What recent representations she has received about unemployment in manufacturing industry in the eastern region; and if she will make a statement. [9547]

I have received several representations. Manufacturing employment in the region is falling, as it is in most industrial countries, but unemployment in the region is down, and there are more people in work in the east of England than ever before.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her answer. Is she aware that many people in my constituency and in the eastern region as a whole see manufacturing as the silent casualty of the past few years? With the sector officially in recession, unemployment rising and Government measures such as the climate change levy beginning to bite, what personal targets is she setting to obtain some relief for manufacturing in this year's budgetary round? How does she intend to judge her success or failure on behalf of manufacturing when the Budget measures are announced?

Manufacturing in every industrialised country is going through difficult times. Indeed, in the past three months, manufacturing output fell in Japan by 4 per cent., in the United States by almost 2 per cent., in the eurozone by well over 1 per cent., but in the United Kingdom by only 1 per cent. Although many of our manufacturing workers and businesses are having a difficult time in the global economic slowdown, we are better placed in Britain, as a result of the policies that the Government have been pursuing, to withstand the global downturn—as the International Monetary Fund confirmed just a couple of days ago. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I will continue to work with manufacturing industry and workers to ensure that more of our manufacturing companies become and remain highly productive and competitive in the world economy.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one way to encourage even more employment opportunities in manufacturing in the eastern region, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is to encourage the development of new technologies such as renewable energy? If so, what further action is she taking to encourage businesses such as Shell and BP that have significant manufacturing businesses in renewables overseas to set up manufacturing plant here?

My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy and I have been working closely with those companies and others to encourage them to expand their renewable energy production in the United Kingdom. We are investing more than £250 million in renewable energy. We have created an incentive in the exemption of renewable energy from the climate change levy to encourage businesses to obtain more of their electricity from renewable sources. In the eastern region generally, we have the enormous advantage of Cambridge and other world-class universities, which are working increasingly closely with business and the regional development agency to ensure that the region is a centre of successful, growing high-tech manufacturing.

What does the Secretary of State intend to do about over-regulation, which is so damaging to manufacturing industry in the eastern region and elsewhere in Britain, and how should we measure her progress in that?

I know very well that when Opposition Members talk about over-regulation, most of the time they are talking about measures to give better protection to workers, including the minimum wage, which they opposed in the last Parliament, and measures on working time, including the right to four weeks' holiday. We are working closely with business and the Better Regulation Task Force to deal with red tape problems when they arise and to reduce the burden of administrative costs on business. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we have less product market regulation than the rest of the OECD, and that Arthur Andersen found in a worldwide study earlier this year that this is the best place in the world to start and grow a business.

What assessment she has made of the operation of the Small Business Service. [9548]

The Small Business Service is helping to build an enterprise society in which small firms of all types can thrive. Among its achievements in the first 18 months is the raising of £100 million for early-stage high-technology businesses. Other achievements are set out in the annual report, which is in the Library.

The Minister will know that the success of Milton Keynes is largely based on small firms coming to the area, supported by agencies in the public and private sectors. The business plan for the local small business service is based on that same ethos of partnership. Will he ensure that the local service holds to those commitments and give an assurance that the money will go to companies and not into bureaucracy?

I am certainly concerned about the underspend on operational costs in Milton Keynes, and I am monitoring the performance of Business Links. However, I am delighted by the quality of the support given to local firms that are badly affected by foot and mouth in my hon. Friend's area, such as Hot Air Balloon Adventures. The company informed me this morning that help from Business Links solutions was vital in assisting its survival and recovery.

I think that the Minister will agree that we all hope that the Small Business Service will be truly effective. Many residential homes in my constituency are concerned about the national minimum standards being imposed by the Government. The Small Business Service should act on their behalf, but in this case it has shown its ignorance of the Department of Health's consultation process. In fact, the official report of the Small Business Service to the Department shows that the service has been seeking business representation on a strategic group that does not even exist.

