What recent representations she has received in respect of postal services in Scotland.␣[189170]

The Department receives representations on postal services issues from a wide range of people and institutions, many of which concern services in Scotland.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. She will be aware of the less than stellar performance of Royal Mail management in meeting delivery targets over the summer. Is she aware, however, of the reports in Scotland that the management have again floated the idea of abandoning the universal service obligation, which is so important to rural areas of Scotland? Can she tell us if she has had formal approaches on this point, and will she assure the House that she will not agree to any such proposal?

The universal service obligation is written into law as a result of changes made by our Government. Of course we are not going to abandon that. I have had no formal representations on this issue.

Although, on the issue of quality of service, there was very poor performance earlier in the year—about which all of us are unhappy—I am pleased to say that in more recent months that quality of service has been improving significantly. In Dundee—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my pleasure about this—the delivery of first-class post on the following day has gone up to almost 93 per cent., which is one of the best performances in the country.

The Secretary of State may be aware that the particular postal service of greatest concern to my constituents in Orkney and Shetland is the parcel post. Since deregulation of the parcel post, mail order companies in particular have increasingly either refused to deliver to addresses off mainland Britain, or have charged extra for it. Can I ask the Secretary of State when the Government will get to grips with that issue and ensure that people in island communities can enjoy the same level of service as those on the mainland?

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point on behalf of his constituents. There has, of course, always been a problem with meeting the quality of service targets in those most remote communities, particularly island communities. Post Office management are working on that, and certainly I and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), will draw it to their attention again.

How many new business start-ups there were in Coventry, South in the last year for which figures are available.␣[189171]

In Coventry, it is estimated that there were 1,800 business start-ups in 2003. The latest official figures based on VAT registrations show that 620 businesses registered for VAT in Coventry, which is a welcome increase on the previous year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but may I ask what assessment he has made of the potential withdrawal of Jaguar from Coventry, and what the impact would be on small businesses, bearing in mind the fact that more than 4,000 jobs could be at stake were Jaguar to pull out of Coventry? What assistance has Ford had in term of grants over the past 18 years from Government?

I am not aware that any decision has yet been taken. Jaguar, I understand, is considering its operations, but is rightly insisting first on briefing its work force on the company's future production plans. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, of course, discuss the implications of any decision with the company as soon as an announcement—if any—is made.

The Minister refers to increasing numbers of people going into business. Is he aware of figures that I have received from the Library this week that since 1992, the number of young people aged between 16 and 29 starting their own business has fallen by some 39 per cent? I ask the Minister to consider that in view of the fact that we need to encourage enterprise, particularly among young people. Will he also address the great concern that people who go to university, whom we need to start businesses, will be burdened by debt after university and will therefore be unable to get started?

Order. That is very wide, but perhaps the Minister can answer some part of the question.

In relation to business start-ups in Coventry and elsewhere, I do not recognise those figures at all. Last year, 63,000 young graduates started businesses. Last week, Barclays published a survey of new business start-ups, which showed that 288,000 businesses started in the first six months of the year, an increase of some 19 per cent. on last year.

Last year's figure of 455,000 new businesses represented a 19 per cent. increase on the previous year, the largest since Barclays began its surveys in 1988. Both start-ups and the Government's record are very strong.

As my hon. Friend will know, many businesses starting up in Coventry will be there to support the motor industry and Jaguar in particular. Will he and the Secretary of State impress on the Ford Motor Company that it risks losing the distinctive marque—the Britishness—of the Jaguar if it is seen rolling off a production line somewhere in Detroit?

I know that my hon. Friend speaks with much authority, having worked at the Browns Lane plant for many years. I fully appreciate that the smaller companies—small and medium-sized enterprises, of which there are dozens in the supply chain—depend on that level of work. That is why, as part of its manufacturing review a few years ago—the first major review for 30 years—the Department focused on the issue, and the automotive sector has benefited. None the less, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the implications of any cuts in any factory on the supply chain and on SMEs.

What measures she is taking to ensure that UK industry is competitive; and if she will make a statement.␣[189172]

Since the implementation of the Government's manufacturing strategy in 2002, a range of measures has been taken to improve business performance and competitiveness. For example, the manufacturing advisory service has become a huge success as a source of practical help for manufacturers throughout England and Wales, generating more than £67 million of added value since 2002—around £100,000 for each company with which it has worked. We have also doubled our support for science and innovation. In June 2004, we announced a 10-year science and innovation investment framework, giving a sustained long-term boost to science funding.

I am grateful for that response. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that we must continually examine areas in which we compete in view of developments in countries such as China, where £50 a week is considered a good wage? Should we not consider the impact of that on our ability to compete in whichever markets seem to be in the best interests of the country's development, and must not our response to that challenge be based on our educational and training abilities and, indeed, our inventiveness?

My hon. Friend has identified the key challenge for manufacturers—the global competition that they face. He is absolutely right: we cannot compete in the world today on the basis of low wages, nor should we want to. As he says, we must compete on the basis of innovation and high skills, building on our inventiveness. That was the key point in the progress report on the Government's manufacturing strategy, which we published in July. Also, through the manufacturing forum that we are to establish we will chase progress on our action plan.

As the Minister will recognise, since 1997 Britain has fallen rapidly down the world competitiveness league table in comparison with other leading industrial nations. Why does she think that has happened?

What I recognise is that many independent assessors acknowledge that the United Kingdom is actually one of the most competitive and best places in the world in which to do business. They also recognise that under the hon. Gentleman's party we saw the decimation of our manufacturing industry and a failure to invest in the things that make a difference—skills and innovation. I am afraid that the Conservatives have not learned their lesson. Their proposals for cuts in the Department of Trade and Industry—

Order. The Minister must stop.

The Minister will be aware that for the UK to be competitive, good corporate governance is essential. Auditing is a central part of that. My right hon. Friend will also know of the campaign by the big four accountancy firms to cap auditor liability. Will she cast a wary eye over it before the Government give in to this case of special pleading?

