How many responses he has received to the draft statutory, social and environmental guidance to the Postal Services Commission. [133887]

Two.

If the Government intend to place extra responsibilities on the Post Office, those obligations will cost money. How does the Minister think that sub-post offices and rural post offices will make up the third of their income, which they stand to lose in a couple of years? On Report and Third Reading of the Postal Services Bill, the Government said that they might introduce a scheme to help post offices in difficulty. Will any money be paid out under that scheme, or was that just a sop to get the Bill through the other place?

The scheme was not mentioned when we took the Postal Services Bill through the other place. We announced in the comprehensive spending review that we would put £270 million into the initiatives to implement the recommendations in the performance and innovation unit report. We also said that we were prepared to add substantial amounts to that sum because much of it depends on whether the pilots for various initiatives such as Government general practitioners work. If they do so, we can apply them across the country. Money is available, as has been announced clearly in the comprehensive spending review.

Will the Minister ask the Postal Services Commission to examine the terms offered by the Post Office to potential franchisees? Is he aware that in my constituency three post offices have closed and have not been reopened simply because the terms are so unattractive? One of them is the second main post office in the town of Lewes. Similar closures have been made across the country. Those terms possibly represent a greater threat to our post offices than that posed by automated credit transfers.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. One of the PIU recommendations was that the Government should place an obligation on the Post Office to stop preventable closures. The Post Office does its best at the moment, but it makes the point that that is a purely voluntary action. The report says that the Government should insist that that course is followed as a matter of policy. As part of that, we will ask the Post Office to consider precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman raises—the terms and conditions with which new sub-postmasters have to comply when taking over an office. I hope that the letter that puts the obligation on the Post Office to carry out the PIU recommendation will be available in the House of Commons Library in the next couple of weeks.

How can the Government talk about social guidance to the Post Office when the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry in particular are vandalising the Post Office network by announcing the end of the cash payment of benefits at post offices? Is the Minister aware of the figures from the Post Office that show that the rate of closure of post offices since the election is running at one a day, and that the rate has been accelerating in recent months? Is he aware of the economic and social damage being caused to those small businesses and their customers in urban areas as well as rural districts throughout the country? When will the Government stop talking about social responsibility and inclusiveness and giving us all that waffle when in practice they are doing the direct opposite by closing the vital network of businesses and post offices on which so many people rely?

That was a frivolous question on a very important subject. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his turn to be shadow spokesman on trade and industry for the next few months. Let me explain to him that the closure of post offices is important to all Members of the House. Some 25 per cent. of the network has disappeared in the past 20 years. In 1980 the previous Government—I do not criticise them for it—introduced payment of benefits through ACT for the first time. There was a record number of closures five years later. The Conservative Government extended ACT in 1990. There were record closures—479—again in 1992.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman will get his chance in a minute.

Order. Perhaps I can be diplomatic by saying that it was a very good question and a very good answer, but both of them should have been shorter.

I wish it had been an answer to the question I actually put. We do not need to be told how important the issue is. The Minister tried to be patronising to me and—by implication—to all the sub-postmasters in the country, whose livelihoods are at stake because of this issue. He then tried to claim that the closure programme was larger under the Conservatives. I remind him that, according to the Government's own figures—I hope that he will not try to deny them—the rate of closure has tripled; it has gone up threefold if we compare the last year of our Administration with this year. The closure rate has accelerated—it is running at more than one a day—and all the Government do is dither. It was we who introduced the idea of wiring up the post offices and the Labour Government who abolished—

Order. I am certainly not going to allow a speech—[Interruption.] Will the Minister answer the question? [Interruption.] The question was far too long. I would say the same to Back Benchers—

My contribution was not as long as the Minister's.

Order. I made the ruling; it must be shorter. A short reply would be appreciated.

In rural areas, the number of closures at the half-year stage is down by 10 per cent. There is a worrying increase in urban areas, which we are addressing. The provisions of the PIU report will be brought in exactly as the report recommended.

If he will estimate the cost to small retailers of changing over to the euro. [133888]

The cost to retailers will depend upon the detailed approach that they take to any changeover.