I am sorry to hear of any constituency concerns about the Small Business Service; it has given us very good service during the past 18 months. I am sure that better is to come and I am happy to take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments and to consider the matter. During the past quarter alone, the Small Business Service has helped more than 130,000 businesses through the advice given by Business Links.

Some small businesses are providers of services to people with individual learning accounts. Did the Department of Trade and Industry or the Small Business Service have any input in the recent decision of the Department for Education and Skills to stop taking new recruits for the ILA programme on 7 December? If so, was it not undiplomatic for that Department to send letters to small businesses telling them not to rush people into new, inappropriate accounts? After all, not all small businesses are run by cowboys.

I recently met the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), who has responsibility for that sector. We agreed that the help given to people should be constantly monitored, updated and improved. With the aim of improving the available services, I have certainly noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is also aware of the matter and is looking to ensure that an effective programme is improved and continues to provide a good service for all our constituents.

Will the Minister tell the House what advice he has received from the Small Business Service about the likely impact on small and medium-sized enterprises of the removal by the European Parliament of the concessions for smaller businesses in the information and consultation directive? That concession was brokered by the UK Government. Would it be too much to ask that in future, when the British Labour Government negotiate concessions in Brussels for the benefit of British business. Labour MEPs vote for them, not against them?

The hon. Gentleman gave us the position of the European Parliament, but there has been no change in the agreement on the common position on that matter. Indeed, I met Commissioner Liikanen last week in Brussels to discuss the strong representation that we and other member states are making to ensure that small businesses can thrive and grow in the EU.

What recent discussions she has had with the United Kingdom aerospace industry on the changes predicted as a result of the events of 11 September. [9549]

My colleagues and I are in very close contact both with individual companies and with the trade associations in order to understand and evaluate the effect of the appalling events of 11 September on the aerospace sector. We are already of course putting in place measures to help the workers affected by the redundancies that have been announced, but it is too early to predict the full impact on the sector.

My right hon. Friend will know that in Burnley, as in many places, we have lost jobs in the aerospace industry since 11 September. Will she confirm that the Government believe that it is a high-skill, high-value industry crucial to the future of our economy, and that they will do everything possible to secure its future? Will they also do everything possible to ensure that those people who lose their jobs can retain their skills for the advantage of the industry and the country in years ahead?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the aerospace sector: it is a world-class high-tech manufacturing sector. During the past three years, we have invested £1 billion in support, through Airbus UK and Rolls-Royce, to ensure that we maintain that world-leading position. I also draw his attention to the very welcome announcement a few days ago that Lockheed and its British partners have won the new contract for the joint strike fighter. That will be worth more than £22 billion in investment and orders over the next 10 years and will help, with further Government backing, to ensure that workers and businesses in the aerospace sector have a strong future.

Traditionally, at difficult times for the civil aerospace industry, capacity is utilised by appropriate increases in orders for the military manufacturing sector of the industry. The Secretary of State's announcement of the Lockheed Martin order for the JSF—in which we are participating—is especially welcome news. Can she make it clear that the Ministry of Defence will now sign a contract for the A400M aircraft that will ensure the continuance of many British jobs? That contract is especially important in view of the Italian Government's decision not to sign.

We will continue to work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the British aerospace industry continues to flourish and to meet the needs of the defence as well as the civilian sector. I shall certainly raise the hon. Gentleman's point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

The announcement of 1,900 job losses at Rolls-Royce in the Derby area shocked many local people. Steps are being taken to deal with the short-term implications of what we all consider a temporary setback for a great company. However, what steps are being taken to ensure that when the upturn comes, the investment that Rolls-Royce and other aerospace businesses want to make is located in the UK? Furthermore, what steps have been taken to ensure that the supply chains of that company are shortened and brought as far as possible within a UK compass?

