Select Committee on Trade and Industry Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witness (Questions 40-61)



  40. Effectively we have had two people in the past, the chief executive of the Small Business Service who is meant to have an independent role representing small businesses inside government and the Better Regulation Task Force as an advisory body outside it. Now you are saying in effect you are only going to have the Better Regulation Task Force with all the constraints that Lord Haskins himself expressed to us about their external role.
  (Ms Hewitt) No, that is not what I am saying at all. I think it is very difficult for a civil servant - and David Irwin became a civil servant when he became chief executive of the Small Business Service - to fulfil the role of being a strong voice for small business on the issue of regulation and therefore we will have somebody who will be the owner manager of a small business, who will fulfil in relation to small business regulation the same role that Lord Haskins has filled in relation to regulation generally as chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force. That will strengthen the role of somebody acting as a strong voice for small businesses in relation to regulatory matters.

Richard Burden

  41. You have put a good deal of emphasis on the regional dimension, the role of the Department in the regions and the role of the regions within the Department. Given that that is an area in the past where there has often been concern expressed about confusion - too many bits not fitting together - and given the reorganisation other departments have undertaken, how do you see the new set up as fitting with the emerging agenda for regional government generally? I am asking you to be a bit joined up here but if there is an agenda developing with regional government there, the DTI reorganisation, how does it mesh up?

  (Ms Hewitt) I think they mesh up very well. We are obviously working across government at the moment on the preparation of a White Paper on regional government and directly elected regional assemblies but what I am proposing to do with the Regional Development Agencies fits very well with the regional devolution agenda. The regional devolution agenda seems to me to be about strengthening the leadership and the capacity of people within each of the English regions to make decisions that affect their economic and social future. The Regional Development Agencies are a very important part of that. I am delighted that they have now come within the DTI family and I think we are working very effectively with them. Their role in relation to regional economic strategy and business performance will be strengthened by this review. One of the problems I have found as a new Member of Parliament, which I know a lot of business people find, is who do you go to in the region. Do you go to Government Offices? Do you go to the Regional Development Agencies? Do you go to Business Links? What we are doing with the business support review is moving the part of regional selective assistance that currently sits with Government Offices across to the Regional Development Agencies. We are also moving the smaller enterprise grants and the Smart awards away from Government Offices and into the Small Business Service and Business Links. The Small Business Service regional managers are co-located with the Regional Development Agencies. That will give us a much better service to businesses and also to Members of Parliament in different parts of the country. The Government Offices will then be able to focus on their strategic role, working on behalf of government and the regions and feeding in regional experience and expertise to departmental policy making. That is where their role will focus instead of also acting as a delivery arm for particular bits of business support programmes. That strengthening of the Regional Development Agencies absolutely sits alongside our manifesto commitment to create directly elected regional assemblies where that is what people of a particular region want.

  42. Obviously some sharpening up of focus can improve coordination and clarity. There is also sometimes a danger that that being done in the wrong way can end up with particular areas of activity being squeezed. One of the things you have put some emphasis on—you have mentioned it today and in other places—has been the role of the social economy, community business and so on. With the new set up regionally, if they are going to be promoted, it is going to be very much at the regional, local level that that will happen. What do you see the role of RDAs in that, particularly if there is a stronger focus in the regions boosting competitiveness? How do you guard against that being defined rather narrowly and to some extent squeezing out some of the less traditional areas like community business and so on?
  (Ms Hewitt) I do not think there is any danger of that at all. Last Friday, I was in Nottingham helping to launch Social Enterprise East Midlands, which is a partnership venture that has been initiated by the East Midlands Regional Development Agency. It is a wonderful example of an RDA absolutely understanding that social enterprises have a vital role to play, particularly in the regeneration of deprived areas, and itself taking the initiative, with other partners including the new Economics Foundation, in creating a supportive structure for social enterprises within their particular region. What I have also done, as you may be aware, is to create within the Department a Social Enterprise Unit that is now working with a large number of social entrepreneurs and organisations, including the Co-op Movement and the new Economics Foundation and so on, and working with a range of partners to define a more effective cross-government strategy for the support and promotion of social enterprises. It is a very important area, not only in the regeneration of disadvantaged areas, but also I believe in the transformation and modernisation of public services. That Social Enterprise Unit will sit within our new business support group within the reorganised department but part of its role will be to ensure not only that the RDAs understand the potential of social enterprise, which they seem to be doing very well, but also that our Business Link advisers understand that social enterprises are also businesses that need professional business expertise of the kind that they would give to full profit businesses at the moment.

