What discussions she has had with representatives of the aerospace industry in respect of retraining of employees facing redundancy. [51995]

There are meetings from time to time with representatives of the aerospace industry to discuss the state of the industry and the role of Government. These discussions have, on occasion, touched on the retraining of employees facing redundancy, although this has not been the main subject of any of the meetings.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I draw his attention to the problems faced by the employees of British Aerospace in Manchester and elsewhere, and by those of the smaller companies based at Manchester airport, many of whom are my constituents? Will he pay particular attention to the need for liaison between the three Departments with an interest in this matter—his own, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions—to ensure that the skills of aerospace workers are not lost to the economy of the north-west during this period of downturn?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There have been severe job losses, particularly in the north-west. We work very closely with the DWP and the DFES, and we have provided funds through the new Jobcentre Plus rapid response fund to assist in those areas, as has the North West Development Agency. Our objective in such circumstances is always to assist those who have been made redundant to remain in high-skilled, highly paid employment and to keep their skills in the region so that when the upturn comes—as we are sure it will—they will be available to a very important sector of our manufacturing industry.

What steps she is taking to ensure that consumers receive a full pint in public houses. [51997]

One in five pints currently contain less than 95 per cent. of capacity. That is clearly unacceptable. On 18 March, we issued a consultation document to tackle this. We are committed to giving short shrift to short measures, and our proposals should guarantee beer and cider drinkers 60 million extra pints a year.

I am most grateful to the Minister for that positive, if not frothy, response. I would like to declare an interest from the past. I was, for 10 years, non-executive chairman of CAMRA Real Ale Investments, which then became Midsummer Inns before it was bought out and we were all made redundant by the new company. Is the Minister sure that what the Government are doing will ensure that beer drinkers receive a full liquid pint without having to ask for a top-up? The Campaign for Real Ale feels very strongly about this, as do those who support traditional pubs and brewers. I make no criticism of the smaller brewer, but it is, unfortunately, not untypical that too many people have to ask for a top-up in the beer outlets run by the bigger companies. Will the Government look at this again, perhaps a little more seriously?

CAMRA's loss is Parliament's gain. We have listened to representations from all the interested parties in this matter, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I spoke this morning to Hugh Thompson of Storm Brewing in Macclesfield, who welcomed the proposals in the consultation document. He is also full of praise for the 14p a pint reduction announced in the Budget, which will help nine out of 10 brewers—350 in total. Let me add to the hon. Gentleman's comments by saying that anyone who seeks to short-change Britain's drinkers will be left with a bitter taste in their mouth, because, with fines under our proposals of up to £1,000 per short measure and, in the case of repeat offenders, the loss of their licence and their livelihood, I think that we shall see effective action taken for the first time to tackle the short-measure culture.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are dangers in half-baked consumerism? If the glasses are to be bigger, we shall have to pay for those bigger glasses, and if the amount of liquid in them is to be greater, the brewers and the publicans will find ways of charging us for it. It will be of little consolation to beer drinkers if we end up drinking slightly more beer out of bigger glasses at far greater expense. Those are the dangers of half-baked consumerism, and many of us who like a pint of beer are very wary of them because we know that consumerism has rarely been recognised by brewers and publicans in the past.

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. That is why there is nothing half-baked about these proposals. They are for consumers and drinkers in Britain, and they will ensure that there are stiffer penalties than ever and that the equivalent of about 60 million extra pints a year will go to the drinkers and not back to the breweries.

I hope that that promise will be delivered. Will the Minister enlighten us about when he will deliver the promised licensing law reform rather than just the half-baked attempt on licensing for new year's day?

That is out for consultation and clearly there are diverse interests in the House and in the country on licensing laws. I hope that it is possible to reach a compromise that is agreeable to local communities up and down the country, which differ as to how much those laws should be expanded to allow round-the-clock drinking. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in cities such as Edinburgh, it is acceptable but in other parts of the country it is not. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

What the Government's response is to the performance and innovation unit energy review report; and if she will make a statement. [51998]

The Government will consult shortly on the issues raised in the report and will set out their detailed response in an energy White Paper around the end of the year.