The announcement of the Rolls-Royce redundancies was an appalling shock, especially for workers in my hon. Friend's constituency and other parts of Derby. We are working closely with the company and with colleagues in the Employment Service to ensure that every support is given to the workers who face losing their jobs. The Minister for Industry and Energy will shortly meet the Rolls-Royce taskforce to ensure that my hon. Friend's points are taken on board as we develop an effective strategy so that the aerospace sector remains competitive and employs large numbers of British workers in very good jobs.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the possibility of serious misuse of the public funding of £530 million for the Airbus project? Has she realised that, whereas in the rest of Europe industrial assistance is being spread throughout the supply chain, in the UK, all the DTI funding is going to the prime contractor, which in turn is demanding that all the British suppliers provide the full up-front development costs, putting them at an enormous competitive disadvantage? Will she investigate that matter and intervene if necessary, because there is a real possibility that large amounts of taxpayers' money will end up providing employment for Italian subcontractors?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are of course in touch both with prime contractors and the first-tier suppliers as we look at the impact—in particular of 11 September—on the aerospace sector. I shall certainly look further at the point that he raised.

The announcement about the joint strike fighter and the benefits that will come to the north-west from the creation of many thousands of jobs is wonderful. However, the supply chain is the worry. When we follow the supply chain back through BAE Systems, we find that some of the work is going to the former Russian bloc. I fear that that is uncompetitive and will disadvantage local skills and companies. Can my right hon. Friend help?

We are working with the aerospace sector, as we are with other sectors, to ensure that throughout the supply chain our companies and workers are competitive, wherever the competition comes from. Having considered the implications of the award of that contract to Lockheed, I understand that we are looking not only at £22 billion of orders during the next 10 years, but at some 7,000 jobs throughout the British supply chain as a direct result. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that news for the British aerospace sector.

What steps her Department is taking to develop electricity generation using wave and tidal power. [9550]

The Department is taking a number of important steps to develop electricity generation from wave and tidal power. We have supported the development of the world's first commercial wave power station on Islay, and we recently announced that we will provide further support to Wavegen—the company involved—for its most recent project. Earlier this year, the wave programme was extended to cover tidal-stream technology.

The Minister is no doubt aware that the Select Committee on Science and Technology concluded last year that the United Kingdom should establish a marine energy test centre. He is no doubt also aware that since then, research commissioned by the Scottish Executive and Highlands and Islands Enterprise has concluded that the best site for that centre would be in Stromness, Orkney. What discussions has he had with the Scottish Executive and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to move that project forward to the next stage? Is he prepared to commit any funding from his Department towards establishing the centre?

The announcement to which I referred about further support for Wavegen is relevant to the testing station on Orkney, because I understand that Wavegen will develop the technology for an offshore wave-power machine, which will be tested there. There is close liaison between those responsible for our UK-wide policy and those responsible for what is happening in Scotland. We work very closely with the Scottish Executive on all energy issues, especially renewables, and the funding will come from the DTI where appropriate, and from the Scottish Executive or Highlands and Islands Enterprise where that is appropriate.

The Minister will share the concern of Members who read the report in the recent Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology bulletin that changes to reduce the price of electricity have resulted in a decline in the amount of energy produced from renewable sources in recent months. Will he be particularly vigilant to ensure that in attempting to reduce energy costs, we do not score an own goal?

My hon. Friend's point is extremely well taken and succinctly expressed. There is a problem, but the new electricity trading arrangements are working well in their own terms. NETA has led to a significant 20 per cent. reduction in the wholesale price of electricity, but there is no doubt that NETA, among other factors, has had an impact on renewables, especially wave power and combined heat and power. That is why I have announced a consultation exercise on NETA's implications for renewables and CHP in its first few months of operation, but the rhetoric must match the reality, and I will be very interested to know about NETA's effect. NETA has many benefits, but we must also pursue and give substance to our targets on renewables and CHP.