Dr Kumar

  43. You mentioned the manufacturing summit you organised last week with employers and the unions. It was reported that you were going to appoint a manufacturing tzar. Is it correct or is it a newspaper interpretation of what you said? People like Ken Jackson of the AEEU, the General Secretary, have been arguing for a manufacturing minister for a long time. Have you rejected a manufacturing minister in your Department and gone for a manufacturing tzar as an alternative? Could you say a few words on which is the option?
  (Ms Hewitt) I am delighted to have that question. I think there was a little bit of spinning done, not by me or the Department, of the manufacturing summit. I used to be a press secretary but I have long since given that up. This notion of a manufacturing tzar was not mentioned at the summit at all. What was mentioned was the idea that the government might have a chief manufacturing adviser, a proposal that has been around in various guises for some time. What I said and what will be the case is that the new director of the Science, Technology and Innovation Group will in my view fulfil the role that was being envisaged for a chief manufacturing adviser because a key part of the role of that new Science, Technology and Innovation Group will be to help drive out leading edge technologies and science across manufacturing industry. We could have a long conversation on the potential for new technologies across the manufacturing industry, but there was absolutely clear agreement at the summit that that is a central part of what we have to do to ensure that we have a highly competitive, high technology manufacturing industry as part of becoming a successful, knowledge-driven economy. That is where I envisage the work that was being proposed for a chief manufacturing adviser sitting within the new organisation. As far as a manufacturing minister goes, I regard myself as the Minister for Manufacturing and in Brian Wilson I have somebody who is a Minister for Industry as well as a Minister for Energy. It is a role both of us take very seriously.

  44. May I move on to science policy? Looking at the memorandum and the restructuring of your Department, it has obviously put a lot of effort into the science base. It is very impressive and well organised but what I cannot see is the link with the Office of Science and Technology and how you are going to build that. You have got the Department absolutely right but the connection with the Office seems to be missing in the same spirit that you are going to have this new group who will deal with your science base.
  (Ms Hewitt) Thank you for that because in a sense this has been one of the most complex issues that we have had to resolve as part of the review. What I am very clear about is that the Office of Science and Technology needs to retain a state of identity, because of its responsibilities that go right across government. We have the Chief Scientific Adviser who is the chief scientific adviser to the Prime Minister and to the whole of government. We also have the Director General of the Research Councils and that work with the Research Councils will be taken forward following the Quinquennial Review of the Research Councils. Those two functions are cross-government because the research, the work of the Research Councils as well as the work of the Chief Scientific Adviser, includes issues like medical science which does not fit within the DTI. It includes the support of pure scientific research that is driven by pure curiosity and the desire for learning, not by the desire to commercialise science which is one of the driving goals of the DTI. What we have to do is ensure that we play our part within the Department, driving out the fruits of the science and technology base into business and across the economy. Hence, the new Science, Technology and Innovation Group which I know you welcome. If you look at the small print which I am just checking in the note at the bottom of the chart, you will see that there will be a knowledge transfer strategy group which will include the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Director General of the Research Councils, the head of this new group and some non-executives so that we have between the Department and the Office of Science and Technology—which is housed within the Department—a seamless strategy for ensuring that the fruits of the scientific research and technology base are coming out into business and that we are building demand for these things within business, which has been lacking in some cases in the past. John Taylor, the Director General of the Research Councils, is acting as the head of the Science, Technology and Innovation group at the moment to design this new group while we proceed with an external recruitment of the permanent head of the group.

  45. Would you not agree that that needs to be monitored very strongly because you acknowledge that in the past it has not worked. There has been a mish-mash of success with the links between the Department as well as the Office of Science and Technology and there has to be a strong monitoring of the outcome, with certain parameters.
  (Ms Hewitt) Yes, I would agree with that. The key to this is building very strong relationships between the science base and particularly the Director General of the Research Councils who is responsible for working with the science base; and the new Science, Technology and Innovation Group within the Department and its head. I think we can do that but we will put a great deal of effort into making sure that that works. We will use the knowledge transfer strategy group to ensure that we have an agreed strategy to which we are all working and, by creating this new STI group, we will bring together a huge amount of expertise that at the moment sits in different parts of the Department. That will make it much easier for business as well as the science base to work with us and for us to build on what we have already achieved with the new funding streams that we have put into knowledge transfer work and the new enterprise centres, incubators and science parks that are beginning to flourish in the universities.