The Secretary of State will recall that her Department has authorised the building of a long string of power lines, which has led to little Eiffel towers appearing across the Vale of York recently. Is she aware that the existing electricity-carrying pylons are operating at only 20 per cent. capacity, which means that the existing line is 80 per cent. surplus to requirements? Following the PIU energy review report, will she introduce legislation to ensure that the electricity generated is as close as possible to demand so that we no longer need those hideous power lines?

I am aware of the concern in the hon. Lady's constituency and elsewhere in Yorkshire about the north Yorkshire power line. Indeed, the energy Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), recently met her and some of her constituents to discuss the matter. We shall consider the broader point that she raises as part of the wider review, but the issues relating to the new north Yorkshire power line, including the possibility of running the cable underground, were examined enormously carefully during six and a half years of consideration and two public inquiries. Unfortunately, the costs proved insuperable.

I welcome the fact that the Government are to publish an energy policy White Paper, which I hope will make it clear that the future of the North sea oil and gas industry remains very important to the supply of the UK's energy needs. Has the Department made an assessment of the fiscal changes proposed in the Budget and their impact on the North sea oil and gas industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the oil and gas industry's importance to the future of our energy supplies, and of course that will be reflected in the White Paper, as it was in the PIU report. She will be aware that the changes to the taxation of North sea oil have been under Treasury consideration for some years. Although the increase in the special rate of taxation is unwelcome to the industry, I hope that it welcomes the inclusion of 100 per cent. capital allowances for investment, which is hugely important, particularly for the fallow fields, and the ending of the extremely unpopular royalty payments regime.

It is good news that the Government have decided that fusion should be part of this country's long-term energy programme. As the Secretary of State is aware, much fusion research takes place at the Culham Laboratories in my constituency. Given the importance of the fusion programme and the potential that it offers for long-term, limitless greenhouse gas-free energy, will she take steps to protect the Culham programme from the cuts that I understand are envisaged by the European Commission? Is it guaranteed that the fusion programme will continue?

The hon. Gentleman is obviously used to writing articles rather longer than speeches to the House of Commons, but he raises the hugely important possibility of generating power from fusion. The Minister for Science and Innovation has been pursuing it, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have increased funding for basic scientific research in our country by upwards of £1 billion to start to make up for the cuts made under the Conservative Government. Of course, we shall consider sustaining fusion power research as part of the future of our science research programmes.

In any response to the PIU report, will the Secretary of State ensure that the country does not depend on a single source of energy, such as imported gas? Will she consider the need for an EU replacement state subsidy scheme for coal, and consider in particular the important issue of burning coal in an environmentally friendly way?

Diversity and security of supply is one of the central objectives in the report, and we shall of course pay close attention to it when preparing our White Paper. Diversity and security involves not simply different energy sources—different fuels—but different parts of the world, including of course the United Kingdom.

I was concerned to hear from the Secretary of State that the publication of the promised White Paper had already slipped from October to the end of the year. When the energy Minister, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), returns, will she draw his attention to the fact that Greenpeace, Shell, the British Wind Energy Association, British Nuclear Fuels plc, the Coal Authority, the Carbon Trust, Friends of the Earth, the Energy Saving Trust, the Association of European Transmission System Operators, the European fusion development agreement, Slough Heat and Power, TXU—and myself, sir—are all waiting for a full debate in the Chamber on the PIU energy review?

I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman, and all the organisations that he listed at such length, that before the end of the month we will publish a consultation document specifying the issues on which we invite views following the PIU report, so that full consultation and debate take place before we draft the White Paper.

What action she is taking to ensure that broadband telecommunications are rolled out more rapidly in rural areas. [51999]

What steps she is taking to assist the roll-out of broadband infrastructure in Britain. [52007]

We set out our strategy for making the broadband market more extensive and competitive in December. Since then the market has continued to develop. Broadband services are available to over 60 per cent. of the population, and coverage is increasing. There are now more than 500,000 broadband subscribers in the UK. The increased take-up strengthens the case for a further roll-out of services.

Is the Minister aware that, according to information that I received recently, in certain parts of the Cotswolds it will take between seven and 10 years for broadband services to become available? Will that not create a technological apartheid? People in businesses dependent on broadband will have to move away from those areas, because they will not be able to receive it.