May I make it clear to the Minister that the Opposition strongly support efforts to encourage the development of renewable energy sources, such as wave and tidal power? We welcome the measures that he mentioned, and those to which the Secretary of State referred earlier, but may I press the Minister on the issue that has just been raised? The support that he described is almost worthless when set against NETA's effect on the industry. As he said, NETA has been very successful in driving down electricity prices, but it is also driving renewable energy producers out of business. Does he accept that if the Government are to meet their renewable energy targets—rather than waiting for the outcome of a review or the consultation exercise to which he referred—action is needed straight away?

I am delighted to hear that the Tories now support our policies on renewable energy, because the reality is that they never did anything about it. If they had done so, Britain might have kept its lead in wind power in particular and we, instead of Denmark, might have a £4 billion manufacturing industry today. I am determined that we will not lose our technological lead in wave and tidal power, CHP and other industries that can contribute enormously not only to our energy policies but to our manufacturing policies. That is our objective, and it is why I am so determined that we shall not be diverted from those targets. We will study NETA's effect. Ofgem is an independent regulator. Its priority is to reduce the price of electricity, which is also a popular and successful policy, but we have our targets for renewables and CHP, and we must consider the reality of what is happening in the first few months of NETA's working.

Is it not the case that the European Union has now set a target of 20 per cent. for renewables, by contrast with the 10 per cent. by 2010 that we have set? Is it not now time for us to look beyond 2010, and to set higher targets for renewables in the years ahead? In the current context of international terrorist threat, will my hon. Friend tell the House whether he personally would feel safer living next to a wind farm or a nuclear power station?

I would feel extremely safe living beside either, and no one should suggest otherwise at this or any other time. On the wider point, I should like even more ambitious targets for renewables to be set, and those involved in the energy review are studying that issue among others, but I am not interested in setting targets that cannot be achieved, so if we set a higher target for renewables, which I would strongly welcome and support, we must do so on the basis of hard evidence showing that we can deliver. That is precisely what the energy review will set out.

If she will make a statement on the start date and implementation of the end of vehicle life directive in the United Kingdom. [9551]

The end of vehicle life directive requires transposition into national legislation by 21 April 2002. We are working to achieve that. The directive is complex, with far-reaching consequences for car and component manufactures, importers, vehicle dismantlers and shredders, material recyclers and car owners. It is therefore important that we get the legislative framework right.

Does the Minister accept that the lack of detail in her reply will be viewed as complacent by my many constituents who work at MG Rover, whose livelihoods could depend on the decisions that she is about to take? Does she accept that France and Germany have decided to implement the directive with a five-year delay on old cars? Will she promise the House today that that will be the minimum delay in implementing the Government's decisions on the directive? Does she accept that if she does not do that, she could cause bankruptcy at MG Rover, destroying the livelihoods of many of my constituents?

I assure the hon. Lady that there is no question of our putting United Kingdom business at a competitive disadvantage in transposing or implementing the directive. We will ensure that there is a level playing field with other member states. I also assure her that we have been consulting the industry on the possible implementation options. We welcome the views that we have received from the industry, and we are considering them carefully. It is crucial that we work together with the manufacturing and retailing industries to identify the best approach to implementation. That is what the Government are doing.

In wishing my hon. Friend well, may I say that it is important to take the right decision, rather than a quick decision, on this issue? Using expressions such as "level playing field" is unhelpful when we are talking about several playing fields. In particular, the Federal Republic of Germany's car manufacturing industry produces very different types of car from our own and has a different set of priorities in relation to end-of-life vehicles. Will she be very careful about what she says in relation to one country or another because the simplistic Eurospeak of level-playing-field comparisons is misleading and dangerous in such situations?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and his caution about the term "level playing field". I understand his point entirely, but I re-emphasise that we have no intention of putting UK business at a competitive disadvantage. I hope that he recognises the force of our views on that.