  46. In paragraph 9 of the Annex to your memorandum, your review suggests it will take two years to integrate the energy directorate into the Department. Why do you think this is long enough? How will energy subsequently be integrated into the rest of the DTI?
  (Ms Hewitt) Our first thought was that we would treat energy in the same way that we are treating other sectors. In other words, within this Business Relationship Management Group, where our sector teams would sit. We would have a sectoral team focused on energy, but the regulatory expertise would stay within the competitive frameworks division. What has become clear as we have worked through this proposition is that we have a huge challenge ahead of us on the energy issues. First of all, we expect to get within the next month a report from the PIU energy review and we will be the Department responsible for taking that forward, working across government with colleagues to make decisions on the recommendations of that report and then putting in place the strategy that arises from it. We also have an enormous amount of work that arises out of the statement I made last week on British Nuclear Fuels and the creation of the new Liabilities Management Agency. We need at this point to keep the sectoral expertise and the regulatory expertise together while we put in place that new strategy and create the new Liabilities Management Authority and we do the other work that is needed to put in place a long term energy strategy. It is still the Permanent Secretary's and my view that once we have done that the right way to go forward will be to have an energy sectoral team within the Business Relationship Management Group and the regulatory expertise to sit within Competitive Frameworks Group. Change is a never ending process within large organisations and we will look at that as we move forward on energy policy and on the creation of these new organisations.

Mr Hoyle

  47. Moving on to business support, you have begun to recognise the problems that other people have come up with: too many choices, a mish-mash and a plethora of all these different organisations offering advice. The reality is it is too diluted. People feel very confused with what is on offer and really at the end of the day it has not been working in the best possible way. What are you doing to rationalise the system and to simplify it?
  (Ms Hewitt) This has been one of the biggest problems I have encountered as a small business minister. It was one of the themes that came out really strongly in the consultation we did. What we are seeking to do is to group our £1 billion of business support investment into five portfolios. We may want to look at the names of these portfolios but the issues they will deal with are, first of all, innovation; secondly, enterprise and support for small firms; thirdly, regional investment; fourthly, investment in skills and people, workforce development and so on; fifthly, international trade and investment, which is very much the business of British Trade International. We are at the stage where, having identified all the different business support programmes and grant schemes that we have, we are now looking in more detail at the minority of those programmes that are responsible for the majority of the spend. We have an awful lot of small programmes but we are looking at the ones where most of the money goes at the moment. We are looking at the evaluations that have been done, where they have been done, of those existing schemes. We are looking at whether the existing schemes are really directed at a clear market failure and whether they are having good, measurable results. On the basis of that piece of work which has already started and will be completed within the next month, we will be able to have a much clearer and more robust set of criteria for deciding where it is we should put our limited amounts of money. We will have within this left hand pillar, the business support piece, a group that will be responsible for managing these portfolios but, like most other things - and you will not be surprised to hear me say this - we will have some outside experts. In this case, people who are used to managing investment portfolios, so that as we go forward we become much better at making decisions. If we start off by having 40 per cent of our money going into the innovation portfolio, is that right? Should we have been putting more into that or more somewhere else? Within each portfolio, do we have the criteria right? Are we effectively getting out there and making this support available to small businesses in a way that meets their needs, which is where a simplification of business support ties up with improving the quality of Business Link because they are the main point of contact for most small businesses who are likely to come to us needing support.

  48. You will be judging the success or failure as you go along and you will be able to adapt it. How long do you think the total reorganisation will take to put in place?
  (Ms Hewitt) The total reorganisation will be in place by 1 April. That is a very fast timescale, very challenging. From the outset, Robin Young and I have been clear that unless we do keep up the momentum and drive this fast we will not get the changes we want. We may not have all the new permanent directors of the groups in place. In some cases, the Permanent Secretary has announced who will lead these groups. In other cases, as I have said with the Science, Technology and Innovation Group, we will have to go to external recruitment; but we have somebody already within the staff who will manage the transition and the creation of that new group in the meantime. There will be an interim period as we get all the staff in post, but the new organisation will be up and running on 1 April.