My right hon. Friend will know from the discussions last week, from the discussions this week in Committee on the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill and from the consultation last December, that we have set out clearly what our objectives for audit need to be. Those are a competitive audit market, the ability for businesses to get audits and ensuring that quality is raised. We will judge any proposals for changes to auditor liability against those objectives. We set out the details of what we will and will not accept in the written ministerial statement last week. We are prepared to look at further measures that would pursue those objectives. We are clear that that is what we need in terms of any reform.

It is the vast gulf between what the Government say and what they do that is undermining UK competitiveness. To be precise and to give the answer that the Minister should have given my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), we know from the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness ranking that the UK has slipped from fourth to 15th place since Labour came to office, not least through the over-regulation of British business under this Government.

Let us consider the use of sunset clauses, which put time limits on business regulations, for example. The 2001 Labour party manifesto, to which all Labour Members signed up, pledged to use sunset clauses. The Cabinet Office has issued guidelines to civil servants telling them that they

"must always consider whether sunsetting…is appropriate".

Why, then, did the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise describe sunset clauses in June 2004 as "the quack cure"—

Order. I want shorter questions than that. That will do from the hon. Gentleman.

I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the World Bank study of 145 countries, entitled "Doing Business in 2005", which placed the UK top in the EU with the best business conditions. It said that

"all the top countries regulate but they"—

the UK—

"do so in less costly and burdensome ways."

We will not make any apology for regulating to ensure decent working conditions in this country. The hon. Gentleman, through his sunset clauses, wants to take those opportunities away from our work force.

Well, that is another broken promise from the 2001 Labour party manifesto. There is not a single example of a sunset clause being used, and on average there have been 4,000-odd regulations a year under Labour.

Let us take one other example of the threat to the UK's competitiveness. Does the Minister agree that if she scraps Britain's opt-out from the EU working time directive preventing people from working more than 48 hours a week, our constituents will be justified in concluding that she will be abolishing the chance for hard-working men and women in this country to do overtime?

On top of the decent working conditions that we put in place, we recognise the importance of flexibility in the labour market and the ability for workers to choose with respect to the opt-out. That is the position that we have taken in our negotiations in Europe. It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to lecture us on employment when it is under this Government that there are 1.9 million more people in work, and it was under the hon. Gentleman's Government that people were thrown on the scrap heap.

In order to continue to be competitive, many intensive energy industries, especially the paper industry, are keen to move to combined heat and power, but at present it is not cost-effective for them to do that. The Government published their CHP framework in April. Is my right hon. Friend able to shed any light on whether any progress has been made on that framework?

Perhaps I can provide my hon. Friend subsequently with some more detail about the progress on that, but the important point is that we must, in our energy policy, both deliver the environmental objectives that we have set out—we are working across Government, including with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that—and provide the security of supply and the energy options necessary to ensure that our industry is successful.

What recent assessment she has made of the (a) environmental and (b) economic performance of British Energy.␣[189173]

British Energy is subject to stringent environmental regulation. The Environment Agency raised some concerns about British Energy's environmental performance, but the company is working closely with the agency to address those concerns. British Energy's economic performance is regularly assessed as part of its current restructuring.

I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome him to the Dispatch Box. He is the sixth Minister with responsibility for energy in seven years; I hope that he enjoys his stay, however long or short it might be.

Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the Public Accounts Committee report on British Energy transactions, and do the Government intend to accept those recommendations? Can he assure the House that he will resist the shareholder revolt, which is seeking to overturn the arrangements that have been made, and does he agree that it is very important to safeguard taxpayers' money and the environment of the United Kingdom?

Of course it is important to protect the UK environment; however, the Liberal Democrats' policy—which is, it seems, to get rid of the Department of Trade and Industry—would undermine that objective. We have seen the PAC report, which we welcome, and we will respond to it in detail in the normal way. I should point out, however, that the privatisation of British Energy undertaken in 1996 involved the traditional structure and left the Government with few tools with which to mitigate any risk. So many of the problems that have arisen since can be laid at the door of those who created that privatisation. On restructuring and the views of shareholders, we are watching carefully what is happening, and we have a great deal of interest in ensuring that such restructuring is carried out effectively.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) is interested in doing away not only with the DTI but with nuclear energy. Is my hon. Friend aware that if we had substituted gas-fired power stations for British Energy production, we would have created an extra 27 million tonnes of carbon emissions from August 2003 to August 2004? Is he not concerned about our being dependent on gas in future, and our losing energy production capacity in this country?

We need to ensure that we have diverse sources of energy, and we intend to do so as part of our strategy. That will include developing renewables, for example, which can make a substantial contribution. However, the Government are not committed to building new nuclear power stations because new build is currently economically unattractive and important issues such as disposal of nuclear waste need to be resolved. Any decision to proceed with nuclear build in future must be based on a full public consultation.

Does the Minister agree that British Energy needs all the help and support that it can get as it faces the future, and that we need to start building a consensus on the energy gap that we face, on Kyoto, and on the question of where we are going to derive our energy source from? We therefore need to encourage a sensible public debate, based on science and good information. If we do not encourage the British nuclear industry, we are likely to see—in addition to the Liberal Democrats wishing to cut electricity cables from France, through which we receive nuclear-generated energy—bids from Electricité de France to build nuclear power stations in this country, because we will have lost the capability.

I certainly agree that we need to have a broad-based debate on how to reach our emissions targets. I welcome the various contributions that have been made in the past week; indeed, we heard very strongly from the Prime Minister on these issues. The Government have shown that we are prepared to take the practical decisions necessary to meet those emissions targets, and we intend to continue developing our renewables policy and efficiency targets. There will doubtless be a debate on nuclear energy in due course, but at this stage we are not committed to new nuclear power station build.

When considering the economic implications of our policy regarding British Energy, will my hon. Friend continue to take my constituents into consideration? British Energy employs 1,000 people in my constituency, and they welcome the support that the Government have given—not least the provision of £500 million in loan payments, as and when required. The Liberal Democrats oppose that policy, without which unemployment in my constituency would double. Such opposition is doubtless supported by Jeremy Hilton, who is the Liberal Democrat candidate for Gloucester at the forthcoming general election.