I am intrigued by the terms of the question. The advice available to me suggests that both ADSL and cable services are available in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Nevertheless, he has made an important point about how we can ensure that the services are rolled out.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the roll-out of broadband is a big issue in urban as well as in rural areas, particularly in places such as the valleys of south Wales, where cabling is not widely available? What steps will he take to ensure that there is joined-up public sector commissioning of broadband to ensure that we can spread availability, drive down costs and bridge the technology deficit in more deprived communities?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the first challenges that we faced was to ensure that we got an appropriate return for the public sector investment in this area. The Government spend, at all levels, approximately £1.7 billion a year on information and communications technology. One of the challenges that has been set for the Office of Government Commerce is to use that spend effectively to deal with exactly the questions identified by my hon. Friend.

The Minister may be aware of the helpful exchange that I had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on this issue. Does he now accept that, left to the private market, remote rural areas in the highlands such as my constituency will never get broadband? While I welcome the £30 million fund that the Government have set up, should we not do more to encourage it into those areas?

I welcome the initiatives that have been taken over recent months by British Telecom. A further two initiatives would be of importance in the hon. Gentleman's constituency: first, the actions of the Scottish Executive in taking forward their digital highlands project; secondly, and most significantly for long-term roll-out across rural areas, there is the interesting work that BT is doing with satellite provision of broadband services, which can achieve a footprint, not least in the highlands and islands of Scotland, that can guarantee a service for small and medium-sized enterprises, which is very important.

The Government's objective is to achieve not only universal affordable access to broadband—I emphasise affordable because the Minister has just mentioned satellite, which is not affordable—but a choice of diverse services to provide that access. With the failure of the broadband fixed wireless access auction, and the Secretary of State's acknowledgment to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that there probably is not a commercial case for fixed wireless access, does the Minister accept that even if ADSL roll-out is achieved in rural areas, no competitive access arrangements will be available for the foreseeable future in many rural areas?

No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I recently visited Northern Ireland and saw there the development of competition in satellite services. While I accept that satellite is at the moment very expensive for SMEs, in the months and years to come, we will see the price reductions that we are already seeing in ADSL services. However, his point about platforms is important. It makes the case that the Government have been advancing that their appropriate response is to maintain platform neutrality in the area of broadband. We have set broad objectives, but it is for the market to determine, working in an effective relationship with the Government, what the most appropriate technology is for those particular areas.

What progress has been made to secure exemptions for UK steel companies from US tariffs. [52000]

The Minister for Trade and Investment and I and our embassy in Washington are in regular contact with senior members of the American Administration to support our companies' requests for exclusions from the American import tariffs on steel. I am glad to say that the Administration have now agreed to consider new applications that are received by 20 May. We expect decisions on those exclusion requests to be made by 3 July.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the way in which the Government have tried to pursue all these issues within a strictly legal framework, unlike the American Government. That is much appreciated at the steelworks at Port Talbot, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), but which I can see from my living room window. Over the past 20 years, there have been huge reductions in jobs at that steelworks to keep it competitive. I urge my right hon. Friend to do whatever else she may have in mind to make certain that production of high-quality, competitive steel can continue in Aberavon.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Throughout this whole business, we have stressed to the American Administration that we believe that their action is completely unjustified and unlawful under World Trade Organisation rules. We are making absolutely certain that the action that we take with our European partners is within the WTO rules. I am grateful for his and others' support for that strategy, but the most important thing that we can do to support our steelworkers, apart from fighting the American action, is to maintain economic stability and support our manufacturing industry, which I believe is now on the verge of an upturn. That in turn will produce the demand that workers at Corus in his constituency and elsewhere so desperately need. We will continue to support our steelworkers and to make the case for our highly productive and competitive steel plants against this unjustified American action.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that Commissioner Lamy is meeting his opposite number in Washington today? Does this not confirm the benefit of Britain's membership of the European Union? If each of us were seeking independently to take on the United States, we would not have the benefit of operating as a European Union. Does that not show the good sense of the British people when they said yes to Europe in the 1975 referendum?

I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has said, although I am not sure that his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench or indeed the Leader of the Opposition would agree with him. If he feels like crossing the Floor today, let me say how much we would welcome him.

