year. The Department of Trade and Industry has substantially improved its payments record and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked officials to ensure that 100 per cent. of bills are paid on time.

What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the mail order companies on consumer protection in that industry. [105754]

The Department has met representatives of the mail order industry to discuss consumer protection issues concerning implementation of the European directive on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, and the proposals in the consumer White Paper relating to codes of practice.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Not only do many hon. Members shop by mail order because of lack of time, but, more important, many of my poorer constituents do so because it is the only way in which they can phase payments. There are many good mail order companies, but in dealing with some of them, people may encounter particular problems in arranging deliveries and making complaints: people often cannot get hold of anyone in a responsible position to deal with the matter that they wish to raise. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, in future discussions, he will raise those topics with the mail order companies, so that our poorer constituents will be entitled to better protection?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the reasons for introducing better consumer protection in the sector is that, although the vast majority of mail order companies behave in an exemplary manner, the most vulnerable people are sometimes exploited by a small minority. I will take her views into account and pass on to her the response of the Mail Order Traders Association of Great Britain next time we meet, but I remind her that we are consulting on the implementation regulations until 11 February. All submissions will be gratefully received.

Does the Minister accept that it is possible to receive junk mail not only through the post but by fax? What about introducing some consumer protection for the poor guy who owns the fax machine and ends up having to pay for the paper, the toner and everything else? What about some protection for hon. Members who return home to discover on the floor at least 200 yards of fax paper containing useless junk that has been faxed to us? We need such protection, too.

The hon. Gentleman's remarks strike a chord throughout the House. I remind him that the consultation that I mentioned earlier, on the European directive on distance selling, includes measures to ensure that people have a statutory right to choose whether to receive advertising mail, regardless of whether it is sent by e-mail, the post or fax. As I said, the consultation period finishes on 11 February.

What plans he has to strengthen legislation on the late payment of commercial debts in respect of its impact on small businesses. [105755]

I am keeping the impact of the new law under close review, but currently we have no plans to amend it.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she support the European Union late payment directive, which allows the recovery of costs associated with the collection of commercial debts? Will she support domestic legislation on the matter?

We do indeed support the principle of the proposed directive, but we and some other member states are concerned that its scope is too broad. We are working together to sort that out. We have provision in current UK law to allow individuals to recover costs through county court proceedings.

Coming as she does from Leicestershire, is the Minister aware of the impact on small businesses in our area of the failure to pay and late payment of commercial debt by a company called TransTec, in Coventry? Will she now answer the parliamentary questions tabled, more than two weeks ago, by me and other hon. Members?

Those questions have already been fully answered. The investigations are proceeding and will be dealt with in due course in the normal way.

What progress he has made in persuading the UK's EU partners to fulfil their commitment to allow tariff- and quota-free access for all exports from the world's 48 poorest countries. [105756]

The European Union commitment is to provide duty-free access for essentially all products from the least-developed countries by 2005 at the latest. We expect the European Commission soon to make proposals aimed at implementing that commitment, giving both tariff- and quota-free access. More generally, the Government will continue to call for zero tariffs to be applied to all goods from the least-developed countries, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised in his speech at the Mansion House on 22 November 1999.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that tariff- and quota-free market access for the poorest countries should include all exports, and that there should not be exclusions on the grounds of any sensitivity? Does he also agree that there is no reason why those small concessions could not be made immediately, and that there should be no attempt to include them in any further trade rounds?

That is exactly the British Government's position and what we are trying to negotiate with the European Union. As I said, the Prime Minister stated the British Government's position on the issue in his Mansion House speech, and we have to convince our European Union partners to accept that position. Arguably, however, the European Union already offers probably the most generous preferential terms for developing countries. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to go that extra mile, and we shall be pushing very hard to do just that.

Does the Minister agree that by far the best way of helping poor countries out of poverty is to enable them freely to export their goods to our markets? Will he condemn those who weep crocodile tears for the poorest countries, but spend all their time dreaming up ways of restricting their imports into the countries of the developed world on grounds that free trade is not in their view fair trade?