We have seen historically that the Liberal Democrats jump on any old passing bandwagon. I would say to my hon. Friend that the Government's aim is to ensure that the restructuring of British Energy is done effectively. We need to work with the company and engage with the unions to ensure that the restructuring is effective and that British Energy has a future. That will, in the long term, protect the jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency. That is our hope, so we must ensure that the restructuring is undertaken effectively.

I welcome the Minister to his new role and pay tribute to his predecessor. I wish them both well for the future. I remind the Minister, however, that shareholders did not lose out because of the privatisation of British Energy; it is the restructuring that is in question. Given the rise in electricity prices and the subsequent better financial position of British Energy, will the Minister give due consideration to the revised proposals for restructuring to ensure that all stakeholders get a fair deal, particularly the 230,000 individual shareholders?

We want to ensure that the restructuring is carried out in a way that looks to the interests of those who work for British Energy and ensures that the company can continue to operate so that shareholders feel that they have a fair deal. However, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that the Public Accounts Committee has expressed concern about the way in which the privatisation was carried out. Under that privatisation, the Government retained no rights of information or control over the company's decision making. The PAC criticised aspects of the privatisation process, so it will be interesting to see whether the Conservatives continue to defend their actions.

It is clear that we are now talking about a private sector restructuring of British Energy. The Government are watching how that is happening and we want it to succeed. We will remain engaged in the process, but in the end it is being done in the private sector. We want to ensure that the British people—the consumers—get a good deal, as well as the shareholders.

The Prime Minister has described global warming as the most serious environmental threat to the planet, and we know that a major accelerator is the emission of carbon dioxide and other carbon gases. British Energy has pointed out that the generation of about 64 TWh—or 64,000 GWh—by its nuclear power stations avoids the production and generation of about 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Does the Minister believe that the Government should keep well under review, on a regular basis, their attitude towards nuclear power?

Yes. As I have already said, we operate on the basis of the energy policy set out in our White Paper, which keeps the nuclear option there in the long term. At the moment, however, our view is that it is not the most economically viable approach and there is no investor interest on a substantial scale in new build, so our aim is to ensure that we move towards our emission targets by developing renewables and through energy efficiency. Those are the areas in which we can make substantial progress now. We may look at other options in the future, but that remains to be seen.

If she will make a statement on the appeals mechanism in relation to post office closures under the network reinvention programme.␣[189174]

Proposed closures of urban post offices are considered in accordance with the code of practice agreed by the Post Office and Postwatch. That includes an escalation procedure for handling cases where Postwatch strongly opposes a closure. Cases are escalated for consideration at senior levels up to and including the chief executive of the Post Office and the chairman of Postwatch.

Is the Secretary of State aware that almost every appeal against urban post office closures is being rejected, regardless of the strength of the case or the backing of Postwatch? Is not the reason for that the fact that the group of people making the decisions on closures is the same as the one hearing appeals?

When the new Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), was responsible for this matter, he strengthened the consultation and escalation process, and that has worked well. But the hon. Gentleman not only wants to scrap the DTI, he wants to privatise the Post Office. He was the author of a Liberal Democrat policy paper that was voted on by his party conference, and which proposed moving to the privatised Dutch model, even though there are only half as many post offices per head of population in the Netherlands as in the UK. If he wants to help post offices, I suggest that he talks to his Liberal friends in Aberdeen council, who have stopped people being able to pay their council tax, council rents and business rates at the post office. That has made it more difficult for post offices to stay open, and it shows that we must watch what the Liberals do, not listen to what they say.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me who is responsible for responding to appeals from Members of Parliament for an audit of the assurance that 95 per cent. of the population will live within one mile of a post office? In my constituency, it is estimated that 25 per cent. of people live more than a mile away from a post office. Who is responsible for auditing the assurances that have been given, as neither Postwatch nor the Post Office take responsibility for that?

Postwatch takes its responsibilities enormously seriously. Under the urban reinvention programme, Postwatch staff go and look at all the post offices proposed for closure, and take note of where alternative offices are situated. The problem is very simple: in too many places, nine or 10 post offices serve the same population living within a mile. The pledge that 95 per cent. of people will be within one mile of their nearest post office applies across the whole country. The Post Office and Postwatch, the consumer champion, have the responsibility of ensuring that that target is achieved.

On one hot day last year, I visited 28 post offices in my constituency. Nearly every one is under threat, thanks to the complete mess that the Government have made of the benefit card system. I took a delegation to see the new Financial Secretary, when he was responsible for these matters, and he confirmed that he had made it a requirement that there should be no avoidable closures. Will the Secretary of State confirm what an avoidance closure is, and will she say how she intends to allow post offices to make representations?

Perhaps I could just point out to the hon. Gentleman that before the Government started investing in and saving rural post offices, they were closing at the rate of about 400 a year. We have brought that number down to just over 100 a year by imposing on the Post Office a requirement that rural post offices should not be closed unless that is absolutely unavoidable—in other words, when it is impossible to find people to run them. To avoid those closures, as I announced earlier this morning in a written ministerial statement, we are extending for another two years the payments that we make to rural post offices. That means that, on top of the £450 million that we have put in already, there will be a further £150 million a year for another two years. That is very good news for people living in our villages and countryside.

Two post offices in my constituency closed even though Postwatch objected and supported the campaign against closure. On appeal, the Post Office decided to go ahead with the closures. Does that not show that Postwatch is a toothless tiger? Is it not about time that it was given powers to ensure that it can overrule the Post Office when it has serious objections to a closure?