  49. The worry has always been with small businesses if you are not in an objective area you always struggle against it and you are lucky if you can get anything out of the pot. All the money seems to go to the same area. How will you ensure that non-objective areas with small businesses will get the help and support and will not be missed out?
  (Ms Hewitt) Obviously, our financial support to business has to operate within the state aid regime and therefore businesses that operate within Objective 1 areas will be eligible for more money within regional selective assistance than businesses outside. Nonetheless, we have other funding streams, including for instance enterprise grants and the technology grants under Smart, that are available to businesses regardless of where they are. One of the things we need to look at and we do not need to make instant decisions on is how we allocate the limited resources we have between the geographically limited schemes and the schemes available to everybody. Those are judgments that are quite hard to make because there is a very important job to be done here within disadvantaged areas—in other words, Objective 1 areas—to ensure that we build a strong, sustainable economic base, particularly when we have other countries often offering extremely generous inducements to companies to set up or to move plants to other parts of the European Union. We have to be aware of that competition and there are occasions when regional selective assistance plays an absolutely decisive role, not simply in keeping a business or opening a new business within an assisted area, but by keeping that business within the United Kingdom. There is an important strategic role there as well as a role within disadvantaged areas.

  50. You will also recognise that businesses chase grants from one area to another. The only people who lose out are the employees. It is not much good to them to say, "Do not worry. They are going to an objective area. They will be helping somebody down the road", when their families have not got a wage earner.
  (Ms Hewitt) That is an enormously important issue and already within the criteria we use to decide on regional selective assistance we are very clear that a company that is simply seeking to move from one place to another in order to get a grant is not going to get the grant. We try and bottom out that issue before we decide on the grant. Where perhaps we could do better is in using regional selective assistance not so much to support a company in crisis but to support companies to become much more competitive, to be adding much more value and therefore preventing them getting into a crisis in the first place. I would like to look at a more strategic role for regional selective assistance which is part of a much bigger strategy to move particularly our industrial base up the value added ladder. Unless we do that, we will not be able to secure good industrial jobs in Britain. They will move to low wages parts of the world.

  51. I understand what you say about crisis. At times small companies are in crisis. British Aerospace is in crisis. I am sure that is why you held the summit. The problem we do face is that we have a crisis that is not the small business; it is not of their making. The aerospace business has real problems following 11 September and other issues and they are feeling the backlash of that now and they will need support. Yes, they are in crisis but it is no use saying, "We ought not to be supporting them." I do hope that we will be supporting the aerospace business but also the small businesses that are affected through that and the crisis not of their making.
  (Ms Hewitt) We are working very closely with the aerospace sector, including the small businesses down the supply chain. Regional selective assistance will not always be relevant or appropriate for companies within aerospace. It depends on their particular position, but we have invested over the last few years about £1 billion in Launch Aid and in support for research and development within aerospace. We will continue to work with that sector to ensure that they are highly competitive and that they continue to win contracts like the joint strike fighter contract which involves a number of British partnerships with Lockheed and the new Airbus order. Airbus is a world leader handling two thirds of the market hugely successfully. Part of what we can do for small businesses in industry, regardless of whether or not they qualify for regional selective assistance, is to work with them particularly in sectoral supply chain based programmes to help them improve their productivity and competitiveness and to deploy and help to create the new technologies that will make them and keep them competitively successful.

  52. Launch Aid is very welcome to the aerospace industry and everybody congratulates the government in support of that. Yes, the joint strike aircraft is successful. It is quite a way down the track. What we ought to be doing is ensuring that we get the orders forward to bring that on track. The other contract that seems to be forgotten which should be going ahead is the A400M which will also guarantee a lot of jobs. That is a military, heavy aircraft. Launch Aid has been very successful but the problem we seem to be facing—I wonder if you would investigate it on behalf of small businesses - is that Launch Aid has been used to have some of the components produced abroad. That is working against the ethos of Launch Aid when it ought to be going to those small businesses such as in the north west who could produce that rather than using Launch Aid in order to keep jobs in the former Eastern Bloc.
  (Ms Hewitt) Of course I will look at that. If you would like to write to me with any more detailed information on that, that would be very helpful. I think it is important not to under estimate the extent to which aerospace in particular but also the manufacturing industry generally can benefit by working through the supply chain so that businesses that are not as productive as they need to be learn from those that are and the importance of matching or partnering our manufacturing industry with our leading edge universities. I was in Sheffield a week or so ago where I was talking to the chief executive of Boeing in the United Kingdom who has formed a wonderful partnership with the metals department of Sheffield University who are world leaders in metals technology. The third partner in that is the Welding Institute, another British leader, and that is helping to strengthen our aerospace sector. I agree it is not solving the immediate crisis that has followed 11 September but nonetheless it is strengthening the sector for the medium to longer term.