My right hon. Friend will know that in Corby we have a very efficient, highly productive rolling mill producing some of the finest tube in the country. Indeed, it was used to construct the London Eye, one of the major icons of the millennium. In Corby we are proud of our steel and our steelworkers and feel that the action by the United States is unacceptable, unlawful and unjustified. I thank the Government for the work that they are already doing, but if the negotiations on compensation break down, will they consider the option of European Union retaliation against the United States to force it to drop these unacceptable tariffs and allow our manufacturing industry, which is beginning to move into an upturn, to make the very most of the stable economy that we have created for businesses in this country?

My hon. Friend is right about the competitive excellence of the company in his constituency. The anger that his constituents feel about the American action was reflected among the steelworkers whom I recently met in Yorkshire. At this stage, our first priority is to get exclusions from the US tariffs for particular products and for the companies that have requested them. Only yesterday, I spoke again to Don Evans, the American Commerce Secretary. My hon. Friend and others will welcome the fact that Secretary Evans was able to tell me that, if products on which additional import duty has already been paid since 20 March are now granted an exclusion, the extra duty will he refunded.

My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the work of the all-party parliamentary group on steel in supporting the steel industry in Britain and on the representations that it has made on behalf of steel communities. Can she reassure the House that every effort is being made to make representations to the American Government to make sure that the protectionism and economic nationalism that their action represents will not spread to other industries?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are working hard and putting all the pressure that we can on the American Administration to persuade them to minimise the damage that has been caused not only to our steel industry, but to the cause of fair and free world trade by their unjustified and unlawful action. I am very grateful to the members of the all-party parliamentary group on steel for taking action on this issue, especially the recent representations that they made in person to the American embassy in London.

What action her Department is taking to target enterprise projects at disadvantaged areas and groups. [52003]

We are spending £170 million developing businesses in disadvantaged areas and among under-represented groups. The latest round of phoenix funding benefits a further 11 areas, including those in and around Bolton, Bristol, Dorset, Hertfordshire, Isle of Wight, Liverpool, London, Norfolk and Sheffield. It includes the city growth strategies to help inner cities, and the development fund for rural renewal. Similar schemes operate in Scotland.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 9 per cent. of the total land area in Glasgow has been designated an undeveloped brownfield site? Does he agree that Government action to prepare such sites for commercial use would have a significant positive impact on employment not only in Glasgow but in cities throughout the United Kingdom?

I wholeheartedly endorse that. On Tuesday, I visited one such site in Deeside, where this sort of development money is now greatly benefiting the local community and local enterprise. It is particularly important that funds such as those under the community development funding initiative in Glasgow go towards developing businesses. I know that such corporate venturing is very important.

Is the Minister aware that my constituency has the highest unemployment in Scotland? Will he clarify what is being done to ensure that people from my area can get jobs in enterprises that are supported by his Department over a wider travel-to-work area? What has he done in particular to help Pollok and Glasgow recently?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issues that concern his constituents. I know that he will want to join me in congratulating the Government on their tremendous efforts in cutting unemployment in his constituency, although I would be the first to acknowledge that more must be done and that there are no grounds for complacency. I shall ensure that he is written to with details of all the help that has been available in his constituency from both my Department and the Scottish Executive equivalent.

Will the Minister clarify the bid scheme that the Government are proposing to develop areas? On the face of it, it seems to be very good, but will it effectively deliver for businesses that do not have a lot of resources? There is concern that the application of extra business rates and taxes will be all right for larger concerns but not for smaller businesses, which could be overcome by bigger firms that want to spend more money and pay more business rates to revitalise an area. Will the bid scheme overcome that problem?

Looking at the mass of the company is an important point. It is obviously much easier to give 10 grants to 10 large bids than to do all the work that might be needed to sub-divide them into 100 bids. I know that officials at the DTI are well aware of that and of the need to help SMEs. I applaud the efforts that have already been made in that direction. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's words to their attention; we take them to heart.

If she will make a statement on the future of the coal industry. [52004]

Coal continues to play an important part in the UK's energy mix. Since December 2000, the Government have spent £141 million on the coal operating aid scheme to help the UK coal industry deal with depressed world prices and compete successfully with imports in meeting demand.