I will certainly look at the specific case that my hon. Friend raises, but I stress that in several cases around the country—including my own city, where I was involved as a constituency Member—Postwatch has persuaded and cajoled the Post Office into changing its mind. Postwatch has insisted on post offices staying open, and it is a strong and well-resourced consumer champion. Obviously, I understand my hon. Friend's regret that the post offices were not reprieved in that case, but Postwatch has been responsible for changing the decisions in several cases, and that is exactly how the escalation process is designed to work.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in Norfolk several rural sub-post offices—some of them are appealing against closure—set up a new token payment scheme with Powergen? The scheme was very popular with sub-postmasters and the public alike. However, the Post Office has cancelled the contract with Powergen and is stopping sub-postmasters dealing directly with that company to keep the scheme going. Is not that very short-sighted and possibly a restraint of trade? Will she investigate?

Decisions of that sort are of course a commercial matter for the Post Office, but I will take up with David Mills, the chief executive, the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. I hope that he will welcome the announcement that I made this morning of a further £300 million to support rural post offices. We have seen, in Norfolk and other parts of the country, good new arrangements to support postal services. Post offices are opening in pubs and village halls, and we are piloting mobile post offices. All those innovations give us the opportunity, in the longer term, to keep postal services in those villages where they still exist and to extend them to all those thousands of villages that lost their post offices in the Conservative years. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he would cut the £300 million that I am giving to rural post offices? Of course he would.

I understand that the sub-post offices that are to close have signed a contract to accept a compensation package, but is my right hon. Friend aware that if money is paid over it closes down the option for the local community to campaign to keep the service in its area, perhaps by moving into a supermarket or newsagents, where economies of scale could apply and the cost of running the service overcome? Many of my local communities where post offices will close include elderly people who will find it impossible to travel to another area. The suggested alternative post offices might as well be on the moon for such people. We must provide the option of keeping postal services in local areas.

We all care about our local post offices and of course they are a lifeline for elderly people in particular. However, we must face the reality that sub-postmasters and mistresses all over the country simply cannot make a living. With the changes to people's lives—the shift to banking, the use of the internet and more people owning a car—post offices have fewer customers. The Post Office, through the urban reinvention network, is providing better post offices. Most customers are transferring to those other post offices, which are bringing new customers in by providing new services. That is the real way in which we will save post offices in future.

What benefits she expects will accrue to trade relations between Israel and the EU from the new EU neighbourhood policy.␣[189175]

The European neighbourhood policy offers closer co-operation between the EU and Israel in areas of mutual interest, including trade, in return for political and economic reform. We believe that engaging with Israel on the basis of shared common values will be beneficial to the EU-Israel relationship.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that increased trade between the EU and Israel is vital both economically, for the people of Israel and the Palestinian Authority areas—whose economies are closely intertwined—and politically, because it gives the EU a greater stake in the middle east and, therefore, further legitimises its role as a member of the Quartet? Conversely, however well intentioned calls for sanctions are, they would be damaging politically and economically.

I know of my hon. Friend's close interest in those matters and I concur that reducing our level of commercial contact would not strengthen our influence at a critical point in the middle east process.

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I am in the process of establishing a new all-party group on conflict management and resolution. Does he agree that the lesson of Northern Ireland is that peace helps to generate trade and industry and that trade and industry help to generate peace? Is not that transferable to a new and enlivened peace process in Israel and Palestine?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work and wish every success to the organisation that he is in the process of establishing. We can look closer to home than Israel and the Palestinian situation for evidence of the case that he makes. If we consider recent economic progress in Northern Ireland, where record inward investment following the peace process has been self-reinforcing, his point is well made.

How many solicitors have sought remuneration for additional health tests for clients under the coal miners' compensation scheme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vibration white finger; and for how many individuals.␣[189176]

It is not possible to provide a breakdown, but the House will want to know that the Department pays for the independent medical assessment process and there should be no need for claimants to incur further expenditure by undergoing additional health tests.

That excellent and precise answer knocks on the head the myth that solicitors perpetuate to justify double-charging miners. Is not it time for miners and their widows to be paid the full 100 per cent. of their compensation? Can the Government help by holding back the cheques for those solicitors who refuse to pay 100 per cent. of the money, in exactly the same way as some solicitors have been holding back cheques for their clients to try to rake off extra money from the most generous scheme in the world?

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I am sure that 8,823 of his constituents in Bassetlaw are grateful for the help that he has given them in securing payments that total £52 million. We are in discussions with the Law Society and I was grateful to my hon. Friend for attending a meeting with that organisation. I shall ensure that the points he makes are registered with it.

Does the Minister accept that we are all disturbed by reports about the way in which some solicitors seem to have had their noses in the trough in the case of the compensation that we are considering? We all want to ensure that as much money as possible goes to those who deserve the compensation. Is it possible to have a review of how the compensation package has been administered and how much money has gone to solicitors so that, in future, we can ensure that, if there are other similar compensation cases, solicitors come at the bottom of the league and the people who deserve the compensation go to the very top?

I have already put the information that the hon. Gentleman requests in the public domain.

Can my hon. Friend update hon. Members about progress on trying to establish a minimum compensation figure for miners who suffer from chronic bronchitis and emphysema and financing it by using the inflation-updated solicitors' fees that the Department is currently paying out?

My hon. Friend made powerful representations in a recent Adjournment debate. He knows that discussions are currently taking place. Mr. Justice Turner is aware of his excellent contribution. Again, I stress that we want to do more to ensure that we build on the £72 million that has been paid out to miners—12,000 of them in my hon. Friends constituency—and rectify remaining injustices. I undertake to keep him and the House informed of the results of deliberations.

If she will take steps to increase the powers available to the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council for protecting gas and electricity consumers.␣[189177]

The powers of the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council—Energywatch—were set out in the Utilities Act 2000. I have no plans to increase them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is growing anxiety in the public mind, especially in the older section of our community, about energy prices and contracts? Will he give further consideration to the council's powers to be pre-emptive and ensure that people who may be vulnerable to being drawn into contracts that are not in their best interests are protected?