How much has been allocated for conversion preparations in the DTI's own three-year spending plans? When exactly should small retailers begin to prepare?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of retailers preparing for any changeover; that will allow the British people to make a genuine choice as to whether they want to join a single European currency. Only the Labour party offers the people that choice; the Conservatives would not give the British people that choice.

What benefits does my right hon. Friend anticipate would come from trading in a common currency rather than in different currencies? Does he estimate that those benefits would outweigh the costs of conversion?

The Government have made it clear that, in principle, we would join a successful single currency for three principal reasons: the benefits that would come from improved trade; the transparency of costs; and the currency stability that would clearly result from being part of a single currency. Those are the reasons why we are keeping the option open; why we have a policy of prepare and decide; and why we are prepared to give the people of this country a genuine choice—[Interruption.] I agree that the Liberal Democrats hold the same position. However, the Conservatives do not; they want to deny choice to the British people—the Conservatives are not prepared to hold effective discussions about the realities.

The cost of changing over to the euro will not be merely a matter of amending invoices and tills. If the exchange rate is fixed, other economic variables—such as labour costs, taxation and prices—will have to take the strain, as the economies of other countries behave differently. Small businesses will feel that strain much more than big ones. What estimate has the DTI made of the extent to which, for instance, an inappropriate interest rate will hurt small retailers or of how much more volatile other economic variables will turn out to be if the European exchange rate is fixed? How does that climate of much higher risk for small businesses fit in with the Chancellor's five fatuous tests?

The economic conditions must be right before we would recommend to the British people joining a single currency, and we have said very clearly that we will test those five economic conditions early in the next Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the important issue of those important conditions. Unfortunately, he failed to raise the constitutional issues, which I know concern him greatly, which is why he actually said during "Any Questions" on 20 October, "I have no intention whatsoever of voting in favour of the euro". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]. I see that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who leads from the Conservative Front Bench on trade and industry matters—I welcome him to his new position—shares that view: he would not vote in favour. I wonder how on earth that can be reconciled with the official policy of the Conservative party?

How many people are employed in the United Kingdom's shipbuilding and ship repairing industry; and what was the comparable figure in (a) 1980 and (b) 1990. [133889]

The information is not available for the dates requested but it is available for 1981, 1991 and 1998. The data are available only for Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.

I know that the Government are doing their best to stop the dreadful decline in shipbuilding jobs, but might I point out to my hon. Friend that the premature withdrawal of the European Union's operating aid will badly harm the industry and those employed in it? I hope that he will agree to meet a delegation of Members from shipbuilding constituencies to discuss that before the Industry Council meets on 4 December. The aid is not even a pittance when compared with the money given by Brussels to the farming industry, and other European Union member states want to retain the aid.

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have discussed the matter at the Shipbuilding Forum. It is worth mentioning that, for the first time in the history of this maritime nation, the present Government have created a forum for the industry, the unions and Government to sit around the same table.

I appreciate that the figures refer only to Great Britain, but we welcome the development of recent weeks, which has given some hope to shipbuilding throughout the United Kingdom. What discussions are going on with the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that we have the trained personnel who can continue the traditions of British shipbuilding?

That is an important point. The problems in the shipbuilding industry stem from many issues, but productivity is central; and the skills of the work force, and ensuring that those skills are kept up to date with new technologies, are crucial. That is why we gave a £2.8 million grant to a link research project, whereby we work in line with the DFEE, whose representatives attend the Shipbuilding Forum that we have set up. We are working with that Department and others to ensure that the industry has the skilled personnel that it needs to face the challenges of the 21st century.

What progress he has made on the implementation of the clothing and textiles strategy. [133890]

There is a general consensus that the Government have made much progress on the implementation of those elements of the strategy picked up in the 12-point plan that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), announced to coincide with the launch of the working party's full strategy document. About 50 recommendations are in the report and the rest are being dealt with by a special unit in the DTI.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and—before I start my moan—I wish to say that it is a welcome document and one for which we have waited 20 years. However, will he recognise the frustration and anger felt by textile workers—particularly those in Shepshed in my constituency where nearly 800 jobs were lost over the summer—at the fact that only £15 million is attached to the strategy when the 6,000 farmers in Leicestershire are entitled to £30 million a year from the set-aside programme to sit on their hands doing nothing? Will he take the message that we cannot wait any longer for the implementation of the strategy throughout the country—and especially in the east midlands—and that extra resources are required to make things happen on the ground?

