With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the next phase of our skills agenda. Earlier this month, I launched our reforms of education and training for 14 to 19-year-olds setting out how we will equip young people for employment by securing the basics and improving vocational opportunities. Today I will focus on our ambitions for adult skills.

I start by putting on record my thanks to the national Skills Alliance. Never before have we had such strong and effective collaboration between all the key partners—employers, unions, training providers and four Government Departments—on the skills agenda. They all understand that, in a global economy, we must invest in our future and equip our employees to compete with the best in the world. We cannot afford to stand still on skills. Although the productivity gap between the United Kingdom and countries such as France and Germany is closing, it remains large. In terms of gross domestic product per hour worked, France is 25 per cent. more productive than the UK and Germany is 13 per cent. ahead. Up to 20 per cent. of the gap is accounted for by our skills base.

In previous decades, emerging Asian economies competed on the basis of lower labour costs, but with about 20 million graduates in China and 2 million new graduates each year in India, those countries are increasingly competing on expertise. The only viable course for the UK is to change to a high-skilled, high-value-added economy.

Meeting that challenge will require us to build on the progress that we have already made. Since 1997, 839,000 adults have achieved basic skills qualifications, more than three times the number of young people are enrolled on apprenticeships, and more than 130,000 employees have benefited from our employer training pilots. But 5 million adults still do not have basic literacy skills, 15 million adults lack basic numeracy skills, and more than 6.5 million adults in the work force do not have the equivalent of five good GCSEs.

We also face a crucial challenge at technician level. In 1997, 43 per cent. of the adult work force were qualified to level 3 and above; today that figure is 50 per cent. However, it is estimated that by 2012 two thirds of jobs in the UK will require skills at level 3 or above, so we need to do more. Rising to that challenge will require us to transform the skill levels of young people entering employment through our radical 14-to-19 reforms, the growth in apprenticeships, and our commitment to move towards 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds participating in higher education. We also need a step change in our approach to developing the skills of the adults already in the work force. Our strong and stable economy, with record levels of employment, means that we now have an historic opportunity to do that. Securing that step change is the aim of this White Paper.

I am clear that these reforms can work only if we put employers' needs centre stage in the design and delivery of training, support all individuals to acquire skills so that they can get on at work, and ensure that training providers are high quality and respond to the needs of employers and learners. That is what we will do. We will support employers through new employer-led skills academies in each major sector of the economy—world-class centres of excellence providing a new benchmark in the design and delivery of skills training to young people and adults.

We will create a national employer training programme from 2006–07, offering free training in basic skills, NVQ level 2 and access to higher-level training. To support the transition to the national programme, as announced in the Budget, in 2005–06 we will invest an additional £65 million in the existing employer training pilots on top of the £290 million already allocated. The national employer training programme will help to train the next generation of technicians. Today I can announce that across two pilot regions we will invest £20 million each year in 2006–07 and 2007–08 as part of a new partnership between Government and employers to improve performance at level 3.

We must also strengthen the voice of employers through sector skills councils so that they shape the supply of training and qualifications in each sector, including new specialised diplomas for 14 to 19-year-olds. I therefore welcome the first four sector skills agreements launched alongside this White Paper. For the first time ever, they bring employers together on a voluntary basis to tackle the skill needs of their sector and to give them new leverage over the way in which public funds are used to pay for training. Furthermore, we will advance a partnership with the trade unions. As announced in the Budget, we will invest £4.5 million over two years to support the TUC's proposals to create a union academy. We will also increase the number of union learning representatives from 8,000 to 22,000 in 2010.

I am committed to supporting people in gaining the skills and qualifications needed to get satisfying jobs and a decent standard of living for themselves and their families. Our skills policy underpins our ambitions for a fairer, more socially mobile society. We will help individuals up the career ladder through an unprecedented extension of opportunity. We will expand nationally free training to NVQ level 2 for all adults without that level of qualification, alongside the free training that is already available for basic skills. Every adult has the right to a second chance to a decent education. We will expand the adult learning grant to support adults in training full-time for NVQ level 2 and young adults aged 19 to 30 in studying full-time to NVQ level 3.