Under the Utilities Act 2000, the aim was to create a regulator with substantial powers and a consumer investigator—essentially, Energywatch. Ofgem obviously has the powers—it is the regulator—and is able to intervene if necessary, but we have found that, in practice, Energywatch can deal with such issues by entering into discussions with the various electricity companies. If such issues need to be addressed, using the energy investigator to engage successfully with the companies would be one way forward, but if problems are arising I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss them.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position; we very much look forward to working with him. I pay tribute to his predecessor's work, especially the confirmation he gave the Opposition when we discussed the Energy Bill in respect of our proposals about vulnerable customers whose electricity or gas is about to be cut off. Apparently, many of those who would wish to intervene to help them are prevented from doing so by the Data Protection Act 1998. Will the Minister give his urgent attention to ensuring that no vulnerable customer is placed at such risk in future?

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who did a superb job as Energy Minister; I hope that I can begin to fill his shoes in that role.

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Following extensive work earlier this year, the industry agreed and issued guidelines on disconnections, which will ensure that, as far as possible, no vulnerable customer is disconnected. If there is evidence of wrongful disconnections, Ofgem has the power to act. I understand that, thus far, Energywatch has not provided evidence of that happening widely, but it will continue to watch and monitor the position because, as she rightly points out, this is an important issue.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the statement made by Allan Asher, the chief executive of Energywatch, that the opaque nature of the wholesale gas market, which is now a European market, is such that the only serious avenue open to protect consumers is an investigation by the European competition authorities or the Competition Commission?

Other avenues are open, including discussions between the various Governments and engagement with private sector companies. However, we can also use routes through the European Union to ensure that the consumer is protected. Obviously, wholesale prices, especially for gas, have been increasing, which partly reflects upward pressure on prices in continental Europe, where gas prices are contractually linked to high oil prices. We are continuing to watch the position very carefully, and we want to ensure that, throughout the process, the consumer is protected in so far as that is possible.

What new services have become available at post office counters since May 1997.␣[189178]

The Government have given the Royal Mail Group greater commercial freedom. We have put in place new management—including for Post Office Ltd., which has been losing business for years—and the Post Office is introducing a number of new services, particularly in insurance, banking and telephones.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the Post Office provides new services, it will attract more customers and be able to keep more branches open? How many banks have made arrangements with the Post Office whereby their customers can draw cash at post office counters? How many people have accounts with those banks and can therefore draw cash at post offices?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: new services, bringing in new customers, will make our post offices successful in future. Already, some 20 million current account holders with Barclays, Lloyds TSB and Alliance and Leicester can bank electronically at post offices, and I am delighted that that became 21 million banking customers yesterday because Clydesdale bank has now reached the same agreement with the Post Office.

That is good news, but customers also want their post offices to be available to them in a convenient place. Has the Secretary of State any comment to make on the continued closure of Crown post offices such as the one in Frome, which has been situated in the marketplace for as long as anyone can remember? It will now be moved and put into the back of a newsagent's somewhere. That is bitterly resented by people in Frome, and there has been no consultation process that is worthy of the name. It was made quite clear right from the beginning that the Post Office would decide and that nobody in Frome would be able to change that decision, whether through petitions in the Somerset Standard or any other way.

This is a matter for the Post Office, to which, as I have said, we have given commercial freedom. I regret the fact that Crown post offices have been losing so much money in recent years and I regret even more the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would privatise the Post Office, which would undoubtedly make that situation worse.

If she will make a statement on the initiatives taken by the Government to encourage women (a) to become self-employed and (b) to establish businesses.␣[189163]

Since the launch of our strategic framework for women's enterprise last year, we have been working across government and in the regions to improve the environment of support for women wishing to become self-employed or to start businesses.

I am pleased to report that all nine English regions are now committed to developing women's enterprise. Enterprise week in November will include a designated women's enterprise day. Women now account for around one third of people going into self-employment, and an increasing number of women are reporting that they have the skills needed to start a business.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and wish to make her aware that I have a marvellous community cinema in my community, which a group of enterprising women took over seven years ago. It has a turnover of nearly a third of a million pounds a year while making only £500 profit. Those women desperately want to expand this facility and they desperately need support to do so. Is she convinced that the mechanisms that she has now put in place will reach these wonderful women so that they can go on working in voluntary enterprise and make more of a contribution than they have already?

My hon. Friend is obviously talking about a group of very inspirational women, who have taken on the challenge not only of enterprise but of building their community as well. She is absolutely right. We need to look at all the forms of support that are in place and make sure that they take into consideration the specific needs of women. That is why, for example, we shall shortly launch the case for women's enterprise, which offers practical guidance, case studies and advice for those people who offer business support on the particular needs of women. That is why, in the situation that she has described, the increased support that the Government have put in place for social enterprise may also be appropriate for these women. I am clear that not only is it beneficial for individual women in the circumstances that she has outlined to set up in business, but it is extremely beneficial for their communities as well.

How many new businesses were established last year by women?

I do not know the answer to that, but I will certainly provide the hon. Gentleman with the information later. It is encouraging that research shows that many more women now feel they have the skills and ability to set up in business. We now need to translate that into women who actually do that, and I have already outlined some of the practical measures that are being taken at a national level and through the regional development agencies, which are beginning to set women's enterprise as a priority and to put in place the actions that will translate those women who want to start in business into women who are successfully in business.

In Sheffield, there is an active business club that has many women members who have set up their own businesses and who are doing very well. Will my right hon. Friend look at ways in which Government organisations can make better links with such organisations to use these women as examples and inspirations to other women?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Interestingly, a research report by the British Chambers of Commerce found that female businesses tended to be more innovative and more collaborative and networked particularly with universities, as well as being increasingly export oriented.

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to find mentors for women who are setting up in work. The business volunteer mentoring initiative, which currently provides free mentoring support to pre and early start-up businesses, has some 43,000 clients, approximately 40 per cent. of whom are female. Although women do not form the majority of those who use the service, a higher proportion of women who set up in business use it than men. My hon. Friend makes an important point on which we need to build.