The Minister will know that the heart of the British car industry today is much more focused on the newer arrivals, such as Nissan, Honda and Toyota, which has its UK headquarters in my constituency. Will she reassure those companies that the Government will not allow the directive to require the newer entrants to the market to pick up recycling costs that rightly belong to a period 20 or 30 years ago, before they had a significant presence in our markets?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing carefully with the industry how the directive is to be transposed and implemented. We will continue to do that, but car sales have been at record levels during September and October, and the car industry is a flourishing part of our economy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the end of vehicle life, waste electronics and electrical directives and many more are being introduced for the good of the environment? Hon. Members will surely be in favour of that. There will be a lot of pressure from motor manufacturers to slow down the process. We want a level playing field, but I hope that she will stand firm on progress and say to the industry in this country that environmental enterprise offers us as a manufacturing nation a wonderful opportunity to take advantage of the new environmental climate in which we will operate. Those are real opportunities. It is not a lose-lose situation, but win-win, because we win for the environment and for innovation.

Indeed. I applaud the objectives that my hon. Friend set out. Those are the Government's objectives on both the environmental side and the business side. I remind the House that greater recycling of end-of-life vehicles will contribute to the Government's target to reduce waste going to landfill. We already recycle 75 per cent. of end-of-life vehicles. The directive will bring that up to 85 per cent. by 2006.

What plans she has to improve the quality of advice provided by her Department on manufacturing on a regional basis. [9553]

I am strengthening my assistance to manufacturing industry in the regions through increased support for the regional development agencies to raise innovation, enterprise and skills and by improving universities and industry links. We are taking forward our announced initiative to provide a manufacturing advisory service in England and Wales, based on provision on a regional basis. In Scotland, advice to manufacturing industry is provided through the enterprise network.

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware of the high unemployment in my constituency of Glasgow, Anniesland: it is running at about 6.9 per cent., well above the national average. We are seeking to encourage investment, particularly in shipbuilding in the constituency, and unemployment has fallen significantly since the Labour Government came to office in 1997. That success has been brought about in the main recently by the excellent partnership between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. What plans does he have to broaden that partnership to the rest of the UK?

The unemployment figure that my hon. Friend quotes is of course one of the higher figures in the country. I think it is worth bearing in mind that perhaps four or five years ago it would have been one of the lowest figures in the country for a constituency. That is how things have changed in the past four years.

Will the Minister tell the House how many jobs have been lost in manufacturing across the regions so far this year? Will he confirm that the recession affecting manufacturing industry started long before 11 September, although the events of that day will undoubtedly make the prospects for British business harder still? Will he explain why, when the Government claim to attach such importance to improving the competitiveness of British industry, the latest World Economic Forum league of international competitiveness shows that Britain has fallen still further: we are now in 12th place having been in fourth place just five years ago?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the remarks of the IMF on that subject. He would find a very different picture. It seems to want to talk Britain up rather than to talk it down. Of course, manufacturing has difficulties and they pre-dated 11 September, but as the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, the decline of our manufacturing output is less than in comparable countries throughout the world. The point is not simply to say that manufacturing has difficulties. The real test of a Government is what they do about it. Instead of standing idly by saying that it is all to do with the market, in every situation we are working alongside companies and sectors that are in difficulty in order to defend as many jobs as possible and at the same time to ensure that investment takes place. That is what we are doing in the cases of Rolls-Royce and shipbuilding on the Clyde, it is what we did earlier this week with the mining industry, where there were some difficulties, and it is what we will continue to do. That is what people expect from a Labour Government and what they get from a Labour Government.

The Minister is right to say that the test is what the Government do to affect competitiveness. Does he really believe that the competitiveness of British industry is helped by the fact that, according to the CBI's pre-Budget submission, business is having to pay an extra £6 billion in tax as a result of his Government's actions? Will he even now try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do away with the climate change levy, which, as the Engineering Employers Federation has said, is imposing an ever greater and disproportionate burden on manufacturing at a time when the industry is already in recession?