We will also expand foundation degrees, with 50,000 places available next year. We will offer more help to adults to help them to navigate their way through the system. For the first time, we will create a one-stop telephone and online service helping people to make decisions about their careers, training needs and financial support. Through the new deal for skills, we will provide one-to-one advice from a learning coach and financial support on top of benefits in order to remove the obstacles that people face in gaining access to training when moving from welfare to work.

To deliver those benefits, we need excellent and responsive providers of training and a clear qualifications system. Our delivery partners have already made considerable progress on that. We will build on it by investing £1.5 billion over five years as part of a long-term commitment to transform the further education sector. For too long, FE has not received the attention that it deserves. I want to see a rejuvenated college sector brought about through investment and reform.

We will also provide a simple credible qualification structure for individuals and employers. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's proposed framework for achievement will apply a consistent approach throughout the 14-to-19 phase and to adult skills, helping people to build up credit towards qualifications. We will use regional skills partnerships to drive regional economic development, bringing together regional activity on training, jobs, innovation and business support.

Skills benefit all of society. If we tackle the challenges that face us, we shall have a real opportunity to make a fundamental change for the better—for individuals, for employers and for the country. The reforms in the White Paper will do that, and I commend it to the House.

This is a genuinely important subject and we are pleased that the Government decided to produce a White Paper.

In January, the director general of the Institute of Directors said that the Government were failing to remedy the UK's shortage of skilled workers. He pointed out that some 25,000 16-year-olds were leaving school each year with no GCSEs, and that last year the skills shortage left 135,000 vacancies unfilled. That is not just the view of the Institute of Directors: only last month, in a survey of 6,000 businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce found that the number of firms finding it hard to recruit skilled workers had risen by 50 per cent. in the last 10 years. Yet the number of young people in the NEET group—those not in education, employment or training—has increased, not fallen, since 1997.

As for basic skills, literacy and numeracy were supposed to be independently assessed for each school leaver as a central part of the Tomlinson recommendations—regrettably abandoned by this Secretary of State. In the House yesterday, she claimed that the national literacy strategy was

"now almost entirely based on synthetic phonics."—[Official Report, 21 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 607.]

I hope that that was off the cuff—it did not seem to be in her text—and I hope that the Secretary of State will feel able to correct it today. Basic skills—literacy and numeracy—are not moving in the right direction, and they will not do so if the Government continue their present strategy.

Then there are higher-level skills. The number of entrants for some of the most challenging yet most important A-level subjects has gone down, not up, since 1997. The number of entrants for French A-level is down by nearly 50 per cent., the number for German A-level down by more than a third, the number for chemistry—

What about adult skills?

If the Minister does not understand that A-levels in modern languages and the key sciences are vital to adult skills, no wonder the Government are performing so poorly.

The numbers of A-level entrants for chemistry, for physics and for mathematics are all down by at least 10 per cent., and in some cases by nearly 20 per cent. In her statement, the Secretary of State rightly spoke of the essential nature of level 3 skills. Why, then, are the Government cutting funds for level 3 skills?

Today's statement was, sadly, all too typical. It lacked a great deal of substance. It was a mixture of repeat announcements: the announcement about the level 2 entitlement is welcome, but it has been made already. There is very little new money—almost all of it was announced in the Budget, and even that is a tiny percentage increase on what was already being provided. The small tinkering at the margin includes £4.5 million to be given to the trade union movement—which, no doubt by pure coincidence, is about the same as the amount that the trade union movement is expected to give the Labour party for the general election campaign this year.

Sadly, what was needed in this statement, and what employers were calling out for, is not provided. There was nothing about making exam standards tougher, more robust and more credible. There was nothing to simplify the funding for further education colleges or increase their freedom. There was nothing to match the Conservative commitment to a substantial increase in vocational education for 14 to 16-year-olds. There was a reference to providing funding for adults who are without basic skills at the age of 19, but no clarification as to whether, as the Conservative party proposes, that would be fully funded. We will see whether the Secretary of State can provide that commitment. There was no matching the Conservative commitment to set up a new national network of super-colleges and no matching our commitment to abolish failed, expensive and bureaucratic learning and skills councils, which, as the Secretary of State should know, are disliked equally and universally by schools, colleges and employers.

Instead, we heard the usual: vague words, empty aspirations and promises to do better next time. Meanwhile, British employers face real and growing difficulties. It is time to get a grip, and time to get on with the work. The Government will not do so; the Conservatives will.