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of legislation protecting women from unfair dismissal in cases of maternity leave.␣[189164]

In 2003–04, employment tribunals received 694 applications from women who believed that they were dismissed because of pregnancy, maternity and childbirth, and 80 relating to being prevented from returning to work after maternity leave. The law makes it quite clear that women cannot be discriminated against or dismissed because of pregnancy or childbirth, and I regret the fact that some employers still seem to be flouting the law.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the law is secure, especially in the light of the precedent created recently in the case of Manor Bakeries and Mrs. Ursell in my constituency? The tribunal ruled that a woman could be sacked in a case of maternity leave, even if she had an exemplary record and references, provided that the decision was made on commercial grounds.

I am not aware of the specific case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I invite him to send me further details of it. I believe that the law is clear on dismissal and discrimination. Employment tribunal cases do not set legal precedents and I do not know whether that specific decision is being appealed. We have invited the Equal Opportunities Commission to consider the real problem of employers who still do not accept the need to recognise that women will have children—that is a very good thing too. The commission will report to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality and me shortly, so we shall consider carefully its recommendations for any further action that might be needed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that pregnancy discrimination is still widespread? Has she heard of the case of the Cardiff manager who was advised by her boss to have an abortion or face the sack? Does she agree that the law should be made clearer and codified, as recommended by the Equal Opportunities Commission?

I am indeed aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. It was absolutely disgraceful and hugely distressing to the woman and her family. As my hon. Friend indicated, the Equal Opportunities Commission has already produced an interim report and is recommending even clearer advice to employees and employers on their rights and responsibilities. We will consider that in the context of its final report on its investigation.

In July this year, Godfrey Bloom MEP said:

"No self-respecting businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a woman of childbearing age."

It is relatively easy to see when a woman is discriminated against because she is pregnant, but less easy to see when she is discriminated against because she is of childbearing age. What is the Minister doing to tackle that problem?

The remarks made by that UKIP Member were absolutely absurd. A growing number of women of all ages are entering the labour market and getting employment because employers need their skills and talents. It is simply not in the interest of any well-run business to discriminate against a woman because she is of childbearing age or has a baby. We must keep pressing that point to the minority of employers who have still not moved into the 21st century.

What steps she is taking to tackle pension inequality for women.␣[189165]

We have introduced a raft of measures to help women in retirement and women of working age to build better pensions. Almost all the 2.5 million carers who have benefited from the state second pension are women, two thirds of those receiving pension credit are women, and the introduction of, and increase to, the national minimum wage disproportionately benefits women. We have also launched a publication on informed choices for working and savings, which will help to improve women's awareness of their financial position.

I very much welcome the measures that my hon. Friend outlines. Does she agree, however, that the real way to crack the pensions problem for women is to ensure that they have their own independent pension entitlement? Will she look, therefore, at ensuring that women who work all their working lives—perhaps only part time or with a career break to bring up a family—have better rights than they do now to their own independent state pension?

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the position of women who have, perhaps, taken career breaks and have had caring responsibilities. That is, of course, why the state second pension, which provides benefits to women who are carers and not in paid employment, is so important. It is also why the extension of home responsibility protection, which the Government have already put in place, is crucial. As we make clear in the pensions Green Paper, the particular position of women with respect to pensions both deserves and is getting attention from the Government, as my hon. Friend says.

I appreciate what the Minister says and that she is taking action for the future, but my concern is for the many thousands of women of pensionable age who did not have the opportunities during their working lives that our generation have had, with the effect that one in four women pensioners are living in poverty now. The measures in place are not helping. Only 12 per cent. of women, as opposed to 90 per cent. of men, are eligible for the full basic state pension now. It is a really sad situation for hundreds of thousands of women over 60 right now. What is the Minister going to do about it—now?

I certainly share the hon. Lady's concern about those pensioners, very many of them women, who are living in poverty. I am slightly surprised at the emphasis that she places on it, however, not least because the action that this Government have taken to focus support on the poorest pensioners—whether or not it is through the minimum income guarantee, other improvements to pension provision, such as the introduction of the pension credit, free TV licences or a whole range of other provisions that the Government have made—has almost invariably been opposed by Opposition Members. We have made real our commitment to ensuring that those pensioners in poverty are our priority. I hope that the hon. Lady makes real her commitment in future and does not institute the sort of cuts that have been her party's policy up until now.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 17, 56, 59 to 67 and 70.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome hon. Members to this afternoon's discussions and deliberations. I note the absence of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who is on parental leave. I wish him every success and hope that everything goes well.

This is a large group of amendments, all of which relate to part 1 of the Bill and concern the statutory recognition procedure. Many of the amendments within the group are technical or consequential. For example, amendment No. 1 makes a small change to the way a person's "workplace" is described to ensure that consistent language is used throughout trade union law. However, some of the amendments are more significant than that, and I shall mainly focus on them in my opening remarks.

Amendment No. 2 addresses a situation in which the Central Arbitration Committee is required to hold a ballot, even though more than 50 per cent. of the relevant work force are union members. The CAC must currently take three criteria into account when deciding whether a ballot is held. In particular, if the CAC is informed by a significant number of union members that they do not want the union to bargain on their behalf, the CAC must proceed by arranging a ballot. That has caused problems in practice, because it gives insufficient discretion to the CAC to assess the quality of the evidence put before it, including evidence that workers were pressurised by the employer to write letters to the CAC that did not reflect their true views. The amendment therefore introduces some necessary discretion for the CAC to assess the credibility of evidence in determining whether a ballot should be held.

Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 relate to the definition of unfair practices during recognition ballots in clause 9. Amendment No. 3 changes the definition of an "offer" to induce a person to vote in a particular way or abstain from voting in a recognition ballot. We consider that the current definition may be drawn too widely and might cut across the normal campaigning activity of either the union or the employer in discussing the consequences of recognition. Amendment No. 3 therefore provides more precise wording on the nature of the offer by referring to the payment of money or the giving of "money's worth". That new definition of an unfair "offer" therefore focuses on the things commonly associated with the practice of "bribing and treating", which, as we know, is explicitly outlawed in public elections.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 create a new unfair practice of making an "outcome specific" offer. Such offers are not explicitly linked to a person's agreement to vote in a particular way or not to vote at all. Instead, they represent more general offers to make payments to the work force or give them money's worth provided the outcome of the ballot goes a particular way. Such offers are clearly designed to interfere with the ballot and should therefore be categorised as an unfair practice. Again, we have taken the trouble to ensure that that new unfair practice does not impede normal campaigning by either party, or encourage speculative complaints to the CAC that an unfair practice has occurred.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 concern the remedies available to the CAC where either the employer or the union is adjudged to have committed an unfair practice during a recognition ballot. When it left this House, clause 9 of the Bill did not define those remedies and provided a power for the Secretary of State to set them by order, which was clearly unsatisfactory. We indicated our desire to introduce amendments in the other place that would set out the remedies and sanctions in the Bill, and these amendments fulfil that commitment.

