If she will make a statement on the prospects for the construction industry. [16469]

The prospects for the United Kingdom construction industry are good despite the present economic uncertainties. The industry has enjoyed an extended period of growth and most industry experts forecast that this will continue. The industry continues to benefit from the rethinking construction process initiated by Sir John Egan.

:I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware of the acute shortage of skilled operators for plant. What estimate has he made of the impact of the European physical agents vibration directive and, in particular, the European Parliament's amendment to the common position? What effect will that have on the industry, and what action is he going to take to defend the common position?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the use of vibratory tools and vehicles. Our position is not to support the amendment, which could in some cases result in only two or three hours' use of such tools and vehicles in a day. On the other hand, we must get a sense of balance on the construction industry. It does not have a good record on health and safety. He lifts his eyes heavenwards, but he should look at the statistics because many people are killed and injured in that industry, which is why Sir John Egan and I have made health and safety one of our top priorities, working with the industry to address that record. We should not lightly dismiss health and safety measures.

The brand new hospital project in Worcester is nearing completion. At St. Barnabas primary school in my constituency four dilapidated mobile units are being replaced by four permanent classrooms. I understand that such projects are taking place up and down the land. What assessment has my hon. Friend received of the impact that such work will have on the construction industry?

My hon. Friend is right. Record levels of investment are being made in health and education, some of which is going into construction projects up and down the country. I do not know the details of the specific project that he mentions, but a huge instrument in supporting that programme is the use of public-private partnerships. PPPs are justified because they offer value for money, make it possible to do so much more and, at the same time, generate tremendous activity in the construction industry.

Does the Minister accept the great value that self-employed construction workers add to our economy? If so, will he replace the IR35 legislation with something that really tries to tackle tax abuses in the system without unfairly impeding genuine people working in themn construction industry?

On this side of the House we believe in fairness in taxation and do not support devices to get around that. Of course there is a role for genuinely self-employed people in the construction industry, and many are in that position. However, we are much more sceptical about the role of companies that treat people as self-employed, relieve themselves of responsibilities towards those individuals and therefore use self-employment as a means of cutting cost. That is not fairness in taxation. It is also not fairness in employment.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the Harvey report, which suggests that there are 300,000 to 400,000 bogus self-employed workers in the construction industry? Is he also aware that that has led to a deep fragmentation of the industry? There has been an undercutting of health and safety measures, and 105 people died on construction sites last year. That might not matter very much to the Opposition, but it certainly matters to us. Will my hon. Friend undertake to review the construction industry with our hon. Friends in the Treasury, and consider bogus self-employment in particular?

My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. Self-employment has a role; bogus self-employment does not, and it is far too deeply embedded in the practices of the construction industry. It is undoubtedly one of the factors that leads to the appalling safety record which, as he says, is so lightly treated by the Opposition. I am pleased that the safety issue is being taken seriously in the rethinking construction process, under the leadership of Sir John Egan.

No one is sneering at industrial injury or vibration injury that is caused by anything from jack hammers to sewing machines. It was a Conservative Government who saw the beginning of a continuing process in 1994. The Government have brought us to a ridiculous position, where farms, factories, articulated lorries and forestry are involved. The construction industry will be ruined, and life will be made impossible for small family farmers. We expect the Minister of State to use the six-week conciliation period to go to Europe to sort out the problem, and stop the nonsense that is so damaging. It gives the European Union a bad name.

As it is a sworn role of the Conservative party in its current manifestation to give the European Union a bad name, whether fairly or unfairly, I am not surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments. I absolve him. I am sure that he takes these issues seriously. However, I can assure him that the response of Members sitting behind him does no credit to his party.

What action she is taking to assist the aviation industry following the 11 September terrorist attacks. [16470]

If she will make a statement on the progress which has been made in providing support to the aerospace and airline industries since 11 September. [16482]

This Government were the first to underwrite insurance for UK airlines and service providers after 11 September to ensure that the airlines could continue flying. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions is considering whether further aid should be offered to the UK airline industry. We have been in close contact with the aerospace industry since 11 September, and will continue to work with it to help deal with the impact of the terrorist attacks and to ensure a strong future for the industry.