Yes. The Government's commitment on tariffs and quotas has been laid out by the Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been working with the International Monetary Fund on trying to relieve the debt of the heavily indebted countries. We want to ensure that the least-developed countries have sustainable economies, and one of the prerequisites in achieving that is to provide those countries with access to markets such as the European Union.

If he will make a statement on the future of the coal industry. [105757]

We are introducing reforms to the electricity market to remove distortions that worked against coal generation. The new electricity trading arrangements in the Utilities Bill published last week will change the way in which the generation market operates, with credit being given to coal for the flexibility that it offers to the system. In 1997, the industry asked for fairness not favours. That has been, and will continue to be, our approach.

Given the huge subsidies currently paid by the German, Spanish and French Governments to support their coal industries, will the Minister establish, with the European Union, which state aids might legally be payable to support the British coal industry? Is not a diverse energy portfolio in the interests of both Britain and Europe as a whole?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. First, we must study carefully the level of state aids given by other European Union member states to ensure that they do not achieve an unfair advantage. I know that my hon. Friend has considered very carefully the aid that the UK Government can give to the coal industry. He will know that the Government do not consider that we have the power to offer aid for operating costs, because of decisions taken by the previous Administration. However, given our concern about the coal industry, the Government will look closely at any alternative opinion.

If the Government lifted the moratorium on gas-fired power stations, how many coal mines in this country would remain competitive?

I said that our intention was to introduce fairness not favours. Our aim is to make the energy market fair. To achieve that, we are introducing changes through the Utilities Bill. However, we have introduced a stricter gas consents policy to protect industries in the energy sector that would be affected adversely by the fact that we do not at present have fair competition.

May I urge my right hon. Friend to maintain the consents policy for gas-fired power generation? If that policy were relaxed, there would be another dash for gas and more consents would be issued for gas-fired power generation. That would wipe out what remains of the British coal industry. My right hon. Friend is correct to insist on a fair energy policy.

Given his personal and constituency experience, my hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the coal industry. We have put in place the stricter gas consents policy so that we can make the changes contained in the Utilities Bill to secure a level and fair playing field for energy generation, which we do not have at the moment. Until we achieve that, the stricter gas consents policy will remain in place.

If he has decided on a process and a time scale for the privatisation of British Nuclear Fuels plc. [105758]

On July 13 last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Government were looking to introduce a public-private partnership into BNFL before the end of the current Parliament, subject to BNFL's overall progress towards achieving a range of performance targets, as well as to further work by the Department and our advisers.

When the Government are in a position to clarify the way forward for BNFL, does my hon. Friend agree that, given the size and sensitivity of the operation, there needs to be a full public debate about all possible ways forward for the nuclear industry, and for BNFL in particular? Does she also agree that that debate must be underpinned by the principles of open government, transparency and full freedom of information?

I very much concur about the need for an open debate on the issues connected with BNFL and the public-private partnership. The Government have chosen to study the option of a public-private partnership because there are great international opportunities for BNFL, as is evident in the acquisition strategy involving Westinghouse and ABB. However, it is important that BNFL meet certain targets. The PPP will ensure that BNFL can benefit from commercial freedom, and from commercial disciplines.

In the light of the Minister's answer, it is evident that the Government remain the dominant shareholder in BNFL. Therefore, may I ask the Minister what discussions she has had with the board of BNFL about increasing its role in terms of nuclear power generation? As I understand it, closing one sixth of a major coal-fired power station saves the amount of carbon dioxide required by the climate change levy. More work in generating electricity by nuclear means could save us all an awful lot of trouble.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but we have to see nuclear generation within the context of a balanced energy supply. My right hon. Friend has just referred to the measures that the Government are taking to ensure that the coal industry can play its proper part in an electricity market that is not distorted. It is important to point out that BNFL, through its acquisitions strategy, can now enter into a much wider range of commercial activities. The US arm of BNFL, Westinghouse, is well able to participate internationally in the very important field of nuclear power. This is a sound decision for the Government to take. There are many commercial opportunities that would expand the opportunities for BNFL and its international subsidiaries in a way that ensures that internationally we have a sustained and mixed energy supply, to give us security and diversity of supply into the future.