Among other things, amendment No. 7 empowers the CAC to award recognition, where an employer's practice involves the extreme behaviour of committing acts of violence or dismissing a union activist. It also allows the CAC to award recognition where the employer commits two lesser unfair practices or fails to take any remedial actions that the CAC might order. The CAC has corresponding sanctions to refuse the union's application for recognition, where the union commits the unfair practices.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 also provide for ballots to be rerun where an unfair practice has occurred and might have corrupted the initial ballot. In devising that system, we have given scope to the CAC to exercise discretion as needed. For example, it is not required to rerun a ballot where the party that was the victim of an unfair practice has won the ballot.

Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 make the corresponding changes to the definition of unfair offers during derecognition ballots, and they also establish the corresponding system of remedies. They are virtually identical to the amendments that I just discussed, although some additional refinements deal with the special case in which a worker seeks to derecognise the union. All the other amendments in the group are either technical or consequential.

The amendments significantly improve the Bill. They are the product of detailed prior consultation with key stakeholders, and I therefore urge the House to agree to them.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for sending me a comprehensive note on the amendments, which, as he pointed out, are all Government amendments. We take the view that they are sensible: my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon spoke for the Opposition in the debate and discussions in another place, where she made it clear that they significantly improve the Bill.

As the Minister pointed out, the statutory recognition procedure is important. The current definition of offers of inducement either not to participate or to abstain is too wide and could cut into normal campaigning, so the Minister has done the right thing. On amendments Nos. 7 and 8, will he confirm that there would be no need to rerun a ballot in which unfair practices occurred if the injured party wins? On balance, the amendments make sensible, albeit minor, improvements to the Bill.

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), I thank the Minister for his best wishes. If and when the good news arrives, I will pass it on.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned that the Minister provided him with a briefing. Perhaps our channels of communication are bogged down and the briefing reached my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon but not me, or perhaps the briefing never reached my hon. Friend.

The briefing would have been useful, because the amendments are technical and detailed. The amendments are welcome, because they make sense of how a campaign can be fought. It is sensible to hold the genuine debate about the benefits of recognition in the open, without being sidetracked into whether those benefits are inducements. There is clearly a debate to be had in each recognition ballot, and it should be open for people to make a strong case, if they believe that recognition will advance their cause. I welcome the practical, common-sense approach and the fact that the CAC will have the discretion carefully to judge the balance rather than using a purely numerical measure.

I welcome the amendments, which are broadly sensible. On amendment No. 7, when a ballot is rerun after unfair practice, what is the limit on the CAC's discretion? For instance, can the CAC resist a re-ballot if the side that lost wants a re-ballot and there has been some unfair practice? Would the CAC examine the degree of unfair practice and make a judgment whether it changed the result of the ballot, or would it simply allow a re-ballot in any circumstances?

I welcome hon. Members' contributions to the debate, which show that the union recognition procedure generally works, which is why the Bill does not change it substantially.

On unfair practices, the CAC has proved that it is capable of examining such issues in great detail and coming up with the right result. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) fears that the CAC may overstep the mark. However, if unfair practices exist, the injured party does not have to go for a re-ballot. The CAC will have powers to examine all the evidence, and its judgment will be held to account by employment tribunals, which is a clear safeguard.

I welcome the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and apologise for the e-mail being sent to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). No attempt was made to take him out of the process.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 32 and 57.

Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21 amend clauses 21 and 24. Those clauses simplify and clarify the provisions requiring unions to provide notices to employers in advance of an industrial action ballot and any subsequent industrial action. Unions and employers have generally welcomed both clauses and no serious objections have been raised about them. However, it was brought to our attention that they could be improved on in an important respect if we made allowances for notices to refer to information given by reference to the established practice of deducting union subscriptions at source. That system, known colloquially as "check off" remains widespread in this country and covers many millions of workers. It is a common way of paying union subscriptions in large organisations and in the public sector.

It has been established through case law that unions will often be able to meet their current legal obligations by referring to their members paying by this system in notices. That arrangement has provided unions with a ready means of referring accurately to their members. It has also allowed employers easily to identify individuals through their payroll systems. As currently worded, the clause provided less scope to unions to refer to check-off information as a shortcut to meeting their legal obligations. That was regrettable, and both employers and unions would have lost out as a result.

Our intention in this group of amendments is to ensure that unions can draw on their check-off information to meet their obligations in whole or in part. Lords amendments Nos. 18, 20 and 21 make the necessary changes to clause 21. Amendment No. 23, together with amendments Nos. 25 to 28, makes the corresponding changes to clause 24.

Lords Amendments Nos. 19, 22, 24, 29, 30 and 31 are technical amendments to the notice provisions. They will ensure that consistent wording is used throughout trade union law when describing the workplaces of employees. Earlier this afternoon we agreed a similar technical amendment—Lords amendment No.1 to part I of the Bill. I believe that the amendments improve the Bill, providing flexibility and lightening the regulatory burden. It should therefore be easy to comply with the law, especially in complicated situations where many thousands of employees are involved.

The effect will be achieved without in any way reducing the quality of the information that the employers receive. Indeed, as I have explained, the option of providing check-off information will often give the employer more complete information than he would otherwise receive. He can access that information very easily with minimal cost through an examination of his pay records, which will normally be computerised.