I find it extraordinary that, commenting on a statement on adult skills, the Conservatives made no reference to any policy on adult skills. Clearly, they have nothing to say.

We know certain things about the Conservatives' policies. We know that they are committed to abolishing the Learning and Skills Council, the union learning fund and the new deal for skills. We also know that they would cut the adult learning inspectorate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now tell us whether they also plan to cut Labour's education maintenance allowance, the young apprenticeship scheme and free tuition for adults.

We also know that the hon. Gentleman said both last week and this week that he would match us on education. Perhaps he will also say whether he would match our policy on skills. Since the Government came to power in 1997, some 839,000 adults have gained basic skills qualifications. Since 1997, the number of adults with level 2 qualifications has gone up from 65 to 72 per cent., and the number of adults with NVQ level 3 qualifications has gone up from 43 to 50.8 per cent.

Clearly, there is more to do. We have to tackle the backlog of adult skills, and we have set out our policy. We are investing in a national employer training programme, which will provide—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks whether that would be free. It will provide free tuition for every adult to reach level 2 standard either in or out of work. We will use a nationwide system of brokers to work with employers so that all adults can gain access to level 3. In two regions, we are piloting co-financed level 3 training for employees, and we are investing an extra £20 million in level 3 training. We will not transform our skills base without employers, unions, the Government and the Learning and Skills Council working together actively to make that a reality.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is committed to abolishing the Learning and Skills Council, because, he says, administrative costs have spiralled out of control. But if he compares the council with its predecessor bodies, he will find that administrative costs have fallen by about 20 per cent. I know that he says that we ought to do more for school leavers and that we have not done anything to tackle basic skills, but perhaps he will reread the "14–19 Education and Skills" White Paper and see that we are toughening GCSEs in English and maths and ensuring that every child at school gains functional English and maths at level 2.

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have to take this a whole step further with regard to adult skills, but he has nothing to say on that. Is it any wonder that when my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) left the Conservative party, he stood up and said that it had no policy on adult skills?

I thank the right hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me an early copy of her statement. After the depressing exchange that we have just heard, I shall make my party's position clear: we remain committed to driving up standards in vocational education in schools, and particularly, in skills in the workplace.

There will be considerable disappointment at the Secretary of State's statement today, because she has presented us with more of a progress report than a White Paper. Indeed, with the exception of her proposal for vocational academies, there is virtually nothing new in it. How are those academies to be paid for? Will that money come out of the £350 million that was given to the further education sector for capital development, or from a separate pot?

The previous White Paper, published in 2003, concentrated on level 1 and level 2 qualifications, and we understood the reasons for that. We expected this White Paper to contain significant proposals for level 3 qualifications. Indeed, the Secretary of State commented at the beginning of her statement that that was where the greatest challenge lay. Will she tell us what target she has set for the number of 19-year-olds achieving a level 3 qualification by 2010? We have such targets for levels 2 and 4, so can we please have one for level 3? Is there a level 3 strategy for 19 to 30-year-olds, with a clear target for achievement by 2010? Will she respond to the question asked earlier from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) about whether the new 19-to-30 commitment will involve free tuition for all trainees and students?

We welcome the plan to unify the qualification structure for 14 to 19-year-olds and for adult skills, but will the Secretary of State tell us why she has not included higher education in that structure? Had she done so, we could have had a unified structure throughout the whole of our skills provision programme. We also welcome the extension of employer training pilots, with a universal system up to 2007, but will the Secretary of State say whether that provision will be demand-led? If so, does she honestly think that £65 million is sufficient to achieve that aim? LSC budgets are stretched to breaking point at the moment, and if more money has to be taken from other elements of adult skills provision to fund this proposal, we shall simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The Secretary of State rightly identified the needs of small businesses. With regard to the entitlement to level 2 and 3 training, will she tell us whether she will extend employees' rights to time off for study? Has she considered and costed such a proposal? Will employers be given any compensation for the training that is obviously needed, particularly in small businesses? The lack of such compensation is often a real deterrent to employers allowing employees out.