May we have an assurance that the performance targets to which my right hon. Friend refers include nuclear waste disposal targets, which affect my constituents, and that there will be no partnership and no progress until we have absolute assurances in those areas?

I can give my hon. Friend a guarantee on that. The issues surrounding nuclear waste and those connected with his constituency are much in our mind. We have set demanding targets for BNFL as we approach the public-private partnership. We wish to see those targets met, not just in commercial terms, but also in safety terms.

This is an issue that is very important to people in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be aware of concerns about pollution in the Irish sea emanating from the reprocessing plant at Sellafield. Can the Minister give us an assurance that, should the Department proceed with privatisation, there will be no reduction in safety standards or in effective regulation, so that we can prevent pollution in the Irish sea in the future?

The hon. Gentleman makes a point that he has made on a number of occasions. First, let me point out that this is not a privatisation; it is a genuine partnership, a public-private partnership, that has been accepted and welcomed across the board. Issues of public safety and pollution are very much at the heart of the nuclear industry. My colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are in the lead in relation to the environmental considerations, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department of Trade and Industry is most anxious to ensure that the PPP leads not only to the maintenance of safety and environmental standards, but to a continuing improvement in them.

Will my right hon. Friend also ensure that we do not lose the highly successful training centre for apprentices at Springfield in Preston, which represents many industries—not just BNFL, but all the leading companies? There is a danger that through privatisation we may lose it. Can we ensure that that will not happen?

I stress again that this is not a privatisation. The aim of the public-private partnership is to develop BNFL as a centre of excellence. We believe there are substantial global opportunities for BNFL, which will require a highly trained work force. I would hope that throughout British Nuclear Fuels there would be an enhanced emphasis on training and skilling the work force to make sure that we are truly globally competitive. I pay tribute to the work that is done at Springfield in my hon. Friend's constituency.

If he will make a statement about competition in the dairy industry. [105759]

The members of Milk Marque have agreed to a voluntary separation into three independent successor bodies. I welcome that decision.

What research did the Department undertake into the impact of the break-up? It should be borne in mind that, by the time the decision was made, Milk Marque's share of the market had dropped considerably, and the statistics used were therefore out of date.

It would have been wholly inappropriate for my Department to intervene or to instruct a voluntary organisation such as Milk Marque. It was the members of Milk Marque who decided, voluntarily, to break into three successor bodies, in the light of the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I welcome that voluntary decision. I rejected the commission's recommendation for a break-up to be imposed on Milk Marque: I thought that it would be far better to leave the decision to its members. They have made their decision, and I look forward to healthy competition in the milk industry—and also to allowing processing in due course.

The recent report caused great dismay. At present there is no real competition; the only competition seems to be competition to offer farmers the lowest possible prices. The market is depressed, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Something must be done: we are losing hundreds of farmers a year in places like Ceredigion. I urge the Secretary of State to speak to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

I will certainly do that, but the MMC report was such that the Government could not ignore it. I had to seek a remedy that was appropriate to the circumstances. I disagreed with the commission's recommendation for a compulsory break-up, but I am pleased that the members of Milk Marque considered the situation carefully and, on a voluntary basis, agreed to form three independent successor bodies. When they are competing effectively—I hope that there will be clear indications of that by April—I shall be able to allow them to start processing. That will enable them to produce products with a higher added value, which I think will make a real difference to the industry.

The agreement was voluntary only in the sense that the action of someone with a shotgun pointed at his head is voluntary. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the long delay before his decision, and the disastrous effects on milk processing, are much resented in the dairy industry? Next time he considers it necessary to meddle in agriculture, will he talk to the primary producers—the people who get up at 5 am to milk the cows, who are losing money hand over fist?

The hon. Gentleman talks of meddling in agriculture. What I did as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was disagree with the MMC's proposal for a compulsory break-up, because I did not think that it was in the industry's best interests. Farmers have told me that that was absolutely the right decision. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees and thinks that I should have rubber-stamped the commission's report, let me tell him that I could easily have done that, but I did not; I put the industry's interests first.

The Secretary of State has repeated today things that he said at our last Trade and Industry Question Time. On 9 December 1999, he told me—and my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who is present—

"It is the members of Milk Marque who have voluntarily agreed to break it up into three successor bodies."—[Official Report, 9 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 982.]