My right hon. Friend will know that this has been a difficult week for the aviation industry in the north-west, with the announcement of further job losses at BAE Systems and at Airtours. May I draw her attention to the plight of 620 staff at FLS Aerospace at Manchester airport who undertake essential aircraft maintenance work? They were recently served with 90-day notices.

My hon. Friend is right to say that these are difficult times for the airline and aerospace industry. I share his dismay at the impact of the terrorist atrocity upon his constituents and others who work in the industry, particularly those at FLS Aerospace. I understand that the company is hoping to avoid compulsory redundancies. We shall do everything possible to work with it to ensure that as far as possible these highly skilled workers stay in employment. Where that is not possible, we will do everything that we can to ensure that workers who are made redundant get new jobs as quickly as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her response. I am sure that she will share my concern about the fact that there have been 350 jobs losses announced at GE Aircraft Engine Services at Nantgarw near Caerphilly in south Wales. Will she say what discussions have taken place at a European level about possible support for the industry?

I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern about the impact of the situation on his constituents and others at GEAES in south Wales. I understand that it is one of the world's leading companies in aero-engine repair and maintenance. I know that every help is being given in Wales to the company and its workers; my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Chancellor have both been in discussions with our counterparts in the European Community about what support should properly be given to the industry.

Will the Secretary of State make a full statement on 1,000 jobs lost in my constituency this week at BAE Systems at Woodford? Will she comment on the further losses expected at Manchester airport, especially at FLS Aerospace and Airtours? How far are they due to 11 September, and what is she doing to ensure that the skills involved are not lost to the nation?

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. We must all understand that the atrocity of 11 September and subsequent events have severely damaged the airline and aerospace industries. In north America, for example, there is a decline of 30 to 40 per cent. in passenger numbers; in Europe, the decline is between 10 and 20 per cent. We will continue to work with companies and affected workers to support them in every way that we can. However, I also stress to her that the aerospace industry in particular remains fundamentally strong. Despite the devastating job losses, particularly at British Aerospace, the longer-term future remains bright with new orders recently placed for Airbus, and Lockheed and its British partners securing the contract for the joint strike fighter. I am sure that she welcomes that as much as I do.

Does the Secretary of State realise that it is not just British Aerospace? The sudden announcement today by Rolls-Royce will lead to problems, particularly in the Derby area, where a huge number of job losses were confirmed this morning; I know that she will be aware of that. Will she have urgent talks with her colleagues at the Ministry of Defence to see if there is any way in which some of those announcements can be alleviated by looking at defence contracts? Will they consider whether the defence industry could have a beneficial impact on the aviation industry, particularly at this severe time?

The announcement this morning of the job losses at Rolls-Royce is confirmation of an announcement made some weeks ago following the events of 11 September. We have already awarded £750.000 million to the east midlands taskforce, to help particularly with the appalling effect of those redundancies in Derby and Derbyshire. I have already had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on those matters.

Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a summit for the aviation industry and those who supply it with Is she aware of the job losses both in Lancashire and among suppliers? What hope can she give them of bringing forward orders such as those for large aircraft, which will bring the work back? Work on the joint strike fighter order is far away; we need work now if we are to continue in future.

I am, of course, aware of the redundancies to which my hon. Friend referred. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and other colleagues have done everything that they can to strengthen security at airports and restore passenger confidence in air travel. Fundamentally, that is the best way to assist the industry right through the supply chain. Of course, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy and I will continue to work very closely indeed with the aviation and aerospace industries to see how we can support them in both the short and longer term.

If she will meet the Small Business Service to discuss the recommendations of the National Audit Office report "Better Regulation: making good use of regulatory impact assessments"; and if she will make a statement. [16471]

I am discussing the NAO report with the Small Business Service. I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking me to make good use of regulatory impact assessments. How about this: RIAs have identified that 94 per cent. of the costs on business result from two measures, the national minimum wage and the working time directive? The first is now supported by the hon. Gentleman's party; the second is one on which the Conservatives abstained in Brussels in 1993.

The Minister's typically complacent response to the serious recommendations of the NAO shows that the Government merely pay lip service to reducing the burden of regulation on small businesses, while that burden is increasing all the time. What will be done to ensure that the Small Business Service produces the report recommended by the NAO in recommendation 26. vii, and what action has the Department taken in response to the earlier recommendation of the better regulation taskforce that it become a champion of small retailers, who find that they are spending up to five full days every month dealing with Government administration?