On the day that my right hon. Friend meets the chief executive of UK Coal and two weeks before coalfield Members meet the Prime Minister to discuss the future of the coal industry, will she assure me that the British Government will support in discussions in the European Union the concept of investment aid for the coal industry, which would for the first time allow aid to be used to access reserves or new faces, rather than largely being restricted to funding losses?

As my hon. Friend implied, it is not possible at the moment, either under the coal subsidy scheme or under regional selective assistance, for the Government to support investment in the coal industry. We are currently in negotiations in Brussels, as part of the discussion about the new coal state aid framework, to see whether it will be possible to provide investment aid for those mines for which it would be appropriate. We do not know what the outcome of those discussions will be, but we are pressing that case.

As the right hon. Lady knows, the European Coal and Steel Community treaty is due to expire in July. She also knows that Spain, France and Germany have said that they will continue with the aid, pending the new treaty in January. I urge on her the need to extend the aid until the new treaty is in place. The colliery manager at Bettws Ammanford rang my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) to say that he had regrettably been forced to open redundancy negotiations with his work force, so I urge the Secretary of State to rethink the issue and make an early announcement. The energy Minister visited Longannet recently, but he could do nothing to save that pit. Will she please intervene and save Bettws Ammanford while it is possible to do so?

Of course all of us bitterly regretted what happened at Longannet. We are just thankful that nobody was in the pit at the time and that we avoided the casualties that would otherwise have occurred. I will draw the situation at Bettws to the attention of my hon. Friend the energy Minister and I am sure that he will wish to talk to managers and workers there. When the current scheme runs out, we would prefer to see an immediate transition to a new operating framework, but I stress to the hon. Gentleman that conditions that justified the establishment of an operating aid scheme in 2000—in particular, the very depressed world price for coal—do not really apply now. The substantial amounts of aid that have been given to the industry under the existing operating aid scheme were given on the understanding that the various mines would be economically viable by July this year. We are considering the matter carefully, but it will not be easy to solve.

The Secretary of State referred to the importance of coal in the energy mix. Can she confirm that her energy policies are destroying other Government policies? In particular, the workings of the new electricity trading arrangements are destroying the possibility of reaching targets for combined heat and power and renewable energy by 2010. Is she aware that the NETA have led to a 60 per cent. reduction in CHP production and to some wind farms being closed down because they are no longer productive?

Order. The question is out of order. It is beyond the scope of the original question and the Minister will not answer it.

If it is her policy to support Consignia's proposed network reinvention programme for urban post offices. [52005]

The Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. Following the announcement in January agreeing in principle to a compensation package for the urban network restructuring programme to be undertaken by Post Office Ltd., I can confirm that support of up to £210 million will be available for the compensation and investment package for urban offices, subject to state aid and parliamentary approval.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but the Government's policy on the issue is a touch Orwellian. The Conservatives are often roundly—and rightly—condemned for the 3,500 post offices that closed under their Government, but we are told that the 3,000 proposed closures under this Government are an issue of network reinvention and are the operational responsibility of Consignia, even though the Government are the only shareholder. Is not the real underlying agenda the Government's continuing intention to part-privatise, by the back door? As we discovered this morning in Hansard, the Government were involved in the discussions to privatise part of Consignia by selling a share to the privately owned Dutch company, TPG. Our experience in Wales with Dutch mergers is unfortunate—

Order. The Minister will do his best to answer the question.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of closure. The latest figures available indicate that for the year to the end of March 2002 the total number of closures across the country was 262, compared with 547 in the previous year.

I welcome the funding that the Government are making available to the reinvention programme, which I know will help the post office service in the future. However, I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the situation regarding the Stockbridge post office in my constituency. That area has been without sub-post office facilities for several months. We now have a commitment from Consignia about reopening a post office, but we do not have a date. Will my hon. Friend get in touch with Consignia and ask it to get a move on so that we can have a definite date for the reopening of a post office in the Stockbridge area of my constituency?

Such matters are operational matters for Consignia, but in my dim and distant past as a student I used to use that post office, so I shall certainly be happy to make those representations on my hon. Friend's behalf.