Lords amendments Nos. 32 and 57 amend the landmark protections against unfair dismissal for employees taking protected industrial action, which were introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999. Our review of the 1999 Act noted that industrial action has remained relatively low in the UK since the eight-week period of protection was introduced. In fact, the number of stoppages is at an all-time low. On several occasions during the Bill's passage, we have debated the adequacy of the eight-week period. Trade unions have called for indefinite protection for workers taking part in lawful industrial action. However, the Government have always taken the view that it is necessary to place a time limit on the period for which it is automatically unfair to dismiss someone taking protected industrial action. We need to balance the legitimate interests of all concerned.

In the other place, amendments were repeatedly tabled on that topic and we noted the strong views of unions and others. We therefore think that a modest extension of the protected period should be made. I should add that the extension affects only a small number of stoppages each year. This group of amendments extends the protections against unfair dismissal for employees taking lawfully organised official industrial action from eight weeks to 12 weeks. I am confident that the extension to 12 weeks will not adversely affect the amount of strike activity or the climate of industrial relations. Again, I strongly urge the House to agree to the Lords amendments.

As the Minister pointed out, the amendments are once again the result of considerable discussion in the other place. I have discussed them with my noble Friend, Baroness Miller of Hendon, and reflected on the debates in the other place. I agree that the amendments improve the system of industrial action ballots and ballot notices.

At this late stage, just one matter occurs to me. In using the check-off system, is there absolutely no risk of conflict with data protection provisions? Has the legislation been drafted in such a way that no one could suddenly upset the system by careful use of data protection? That is my only concern.

I am grateful for Opposition Members' inquiries. The check-off procedure operates in large workplaces in the public sector where there is a large union membership. It is an effective and efficient way of collecting subscriptions without impeding productivity. It is different in smaller workplaces. The Bill does not affect either method of collection. We checked the possibilities relating to data protection and I am happy to say that it is not a problem.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 43 and 58.

This group of amendments makes two sets of changes to the clauses of the Bill that implement the European Court's judgment in the cases of Wilson and Palmer. Let me start with amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 38. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has drawn attention to the fact that new section 145B, which would be inserted by clause 28, provides rights to the members of recognised unions only. It considers that, in cases where a union is seeking recognition, new section 145B needs to provide comparable protections to ensure that members have the right not to be offered inducements by the employer for the purpose of securing that their terms will not be determined by collective agreement in the future.

Having looked at the arguments put forward and having consulted the stakeholders, we concluded that the Joint Committee's analysis is correct. So to ensure our compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, we believe that the scope of new section 145B should be extended. Lords amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 38 make the necessary changes to clause 28.

Let me now describe the second set of amendments, which cover the other nine in the group. In combination, the amendments change the definition of a "worker" for the purposes of new sections 145A to 145E, and for the purposes of the existing sections 146 to 150 of the 1992 Act. The current definition of worker for those purposes is provided in section 296 of the 1992 Act. The Bill covers people "seeking work" and is not limited solely to those in employment. It was never our intention that the protections should extend to those seeking work. Their trade union rights are contained in section 137 of the 1992 Act.

These amendments therefore adjust the definition of worker to ensure that it does not cover those seeking work, thereby ensuring that the rights are confined to the target group and that overlapping rights for workers seeking employment are not created. The first set of amendments implements a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the second makes necessary technical changes to the Bill. I urge the House again to agree to the amendments.

Again, the Minister has explained clearly that this group of technical amendments flows from the Wilson and Palmer case, and they certainly improve the Bill. In Committee, we discussed at some length the definition of workers who enjoy rights. The Minister is right to say that it was always intended that that should cover all workers in employment. At the time, despite his many civil servants, he did not spot that the provision also unintentionally covered workers seeking employment. The Opposition should have spotted that small anomaly, and I dare say that my colleague the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) should have done so too, but I think that we can be forgiven. There may be a good legal reason to explain why we missed it, but the amendments ensure that the coverage is limited to the target group of those in employment. That must be positive, and we welcome the change.

These amendments prove the worth of our bicameral system, which ensures that errors get spotted before it is too late. I also welcome the fact that the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights have been addressed. That shows how useful it is to have a human rights factor in our legislation, as it means that we can try to get our law right so that people do not need to waste time going to a foreign court to ensure that their rights are implemented.

These amendments arose from a complicated and complex investigation of the ECHR judgment. That is how the question of the definition came to light, so hon. Members should not be too hard on themselves for not spotting the problem. Members of the House of Lords consider these matters line by line and issue by issue and over many years they have accrued a great deal of expertise. It is right that the processes available in this House enable other bodies to submit their views. The Joint Committee expressed its view very clearly, and we responded with this solution. I admit that the solution does not meet all requirements, but we believe that it is a fair attempt to protect all workers who are affected.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 45.

During the Standing Committee stage of the Bill, I brought forward a new clause to give unions the latitude to deal adequately with political activists who pursue a racist or xenophobic political agenda. At that time, I indicated that the Government and the TUC were giving further consideration to the drafting of the remedies provisions.

I am glad to be able to say that we brought forward amendments on this point in the other place that expressly refer an employment tribunal to the union's objectives, as well as its rules, when determining whether the minimum award should apply. That was a key issue for the TUC, which was worried by the fact that many unions do not refer to their equality or anti-racist policies in their rule books.

The provisions affected by these amendments operate where a person is excluded or expelled from a union mainly because he or she is a member of a political party but partly because of other conduct. In combination, the amendments disapply the minimum award where the other conduct in question is contrary to the union's rules or objectives, provided that it was reasonably practicable for the person concerned to have ascertained the objectives in question.

The amendments give the degree of transparency that we have been aiming for, and improve the practical implementation of this clause. They satisfy the TUC's concerns on this point and, for these reasons, I hope that the House will agree to them.

These amendments were proposed when trade union legal eagles decided that the Bill needed to be improved. Opposition Members have had discussions with the trade union movement about the Bill, and I have met TUC general secretary Brendan Barber. We may not agree about much, but we do agree about some things. We are pragmatic and practical when it comes to improving the Bill, and common sense is our watchword. We support the amendment.