I look forward to the Secretary of State's answers to those specific questions. We welcome the White Paper, and we welcome the journey that we are on. I hope that after the general election, we shall be able to proceed a bit more quickly.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered response to the statement, and for his detailed questions. He clearly shares our commitment to the skills agenda. As I have said, there needs to be a step change in the number of adults achieving both level 2 and level 3 qualifications.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the skills academies. We are committed to establishing 12 sector skills academies within the term of the next Parliament. They will be co-financed by industry and the Government and we have set money aside to finance the Government's contribution to them. Today, the Arcadia Group is announcing that it has put £10 million or more into a fashion retail academy that will serve the needs of the retail industry, and work with FE colleges and schools to develop vocational excellence in the retail sector. I hope that that model will be drawn on and that other models will also be used to develop the skills agenda across the country.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about level 2 and 3 qualifications. We are offering all adults a free training entitlement to receive basic skills training and level 2 training. We are also offering, through employers, a one-stop shop that will enable a single broker to go into businesses, from the smallest in the land to the largest, and, through face-to-face conversations, to assess the skill needs of the business and offer completely free, fully funded level 2 training for all the employees who need it. The broker will also identify the need for level 3 training in the business and offer to source that training, while the employer pays for it. Employers see a significant return on level 3 training—as do individuals—whereas on level 2 they do not. In two regions, we are also piloting the co-funding of the level 3 entitlement, so we shall be able to see whether a matched contribution from the Government will make a significant difference to employers who want their employees to gain level 3 training as well.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our target for increasing the number of people with level 3 qualifications. I have told him what the need of the country is: by 2012, two thirds of all existing jobs will require level 3 or higher qualifications. We have asked Sandy Leitch to carry out a review to determine precisely what our skill needs at level 3 and above will be over the next 10 years. He will report to us, and we will take his findings into account when we consider whether to put more money into level 3 training. We will of course await his report first.

The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing to help younger people to acquire level 3 qualifications, and I can tell him that we are extending the adult learning grant, and that all young people under 30 will have access to a fixed sum from the Government so that they can study at that level. The results of the pilot schemes have shown that so far, the vast bulk of that funding has been drawn down to finance level 3 training.

The hon. Gentleman asked about higher education, and he was right to say that we ought to try to get employers involved in the design of qualifications at levels 4, 5 and beyond. In fact, that is what we are trying to do through the sector skills councils. Today, we are launching the first four sector skills agreements. For example, in the information technology sector, e-skills UK has designed a foundation-level degree in information and communications technology, which has involved employers coming together to specify exactly what is required in their industry. I would like to see the expansion of foundation degrees from the 50,000 being pursued this year to a significantly higher level as employers come together to back that expansion.

The hon. Gentleman also asked what was happening to the funding of the national employer training pilot, and whether it would really be demand-led. We have identified that take-up has so far exceeded the likely expected demand, which is why we have allocated an additional £65 million to the programme this year, in advance of the full roll-out over the following two years. We hope that that will be sufficient to meet demand, although we shall of course have to see how much demand is created. However, that is a sign of the success of the programme in its initial stages.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the right to time off for study. In the national employer training pilots, time off is negotiated as part of the agreement, so that workers can take time off to study towards a level 2 or 3 qualification. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have today moved forward significantly to advance our skills policy, and that that is the right thing to do for employers and for the country.

My friend talks about transforming the further education sector, and about the £1.5 billion that is going into it over the next five years. May I take it that that money will close the funding gap between FE colleges and schools? The principal of my local college, Dr. Alison Birkenshaw, tells me that that funding gap costs the college £500,000 a year, which is a huge sum.

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the funding gap in the unit funding costs for young people in FE colleges. That gap has narrowed for colleges that have delivered on their targets, from about 10 per cent. a few years ago to about 7 per cent. today. The £1.5 billion investment is part of an investment radically to transform the infrastructure of FE colleges and to build colleges for the future, so that they will have the first-rate, world-class equipment that they need to train young people and adults. The £350 million that was identified in the Budget represents the first step in a long-term process to renovate the entire sector.

While I would welcome any long-term and lasting conversion to the cause of vocational skills, will the Secretary of State consider two matters in particular? First, will she consider the acquisition and accrediting of basic skills in the workplace, or at least in vocational settings, where those acquiring them are likely to see their relevance more clearly than in a classroom? Secondly, in relation to further education colleges, which will continue to be the major providers of adult skills, will she ensure that any increases—I fear that the genuine incremental increases announced today are modest ones—are not at the expense of other provision for adult learners in those colleges? The displacement effects from young persons' education have already put stress on the adult learners programme. We would all agree that the colleges are currently under severe financial pressures.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is absolutely right that vocational training delivered in the workplace is far more likely to produce results than vocational training delivered outside the workplace. Where it is possible to deliver it in the workplace, that is what we shall seek to do, through the national employer training pilot. The returns to the individual from level 2 training delivered through the workplace are significantly higher than those from training delivered outside the workplace.