The NAO put the record straight and commended us for using regulatory impact assessments to avoid £150 million in costs to business on one measure alone. Of course it is important that we do everything that we can to minimise red tape. That is why we have appointed a Minister with responsibility for regulatory reform in every Department, established a ministerial panel for regulatory accountability, and passed the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 to provide a fast track for reducing burdens and scrapping outdated legislation. The hon. Gentleman speaks with some authority on the matter. When he was a Minister in the six years after 1986, 18,434 regulations were passed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that small businesses are for ever complaining about the alleged burden of red tape? Can he update the House on the progress made by the deregulation unit in the Department of Trade and Industry?

Good progress has been made. Many small businesses do not have the resources—the legal and accountancy advice—available to large businesses. That makes it necessary for every Government Department to think small first. It is important to remind the House, as my hon. Friend has done, that a great deal of valuable work has been carried out by Government. That is perhaps one reason why Arthur Andersen research shows the UK as the country that provides the most overall friendly entrepreneurial environment, fostering growth companies most effectively.

The Small Business Service was set up less than two years ago to champion the interests of small business in Government. The Minister confirmed this morning that he will discuss the report with the Small Business Service. Can he explain why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State found it necessary to strip the Small Business Service of that role, leading directly to the resignation of its respected chief executive, Mr. David Irwin? Can he tell the House which crony of the Government his right hon. Friend intends to put in place of Mr. Irwin as the new small and medium-sized enterprise tsar?

The Opposition spokesperson is wrong on both counts. The role of the Small Business Service has been strengthened, and Mr. David Irwin, who has shown excellent leadership and ensured that the Small Business Service is helping thousands of businesses through Business Links and other Government measures, has informed me that he is serving out his full contract. There is no question of him resigning.

What assessment would my hon. Friend make of the impact of the Chancellor's speech on small businesses in my Stourbridge constituency, bearing it in mind that half of them are located in the black country—a very deprived area?

We must ensure that the communities for which my hon. Friend speaks enjoy the general economic prosperity. The Phoenix fund and other DTI measures are ensuring that companies get a chance to start and to grow in such communities. I know that she will welcome the simplification of tax for small business that was announced the day before yesterday, among other useful measures. The VAT simplification is helping up to 900,000 businesses, and the simplification of taxation for small businesses is helping up to half a million firms. I hope that all those measures will persuade more firms to locate in her constituency.

If she will make a statement on changes in trends in inward investment into the UK in the last six months. [16472]

The trend in the past six months has been for overseas companies, especially from the United States, in the aftermath of 11 September, to delay plans for investing abroad. That reflects worsening global economic conditions. Invest UK continues to register successes and receive fresh inquiries from north America and our other traditional sources of foreign investment in Europe and Asia-Pacific. We are confident that we are maintaining the United Kingdom's position and attracting more inward investment than any other European nation.

Sadly, I do not share the Minister's confidence. Will he explain to the House how, according to an Ernst & Young survey, the number of inward-investment projects coming to Britain has dramatically fallen in the past six months? Is not it a fact that, under the previous Conservative Government, there was a competitive advantage that this wretched and incompetent Government have completely frittered away as a result of increased taxation and more regulation and red tape?

We are all in danger of getting vibration injury when the hon. Gentleman asks a question in the House. He has not kept abreast of what has been happening in the global economy in the past six months. With regard to his question, the OECD report published only this week stated that the UK was

"better placed to weather the downturn than its other 29 members."

While I recognise the importance of inward investment—as a former economic development officer, I can say that my colleagues and I spent a lot of time trying to attract it—does the Minister agree that the vast majority of jobs in constituencies such as Loughborough will come from the growth of local firms and, in particular, an innovation and science base in places such as universities? What measures is he taking to ensure that those firms and other places receive equal support in growing small and local jobs? In particular, may I refer him to companies such as DataLink Ltd. in my constituency, an engineering firm that has seen 37 per cent. growth last year and doubled its work force?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point and speaks from some experience. We set out earlier this year in a White Paper our plans to help local businesses to develop the good ideas that emerge from our universities and translate them into good products on the market. In terms of inward investment, last year alone, Invest UK recorded 869 decisions to invest in the UK, which created 71,500 new jobs.

