If the White Paper on energy will take account of energy sources for transport. [90932]

The energy White Paper will be published shortly and will take account of energy sources for transport.

The Government's figures suggest that 12,000 to 24,000 people a year are killed as a result of burning hydrocarbons, at least half of them by motor cars. Although shifting to liquid petroleum gas will help in the short term, that is still derived from scarce fossil fuels and will not eliminate greenhouse gases. Will the White Paper plot a clear course towards a hydrogen economy, and will it be brave about where that hydrogen will be made?

I very much agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says. He is right about LPG, which is useful in the short term. I am very anxious to encourage its use. It is better environmentally, and can be a cheaper fuel, especially for people in peripheral areas. For that reason I support LPG. There is no doubt that hydrogen has much more to offer, if not in the immediate term then perhaps by 2020, when vehicles using hydrogen fuel cells might be in commercial production. In the meantime, we can do a lot to encourage the technology. For instance, some buses using hydrogen fuel cells will be introduced in London next year through the green fuel challenge. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that hydrogen will be exempt from fuel duty for a limited period. We are doing a lot already, and although I do not want to pre-empt the White Paper, I assure my hon. Friend that what we are doing is very much in the spirit of what will be proposed.

The White Paper has been subject to the most inordinate delay. First it was going to be published last year, then at the turn of the year, then in the new year. Last week, Lord Sainsbury, the Under-Secretary of State in the other place, said that it would be published in the spring, and now the Minister has told the House that it will be published shortly. Are we to take it that both those statements are correct and that they represent the current position? Is the Department's definition of "spring" the same as its definition of "shortly"? If Lord Sainsbury represents the official position, will the Minister say on exactly what date the Department thinks that spring begins? Is not it the case that all the procrastination that I have set out means that the White Paper will not be comprehensive, and that the Government's energy policy will continue to be marked by muddle, confusion and short-termism?

Where I was educated, spring is normally defined as February, March and April. I do not know whether that helps the hon. Gentleman. The Tories might work to a different calendar, as well as belong to a different planet. The White Paper will be with us shortly. There has been no inordinate delay. It deals with very important issues, as we are looking at the future of energy supply in this country up to 2050, not just for the next few years. It is better to get that right than to worry too much about in which month of spring the White Paper will be published.

Will my hon. Friend say whether the White Paper will set out a sustainable future for the indigenous deep coal-mining industry? Will that sustainable future be based on an aid package that will focus on investment? There is a rumour that the package may be based on regional selective assistance. If so, that would not be appropriate for the coal industry.

We are committed to an investment aid scheme in principle. We went to Europe to get permission for such a scheme, which would benefit the indigenous coal industry. We would not have done that if we did not intend to introduce the scheme. The future of what remains of the indigenous coal industry is not entirely in our hands, for geological reasons as much as any other. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I am acutely aware of the importance of the deep-mine coal industry, and indeed of the surface coal industry, to those communities where the industries still exist. I have no doubt that that importance will be reflected in the White Paper.

What recent representations she has received about the regulations governing covers of magazines displayed in shops. [90933]

None.

Many of my constituents with young children are very concerned about the increasingly lurid covers of magazines such as FHM, GQ and Maxim. As those magazines are not deemed to be pornographic, they are often displayed at children's head height. Will the Minister assure the House that she will ask all magazine retailers to put such magazines well out of the eyesight of young children, as it is difficult for families to avoid those displays, especially when calling at petrol stations?

The teenage magazine arbitration panel monitors the sexual content of teenage magazines, 25 per cent. or more of whose readership is made up of girls under 15 years of age. I think that that is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's point. The guidelines that it produced are the publishing industry's own standards, but they were produced in co-operation with magazine publishers, editors and retailers, and approved by the Home Office. I hear the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall refer his concerns to the relevant parties and ask them to address them.