I understand the frustration that my hon. Friend feels. The problem is managing change, and 20 years ago we should have set in train a strategy to manage change in the industry so that it could move up the value-added chain to where the worthwhile jobs and the real wealth creation are. The Government want to assist the industry and we have sat down with it to evaluate its problems. We are addressing the issues of improving skills and developing the supply chain to help to ensure that this country exports much more effectively. Unfortunately, that does not happen overnight, but we will work with the industry to manage the change effectively. However, I understand my hon. Friend's frustration.

Does the Minister accept that any successful textile strategy for the future depends on stable global export markets? Does he acknowledge that the cashmere industry in south-east Scotland still faces a threat of penal United States tariff sanctions in the margins of the on-going banana war? Will his Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continue—I acknowledge the good work that Ministers have done so far—their efforts to try to bring an early end to the constant uncertainty and threat that hangs over the cashmere industry in Scotland?

I congratulate the industry to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It has increased its sales to the United States from £18 million to £21 million, and that is why it is important to the people who work in the industry that the list on the carousel is not used. In fact, the carousel is a symptom and not a cause. The cause of the problem is the banana war and we are trying to resolve it by exerting strong pressure on the European Commission and the Americans to encourage them to come to an agreement. We would then dispense with the whole carousel. The hon. Gentleman knows that, when cashmere was listed on the carousel, we made strong representations, and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made them directly. To some extent we were successful, but the listing is a symptom. We must deal with the cause of the problem.

In my constituency those mill owners who have asked the DTI for help have been very impressed with the quality and speed with which they have received it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of mill owners tell me that that they have never received help from any Government and that they do not believe that any Government are interested in them. How will my right hon. Friend make sure that the textile strategy is understood by mill owners and that they use the strategy that is available to them to help them to export their goods and to ensure that the industry grows?

My hon. Friend knows that the national strategy was developed genuinely within the industry. Therefore, employers are involved. I hope that those who are on the committee developing the strategy represent the whole manufacturing sector in the textile industry. I hope that dialogue is taking place, but if increased communication is necessary in parts of the industry, my hon. Friend can write to me and I will try to address the issues.

Does the Minister agree that manufacturing and retailing consultancy-based projects have not worked? We should direct more resources towards design and technology to achieve the added value to which he referred. Will he have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the possibility of increasing initial allowances so that companies can reinvest in equipment? One machine normally costs about £100,000 and that is a serious problem. In Hinckley in my constituency, companies are considering investing in new equipment, but they think that more should be done to help them to write off that investment in the first couple of years.

All tax issues are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I have no doubt that his remarks will be passed on to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman is right about training. There must be retraining if we are to increase the value-added element. In that context, the cashmere industry is a model. It has brought in new designers and it is developing the skills base, which has increased the real value-added element in that sector of the industry.

Does the Minister recall that the Secretary of State responded to a similarly planted question in June in an equally optimistic manner? To the uninformed, this could almost be a success story. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not come clean and tell the House and the country that since the Government have been in power, more people in the textile industry have lost their jobs than the numbers of those employed in the shipping industry? We discover from the Library and the Textile Institute that 30,000 jobs were lost last year, which is equivalent to 10 per cent. of those employed in the industry. This year, job losses run at more than 17,000 to the end of July. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Labour Members may not like hearing the truth. When will the Government accept that their handling of the exchange rate, their burdens on business and their stealth taxes are costing jobs in the textile industry, and that there is no other reason for those job losses?

That question shows the shallowness of Opposition Members' thinking. We are trying to restructure the industry, given the legacy of the previous Administration. For the first time for 20 years, we have brought the industry together to examine structural weaknesses. The neglect of the Conservative Administration has led to the redundancies. The industry has welcomed the Government's approach of new thinking, a move into the 21st century and providing real stability for the first time in a long time.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the regulatory framework upon the operation of fibre optic cable companies. [133891]

The Government believe that the current overall regulatory framework provides a sound basis for protecting the environment while safeguarding the legitimate interests of public utilities.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he recognise that the majority of transatlantic fibre optic cables have landed in my constituency, with all the associated infrastructure, and that local people see virtually no protection from the Telecommunications Act 1984, which enables the giving of 25-year licences to wave after wave of companies whose cables cross through the area? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that people's lives and livelihoods have been blighted and that the planning system and the landscape have been compromised? Does he accept that there is an urgent need to review regulations that have not kept pace with technological development and commercial exploitation?