We can all play the game of quoting from the bumper book of selective quotations, but by any standard if we ask manufacturing industry whether it has a better relationship with Government than it did in the past, the answer would positively be yes. Of course, fiscal issues are always raised by any sector of industry. They will be considered by a Treasury that is well aware of the implications of any measure, but we have responsibilities to the environment, to employment and to ensure the economic success of this country. Any Government working from a Labour perspective will put those together and take measures that are fiscally appropriate and will not damage manufacturing industry. Those are our priorities. We are doing pretty well. That is why the electorate gave us the vote of confidence that they did.

What action has my hon. Friend's Department taken to encourage and assist regions to implement the national strategy for the textiles and clothing industry and particularly to allow it to move into new areas such as technical textiles? In order to show his support for the industry and the fact that it can have a positive future, will he consider visiting the wonderful millennium textiles banners exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall, which reflects the identity of the villages and towns in my community in Amber Valley and the honourable heritage of the textiles industry, which we hope to preserve into the future?

I do not like to organise my diary on the hoof, but I could perhaps combine that invitation with my meeting with the Rolls-Royce taskforce and visit what I am told is an excellent exhibition in Amber Valley. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is upstairs."] Well, I like to go back to roots and see where it all comes from.

The Minister may recall the advice given by his Department following the large number of redundancies in Marconi this June. Recently, that has culminated in a successful rapid response bid, for which I am most grateful. Unfortunately, there have been more manufacturing redundancies—just last week, a large number in an engineering company—and I hope that there will be further assistance. The matter goes beyond the redeployment package that might be offered. We have vacated sites in an area that has, in fact, a very low level of unemployment. I seek an assurance that the regional development agency, in its guidance and—

Order. There has been no question so far. It is not the practice of the House that a question should be read out in this manner, but perhaps the Minister can pick up on what the hon. Lady has said so far.

I welcome the hon. Lady's comments about the rapid response to the Marconi situation. Of course there will be more job losses in manufacturing. There is no doubt about that. The question is what we do in response. When companies have a future but there are short-term difficulties, government in all its forms, at local and national level, by working constructively with companies, can get good results, saving many jobs and laying the foundations for a better future. That is the approach that we are increasingly developing. There is to be a manufacturing summit later this year at which we will work up that approach further. It is not enough to stand by and express regret. We must be in there working and using all the tools of government to get the best result possible, often in difficult circumstances.

What steps she is taking to improve protection of consumers. [9554]

The Enterprise Bill will benefit consumers by strengthening the competition regime, introducing measures to take swift action against traders who do not comply with their obligations to consumers. The consumer credit review will ensure that consumers are adequately protected against unfair and exploitative lending practices, and consumer support networks across the country are making it easier for consumers to get quality advice and information.

Will my hon. Friend specifically address the issue of car maintenance and repair? Many of my constituents who come to see me feel most vulnerable in that area and often pay large sums for poor work. What guarantees can she and the Government give that they will be better protected in future?

I entirely share my hon. Friend's concerns: £9 billion a year is spent on servicing and repairing our cars and consumers are far from confident that they are getting a fair deal. Our proposals include the promotion of minimum standards of customer service, improving the effectiveness of codes of practice, and advice to help consumers feel more confident and better informed in their dealings with garages, including a good garage scheme.

But can the Minister confirm that over a quarter of a century has passed since the Conservative fair trading legislation:, that the previous Secretary of State's rip-off Britain campaign descended into farce, fiasco and failure and caused much needless offence to British industry; and that, despite a White Paper in the middle of 1999, we are unlikely to have legislation before next year at the earliest? When are this Government going to take the needs of British consumers seriously instead of relying on cheap soundbites?

The House will judge where the cheap soundbites are coming from.

If she will make a statement on the progress of the compensation scheme for former miners. [9555]

More than £600 million has now been paid out in coal compensation. Nearly 52,000 individual payments, in either interim or full settlement, have been made to respiratory claimants, and 64,000 to vibration white finger claimants. The schemes are expected to cost more than £5 billion.