My hon. Friend will also be aware that it is not just children who are offended by these things, but many hon. Members and constituents, who ask why on earth magazines such as Stuff and T3, which are about technology, have to have women on their front covers. I dare not buy them in shops for those very reasons. Perhaps those concerned would sell more magazines if they took women off the front covers and concentrated on the issues inside the magazines.

I share my hon. Friend's concerns. We are particularly concerned that the young and more vulnerable members of society should be protected from potentially harmful material. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the legislation and voluntary agreements in that area. I hesitate to be slightly cynical, but I am sure that it has something to do with the fact that it still sells magazines, unfortunately.

What actions her Department is taking to support the expansion of wind energy in the UK. [90934]

Last April, we introduced the renewables obligation, which provides an assured market for renewable energy, including wind power, for 25 years. In October, I announced capital grants of £10 million each to the first two offshore wind farms to be given consent. In November, the Department launched a consultation document, which set out options for a major expansion of the UK's offshore wind potential both within territorial waters and beyond.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I wish to raise a particular problem that will arise if we seek to increase massively the amount of energy derived from wind power. Most of the parts of the UK that are most suitable for wind power are those furthest from centres of population, requiring major investment in the national grid to ensure that the electricity generated in that way can be used. Will my hon. Friend examine ways to ensure that that investment takes place, whether by fiscal means or by direct subsidy?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no point in generating electricity if it cannot be taken to the markets where it is required. We have a very strong infrastructure, but it is based largely on the old coal and steel economy. If we are to have a much more distributed range of generation, we must have an infrastructure to match. It is an essential part of the overall package that that infrastructure is put in place.

Does the Minister accept that not all of us are enthusiasts for wind farms? Many of us think that they are pure vandalism, ruining beautiful parts of our country, and that there should be very strict planning controls on them.

I accept that such a point of view exists, although I regard it as extreme and unreasonable.

Is it not the case that two thirds of planning applications for wind farms are withdrawn because of planning difficulties? When the White Paper is published—soon, shortly or in the spring—is this an issue that my hon. Friend intends to tackle?

A balance must be struck between the legitimate rights of people to object and the country's legitimate needs for renewable energy. The White Paper and the ongoing work by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have to look at whether we have that balance right. People in all parties and none who pay lip service to renewable energy as a good thing should implement that view by supporting renewable energy projects, rather than joining the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) in his somewhat one-dimensional opposition.

Following on the point raised by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), given that the Government have been prepared to invest massive amounts of money to bail out British Energy, are they prepared to put similar direct public investment into the national grid to ensure that we obtain the full benefit of wind and wave power in the future?

I am puzzled by the first part of the question. The Scottish nationalist candidate in my constituency, where there is a nuclear power station, wrote to the local press last week to say that the nationalists are fully behind what the Government have done for British Energy, but whereas there are two nationalists and two opportunities, there are at least four different points of view.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement on the development of wind power, but does he accept that 10 per cent. is only a part of the need for the generation of energy? Will he consider giving the same support to the coal industry as he has given to British Energy and wind power? We need to have a balance, and the coal industry is part of that balance.

I agree entirely that coal is part of the balance. That is why we have had the operating aid scheme during the past few years, since the Government came to office. It is also why we have now put in place the potential for an investment aid scheme—we have won that argument in Europe—and, as I said earlier, I do not think that anyone believes other than that there is a place for coal in this country's energy mix. There is also full recognition of the continuing importance of coal in those places where it continues to be mined.

What recent representations she has received on the rural postal network. [90935]

DTI Ministers and officials regularly receive representations from a wide range of people and organisations about postal services and the network, including rural post offices.

I understand that a rural post office is defined as one that serves a community of fewer than 10,000 people. As the right hon. Lady will be aware, the Vale of York has a number of post offices serving such communities. Royal Mail has written to me this week and assured me that there is a downward trend in post office closures, from 125 in the same six-month period last year to 65 this year, but that is still a very high figure. Will she take a personal interest in reopening post offices in villages, such as Sessay, where a young couple operates a farm shop—appropriate premises and people—and take a favourable view? Will she also give the House an assurance that the red post box in rural communities will continue for ever?