Does the Minister accept that the policies of successive Governments have made it difficult for small post offices to serve, in both urban and rural areas? Will better links be established with the reinvented Consignia to make sure that the people of our country as a whole are served by a Post Office that serves the nation rather than private enterprise?

I certainly endorse that sentiment. From my own constituency, I know of the vital work undertaken not only in rural but in urban areas by Post Office Counters Ltd. That is why we are determined to get the Post Office's finances on to a sustainable basis, and remain committed to a national network of sub-post offices.

Will the Minister confirm that there is a link between the Government's decision to approve the closure of a third of urban post offices and their adoption of an extremely pessimistic target of 3 million for the take-up of post office card accounts? That is only half the number of people that the Government's own social exclusion unit has estimated to be without bank accounts. Do not the Government's assumptions inevitably imply a large-scale migration of custom from post offices to the banking system?

First, I emphasise that the figure of 3 million is an operational assumption, and it is being considered. The Government's determination to move many who are unbanked into the banking system is consistent with our determination to tackle social exclusion in this country. However, we of course want to ensure that post offices are located where they are best able to serve customers, both those who wish to collect benefits and those who have wider retailing needs.

I thank the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) for raising the matter of urban post offices. We hear a lot about the problems with rural post offices. What is the Minister's relationship with Postwatch, the organisation that looks after the interests of post office consumers? What is his approach to urban post offices such as those in my constituency, of which well over a third are likely to be closed in the next 12 months?

Of course, we maintain a dialogue with Postwatch. The programme will be subject to scrutiny in this House and in Europe. As we move forward with it, it is vital that there is consultation, at a national level with Postwatch, and at the local level of individual sub-post offices. That is exactly the Government's intention.

Two years ago, the Government said that by keeping the Post Office in the public sector, it could become a "world-class player" providing a service fit "for the 21st century." Today, it is losing £1.5 million a day, it is about to announce thousands of redundancies, and the Government have been forced to admit that they have been engaged in secret talks to the sell the Post Office to the Dutch. Who does the Minister blame for that fiasco, given that just two years ago the Post Office had a golden future? Is it management, the unions, or his own Government?

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the challenges that we face with the Post Office. However, the point would have more credibility if a single Conservative Member had attended yesterday's Westminster Hall debate on the Post Office, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), responded. However, I accept that we face challenges with regard to the Post Office. That is why we have taken decisions to strengthen management that are consistent with a commitment to commercial freedom. It is vital to move the programme forward to achieve the goals that we have set—the delivery of the universal service obligation, and the maintenance of a national network of post offices.

What steps she is taking to help manufacturing industry. [52006]

Fundamental to the success of our manufacturing industry is the establishment of a stable macro-economic framework, which this Government have successfully put in place since 1997. In addition, we have set in hand a range of specific measures that will improve industry's productivity and competitiveness. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to set out the Government's strategy for manufacturing in a publication later this month.

I welcome and look forward to that publication. However, what are the Government doing now to help manufacturing firms in my constituency? No matter what they do in terms of productivity or efficiency gains, ground-breaking agreements between management and unions, and investment, they still cannot compete because of the barrier of the pound-euro exchange rate.

From visiting the Wirral international business park with my hon. Friend in February, I know of the concern of local manufacturing businesses, particularly about the slowdown in the world economy and the weakness of the euro. We believe that artificial measures to reduce the level of sterling would risk a return to the economic instability that so damaged manufacturing in the past.

"it is clear that the UK can only sustain a successful manufacturing base if we all increase our productivity levels by investing in high-tech manufacturing. We also need to establish good supply chain management, create cutting edge research and make more innovative products."

I begin by congratulating the Minister on what we are told is his new appointment. If the Government are so keen to show their support for manufacturing industry, will he explain why neither he nor any of the other seven Department of Trade and Industry Ministers could find time in their diary to attend MACH 2002, the No.1 exhibition of manufacturing technology which is taking place in Birmingham for the whole of this week? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the equivalent event in Germany was attended by the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder? Does not the Government's failure even to turn up speak far more loudly about the priority that they attach to manufacturing than a change in the title at the top of the Minister's notepaper?