Does the Minister recognise that one of the major attractions of this country for inward investment is the UK offshore oil and gas industry for production and exploration? Does he also recognise that the maintenance of the current infrastructure in the North sea is vital to the success of that industry and to the viability and attractiveness of future inward investment, and that nothing must be done to close down prematurely any of that existing infrastructure or damage that attraction and the ability to get the full potential out of the North sea?

In general, we have had some excellent announcements recently about investment in the North sea. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy tells me that he would be very pleased to speak to the hon. Gentleman about the specific points that he makes.

The Minister completely failed to address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). The Ernst & Young study that showed the fall in inward investment is clear about what caused it. It points to declining competitiveness, rising costs and less flexible labour markets. The Financial Times has reported that, this year alone, about 8,000 jobs have been lost as a result of companies switching production to lower-cost countries overseas. Has it not come to something when even the European Commission reports that the regulatory burden in Britain is heavier than anywhere else in the whole European Union? Are we not now paying the price for that in lost business, investment and jobs?

I tend to think that behind that question is the suggestion that the introduction of the national minimum wage, and of the right to four weeks' paid holiday a year, is somehow affecting our competitive position in the world. That is just not the case. The previous Conservative Government had a pitiful record on attracting foreign inward investment. Under the Tories, foreign direct investment dropped to £7 billion in 1994. Under this Government, it had rocketed to £88 billion in 2000. We need no lessons from the Opposition on attracting inward investment.

The Minister is aware of the problems of the decline in manufacturing industry in my constituency, and I am grateful for his help in addressing them. Is he aware of the good news of the increasing role that small local companies are playing in my constituency—particularly innovative local companies that have gone from being small businesses to medium-sized businesses, such as Patak's, and Waterfields Bakeries? How does the Department propose to recognise and reward innovative good practice in small companies, and turn good ideas into business success stories?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of our main projects to encourage small businesses to innovate and be more creative is the SMART award—the small firms merit award for research and technology. I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend will release details later today of the latest 37 companies to benefit from the DTI SMART funding scheme. The SMART award has increased annual turnover in the economy by £2.4 million for every £1 million invested. It has boosted annual turnover and annual exports, and is part of the Government's commitment to help companies to turn new ideas and technology into prosperity and jobs.

If she will make a statement on the arrangements for making adequate financial provision for future liabilities for the disposal of nuclear waste. [16473]

Provisions for future liabilities for the disposal of nuclear waste continue to be the responsibility of the individual nuclear operator concerned, be that public sector bodies such as the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels plc, or private sector bodies such as British Energy. However, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House yesterday about the future management of public sector civil nuclear liabilities.

I am delighted that the tabling of my question prompted the Secretary of State's early announcement. Has the Minister seen any of the comments by Friends of the Earth following that announcement? It claims that British Nuclear Fuels plc was bankrupt and

"an expensive and highly dangerous liability".

From what the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, I would have thought that, by Friends of the Earth's standards, that response was fairly mild. Some people are irrevocably opposed to the nuclear industry in all its forms, and they will make their statements, comments and allegations. They certainly do not cause us to deviate from the course of securing a balanced energy policy for this country. The decision fully to go ahead with MOX was based on a report that demonstrated its significant viability and on the fact that most of the business was already in place. So I do not take those claims seriously. I believe that BNFL will have a successful future in the form in which it will operate, and I pay tribute to the work force and the management who, in recent times, have turned round many of the problems that undoubtedly existed.

I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Will my hon. Friend the Minister recognise the complexities of the nuclear industry and the need to consider its different component parts? The Magnox headquarters at Berkeley is in my constituency. Will he open his door, so that we can examine how properly to evaluate the way in which the industry should go forward from here? Such discussions are urgently needed.

The energy review being undertaken by the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit is under way, and the nuclear industry and the wide range of questions attached to it is only one of the areas it is covering. My door is always open for discussions. A Magnox power station in my constituency is being decommissioned, so I would be pleased to discuss with my hon. Friend the future of Magnox, BNFL or any other aspect of the industry.

Yesterday the Secretary of State twice refused to answer this question, so perhaps the Minister will do so now. Does he accept that there is no possibility of proposals for new nuclear development being made until the Government take a decision on their strategy for handling radioactive waste, whatever the PIU report says in a couple of months? How can he justify the delay of up to seven years proposed by the Minister for the Environment, which will prolong uncertainty in the industry and put a blight on it?