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that post office closures in Yorkshire have fallen from 50 a year to just 21. The £450 million of new funding for rural post offices recently announced to the House will ensure that we can continue to reduce the number of rural post office closures—something that the Conservative Government never did—so I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome that. She referred to a village post office in particular, and of course I will ensure that Post Office management take a very close look at that because the fund that they are already making available, along with more of the £450 million that we are putting into rural post offices, is precisely designed to help to keep open and, in some cases, reopen rural sub-post offices by combining them with village shops, pubs or other community facilities. We have had a great deal of success already, and I will look specifically at the village that she mentions.

As successive generations of my family ran our village post office for most of the 20th century, I am particularly disappointed by what I view as a breach of faith, which has led to the closure of about 1,000 village offices in just three short years. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that, when the —450 million lifeline ends in 2006, we shall not just return to a haemorrhaging of village offices, with all the consequent social and economic disadvantages for the elderly, the disabled and people without transport in those communities?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the vital importance of post offices in rural communities—something that he knows better than many people. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that we have already put an obligation on the Post Office, which is no longer allowed to close a rural post office unless it is completely unavoidable—in other words, nobody can be found to run it. As a result, we have already halved the number of rural post office closures across the country. As I have just said, we are putting in an additional £450 million to support that, on top of the Countryside Agency grants that already help to keep rural post offices open. Of course, we shall look at the situation again in 2006; we need to see how effective we are with the £450 million that we are allocating over the next three years and we can then consider how to continue to keep that vital local service open.

May I take the Secretary of State to task for serious discourtesy this morning in releasing, an hour ago, a written statement that has far-reaching financial implications for the rural post office network and the network in general, without giving us an opportunity to question her in an oral statement and without even referring to it in answer to a supplementary question? Can she confirm that, in addition to the £450 million for rural post offices, she proposed this morning an extra £1 billion in the form of emergency assistance to the post office network to save it from immediate financial collapse? As £420 million of that money is in the form of short-term loans, can she explain how those loans are to be repaid, since the post office network has been deprived of its main source of income generation?

I announced in June the total funding package for the Mail's business—the use of the £1.8 billion of accumulated gilts and interests—and of course that was done by way of a written statement. This morning, my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness made a written statement to Parliament, which was tabled in the Library at 9.30. That statement sets out the details of that very welcome financing package for the whole business. About £2 billion of accumulated profits and interest, which in the past was creamed off and returned to the Treasury, is now being made available to the business as part of the entire restructuring plan that will return the Royal Mail to sound health. That includes debt financing on commercial terms of just over £1 billion, which will allow the Royal Mail to implement its renewal plans, and of course those loans will be repaid as the Royal Mail, through its restructuring, sorts out its finances. The rest of the money will be used to support the post office network.

Does not the future of rural post offices depend entirely on the funding stability of Post Office Ltd? Does not the statement that my right hon. Friend has just made mean that the financing position of Post Office Ltd. will be much more stable? Will that not benefit urban post offices in areas such as mine, which struggle to continue to provide a service to elderly and disabled people who cannot get to other post offices to collect their benefits and pensions?

My hon. Friend is right. What we have done—starting with the appointment of Allan Leighton as chairman—is to ensure that the Royal Mail and the Post Office as a whole have the leadership, management and financial stability that they need in order to return the business to financial health. All Members of the House understand that rural sub-post offices are, in many cases, not commercially viable. That is why, over the next three years, as part of the overall financing package, we are putting in £450 million specifically to support the rural network.

The Secretary of State has exploited the new system to make a written statement when she should have made an oral statement, and has now amplified that without allowing hon. Members on both sides of the House the opportunity to question her properly. What she has announced is the spending of profits made by the Post Office in the years of the Conservative Government. That is not new money in any realistic sense.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. People who want a post office card account simply ring the helpline, and if they decide that they want the card account, the application is sent to them. The post office card account and the broader universal banking services—and the migration to automated credit transfer—are on track, as we said that they would be. Not only will they deliver a more efficient benefit payments system with much less risk of fraud but, above all, they will enable all our constituents who want to continue getting benefits in cash at the post office to do so, whether through a card account, a basic bank account or the increasing number of other bank accounts that can also be used at the post office.