The suggestion is nonsense. The Machine Tool Technologies Association is a very important organisation which understands the importance that we attach to manufacturing industry. I understand that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) attended the exhibition. In my new role, I will ensure that the MTTA never has to accept second best again.

I welcome the many initiatives in the Budget to sustain manufacturing, help stimulate small and medium-sized manufacturing concerns and, importantly, assist in the start-up of new, smaller manufacturing concerns. Will the Minister give an undertaking to work closely with the Scottish Executive, Scottish Enterprise and local companies in Scotland to ensure that the new telephone helpline is widely advertised and that the new starter packs are widely available so that new manufacturing concerns can start up throughout the country?

I will certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. It is important that we work closely with the Scottish Executive and with Scottish Enterprise to ensure that in the early days of what seems to be a better future for manufacturing—after a dreadful time—we all work together. In that way, the opportunities for business support are well understood and well known to companies and manufacturing.

What actions she is taking to enable regional development agencies to best suit their activities to regional needs. [52009]

From 1 April this year, the regional development agencies are getting their funding from the Government as a single budget. This will give them the flexibility to address the regional needs and opportunities that they have identified as key to developing their regional economies.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the north-west of England is the leading aerospace region in the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world. The North West Development Agency is working with the North West Aerospace Alliance, the universities in the area, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and the Airbus consortium to develop an aerospace innovation centre in the north-west. I have spoken to colleagues in the region, and it is clear that there is frustration at the delay in getting this project off the ground. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would look into the matter and see what support his Department can give to the project in the months ahead.

I am certainly aware of the enormous efforts made by the North West Development Agency to improve aerospace facilities and, indeed, by linking with the universities, to ensure that there is a constant supply of skills for that industry. I was not aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I will undertake to intervene and to find out what is happening.

If she will make a statement on the recent report into pre-eclampsia. [52031]

I understand that the study to which the hon. Gentleman refers suggests an association, but it does not find any direct link between working and pre-eclampsia, and that the lead researcher has commented that it would not be right to draw firm conclusions from this study. The Health and Safety Executive will undertake a detailed assessment of the report and will consider whether there is a need to provide additional guidance for employers, employees and health care providers.

I thank the Minister for that response. In light of the fact that this is just one report, I wonder what discussions she is having with her colleagues in the Department of Health and the maternity working group to establish the need for further research to clarify the possibility of a link between working and pre-eclampsia. More generally, will she tell us a little about what she is doing to publicise this condition, which is poorly understood among women and health care workers?

The hon. Gentleman raises an enormously important point. Eclampsia and pre-eclampsia are leading causes of maternal death and, as he says, the causes are not at all well understood. I understand that my colleagues in the Department of Health are already talking to the Health and Safety Executive, as I suggest. I am sure that they are considering the need for further research, although I will draw that point specifically to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I would also stress to the hon. Gentleman that the Department of Health is already funding the voluntary group, Action on Pre-eclampsia, and that part of that funding is used to make information directly available to pregnant women. I believe that that information is found to be reassuring and practically very helpful.

Yesterday's report that fewer than half the babies born in England have a completely natural delivery is shocking. The increasing medicalisation of maternity care is causing midwives to vote with their feet and the policy of creating ever-larger units undermines the kind of personal care that can guard against pre-eclampsia. Will the Minister for Women tell the House what will happen to the maternity units that, according to the birth-rate plus survey, cannot find enough midwives?

The hon. Lady raises a very important point about ensuring that women can get the kind of care that they want in pregnancy and childbirth. For many women—I had a great experience with a midwife-assisted delivery—it is very desirable to have a midwife engaged in care throughout the pregnancy, as well as at the delivery itself. I will certainly draw the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and I will write to her further on this subject.

What she is doing to encourage the employment of parents. [52032]

We are doing a great deal to enable parents to balance work and family. I stress the improvements that we are making to maternity pay and leave, the creation of paternity and adoption leave and the new duty for employers seriously to consider requests for flexible working from the parents of young children—all of which come on top of the other measures that we have taken, particularly the increased investment in child care and the introduction of the highly successful working families tax credit and the child care tax credit.