I readily acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have suffered greatly during the process. The Government fully acknowledge the real concerns about the localised but significant disruption that has taken place. We are pressing the industry voluntarily to improve its performance. There are various initiatives within the street works community, including those to encourage best practice and co-ordination within the industry. We shall back those initiatives with greater powers to enable action to be taken where the industry's response is inadequate, particularly by putting in place a charging system for utilities that take too long to carry out street works by implementing section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.

The Minister will know that the change in regulations to the telecommunications industry were taken out of the Utilities Bill when the Government halved their proposals during the Session. A White Paper is coming forward, which has been promised for many years. When will it be published, and when does the hon. Gentleman expect the Government to bring forward legislation to introduce a new regulatory framework for the telecommunications and multi-media industry?

That White Paper will be published before Christmas, and we will introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

If he will make a statement about his discussions with Ford on their plans for the future of Land Rover. [133892]

We have regular discussions with Ford covering the whole range of its activities in the UK, including Land Rover. As a result of these discussions, I am confident that Land Rover will continue to build on its existing worldwide reputation, and that it is well positioned to achieve new record levels of production and sales.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that many people in Solihull think that entering the Ford family may be the best thing that could have happened to Land Rover? I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention Land Rover's training plans—which involve visits to Ford, Volvo and Jaguar sites for about 2,000 members of the work force and are aimed at improving quality and production—and its interesting proposals to give the work force personal off-road driving experience. I invite the Minister to join me in congratulating the company.

I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Ford on that initiative.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Land Rover is supplied with engines by the Powertrain plant at Longbridge, which also supplies engines to MG Rover, and that that plant remains owned by BMW, which has indicated that it may wish to sell it. In the light of what happened earlier this year, will my hon. Friend join me in saying to BMW that as it makes decisions about the future of the Powertrain plant which supplies engines to Land Rover, it should bear in mind the long-term interests of the west midlands and manufacturing industry, and should show that, unlike the Conservative party, it has an interest in the long-term future of the west midlands?

Powertrain indeed provides engines to the Solihull plant. I am happy to confirm the Government's agreement with my hon. Friend that we should seek to keep in the UK as many of those manufacturing jobs as possible. We will watch carefully the situation that he describes.

What recent consultations he has held with small business representatives on administrative and compliance burdens. [133893]

I meet with small business representatives on a regular basis.

Although there may be some legitimate room for disagreement between us as to the appropriateness and even the cost of the additional regulatory burdens imposed by the Government across the whole of business, does the Secretary of State agree that, at least in relation to the smaller business, whatever administrative burdens affect the bigger business are magnified many times over, and therefore have an entirely disproportionate administrative effect? Has he noticed, for example, the recent alarming escalation in the number of unfair dismissal claims, and is he not a little concerned about that and all the other problems that small employers and small businesses feel that they are facing?

I broadly agree with the general direction of the hon. Gentleman's question. There is no doubt that successive Governments have not done enough to realise the impact of regulations introduced by Government on business in general, and more particularly on small business. Particular demands made on the small business community need to be reflected in our approach. I was pleased that we adopted a different approach, for example, in relation to stakeholder pensions for businesses employing fewer than five people. That will make a real difference. Increasingly, we will need to reflect that more generally in our approach to regulation and related matters.

Will my right hon. Friend give his assessment of the likely burden on business, especially small businesses, if the so-called fuel protesters attempt to repeat the reckless behaviour that they visited on the country in September?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The House should recognise the consequences of the fuel disruption that took place during the second week of September. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who chairs the fuel taskforce, will make a detailed statement on the matter in a few minutes' time: The House should be aware that many businesses, including many small businesses, were in grave financial difficulties and close to going under as a result of the action taken in September.

Can the Secretary of State tell us which of the 23 proposed directives listed in the European social agenda document that the Government endorsed yesterday will reduce burdens on business?