I certainly do not think that my right hon. Friend avoided the question in any way, but it is somewhat pejoratively posed. In our view, there is no sequential arrangement that nothing will happen in the nuclear industry until the waste report appears; nor do I recognise the figure of seven years. Clearly, it is desirable to get answers on waste in a shorter time frame, working both nationally and internationally, but no one currently is making proposals for nuclear power stations. However, they may at any time and they certainly are not prevented from so doing by the factors to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that yesterday's announcement on civil liabilities frees BNFL to become the world-class company that we all believe that it should be, secures thousands of jobs around the country and opens up the opportunity for BNFL to lever in other expertise and begin a real attack on the foreign markets, particularly in the old eastern bloc where there are billions of pounds to be made by exploiting British expertise in the clean-up of those countries?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Much of the thinking behind the statement that my right hon. Friend made yesterday involved ensuring that BNFL can get on with its business, that morale can be raised and that there is no shadow hanging over the company. On that basis, there is a great deal of interesting and potentially profitable work to be done. That is the role for BNFL, and it will enable the skills and excellence in the company to flourish.

If she will delay support for the extension of the MOX facility at Sellafield, pending the results of the energy review. [16475]

No. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced their decision on the justification of MOX manufacture on 3 October. The commissioning and operation of the Sellafield MOX plant is now a matter for BNFL, subject to the satisfaction of the relevant regulators.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he agree that, whatever our personal views on nuclear power, it is folly to proceed with the plant before the energy review group reports on whether the UK should have further new nuclear power stations? I do not know about him, but we do not yet know what the review group will recommend, and pressing ahead with the plant has already caused concern about pollution in the Irish sea. I believe that two court cases have been brought by the Irish Government, and, obviously, new possibilities as to the operation of the MOX plant have been raised following 11 September. Would it not be the ultimate irony if the energy review group recommended against new nuclear stations in the UK while the new plant is allowed to operate, manufacture and reprocess fuel for others?

I see no such irony. The case for the MOX plant has been fully tested and it was recently subject to an independent economic consultancy report, which found the project to be very healthy economically. Many problems that the hon. Gentleman claims to exist have been tested in the courts in response to an action by Greenpeace, which was thrown out.

Does my hon. Friend agree, in the context of the energy review, that if we are to focus firmly on security of supply as well as on environmental matters, it is essential for us to maximise the extraction of gas from the North sea, and also to push ahead with renewables such as offshore—

Order. The main question is about Sellafield. The Minister cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Both the thermal oxide reprocessing and the mixed oxide plants are to be transferred to the new Liabilities Management Authority. What will be the commercial arrangement between the LMA and BNFL for the operation of those plants? Will BNFL operate them on a management contract basis, with the LMA taking the risk, or will BNFL continue to shoulder any losses, although it will no longer own the plants?

The details of the arrangements will be in the White Paper to be published in the spring, but there is certainly a commitment to transparency. That is part of the reason for the establishment of the LMA: the aim is to separate historic liabilities from current and future liabilities, and to apply that same principle of transparency within the authority.

What steps she is taking to improve postal services. [16476]

We have given the Post Office greater commercial freedom so that it can improve its services and performance. We have established a new independent regulator, which has set tough standards of service for Consignia and is monitoring them closely. New licensed operators will also help to give consumers more choice and better services.

When I tell the Secretary of State that the Edinburgh postcode area recently topped the UK-wide list of complaints about delivery services, she will understand my concern. What progress is being made with the implementation of the conclusions of the performance and innovation unit review of postal services? May I ask her to intervene in the meantime, and ask Consignia to improve delivery services for my constituents?

I entirely understand and share my hon. Friend's concern. The service currently provided by Consignia is simply not good enough. The PIU report, which he mentioned, was more to do with the future of the post office network than with Royal Mail deliveries, but we are working effectively with the company to implement the recommendations. The "Your Guide" pilot, in particular, will help those using post offices to obtain information on a wide range of other Government services. That is going very well.