The opening of a post office card account is not as simple as the Secretary of State has just described. People must ring a helpline and answer a set of gruelling questions; they are then told to use their current account if they happen to have one, which is incorrect, and to write in in connection with that. If people want to join a bank through that system, all they have to do is tick a box. Why cannot they just tick a box in connection with the post office card account?

The helpline exists to ensure that all claimants understand the options available to them and make an informed choice. It is up to the customer, however, to decide whether they want to use an existing bank account or open a new account, and if so, whether they want to open a bank account or post office card account. I have gone through the script, as has my hon. Friend. It is a simple and helpful service. The bottom line is that customers decide for themselves what kind of account they want to use to get their benefits and, if they want, to get them in cash at the post office.

If she will make a statement on the future of the universal parcel postal service. [90936]

The primary duty of the regulator set out in legislation is to ensure maintenance of the universal postal service at an affordable, uniform tariff. The Royal Mail operating division of the Royal Mail group now carries out the universal service obligation for parcels.

I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome his basic assurance. It will, however, have a hollow ring in my constituency, where people have found that, since the effective demise of Parcelforce last year, they are now excluded from the same standards of service as people in the rest of the country. Many mail order companies will deliver to island communities only at a significant surcharge, and many will not deliver to them at all. Will the Minister meet me and other MPs from the highlands and islands to discuss the matter and find some way of protecting those who rely most on services from mail order companies from the worst effects of the demise of Parcelforce?

Order. I am keen to get through the Order Paper, which means that we must have more precise questions and precise replies. It is only fair to those Members who have put down questions that I try to reach them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ideas that we might like to progress relates to how we could create much better links with the sub-post offices? One of the problems these days is that parcels are delivered to people who are not at home; the parcels are then returned to the local sorting office, which may be some distance away from the home. Surely we could have a better co-ordinated approach whereby parcels are delivered to the local sub-post office. If we did that, both sides would gain.

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting suggestion, which I am happy to take up with Post Office Ltd. There will be increasing possibilities for the Post Office to provide other services, including delivering the goods that people buy not to their homes but to a point from which they can collect them. He is absolutely right.

If she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the construction industry. [90937]

The construction industry makes a significant contribution to our economy, comprising 8 per cent. of gross domestic product worth £83 billion, and it employs more than 2 million people. It secures some of the most prestigious contracts worldwide. We are working closely with the industry through the strategic forum for construction to improve industry productivity. I know that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating Mid-Devon, which is the only district council listed for beacon status in the rethinking construction category.

I most certainly wish to join the Minister in congratulating Mid-Devon council on anything that it does. However, it does not fall within my constituency.

The hon. Gentleman is slightly out of date. I have had discussions with the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI's council for small and medium-sized enterprises and others. We at the Department of Trade and Industry are working with our Treasury colleagues and are being led by the Department for Work and Pensions to help companies to resolve the problem. The Office of Fair Trading will also report on part of this matter in the spring.

My hon. Friend will know that a subset of the construction industry is the chemical engineering construction industry, which brings in several million pounds to the Exchequer from the work that it does overseas. Does he share the concern of the employers and the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association that there is a substantial skills shortage in the industry? The fact that the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board has been abolished means that there will be a further problem. What efforts will be made to put in place a system to encourage employers in the construction industry to train people for the future of the industry?

I want to make it clear—I know that my hon. Friend will accept this—that there is not a proposal to abolish that board. The Construction Industry Training Board is a separate body and, according to its latest figures, 40,000 people are now starting construction courses. That is an increase of 14 per cent. over the decade. The board received more than £30 million last year to fund modern apprenticeships. We accept that this is a serious issue and serious measures are being taken to address it.