Mr Lansley

  53. You said something relating to regional selective assistance and I am interested in your description of the purposes for which you would like to offer regional selective assistance. It does not, in my recollection, relate directly to the purposes for which RSA is available under EU state aid rules which are concerned with the creation and safeguarding of jobs directly. How confident are you that you will be able to implement the changes in your grant regime that you propose on a specific timetable and secure the Commission's approval for this new structure?
  (Ms Hewitt) I do not think there is any difficulty there at all. We will continue to operate within state aid rules but the limits of the European Union on state aid per job saved or created are so far above what we normally give in terms of regional selective assistance that paying more attention to the value added of the proposed investment, which may be quite capital intensive, should not cause a problem in state aid terms.

  54. Utility regulation as a whole is a matter of some importance in the Department and there have been considerable arguments that utility regulation as a function of the Department should be kept together and should be linked directly to the competition regime given the responsibilities of the regulators. Does that therefore mean you propose that utility regulation should be in the competitive frameworks division or, where energy or telecommunications are concerned, will it be in the business relationship division along with other sectors? How is this to be managed?
  (Ms Hewitt) I am very clear that we need to build up our regulatory expertise because, as you will know, the whole issue of regulatory policy is enormously complex. I think there has been a great deal of learning over the last decade as we have looked at the experience of the privatised industries and utilities and the regulatory frameworks created for them. We will miss out if we manage the different privatised utilities and the different regulated sectors as silos. We need instead to build up a body of expertise where people who have been working on regulation in one sector share what they have learned with colleagues who have been doing regulatory policy in other sectors. Then we need to link the expertise and the experience in utilities and other regulatory sectors with the general framework of competition law. That is precisely what we will be doing in this new competitive frameworks group. The real issue there is how we manage. Effectively, we will be managing on a matrix basis. We will have a growing number of officials who have both a generic expertise in regulatory policy and a specific sector expertise, whether that is energy, postal services or telecommunications or whatever. We need to ensure that we are managing the general expertise and building that up which we will do within the competitive frameworks, but we are also building up sectoral expertise because in order to regulate the sector effectively you need to understand the sector and, secondly, there may be good reasons for having a different regulatory policy in one sector compared with another. Where we do that, we need to do it quite explicitly and understand why we are doing it and not do it simply because we have sector based silos not talking to each other or learning from each other.

  55. Are you contemplating therefore the same officials working in two different respects in two different divisions or interchange of officials between divisions?
  (Ms Hewitt) We are looking at how we best achieve that, but to take the example of energy, where I explained in response to an earlier question why we are keeping that group in being at the moment, I would envisage that the officials within the energy group who are working on regulatory issues will also be, for instance, getting involved in training and development programmes within the Competitive Frameworks Group so that their expertise is being shared with the teams who are working on postal services regulation or competitive markets generally and vice versa. They are all learning from each other and they are seeing themselves as part of a single team of officials who have expertise in regulatory policy as well as having expertise in this case in the energy sector.

  56. Your previous experience in the Department as a Minister was in relation to small businesses and e-commerce. We talked about small businesses but not about e-commerce. What you previously set out to do in the Small Business Service we have discussed. It has been divided up and submerged in the Department. E-commerce seems to have disappeared altogether. Is it to be treated as a sector that is to be sponsored directly or is it part of the competitive frameworks division, or has it just disappeared?
  (Ms Hewitt) No. Just as the Small Business Service has not been submerged, e-commerce has not disappeared. One of the sectoral teams will continue. We are looking at the definition of the sectors but I would be very surprised if we did not have a sector team that did not continue to focus on the information and communication sectors which of course is part of the responsibility, in ministerial terms, of the Minister for e-commerce. We will also within the science, technology and innovation division, be seeking to pull the leading edge of information and communication technology right across the economy and into business. We will continue within business support and as part of these more streamlined services that we offer small businesses we will continue to support and encourage small businesses in raising their game on the exploitation of e-commerce to achieve greater successes. All that work will continue and it will continue to be led by a Minister for e-commerce.