All I know is that the members of Milk Marque voted for three independent successor bodies. That is exactly what I said on 9 December, and have said again today.

The members of Milk Marque were finally forced to accept that arrangement. After our last Question Time I wrote to the chairman of Milk Marque, who wrote back saying:

"Contrary to the impression given by your letter, Milk Marque did not press for three regions rather than two; indeed when it became obvious that the way forward was for Milk Marque to split, our first proposal was a two-way split … the competition authorities insisted that three was the minimum acceptable number".

The hon. Lady needs to be aware of the different responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Competition Commission. I would be justifiably criticised if I intervened with the Competition Commission. I do not do that—perhaps the previous Government to which the hon. Lady belonged used to.

What progress is being made in implementing the provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 relating to statutory trade union recognition. [105760]

The Government are making the necessary preparations to bring these provisions into force in the near future.

May I urge my hon. Friend to bring the provisions into force as soon as possible? This is a radical piece of legislation, which is much needed. Workers in my constituency who are seeking to organise themselves on a trade union basis are looking forward to these measures. They need the strength of a trade union to protect themselves in the workplace.

My hon. Friend can be assured that we will put the legislation in place as soon as possible. He will understand that major pieces of subordinate legislation are also necessary, including codes of practice on union access to workers during a ballot on recognition, and on the right of individuals to be accompanied to each discipline and grievance hearing. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is preparing those for us at present, and we shall need to consult on them. The important thing, as I know my hon. Friend will accept, is not the speed at which the measures will be introduced—although that is obviously an imperative—but to ensure that, once introduced, they are fair and balanced in accordance with the legislation.

How many textile and clothing factories there are in (a) the north-east and (b) the east midlands; and if he will make a statement on the organisations which exist to promote economic development in each of those regions. [105761]

There are 360 textile and clothing companies in the north-east and 3,106 textile and clothing companies in the east midlands. There are many separate organisations whose task it is to promote economic development in those regions, the most notable of which are the regional development agencies—One North East and the East Midlands development agency.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the textile and clothing strategy group has recently recommended that Government assistance beyond objective 2 area status be given to some companies in the east midlands? Secondly, does he not feel that now that there is an action plan for the north-east textiles industry, which was set up by his Department in December, something should be done on similar lines in the east midlands, given that that is where most of the companies are?

That has been under active discussion between the Government offices and the newly formed regional development agencies, and it is to be welcomed.

May I congratulate the Government on their efforts in setting up a taskforce to look at the textile industry in the north-east of England? It is an excellent initiative. There is no future in protectionism, although some of us are concerned that the top management of companies such as Marks and Spencer appear to have callously sacrificed the jobs of British textile workers in an effort to save their own—which may well not work out for them.

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. However, the new design and development will not be carried out in Departments—I can assure him of that: it will be done in the regions. The taskforce is operating in the north-east, with all the partners involved in a very creative way, and will deal with some of the questions raised by my hon. Friend.

I support the request made to the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). Does the Minister agree that textiles and clothing are industries of strategic importance to the United Kingdom; that they remain substantial employers; and that they are frequently undermined by unfair competition? Is it not important that the existing systems for dealing with unfair competition should act more quickly than they currently do?

The hon. Gentleman makes a justifiable point. Several of the procedures for reacting to what he describes as unfair competition need to be questioned. That is one of the matters that we are taking up with the World Trade Organisation, and I am taking it up in the European Union in other ways. The hon. Gentleman is right. There should be a review of our responses to such claims and allegations. Information technology could be used much more effectively than has been the case hitherto. I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Areas such as Leicestershire have not secured objective 2 status or assisted area status, but still have a large number of textile jobs. What practical measures will my hon. Friend take to work with the regional development agency? Will he also take a lead in the Government to ensure that those jobs are retained? A large number of jobs in the east midlands—especially in Leicestershire—still depend on the textile sector. We are keen that they should be retained.

My hon. Friend is aware that a taskforce is operating in his area, as I have just pointed out. The taskforce is considering matters such as education, trade policy, export and industrial sponsorship. Such partnerships consider opportunities, nationally and internationally, in a changing world.