A crisis is obviously facing smaller firms. What does the Minister say to a small specialist construction firm on the south coast that requires cover of £5 million to secure contracts from its regular customers? This year, that business was able to secure cover of only £1 million at a cost of £8,000 whereas, last year, £12,000 bought cover of £10 million. Such firms do not want reports in the spring; they want action now. Can he guarantee that the reports will be acted upon?

The House will note that there is not one suggestion from the Conservative party on how to resolve the problem. That is why the industry, representatives of small business and others in business have welcomed the fact that the Government are addressing the issue, both through the Office of Fair Trading and in working with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers Association to find a solution to a problem that is caused not by the Government but by long-term structural changes in the insurance industry and the propensity of lawyers to litigate more readily than in the past. All those factors are causing problems and forcing up premiums. We recognise that this is a serious issue and are addressing it in the most serious manner.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the British construction industry would benefit enormously from the Olympic games being staged in Britain? If he does, may I encourage him to lobby the Secretary of State vigorously to support a London Olympic bid?

Of course we welcome anything that helps the construction industry and is affordable. I know that discussions are taking place with the London mayor who has a scheme that he believes is low-cost—my Treasury colleagues will be interested to have the details. We know that the construction industry played a tremendous part in revitalising and showcasing Manchester. That is a great lesson, and I hope that the Olympic bid committee will learn from it.

Since the Minister quite rightly accepts the importance of the construction industry to our economy, will he have discussions with his Treasury colleagues about removing some of the taxes that are holding some of the industry back, such as the construction industry tax, IR35, the aggregates levy and the landfill tax?

That is not what I heard from representatives of the construction industry in Nottingham yesterday when I presented an Investors in People award to TBL Construction. Obviously the construction industry has benefited from one of the best tax regimes in the world, with corporation tax at lower rates. It also benefits from the fastest growing economy in the world, which is perhaps why last year's output in construction marked the biggest annual increase in 12 years and why there are strong order figures this year too. We have addressed the industry's concerns—that is why it is thriving.

What steps her Department is taking to reduce the number of days lost to strikes. [90939]

Although days lost through industrial action have increased over the past year, the number of disputes remains near the lowest ever recorded. The Government fully support the expert work of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in helping parties improve their employment relations and have increased its funding by more than 80 per cent. since coming to power.

I cannot accept that the Minister's answer was particularly helpful when the number of days lost to strikes has increased from 235,000 in 1997 to more than 1 million in the past 12 months. How can the Government do more to cut the number of days lost and make Britain a better place in which to do business?

The hon. Gentleman was asking about levels of industrial action. The figures for days lost through industrial action are notoriously lumpy, for example, a one-day dispute by local government workers contributes 500,000 days lost to the figures. However, when we get the final month's figures, the actual number of disputes this year will be shown to be the lowest ever recorded.

What about the Post Office?

As for the Post Office, the level is the lowest for 25 years. If we define good government by days lost through industrial action, the figure under this Government is 36 per cent. lower than under the Major Government. Using that definition, we are a very good Government.

Will the Minister confirm that industry is not only plagued with strikes—in fact it has had its worst year since 1990, with more days lost than at any time over the past 12 years—but that manufacturing productivity is rising at only half the rate that it was when the Government were elected; business investment has just recorded its worst fall since 1996; the trade balance is worse than at any time since—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is too wide and relates to a question that was not called because the Member was absent.

If she will make a statement on her Department's recent consultation on the World Trade Organisation general agreement on trade in services negotiations. [90940]

The consultation ended on 3 January with some 700 replies, including one from my hon. Friend, for which I thank her. I will publish a summary and a response from the Government as soon as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. She will be aware that in the current GATS agreement the European Union placed a horizontal limitation on its service commitments to strengthen the protection against the use of public utilities and the manner in which they provide public services. Can she assure the House that she will resist calls in the negotiations to remove that limitation? How will she protect the way in which public bodies in the UK can provide arid control public services in sectors such as health and education, even if they are delivered either wholly or partially by the private sector?