The hon. Gentleman also asks about adult learners in further education. He is absolutely right that we should continue to protect adult learning provision, which is delivered through FE colleges. We have built into our skills policy a safeguard on the funding directed towards adult learners, which does not mean that that provision is not co-financed, and where appropriate, that fees are not charged. It does mean, however, that we recognise the importance of that agenda, and we will protect the funding that goes towards it.

I welcome particularly the newly established employer-led skills academies. I have two construction academies in Four Dwellings high school, in which the school works very successfully with the construction industry. Similarly, the focus on regional skills partnerships is extremely helpful. Could the Secretary of State assure me, however, that when we consider the regional dimension we use a microcosm approach. I saw success in Birmingham city centre, where pockets of unemployment of young people were tackled by providing catering skills, which were exactly those that could be used by unemployed local people and that could provide local jobs. The regional dimension is important, but we should not take the region as too wide, and we should consider smaller areas, too.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Regional skills partnerships will be working with the LSC and Jobcentre Plus to identify local skill needs, and in areas such as her constituency, employers can come together with FE colleges, schools and centres of vocational excellence to develop training that is appropriate to the local area. I would like to see a lot more of that in the future.

I, too, am interested in skills academies, and with my background, particularly the retailing ones. Will the Secretary of State ensure that fashion retailing does not get all the attention, as there is a whole other world of retailing out there? Can she go into a little more depth about how people access those skills academies and the sort of things that they aim to teach?

Yes. We have worked closely with Arcadia Group, the retail industry and the Learning and Skills Council to develop qualifications and credits within the fashion retail academy. Young people can study those towards a level 2 qualification and can access them not just on the site, which will be based in London, but around the country, too. Online learning will be available, as well as accommodation for pupils who want to access the facility. An important part of the skills academy programme, however, is that it will link into centres of vocational excellence around the country and spread best practice into the further education sector, so that children up and down the country can access such skills.

I very much welcome today's statement. It is vital that we get the skills equation right, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not listen to the blandishments of the Conservative party, which, when in government, betrayed this nation through its failure to develop a policy on skills. She rightly talks about a partnership between all the parties on skills training, and that is a good and healthy start. The best employers always trained well, and the good employers will train. We have a problem, however, with those employers who regard training as simply cost and not benefit or who are resistant to any training whatever. Will she always keep in mind that we need some power to coerce bad employers, as they fail not only their employees—and their businesses, interestingly—but the nation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the development of sector skills councils is so important. Sectors, and industries, come together to define their own skill needs and the best way of delivering those for their sector. Certain sectors, such as in the film industry, have decided together that they want a training levy paid by all their members. We are examining how that has been working in practice, but I believe that about two thirds of all employers are paying the training levy. They have asked us to make it mandatory, and we are currently consulting on that. The key, however, is to consider the question sector by sector, and to ask sectors to identify the appropriate approach for them and what would make the most difference in terms of upgrading their skills.

There seems to be one big hole in the statement—I hope that there is not a similar hole in the White Paper—in relation to education, training and skills for those in prison. Does the Secretary of State agree that such education and training is one of the best ways of reducing crime in our society, and that it is important that the cuts in education and skills training under the previous Conservative Government are rapidly reversed so that those who are in prison can avoid the risk of returning to a life of crime when they leave?

I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. If offenders can acquire skills, they will be less likely to re-offend in the future. We have already made significant progress on giving access to basic skills to offenders, but I would like to go further. Later this year, we will publish a Green Paper on offender education, which will take that a stage further.

Does my right hon. Friend share my anger about the situation inherited in 1997, with some 4 million adults unable to read and 10 million adults without number skills? Does she agree that union learning reps are in one of the best positions to reach out to people who lack not only skills but confidence? Will she congratulate the south-west TUC, which ran a conference just two weeks ago with which I was able to share experience, on its work to improve not only the lot of individuals, but the productivity of businesses in the city of Plymouth, the south-west and our country?