  57. Presumably there will be a role for competitive frameworks as well?
  (Ms Hewitt) Yes.

  58. You have illustrated very neatly the difficulties with which you will have to work since e-commerce is in the business relationship division; within science and technology and in the competitive frameworks division; you have divided it across a whole swathe of activity in the structure.
  (Ms Hewitt) That is a great merit because one of the difficulties of the Department which has grown up over the years - the Department has been created over 20 years as departments have been absorbed within it—has been a series of silos. You can still find within the Department the old cultures of the old departments that were once free-standing organisations in the dim and distant past. That is not a healthy or efficient way to work.

  59. But you are creating new silos.
  (Ms Hewitt) Every organisation has to have some vertical, functional divisions. Otherwise, you cannot manage a department. What you also have to have - and we will haven - is very strong cross-horizontal working, team working, where you pull together people who happen to sit within different vertical functions, to work on particular issues.

  60. This is all supposed to be customer focused. Those who are working in e-commerce will say, "At least we have known where we have gone." Like people in small businesses, they may not always have agreed with what has been done but at least they knew where they went to. These are all going to disappear and they are going to several different places, finding no strategy that links these things together for the customers you are supposed to be serving.
  (Ms Hewitt) That is simply wrong. We do not at the moment have an e-commerce directorate anyway. As far as the customer is concerned, we will be streamlining the relationship that customers have with us. For the majority of small businesses, the first point of call and ongoing point of relationships will be Business Links. For businesses where we want to operate within a sectoral framework, the focus will be the sectoral teams within a business relationship. As we build this up and get better at doing it, more and more businesses will have a relationship with one named person who will brigade behind them the different things that the business needs. There is no reason at all for our customers to have to worry about the way in which we manage the Department. This structure is to enable us to manage more effectively but we are acutely aware, the Permanent Secretary and I, of the danger of replacing one set of vertical silos with another, which is precisely why we are putting in so much more team working and horizontal working in order to ensure that we get the culture change we want within the Department.


  61. We have spoken about Maoists and tzars and I was thinking that the exercise this morning was a British or Whitehall equivalent of Kremlinology in the sense of the structure of the old sub-committees of the central committee of the Soviet Union. We seem to be looking at a plethora of organisations. You are the fourth Secretary of State we have had before us since the change of Government in 1997 and each one comes with a new broom, a new set of ideas, a new structure and not quite a new mission statement. How long do you think we will have to wait before we can see the fruits of your reorganisation? When do you think we will start to see the fruits—not the rolling out of new initiatives and the flannel associated therewith, but real, positive increases in productivity, increases in business effectiveness? When can we have you back to discuss this because I do not think we should have it every year. We are grateful to you for the rigour with which you have addressed us but there are more interesting aspects of government policy, you would probably agree. When do you think we should have you back? In two years, if you are still in the job?
  (Ms Hewitt) Yes. I would discourage you from treating this as Kremlinology. This is the sort of change programme you would see in any well run, leading edge, global organisation that is seeking to keep up with the extraordinarily fast changes in the external environment. It is absolutely not the kind of ghastly bureaucracy and social planning that is conjured up by the notion of Kremlinology. Complex organisations are complex. You can get a bit bogged down in all the structure. I agree that that is not interesting. What is interesting is the way you manage and deploy the expertise of your people to achieve measurable results. In making these changes, Robin Young and I are building on the very real achievements of our predecessors, both Sir Michael Scholar as the previous Permanent Secretary, and my three Labour predecessors, particularly Stephen Byers who was in the role for long enough to get a real understanding of what was going on across the Department and who had already begun to strengthen the central strategic function of the Department. We are building on that and even by this time next year I hope to be able to show you real results in real companies from more focused work on the spreading of best practice in business processes and in the management of people. For an even larger set of results, yes, I hope to be able to come back in the same role in two years' time.

  Chairman: It would be nice to see you if you survive that long and I hope you do. We have not said anything about deckchairs on the Titanic this morning and we have not mentioned Consignia, so on that note thank you very much for coming and thanks for your help.

previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 26 March 2002