I thank the Minister for the work that he and the Secretary of State are doing to make progress on this important issue. More than 2,500 claims by former pitmen in my constituency are still unsettled. One claimant recently passed away, and his family are still waiting for the release of his organs, so that they can give him a proper burial. Does the Minister agree that the system is still too bureaucratic and causes great distress to families? Will he consider cutting out more of the paperwork and making more approximate offers? Most people would rather have the money now, even if it is less than they are entitled to. Surely it is the least we can do, to give them some dignity in retirement when they are suffering from these terrible conditions.

I express my regret and sympathy to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent. One of the tragic aspects of this whole business is that, almost by definition, because of the medical conditions involved, and because most of the claimants are elderly, deaths will occur before payment can be made. I can never say that that will not happen. All that I can do is to give an absolute commitment—which I give—to minimising the number of cases in which that happens.

Order. I call Mr. Price.

I know that the Minister brings a deeply felt personal commitment to this issue. What can he tell us about the surface workers who were promised by his Department on 10 July 2000 that they would be eligible to make a claim under the scheme but whose solicitors have now been informed that that is no longer the case? Will he make good his original promise? Can he confirm also that claims over £50,000 have been called in by his Department? Does not that add a further level of bureaucracy and delay to claims from what are inevitably the oldest and the sickest miners?

I discussed that last point when I was in Wales earlier this week, and I am assured that it is not true that delay is being caused. We are dealing with the biggest compensation scheme ever anywhere in the world, and very substantial payments are being made under it, so we have a responsibility to check a sample of the larger payments, but that is done on the same day—it is turned around within 24 hours—so no additional delay is involved.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress so far in speeding up the claims, but plenty of former miners still come to my surgeries complaining of delays, and when my staff investigate—the IRISC people are very good, by the way—it often turns out that the problem lies with the solicitors, who leave offers sitting on their desks for weeks and sometimes months. They are being paid very generously by the Government for handling these cases. Is not it about time we had an audit, to make sure that we are getting value for money from these solicitors?

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. At the meeting in Cardiff earlier this week, one of the unions handed my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales a list of six cases in which there had been delays. When he checked those cases, he found that three of them were lying in solicitors' offices. That is where the delays were, and they are a practical example of the problem. However, solicitors are working closely with us and I do not want to blame anyone. All I want to do is get the payments made as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

I entirely endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). I welcome the statement of my hon. Friend the Minister that a breakthrough has been made on the issue of work histories. I urge him to redouble his efforts so that the worst cases are dealt with first. Will he also consider the position of widows who, in some cases, have been waiting for pay-outs on claims that have lasted for three or four years?

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we have recently reached agreement with the solicitors to prioritise the claims of widows along with those of the oldest and sickest. Inevitably, that will mean that estate claims and claims from younger miners and ex-miners will take a little longer, but I think that everyone understands that priority must be given to the oldest, the sickest and widows. If everyone accepts that and we get the system working, the figures that have been made available will clear a large part of the backlog that has built up over the past year.

If she will make a statement on her responsibilities for the regions. [9557]

We want every region to enjoy strong and sustainable economic growth. In pursuit of that goal, my Department sponsors the regional development agencies; we provide regional selective assistance and enterprise grants; we ensure that European structural funds support our policy goals; and we provide services to small firms through the Small Business Service and our network of business links.

All good stuff. However, can the Secretary of State explain why she and a junior Minister are responsible for the regional development agencies while, over at the Cabinet Office, the Deputy Prime Minister and another junior Minister are responsible for the Government offices of the regions and the regional co-ordination unit? A third Department of State—the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—has three more Ministers responsible directly for the regions. Does she not accept that having three Departments of State and seven Ministers with direct responsibility for the regions looks much more like jammed-up government than joined-up government?

Regional policy goes considerably wider than the economic responsibilities that I have at the Department of Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is leading the work that we are doing on the White Paper on regional governance and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is responsible for regional policy overall. The position is quite clear.