I agree completely with my hon. Friend, which is why it is so important to increase the number of union learning reps, and why we have pledged to increase their number from 8,000 today to 22,000 in future. It is often the case that employees, particularly adults already in work, do not want to come forward and say that they have a problem with literacy and numeracy. However, it is often much easier for them to discuss their skill and learning requirements with a union learning rep with whom they feel comfortable and work alongside. Union learning reps have already increased demand for training significantly, and more than 100,000 people have accessed learning as a result. I hope that we can increase that significantly over the coming years.

In her statement, the Secretary of State mentioned the national employer training programme. Bearing it in mind that 92 per cent. of all businesses employ fewer than 10 people, what will be the role for small firms and their representatives? She also mentioned sector skills agreements. Is the construction industry involved, and in particular, will the Construction Industry Training Board be part of this initiative?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as the result of the national employer training programme pilots showed, in fact, the programme was most successful at reaching small businesses. It is businesses with fewer than 10 employees that find it difficult to assess training needs and to identify what they could do if their employees upgraded their skills. Where a broker can talk face to face with the person running such a business, there is a real opportunity to bring about a change in the skill level involved. The construction sector will launch its sector skill agreement this afternoon; indeed, it is one of the first four sectors to launch such an agreement. It has pledged to qualify more than 250,000 workers to VQ level by 2010, and the hon. Gentleman will doubtless agree with me that that is a significant step forward.

May I welcome this progress report? As my right hon. Friend knows, I was one of those who witnessed during the 1980s the decimation of apprenticeships and the shutting down of departments that did not teach physics or chemistry, particularly engineering departments, which were deemed too expensive. I ask my right hon. Friend not to get too carried away with centres of excellence and the regional concept. Although such centres are needed, they will not deliver the programme. What will do so is the localised concept of schools banding together and working with local authorities to give every 14-year-old the chance to gain vocational experience. Would she like to support schemes such as the one in Tamworth?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that individual local authority areas need to determine the provision appropriate to their authority for 14 to 19-year-olds, and that schools, colleges and employers need to work together to identify what they can offer. Over the next 10 years, I hope to see an entitlement to 14 different specialised lines of learning that our 14 to 19-year-olds can follow. However, the question of adult skills also presents us with a challenge. We must work with employers and sectors at a regional level to identify how we can increase the number of employees with a full level 2 qualification, and see them progress to a level 3 qualification.

The Secretary of State's weasel words about level 3 will, I suspect, provoke a hollow laugh in the college sector. Is she not—[Interruption.]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that temperate language is expected in the Chamber.

I accept your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

The Secretary of State's comments about level 3 qualifications will undoubtedly be greeted with a degree of surprise by the college sector. Is she aware that colleges are having to divert funding away from level 3 to basic skills, and that her own Government have introduced top-up fees for level 3 students? Is she aware that the Learning and Skills Council has said that such money will be clawed back? Will she match the Conservative party's commitment to adult learners doing level 3 qualifications, which is that their first full-time level 3 qualification will be fully funded?

I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that more adult learners studied at level 3 last year than did so in the previous year. As I said to one of his colleagues, we will safeguard local authority-funded provision for adult learners going forward, and I should also point out that I have not ruled out co-financing where that is appropriate. Some of the fee increases currently being discussed by the Learning and Skills Council could cost an adult learner up to an extra 19p per hour. However, I do think it right that, in certain circumstances, adults contribute to the cost of such learning, particularly at level 3, which is a qualification that enables them to benefit economically. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the provision in the White Paper. The national employer training programme and the safeguarding of adult learning provision will lead to a significant increase in the number of adults gaining basic skills, level 2 qualifications and, indeed, level 3 qualifications.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Workers Educational Association is the largest voluntary provider of education in the country. She referred earlier to assisting adults in navigating their way around learning, but is it not the case that organisations such as the WEA assist excluded and deprived groups in navigating their way into learning by opening doors and opening their minds? A formal qualification is not always the best way to get a foot on the first rung of the learning ladder; rather, it is more informal learning that enables the increase in skills levels that we want to see. What does my right hon. Friend have to say to organisations such as the WEA, and about the informal learning that is a vital and vibrant part of our communities?