Does the Minister for Women agree that what parents want is the ability to work flexibly? Will she do all that she can to encourage employers down that road? Will she encourage them even more during the World cup so that they can enjoy the benefits of the goal-scoring talents of my constituent, Michael Owen?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Many fathers, mothers and others will want to make sure that they watch the games, and will be cheering on his constituent. I welcome the fact that many employers have already indicated that they will be flexible on this matter, and will ensure that employees can watch the key matches rather than perhaps taking unauthorised sick leave. We know from awards such as the 100 Best Companies to Work For—which is sponsored by my Department—that employers who offer flexible working, particularly to parents, are not only more popular with their employees but are more profitable than other companies, too.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the single most damaging thing that this Government have done to prevent the increase in part-time women—particularly mothers of young families—is to announce the increase in national insurance contributions?

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady wants to increase part-time women or part-time working. Let me say that the increase in the number of women in employment, particularly women with young children, has been faster in the last few years than in previous decades. I do not agree that the very modest increase in national insurance contributions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget will damage that. I have no doubt that, by next year, when the increase in national insurance contributions comes into effect, and when we expect the economy to grow at well over 3 per cent. a year, the issue for job creation and for businesses will not be the national insurance contributions but whether they can get enough good skilled workers. Of course, we will continue to support the extension of part-time working so that women and men can have a greater choice of working hours, which we know that they want.

What steps are being taken to recognise the contribution made by women to the British war effort in the second world war. [52034]

The Government recognise and value the enormous contribution made by the women of this country during the second world war. I understand that the noble Baroness Boothroyd is patron of a committee that is looking to erect a memorial to the women of world war two. I wish the committee every success with this excellent proposal.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in golden jubilee year, it would be particularly appropriate to bring the campaign for a memorial to the women of world war two—another of whose patrons, incidentally, is the Princess Royal—to a successful conclusion? Will she agree to keep a close watching brief on the efforts of the trustees to secure a central site in the heart of our capital for this memorial? The latest possible site is the Victoria embankment, close to the Ministry of Defence.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have already wished that committee and its patrons every success, and I shall continue to take a close personal interest in it. It occurs to me that, coming so soon after the death of the Queen Mother—who first found her place in the affections of our country during the second world war, particularly in the east end—it would be highly appropriate to commemorate her, along with other women who made such a heroic contribution to the war effort in the first and second world wars, in a single statue. It also occurs to me that an appropriate and central place for that would be the vacant plinth in Trafalgar square.

I, too, would like to add my support for a memorial to the effort made by women during the second world war in all sorts of fields. In particular, I hope that we will recognise the contribution made by young women who stayed at home to care for families when everybody else went away, and who may have lost the chance of marriage and bringing up their own family when people came home with injuries, which meant that they slipped from being a teenager to a carer, perhaps for many years. They lost the opportunity to marry and to earn, and they are sometimes now among the poorest old people. We should remember the service provided by that group of women.

The hon. Lady makes a very important point, and I entirely agree with her about the importance of recognising and valuing the contribution that was made by those forgotten women of the war as well as that of the women who served in the Land Army, in the services and in many other ways, including in the workplace as well as in the home.

When she next expects to meet representatives of small firms organisations to discuss female entrepreneurs. [52035]

My hon Friend the Minister with responsibility for small business meets regularly the small business representative organisations to discuss how we can improve the environment for UK small business, including women entrepreneurs. Indeed, he most recently raised this issue at the end of last month at a meeting of entrepreneurs in Stoke-on-Trent and, just last week, I helped to launch the new north-west women's business network, which is doing excellent work to support women already in business or wanting to set up their own business in that region.

Female entrepreneurs in my constituency will be very pleased to hear that, but is the Minister aware that what they do not want is patronising advice from the Government? They want determined effort to lift burdens on business and to improve the business climate. What plans does she have to do that? Does she agree with the British Chambers of Commerce, which said in a recent report that this Government had imposed more burdens on business than any other Government in history?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record and the comparison with other countries, he will find that, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we have a much lower level of product market regulation than most other advanced countries. We have much more favourable employment regulations than most of the rest of the European Union and, according to all benchmarks, we are one of the best places in which to start and to grow a small business. We are determined to keep it that way, which is why we are making such an effort to improve and further simplify regulations.