My hon. Friend is right about the existing horizontal limitation. A number of the consultation replies stressed the need for Europe to maintain that limitation. I strongly see the force of that argument, although we have not seen the Commission's draft proposals on the limitation. However, as I have stressed before and would stress again today, we have no intention of making any GATS commitments that would call into question our ability to maintain public services.

Why did the Government refuse to publish in full all the requests made by other WTO members to liberalise UK public services? Can the right hon. Lady confirm that those requests included the elimination of the subsidy to the BBC and the reprivatisation of Network Rail?

We did not publish the requests for the simple reason that our partners in the WTO, including a number of developing countries, wanted to keep the requests confidential. As a process of negotiation is under way, it makes sense to do that. What we have done is to publish a summary of all the requests made to us. We have also published an 88-page detailed consultation document on the website, and will shortly publish a summary of the responses and our response in turn to them. We have been more open and transparent in the process than any other WTO member. We continue to press our European Union colleagues for the maximum possible transparency in the EU, consistent with ensuring that we have effective negotiations.

What discussions her Department has had with the Ministry of Defence on the British aircraft industry. [90942]

The Department maintains a close and regular dialogue with the Ministry of Defence on industrial matters relating to major defence procurements and defence industrial policy. Inevitably, those discussions have, where appropriate, touched on the British aircraft industry.

Is not the Minister's Department concerned at the inordinate delays in introducing into service in the Royal Air Force the Eurofighter, the A400M and the new tanker aircraft? Or perhaps the Secretary of State for Defence just does not care because British Aerospace, the main participant, is not British in his eyes.

The hon. Gentleman asks about three specific projects, which we are extremely concerned to bring to fruition. From his great experience of the issues, he will know that they are not entirely under the control of the British Government. Indeed, we are waiting for the German Government to come into line on the A400M. We very much care about the aerospace industry, in particular about BAE Systems, which is why I am due to receive the interim report of the innovation and growth team report on aerospace next week from Sir Richard Evans. I think that that will map the future for aerospace in this country.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just the big players in the aerospace industry, such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, that are dependent on Ministry of Defence work? Many highly skilled aerospace businesses in constituencies such as mine also depend on the contracts being given to the British aerospace industry.

Of course I accept that point. My hon. Friend knows full well that we have the biggest defence order book for the past 50 years, which provides a tremendous opportunity for British companies—including small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain generally, some of which are in my hon. Friend's constituency.

BAE Systems is the biggest producer of aircraft parts and aircraft in the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry agree with the Secretary of State for Defence that, through its ownership, BAE Systems can no longer be classified as a British company? For example, in the decision between Thales and BAE Systems on the contract for the two aircraft carriers, would not awarding the contract to Thales, which has a major contributor in Harland and Wolff in Belfast, be a more patriotic choice for the British defence industry?

We have just agreed a defence industrial policy between the Ministry of Defence and Department for Trade and Industry that has been widely welcomed and which makes it absolutely clear that we are looking for value for money for the British taxpayer. BAE Systems is a British-controlled company in terms of the competition for two 55,000—tonnes carriers. Whichever contract is successful, it will mean jobs and prosperity for British workers—but that contract must be awarded on a proper competitive basis.

When she last met the chairman and chief executive of Royal Mail to discuss postal services and prices; and if she will make a statement. [90943]

Ministers and officials have a regular dialogue with directors of Royal Mail on a range of issues relevant to the role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has as a special shareholder of the company.

Will the Minister say when he or the Secretary of State last met the chairman and chief executive of Royal Mail? Was the price control regime proposed by Postcomm discussed? In particular, if Postcomm withdraws from the extension of the scope of price control over Royal Mail—which seems to me and others who believe in competition to be somewhat excessive—will the Post Office not seek to delay matters by going to the Competition Commission? Incidentally, did the Minister express reservations about the Post Office's proposals in relation to format-based pricing?