If he will make a statement on the pricing of cars in the UK and the rest of the EU. [105762]

The European Commission publishes a six-monthly comparison of pre-tax prices across the European Community. The most recent one covered prices at 1 May 1999; the UK was the most expensive market for 62 of the 75 models covered. Publication of the survey of prices taken on 1 November 1999 is expected shortly.

Has the Minister stopped to think of the enhanced foreign car penetration of the west midlands car market that will be brought about by the damage to local component manufacturers through the collapse of TransTec?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce has already referred to matters connected to TransTec. However, I am sure that many people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and throughout other areas that are dependent on the car industry will be interested to know how the Government are taking action to ensure that there will be a viable car industry in the future—hence our involvement with Rover BMW. We are trying to ensure that consumers have access to cars at prices that do not disadvantage them. At the same time, we are also ensuring that all the benefits from the single market in the EU are available to every UK consumer.

My right hon. Friend may forgive me if I return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). Does she agree that while genuine concern about differential pricing across Europe continues, when the commission's report—which we await with interest—becomes available, it is important that it be considered quickly and that decisions be made promptly? The worst thing for consumers and the motor industry would be inordinate delay.

My hon. Friend makes a considered point on a subject of considerable interest—compared with the shallow attempt by the hon. Member for Solihull to use his question to suit the Tory Whips. We take speed of response very much into account and recognise the importance of the car industry in terms not just of primary manufacture but of components.

What recent discussions he has had with other EU member states about improving the competitiveness of business. [105765]

My ministerial colleagues and I have held regular discussions with our opposite numbers on a wide range of issues related to competitiveness, in bilateral meetings with member states and European Council meetings. We will intensify those contacts as we approach the Lisbon special European summit in March. That will be a significant summit for the United Kingdom because the issues are close to the heart of this Government as regards promoting a knowledge-driven economy, economic reform and ensuring that the advantages of the single market are enjoyed by all citizens of the European Union.

Manufacturing output in Britain is rising at its fastest rate since 1995, with particular success in computers, telephones, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and engineering—despite the level of sterling. In her discussions with our EU partners, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the reason for our outstanding success is not just efficiency, added value and productivity, but a system of financial stability—as opposed to the boom-bust of the past—that gives certainty to the investment and export growth that is materialising?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In my discussions with industrialists, they frequently mention the advantages of a sound and stable economy based on a prudent fiscal framework and on engaging with the European Union to secure the advantages of the markets that are so important to British manufacturing industry. Opposition Members who scaremonger about our membership of the European Union do no service to our manufacturing industry—which makes the point that our exports to non-European Union countries are as nothing compared with exports to our fellow member states.

Does the Minister agree that it is difficult for businesses to be competitive if they have their assets seized by the countries in which they have invested—particularly when those investments are protected by the GATT? Will the right hon. Lady instruct her officials to liaise with those from other European Union countries and EU institutions to ensure that the Department takes the fullest possible action to protect British investments—such as Wena Hotels Ltd, which had its assets seized in Egypt nearly 10 years ago?

One of the great benefits of membership of the European Union is that where domestic companies encounter significant difficulties, member states can act together. My officials, as part of the step change in relationships with other member states, are able to raise difficult issues and seek a resolution. I will take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. If he wishes to communicate with me further, I will be happy to respond.

If he will place obligations on telecommunications providers to increase the availability of broadband technologies in rural areas. [105766]

We want everyone to have access to affordable modern communications services. The market for broadband services is in the early stages of development and it would not be appropriate at this point to impose new service obligations.

A critical foundation for diversification will be access to broadband technologies in the development of IT-based and media-based industry activity. The availability of such technologies for those purposes and for leisure is crucially important. Does the Minister share the view that the position must be kept under careful review?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are taking immediate steps to auction third-generation mobile telephony spectrum, and Oftel has agreed with BT on a timetable to open up the local loop to competition, both of which will make a real difference to broadband access throughout the country. Finally, the Government are investing in ICT centres throughout disadvantaged parts of the country, including many rural communities.