Does not that response show how far adrift the Secretary of State is from reality? Is she not aware that over the last two years there has been a record number of sub-post office closures? Is she not aware of the appalling industrial relations that have led to poor deliveries? During the last election, many of my constituents in the Watford area did not receive their postal votes. Is she not aware of the record losses of Parcelforce, which are hitting day after day? Is she not aware of the international competition that is coming along? Is she not aware of Monday's announcement of Consignia's losses, £100 million of which are operating losses? That is particularly important and worrying.

Order. That is enough.

I am not going to take any lectures on the Post Office's performance from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who had the opportunity when they were in government to give the Post Office the commercial freedom that the management and the unions wanted. If the previous, Conservative Government had done that when it should have been done, years ago, the company could have begun to get a grip on what are very deep-seated problems.

Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment in the half-yearly figures that have been announced? In some respects, she has anticipated my comment that the patience of many of us who regard ourselves as defenders of a public postal service is becoming severely strained. We require drastic steps of an even more far-reaching character than those that she has announced to ensure that the postal service can be successful in the public sector.

I entirely share my hon. Friend's view of Consignia's results which were announced on Monday. They were disappointing and reflect the deep-seated problems within the company and the challenges facing it in a rapidly changing market for postal services not only in the United Kingdom but across Europe. I am glad to say that, in the wake of the report by Lord Sawyer on industrial relations in the firm, management and unions have started to work together much more effectively. They have just renewed the commitment to a moratorium on those industrial difficulties. I have made it quite clear that we expect, and the independent regulator also expects, the company significantly to improve its performance. I hope that that is precisely what the management and the unions together will now deliver.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that one of the consequences of the disastrous losses being recorded at Consignia is that it will no longer be able to sustain by cross-subsidy the universal service obligation under which letters are delivered across the United Kingdom at a constant rate? Does she intend to intervene to ensure that the Post Office's social obligations in that respect are fully maintained?

I do not accept the assumption in the hon. Gentleman's question, but remind him that the first duty of the regulator whose post we created in the Postal Services Act 2000 is to maintain the universal service obligation. The regulator will ensure that that universal service is indeed delivered right across the country.

My right hon. Friend is right to take no lessons from Opposition Members, certainly on the issue of post office closures. However, although the action that she is taking is very welcome, there is a mounting crisis not only in rural post offices but in urban sub-post offices, which are under enormous pressure because of profitability and other external factors such as crime. What action can the Government take to ensure that we maintain a high-quality and well-represented sub-post office network in urban areas such as mine where that network is vital?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the enormous importance of post offices not only in rural communities but in deprived urban areas, including parts of my own constituency. The service delivered by local post offices to deprived and remote local communities is essential. He will be aware, of course, that there has been a welcome reduction in the rate of closures and that we are taking steps, including a formal requirement placed on the Post Office, to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures. We are also working closely with the post office network—for example, in the "Your Guide" pilot to which I referred in an earlier answer—to strengthen and expand the services that local post offices can offer and thus attract more people to them.

I am glad that the Secretary of State said that she believes in rural sub-post offices, but is she aware that many of those offices in Norfolk and Suffolk are threatened as a direct consequence of the Government's decision to pay pensions and other benefits by direct debit? Surely that is another example of a Government with urban-based values who do not understand the countryside.

That is nonsense and I regret that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the real benefits to be gained by modernising the system of benefit payments, including of course the reduction of fraud. We are working with Postcomm, as recommended by the PIU report, to ensure that financial assistance is given to post offices in rural communities to sustain that network. We have already invested nearly £500 million pounds in modernising the post office network and we have ring-fenced a further £250 million for support of the rural network and modernisation of the urban network.

I know that Consignia can work, because when a post office in my constituency closed, it acted quickly and reopened it within a week, following a campaign led by me. In Slough, one in six first-class letters are not delivered on the following day and there is no way that the Christmas post will be delivered. I met the local management of the Post Office yesterday, who at present are blaming its staff. The Post Office is not delivering for the people of Slough. What message does my right hon. Friend have for it to ensure that the Post Office locally delivers and that the post is delivered to addresses in my constituency?

I must congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of her campaign in getting her post office reopened. As I have already said, I entirely share her concern and that of other hon. Members about the failure in some parts of the country to deliver the post on time or indeed, in some cases, to deliver it at all. The responsibility is on the management and unions to work together, as they are now doing much more effectively, to build on the recommendations of the Sawyer report on industrial relations to take advantage of the commercial freedom that our Government have given them and to ensure that they deliver both the post and better results.