I pay tribute to the work of the WEA, and I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is a vital part of our local communities and plays a valuable role in increasing demand for learning. It is right that we preserve entry-level courses for adults that do not necessarily lead to a qualification, but might do so in time. That is why I have said that it is so important that we safeguard the funds for adult learning going forward, while also ensuring that they are appropriate to the needs of individual local authority areas. I agree with my hon. Friend that the WEA performs a very valuable role.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement in order to update the House on the aftermath of the tsunami in the Indian ocean on 26 December.

Let me deal first with the number of British casualties. As of today, 95 British citizens and residents have been confirmed dead: 78 in Thailand, 14 in Sri Lanka and three in the Maldives. A further 74 are considered by the Metropolitan police as highly likely to have been involved as victims—63 in Thailand and 11 in Sri Lanka—so the number either killed or highly likely to have been involved totals 169.

The police have now conducted a review of "category 2" cases—that is, people possibly involved and unaccounted for. Each of these cases has now been determined as, tragically, either highly likely to have been involved and has therefore been moved into "category 1"; or it has been removed from "category 2"—this applies to the majority of cases—because there is no evidence to suggest that the individual in question was involved in the tsunami. In the light of that, the Foreign Office website will shift from daily to weekly publication of updates of the figures for British casualties.

British consular officials and police deployed rapidly to the areas affected from 26 December. They continue to do superb work in difficult and traumatic circumstances, and I pay tribute to them. The UK has the largest of all the international consular and police teams in Phuket in Thailand, and it has a significant presence in Sri Lanka. These staff are now focusing their efforts on identifying the bodies recovered, and on arranging the repatriation of remains to the United Kingdom where that is the families' wish. So far, 62 have been repatriated to the UK and a further 33 have been given local funerals or repatriated elsewhere, or remain in our care while we await instructions from their next of kin.

The task of identification is unprecedented in terms of the number of victims, the geographical extent of the tragedy and the many nations involved. Today, some 1,000 of the estimated 2,000 non-Thai victims in Thailand remain to be identified. The scale of this task required international agreement that, where necessary, we use the so-called disaster victims identification process. This process is painstaking and time-consuming and, as I said in Thailand on 7 January, I understand and deeply sympathise with the frustration felt by grieving families as they wait for their loved ones to be identified. But the DVI process is vital in minimising the risk of misidentification and the even greater distress that that could cause.

The west London coroner is handling inquests for almost all the British victims of the tsunami. She has made it clear that using the DVI process to reduce the risk of misidentification enables victims' remains to be released to their families quickly once they have been repatriated to the UK.

On 11 February, the UK took on the chairmanship of the international information management centre, which co-ordinates work on identification. Since then, the process has speeded up considerably: confirmed identifications have risen from 200 to more than 1,000. By way of comparison, at the same stage following the terrorist outrages of 11 September 2001, only 600 positive identifications had been achieved.

Let me turn now to our support for the victims of this tragedy and their families here in the UK. In the aftermath of the tsunami, an unprecedented number of police family liaison officers were deployed to support the families of those killed or missing, with some 300 officers involved at the peak. The Department of Health has co-ordinated information and guidance on health and psychological support services, including those of the NHS, local authorities and voluntary organisations.

The Minister for Trade and Investment, who is responsible for Asia, announced on 24 January that, in order to ease the terrible burden on families, we would allow deaths to be registered where no body has been found. I also established, in partnership with the British Red Cross and with financial support from the Foreign Office budget, a tsunami support network for victims, survivors and their families. The telephone number is 0845 054 7474. As the House is aware, the Red Cross and I have separately written to hon. Members to encourage those with constituents affected by this tragedy to put them in touch, if they are not already, with the network.

As the focus of our support to survivors and bereaved families increases here at home, we want to reinforce and to raise awareness of that support among those affected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has had considerable experience in dealing with the aftercare of the British families affected by the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. I am therefore pleased to tell the House that she will now be taking on a new role with overall responsibility for co-ordinating support for those affected by the tsunami across Departments and across our public services.

We have established a single telephone number for each of the main Government Departments involved in this work to ensure that families know where to turn for help. For the Department of Health, this will be the same number as for NHS Direct: 0845 4647. For the Department for Work and Pensions, the number is 020 7712 2171 and for the Foreign Office the number is 020 7008 8877. The existing Red Cross helpline will continue to act as the first point of contact for families in difficulties, and will be able to put them in touch with the appropriate Department. Those details, along with a range of other support and information, are available on the Foreign Office website.