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced observer of arrangements for competition regulation and will know that there have been animated discussions between Royal Mail and Postcomm over Royal Mail's recent application for a price rise. Postcomm is an independent regulator and it is important that it and Royal Mail agree a way forward that is acceptable to all parties. I am optimistic that will be the outcome. In terms of the discussions, Postcomm is a fully independent regulator. In looking at the current price rise application, the Government have of course submitted information of which Postcomm will take account but the decision is entirely for Postcomm.

Returning to the vital role that rural post offices play and bearing in mind that most village post offices are also shops, is not the best way to ensure their survival for the people who live in villages to use those post offices regularly? Is it not the case that if all the people who regularly drive to a supermarket and spend £40 or £50 to fill their car boots spent just 10 per cent. in their village shops/post offices, that would ensure the survival of the rural network?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Post Office has an important role to play in taking advantage of the big investment that has been made in new technology and offering new services that will attract people back to the post office network, to ensure that it has a thriving future.

What recent assessment she has made of the state of manufacturing industry. [90944]

We are continuously monitoring and tracking the progress of manufacturing in partnership with our key industry stakeholders.

I am sure that the Minister is constantly tracking the manufacturing industry. The Engineering Employers Federation estimates that 500,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing since the Government took power in 1997. Yesterday the Office for National Statistics announced that in the three months to November 2002, manufacturing jobs fell by 155,000 on the same period last year. Does the Minister think that the Government are living up to the Secretary of State's promise to think of manufacturing as an integral part of the future of our economy?

Yes, I do. Manufacturing is an integral part of our economy. It is crucial to the future of the country, as it represents 60 per cent. of our exports and a fifth of our gross domestic product. Manufacturing is indeed facing problems in this country, as it is in Japan and in the USA. There is a global downturn—the first synchronised global downturn in those three parts of the world since 1974. Manufacturers know that it is a tough world out there. This is not the ritual dance in which we sometimes engage, but perhaps I could have a quick little pirouette: 2.75 million jobs in manufacturing were lost under the previous Government. We are seeking to draw up the first manufacturing strategy in this country for 30 years, and to address the practical problems facing manufacturers. The Engineering Employers Federation, which is entirely engaged in that process, understands that full well.

What evidence she has collated of changes in the incidence of domestic violence in the last three years. [91057]

According to the British crime survey, the number of domestic violence incidents per year has fallen by 19 per cent. over the past three years. Further research is being undertaken that will give us more detailed information about domestic violence, as well as sexual assault and stalking.

The Women's Aid website reports that 23 per cent. of separated women suffer post-separation violence and 76 per cent. suffer verbal abuse and threats. Does the right hon. Lady recognise that one reason—although in no way a justification—is the difficulty that some separated men feel they have in maintaining access to their children, even when access has been ordered by the courts? What steps is she taking to ensure that the paramount needs of the child and the safety of all, as determined by the courts, are met?

The hon. Gentleman is right about the shocking extent of verbal and physical abuse, not only in cases following a separation—one quarter of all violent crimes relate to domestic violence, and two women a week are murdered by their partners. That is utterly unacceptable. With regard to fathers' access to their children, my view is simple: children benefit from having, wherever it is possible, the love and support of their father as well as of their mother. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and his Department are ensuring that in access cases, proper attention is paid to the needs of the child. That is the overriding consideration. I would warn the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he was not seeking to do this—against in any sense excusing verbal or physical abuse. In some recent murder and manslaughter trials where the woman has been killed by her husband or partner, there has been an attempt to defend that crime by blaming the woman. That is unacceptable as well.

In the circumstance where one third of all homicides in the country occur following domestic violence, and where there is no other crime with a higher level of repeat victimization, is there not a crisis that requires more urgent action than we have been able to deliver, not just to protect women, but very often to protect children? How can we make sure that women's lives are protected from violent men?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has already put in place new guidelines for the Crown Prosecution Service, and is working with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the police and the prosecution service work far more effectively together to make sure that the warning signs of early evidence of violent incidents are properly taken into account, and that women are protected against the very real risk that domestic violence will end in the death of the woman. I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has recently taken the step of referring outrageously lenient sentences in such cases to the Court of Appeal for further review.