I invite the Secretary of State to rejoin the real world. Against a background of losses of £10 million a week, the consistent failure to hit delivery targets and truly dreadful industrial relations in the Post Office, does she agree with the view of the new boss of Royal Mail, who says that the second daily postal delivery is a "myth" and

"There is no such thing as a second delivery"?

I have already made it clear that we have given the Post Office the commercial freedom for which it has long been asking and which, I regret to say, the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported did not give it. It is a matter for Consignia to make firm proposals—at the moment, it is simply floating ideas—and the independent regulator that we have established will decide whether to accept those proposals, bearing in mind the statutory duty that we have placed on him to ensure that universal service s maintained.

What recent representations she has received from rural sub-post office operatives; and if she will make a statement. [16477]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry receives correspondence on a range of issues from numerous people working in the rural sub-post office network.

I thank the Minister for that most unhelpful reply. Despite the tinkering at the edges by his Department to try to ensure that the rural network of post offices remains, 929 post offices have closed in the past two years. That is twice as many as in the two previous years. That means that the Government's initiatives are failing, and I question whether they really want to keep those post offices.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do wish to maintain the rural network and I can clarify the figures for him. I welcome in particular the reduction in the rate of closures that we have witnessed recently—175 in the first half of this year, compared with 299 in the first half of last year. The Welsh figures may also be of interest to him. There were 13 closures in the first half of this year, compared with 68 last year.

I have represented my largely rural constituency for 22 years, and I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that post offices have always been under pressure. The rate of closure of rural post offices was far greater under Conservative Governments, when most rural services deteriorated substantially too. I am delighted with the Government's plans to ensure that rural post offices do not close as quickly as has been the case, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not underestimate the very big backlash that will be felt in rural areas if we fail in what we are trying to do.

I certainly accept what my right hon. Friend has said, not least in terms of the importance that rural communities attach to their sub-post offices. However, the contrast could not be clearer between the actions of this Government, who have ring-fenced £270 million to meet the challenge, and those of the Conservative party, both in government and out.

Order. I advise the Minister that it is not for him to tell us the policy of the Conservative party.

Will the Minister confirm that the date for the transfer of benefit payments to automated credit transfer remains April 2003? If so, when does he expect the systems for the Post Office card account to be operational?

I can confirm the timetable for the universal bank, and that a great deal of detailed work is being done on the specific issues of systems and of the migration strategy that will ensure a smooth transition.

What correspondence her Department has received in the past three months concerning claims for equal pay for National Union of Mineworkers cleaners and canteen workers. [16478]

The Department has received in the region of 250 representations on this issue.

I am aware of the squabble between Arthur Scargill and my hon. Friend the Minister on this matter. Arthur Scargill claims that promises were made by my hon. Friend's predecessor that have not been lived up to. The Government have said that the claims from the former cleaners and canteen workers were not submitted in time by the NUM.

I do not accept that there has been a squabble. The simple fact is that 1,300 claims were registered and have been met, at a cost of £14 million. Unfortunately, many claims were not registered. Sad to say, the responsibility for that lies not with this Government or even their predecessors, but with the unions representing the workers. That has left the ladies involved in a difficult position. I continue to meet them and to search for a rational solution to the problem. I have no doubt that the people concerned suffered unfairness, but my basic problem is that the claims were not registered.

I fully accept what my hon. Friend the Minister says, but there are a number of elderly canteen workers in my constituency who failed to get their compensation claims in in time. They see the colleagues with whom they worked receiving generous compensation, and it was not the workers' fault that the claims were not submitted in time. Does the Minister think that he could come up with a small amount of compensation to ensure that these people get a fair solution to the problem? It is within his power and he should do it in the name of fairness.

As I have just explained, in resolving one unfairness I would create another unfairness—unfairness to everybody else who has a tribunal claim time bar. There is no general power to waive the fact that no claims were registered. There must be specific grounds that would give a basis for these claims that would satisfy any accounting officer or auditor. We are looking at this and constantly meeting miners' representatives. I recognise the sense of injustice, but the fundamental problem is that these claims were never registered. Perhaps the people who failed to register these claims should begin to take some responsibility. I simply point out that the NUM has had a generous payment made to it for its administrative role in what would appear to be generally not registering claims.