Some of them will reduce burdens on business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which ones?"] The right hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that there is a clear distinction between the Conservative party and the Government. [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will listen to this, because the distinction is important. In the Conservative party, "cutting red tape" is code for cutting basic standards in the workplace. When the Tories talk about cutting red tape, they are talking about attacking the national minimum wage. They are talking about attacking better maternity provisions and the right to paid holidays. They are talking about attacking working parents who are trying to balance holding down a job with being a good parent.

What progress is being made in the development of the Small Business Service. [133895]

The Small Business Service has been in place for seven months, and is making excellent progress. Largely as a result of its work, the Paymaster General and I can announce today that from April next year the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise will change the way in which they deal with companies in financial difficulty. They will use Crown preference to help viable companies through a difficult period by sympathetic consideration of company voluntary agreements. Given that 20 per cent. of all compulsory insolvency cases are currently initiated by the Revenue and by Customs and Excise, the new approach will potentially benefit thousands of small businesses, allowing them to overcome short-term difficulties.

I welcome that information. I also welcome the recent award of a franchise to the Small Business Service in Northamptonshire, as, I am sure, will the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).

The new agreements that we are announcing today will be able to respond much more sympathetically to exactly those circumstances. As I have said, one in five actions in compulsory insolvency cases are currently initiated by Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue, but I think that that will change as a result of the new measures.

Will the SBS report to the Secretary of State on the impact of IR35 on professional contractors? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to a recent poll, although 85 per cent. of those contractors may have voted Labour at the last election, only 3 per cent. intend to vote Labour again? Why have he and his Department characterised people who provide a vital service in our economy as tax dodgers, when all they want to do is accumulate money to enable their businesses to grow?

I am not sure that those people have been described as tax dodgers. As for IR35, we have always said that people should pay tax in a fair way, and that is the approach that we have adopted. I am sure that the Small Business Service will talk to those who may be affected by the changes. The service provides a voice for small business at the heart of Government, and I am sure that it will make its views known effectively.

What action he is taking to reduce the number of injuries caused by fireworks. [133894]

We have jumped backwards now, Mr. Speaker, from question 9 to question 8.

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he and his Department are doing to reduce the number of injuries caused by fireworks each year. I urge him to consider tighter regulations to restrict sales to organised events only, and thus end the annual ritual whereby hundreds of people suddenly go into their backyards and play with explosives. Every year hundreds of people are maimed and disfigured; sometimes there are fatalities. It is time to take tougher action to reduce those numbers.

Obviously fireworks provide a great deal of entertainment for people, because 100 million were sold last year. We would encourage people who are unhappy about buying and letting off fireworks to go to professionally organised displays, but we do not believe that there is a case for a total ban on the retail sale of fireworks. We have legislated to reduce the public's access to more powerful fireworks, but a complete ban could encourage a black market, or lead to people making devices or importing fireworks illegally.

Given that the 1997 regulations prohibit the supply of fireworks of erratic flight—mini rockets, aerial shells, aerial maroons, maroons in mortar and shells in mortar—does the Under-Secretary agree that before considering the extension of those regulations, which the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) favours, it would be preferable if he could first tell us what evidence he has adduced of compliance with them?

As the hon. Gentleman is such a jumping cracker, I am surprised that he forgot to mention squibs. As he knows, the rate of accidents has been decreasing since 1994. I believe that the regulations are working well and that we should keep them.

If he will make a statement on the latest position as regards miners' compensation claims. [133898]

With £170 million spent on vibration white finger and £80 million on respiratory diseases, the total payment made by the Government in miners' compensation is more than £250 million. None the less, my hon. Friend is aware of the frustration that I have felt at the slow progress of payment for respiratory diseases. I am therefore happy to report considerable improvements in recent weeks.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply, and for the extra medical centres in Ystrad Mynach and Ammanford in south Wales, which we hope will be up and running before Christmas. Will she consider setting up a new office in south Wales for IRISC, the claims handling arm of the DTI, as there is considerable local demand for one? There are offices in Sheffield and Edinburgh, but a quarter of the claims are made in south Wales. Will she look carefully at the possibility of setting up an office there?