In a written reply from the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, on 10 December, he stated:

"Domestic violence is not separately identified in recorded crime statistics collected by the Home Office."—[Official Report, 10 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 233W.]

I think that it might well be, and I shall certainly draw that issue to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As I said in my first reply, we are also doing further research on this, because domestic violence is notoriously under-reported. The British crime survey can help us to get a better fix on the actual scale of the problem.

In 1975, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended that there should be one refuge place per 10,000 people, for the protection of victims of domestic violence. Today, we have only one third of that number. Will the Minister tell the House whether the forthcoming Green Paper will contain revised proposals for meeting the shortfall in refuge provision?

I agree that, over several decades, not enough attention has been paid to this issue, nor has enough investment been put into refuges for women suffering domestic violence. I welcome the fact that we will be spending an additional £7 million on developing new refuges in partnership with local authorities around the country. I also welcome the fact that the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women launched a new national 24-hour helpline in December to ensure that women who are fleeing violent partners can get the advice and information that they need.

Given that responsibility for criminal justice was not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly—whether suspended or not—and that that responsibility remains here at Westminster, and that the incidence of domestic violence remains at a very high level in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Lady tell the House what discussions she has had with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about measures to combat domestic violence there?

I have not had discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I know that the Northern Ireland Administration, as well as those in Scotland and Wales, are closely involved in the work that is being undertaken right across government on the issue of domestic violence. We have to engage the police, the prosecuting authorities, the local authorities, housing authorities and so on. All the different agencies are being involved in this, and that includes those in Northern Ireland.

If she will make a statement on the incidence in the last three years of cases successfully brought against employers for paying women lower wages than those paid to men for doing similar work. [91058]

In the three financial years up to 2002 for which we have figures, 163 equal pay claims were successful at tribunal. Many more, of course, were settled and withdrawn before they came to a tribunal hearing.

It is disgraceful that such claims should need to be made at all. Does the Minister for Women agree that economic efficiency and social justice alike demand that there should always be equal pay for work of equal value? Given that there are continuing and unjustified disparities, does she agree that it is urgently necessary that the message should go out from representatives of all major political parties that skinflint employers who seek to break the law with impunity in 2003 will be subject to zero tolerance?

I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman reciting the central mantra of new Labour that economic efficiency and social justice go together. Of course he is right to say that unequal pay for work of equal value is absolutely unacceptable. That is why we have strengthened the law with the new equal pay questionnaire. We do not want cases going to tribunals if we can possibly avoid it; we would rather settle them inside the workplace. That is also why we have established equal pay audits in the public sector, all of which will be completed by April, and why we are putting in place proper plans to re-organise the pay structure and job classifications, as we have done at ACAS and as we are doing in the national health service, to ensure that there is indeed equal pay for work of equal value.

When her report on the cost of domestic violence will be published. [91060]

The full research report is scheduled for publication in the early summer—not the spring; the summer.

I thank my right hon. Friend and her colleagues for their wisdom in taking up the suggestion that we undertake an analysis of the cost of domestic violence. As I am sure she is aware, recent research in the United States showed that $1.6 billion is spent in the health service alone on picking up the cost of domestic violence. Given that a woman is assaulted 35 times, on average, before she flees to safety, I am sure that the cost to the NHS will be as much as that or more. Does she therefore agree that it is essential that, once the report is published, we seek to shift resources away from picking up the pieces and into prevention? Will she vigorously advance that argument to the Treasury and ensure that we have sufficient funds for preventive measures in domestic violence cases?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women recently announced the early results of the research, which we will be publishing in more detail later. The initial estimates are that the annual costs both to the public purse and in lost economic output amount to about £40 million in terms of the murder and manslaughter of women in their homes. If the appalling emotional and human impact costs are added, the figures increase to about £112 million a year.