Given that economic development is such an important part of the Government's regional decentralisation programme, can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will work closely with the other relevant Departments to promote regional government in those areas that want it through a referendum, and that she will back up that process by continuing with a very active regional policy at national level in her Department?

Yes, I can. I share my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for devolving decisions as far as possible to the people whose lives they affect. I am pleased that, since the election, regional development agencies are now among the responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Industry. We are working closely with those agencies and with colleagues to ensure that we have the strong effective regional policy that we need throughout the country.

What steps the Government are taking to improve the competitiveness of British business. [9558]

Improving the competitiveness of British business must be a partnership between all those involved in business and the Government. For the Government's part, we have created a stable economic environment in which business can prosper. We have low inflation and the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that there have been a number of redundancies in our constituencies as a direct result of the economic impact of the terrorist attack on 11 September? For example, Grampian Foods in my constituency has laid off employees in the airline food industry. The Governments of other countries, such as the United States, have taken positive steps to support their airlines, so what action will this Government take to ensure that our industry can continue to compete on a level playing field?

No one should underestimate the events of 11 September, but no one should be in any doubt that, because of our economic policies, Britain is in a better position than other countries to weather any downturn. Steps have been taken to give us a business environment that has the lowest-ever corporation tax for small companies and the lowest starting rate in any major industrialised country. We have also reduced capital gains tax and introduced a host of other measures. Those steps have helped us to ensure that British businesses are in a better position than those in other countries to weather any downturn, to grow again and to compete in the world.

I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my view that price fixing and cartels are bad for competition in British business. However, does he share my suspicion that there is still a degree of price fixing in the British airline industry? That fact was confirmed to me only this week when I inquired about the standard fare between Heathrow and Glasgow and was told by British Airways that it was £162. When I phoned British Midland, its answer was somewhere between £161 and £163. Both airlines charge the exact same fare, so I encourage my hon. Friend in future legislation to strengthen competitiveness and to ensure that there is a proper investigation into what I believe to be price fixing in our domestic airline industry.

Of course, any price fixing is to be deplored. I hope that my hon. Friend will refer any evidence that he has to the Director General of Fair Trading.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) reminded the House that we had fallen from fourth place to 12th place in the competitiveness league, the Minister for Industry and Energy said that my hon. Friend was talking Britain down. The Minister added that he thought that we were doing pretty well. Can I tempt the Under-Secretary to agree with me that many in industry would say that that is a pretty complacent view?

My hon. Friend gave a robust and effective response. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has come back for more, but let me give it to him. Competitive rankings are by their nature very volatile. [Interruption.] I note that Opposition Members laugh at the fact that the United Kingdom is ahead of Germany, France, Italy and Denmark on the growth competitiveness index. If the hon. Gentleman examines The Economist intelligence unit report, he will see that we have made the UK the most attractive business location in the world. Those are the facts, and I am surprised that he should be so brave as to raise such an embarrassing subject for the Conservative party.

What action is being taken by her Department to improve employment rights in the workplace. [9559]

The Government have shown their commitment to minimum standards and fairness in the workplace with the introduction of the national minimum wage, paid holidays and many other measures. New rights to paid paternity and adoption leave, and enhancements to maternity rights, come in from 2003.

I know that my hon. Friend is very much aware of the great concern and uncertainty that is felt by many public sector workers about the arbitrary changes in working conditions before initial guarantee is given and the possible loss of pension rights in the transfer of an undertaking. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that following the consultation period the Department will welcome the proposals made at the TUC conference to strengthen the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981? Will she implement the recommendations as soon as possible once the consultation period ends in December?

rose—

Order. I should say to the House before the Minister replies that Members should not read from notes.

I know that my hon. Friend has a considerable and relevant background on these issues. I am grateful to him for bringing his expertise to the House, even though Opposition Members are mocking it. As he knows, the Government are consulting on reforms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. These reforms are designed to help the smooth management of any change by ensuring that employees know where they stand when a business changes hands.