Certainly I have no problem with the idea of IRISC setting up an office in south Wales. We must do whatever it takes to get the claims processed. It may help my hon. Friend if I tell him that in Wales alone, £24.5 million has now been paid out in compensation, £18.8 million of that for respiratory diseases. However, for us to turn the offers that we are making into money in miners' pockets before Christmas will take co-operation between my Department and the lawyers. The Law Society has today written to solicitors throughout the country inviting them to seminars to encourage them to co-operate so that we can turn our offers into money in miners' pockets as quickly as possible.

I welcome the Minister's comments, and agree that the slow rate of progress on respiratory conditions has been frustrating. Will she particularly bear in mind the coalfields that were closed some time ago, such as those in my constituency in Somerset, where miners are older and suffer from exactly the same conditions, but may not have as easy access to the compensation mechanism?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point which also applies to my constituency, where the mines have been closed for a considerable time. If he requires additional assistance to enable him to keep his constituents informed, my officials stand ready to help. This is a complicated matter and I am anxious that everything possible should be done to enable us to pay the debt that we owe the miners, whether or not the coalfields are still in operation.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the delays to compensation claims—many of which she has addressed, which is most welcome. Some of those delays have been caused by the requirements for evidence under the handling agreement. Much of the evidence dates back to the 1950s and is not immediately available. As a result, many claims have to go through the full medical assessment process rather than qualifying for expedited offers. Is there any way in which we can relax the requirements for evidence in an attempt to make it easier to deal with more claims under the expedited system?

I very much share my hon. Friend's view. The evidential trail is quite considerable, and I have talked to solicitors with a view to cutting down the requirement for medical records. It may help the House if I point out that many of the miners concerned were working in the coalfields as long ago as 1954, and that some of the medical records are 1,700 pages long. I discussed with the solicitors means of cutting the number of records required, but they made the sensible point that to identify special damages for men who have been seriously affected, there really is a need for access to medical records.

The Minister may be trying, but she is not succeeding. Why has she not acceded to the request of her noble Friend Lord Islwyn that she resign because of her incompetent handling of this matter?

The House will note that there is posturing rather than penitence from the Opposition. The campaign to get compensation for miners started in 1991—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) laughs, but the Government whom he supported turned their back on the miners. We are acknowledging our responsibility to them—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position—

Order. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) wished for silence when he was asking questions, and I ask the same from him. He has a very bad habit of shouting across the Chamber and he will not do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know of my right hon. Friend's great endeavour in ensuring that a legal formula has been made operationally practicable. Prior to her work, that formula did not actually bring miners compensation. She has been an objective force in ensuring that the compensation scheme is extended to cover surface workers. Where do we stand now on the extension of compensation?

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. In July the Government fully accepted liability for surface dust, and there is now a technical issue concerning how much respirable dust causes emphysema, and how much dust was breathed. In view of the technical issues involved, the matter should be put to the medical reference panel so that doctors for the Government and for the miners can come to an agreement on the level of surface dust to be taken into account. Acknowledging our liability for surface dust was a major move forward.

If he will make a statement on Britain's trade within the EU. [133899]

The EU is the most important market for UK exports of goods and services and accounts for over 50 per cent. of total UK exports. The EU is also a major source of imports, which widens consumer choice, improves value for money and provides essential components that are then used for exports.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him to congratulate all those involved in providing exports of goods and services, in which we are moving into a position of strength? Will he confirm that about 3 million British jobs are involved, and will he give further information on a standard planning region basis—in particular, on Wales?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that about 3 million jobs are linked directly and indirectly to exports of goods and services to the EU. I do not have with me the statistics that he requires, but shall provide the information in writing and place it in the Library.

With how many countries outside the EU is there a favourable trade agreement?

There are a number of favourable trade agreements with countries outside the EU, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The EU does not debar this country from having trade agreements with other countries, and we are effective in making favourable agreements outside the EU.

Given that we undertake three times as much trade within the EU as we do with the United States of America, does the Minister agree that it would be contrary to our national interest to join the North American Free Trade Agreement? Does he agree that joining NAFTA would require us to leave the EU, and why does he think the Conservative party are now proposing that?

That is like a number of other red herrings that the Opposition trail across the political spectrum from time to time. When the matter raised by my hon. Friend was studied by the International Trade Commission in Washington, some interesting remarks were made. In a discussion of the UK's possible membership of NAFTA, which had been suggested by some Opposition Members, the ITC said that it would be insignificant for trade, as well as being a political non-starter. That description probably applies to the Opposition as well.

What plans he has to encourage the private sector to intensify its preparations for membership of the euro. [133900]

The second national changeover plan was published in March 2000.

The Secretary of State, and now the Minister, have failed miserably to answer the unambiguous questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and subsequently by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Given that the Department and Ministers have a prime responsibility to account to the House for the expenditure of taxpayers' money, will the Minister identify exactly how much has been allocated in the DTI budget for the expenditure of taxpayers' money on the changeover plan for the private sector, whether to support it or directly to subsidise it? Exactly when does expenditure start—or when is the private sector being advised that it will start—in support of the Labour Government's attempts to scrap the pound?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Department's priority at the moment is to ensure that British industry at all levels is able to trade with the eurozone countries, given that the euro is a reality in those countries. To that end, in September I announced the "3 Es" campaign, which concentrates on practical advice on electronic commerce, the euro and exports. The total cost of that campaign is £100,000. It involves the production of 50,000 CD-ROMs and seminars throughout the country, and has been much welcomed by the business community.

Is it not a fact that in areas of the country that depend heavily on the manufacturing sector, large manufacturers are already trading and dealing in the euro? They have to do so if they want to survive in the European market.

Sensible and prudent businesses are making the necessary arrangements to seize competitive advantage in dealing with the euro—and they are not in any way dissuaded from doing that by Opposition Members' comments.

We are not talking about campaigns and seminars. If the Minister wants a public debate on the euro, why are she and the Secretary of State keeping secret from the House the cost to the public sector of conversion? The work has been done on that. We know that it has. She does not know the cost to the private sector of converting to the euro. Why will she not disclose the figure for the state sector? What is she hiding?

The hon. Gentleman should try to do his homework rather better. If he looks at the preparations for the introduction of the single currency in the eurozone countries, he will find that no eurozone country can yet say what the total cost of conversion will be. I have seen estimates ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 per cent. of GDP. In this country it would be impossible to make a guesstimate, which is what the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest should be done. I suggest that he concentrate rather more on the facts and rather less on rhetoric.

What measures he is taking to protect consumers from rogue traders. [133901]

We are improving protection against rogue traders in three main areas: through better enforcement of consumer legislation, including e-commerce; by pursuing individual cases that are causing particular concern, such as the servicing and repair of cars; and through the modernising of consumer advice networks.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that he is very much in favour of the market—something for which I have some sympathy—but does he not think that it is time to recognise the consumer as the market? In that light, when is the injunctions directive likely to be introduced? What might its main effects be?

I believe that the market offers the best protection for consumers and the widest choice possible, which is better for them, but I am pleased that the injunctions directive will be introduced early next year. It will enable named bodies to take out injunctions in local courts against rogue traders. That will strengthen legitimate businesses and do much to protect vulnerable consumers.

Can the Minister help older people who are preyed on by rogue traders asking to tarmac their drives? They often have no comeback and could not afford an injunction through the court.

Yes, indeed. The vulnerable people whom the hon. Lady mentions will not have to take out those injunctions. They can be taken out by trading standards officers or other named bodies. We know, for example, that the Consumers Association has become the named body on the mis-selling of mortgages. We will enable such bodies to seek injunctions in court to stop those gangsters trading.

If he will make a statement on the role he envisages for regional development agencies in promoting innovation and investment in the aerospace industry. [133902]

Among the statutory purposes of the regional development agencies is the promotion of business efficiency, investment and competitiveness in their regions. In those regions in which the aerospace industry is significant, we envisage a close relationship between the RDA and companies in the sector on those issues.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the importance of the aerospace industry not only to my constituency but to greater Bristol, and, indeed, to the whole of the south-west? Is he prepared to say that he will encourage the RDA to support and to encourage not only firms such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, but smaller firms in the supply chain, which need that assistance and encouragement just as much?

I am, of course, aware of the historical importance of Bristol and the south-west in the development of the aerospace industry. It would be perverse if the RDA in that area did not address the very issues that my hon. Friend has raised. As a result of our support for the A3XX, we expect 22,000 new jobs to be created and 62,000 existing jobs to be safeguarded. That is a very important development for manufacturing industry in this country.