Members of the House have been assiduous in representing constituents caught up in the tsunami, and Ministers and their Departments have sought to respond promptly to all such representations. They will, of course, continue to be given the highest priority.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 10 January that a national memorial service for the victims of the Indian ocean tsunami would be held, and it will take place in St. Paul's cathedral on 11 May. Invitations to the families will be issued soon. As well as remembering the British victims, the memorial service will recognise the enormous suffering endured by the countries most directly affected by the tsunami. Their representatives, as well as those from faith communities and from international relief agencies, are being invited to the service.

Although the impact of the tragedy on British families has been enormous, most victims were not from the UK or Europe, but from the 13 countries most directly affected. All told, nearly 300,000 people are estimated to have died and millions of lives and livelihoods have been shattered.

The generosity of the British public in response to the tsunami has been staggering, with some £300 million donated to the Disasters Emergency Committee, and a further £40 million directly to its member charities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been working closely with the Disasters Emergency Committee to co-ordinate our relief effort. To date, he has allocated more than £75 million in response to the catastrophe, and the aid will increase substantially as we move from immediate humanitarian relief to longer-term reconstruction. He has also funded flights to transport relief supplies, so as to ensure that money donated by the public is spent only on equipment that directly benefits those affected.

Holding the presidency of the G8 this year, the UK will work with our international and regional partners on sustainable ways to reduce people's vulnerability to the threat of future such disasters. The Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, is chairing a group of scientists and experts to study the risks presented by natural hazards and working on early warning systems. Through debt relief and trade measures, we have already taken action to help people in the region to rebuild their lives.

Let me conclude by considering what lessons we can learn from our response to the tsunami. Following the attacks of 11 September 2001 and the Bali bombing in October 2002, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office implemented new procedures, including a 24-hour response centre and the establishment of rapid deployment teams to operate in the immediate aftermath of a crisis. Those procedures enabled staff to be deployed to the regions affected by the tsunami far more quickly and effectively than would otherwise have been possible, and British teams were among the very first to arrive.

We have been conducting a full internal review of the Foreign Office's response to the tsunami, in order to learn lessons for the future. Following up that review, we will ensure that all our staff going overseas have training in handling emergencies and we will set up and train regional rapid deployment teams at some of our posts most distant from London and improve how such teams work. We will also improve our handling of telephone calls from the public and establish better guidelines for our work with the police, as well as improving the emergency plans for every one of our posts abroad.

At its request, I wrote to the Foreign Affairs Committee two weeks ago with a detailed memorandum setting out a summary of the lessons learned, along with a chronology of our actions in response to the crisis. I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for the decision to place the memorandum in the Library; copies will be made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. I understand that the Committee will publish the memorandum, together with its own observations, this Thursday. The National Audit Office is also considering the Foreign Office's response to the tsunami as part of its review of FCO's consular services worldwide. We have also discussed with our partners in the European Union and elsewhere and with the private sector how we can better co-ordinate our response to future such events.

It will be some time before the painstaking process of identification of all of the victims of the tsunami is complete, and longer still before those in the region can rebuild their shattered lives. The grief of families who have lost loved ones will always be with them. I know that the whole House will join me in renewing to them our sympathies and condolences. The Government remain determined to offer all the support that we can to them and to all the victims of this terrible tragedy.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for making his statement and for advance sight of it.

Even after three months, the horrors of the Boxing day tsunami are fresh in all our memories, and our thoughts and prayers go out to all those who lost loved ones or who were injured themselves. Equally, our continuing thoughts must be with those who lost homes and livelihoods in the devastated areas.

The immediate response of the British people to the disaster was immensely warm-hearted and generous in respect of the donations and the enormous voluntary effort that was put into ensuring that specifically needed aid was made readily available and delivered effectively. I pay tribute to all those involved in that voluntary work.

I welcome today's statement. It is comprehensive and the accompanying memorandum shows that British officials made substantial efforts in the aftermath of the disaster and we owe them our thanks. I particularly welcome those efforts because it is in the nature of such events that, with the passing of time, it is easy for international attention to be diverted elsewhere. In the aftermath of this human catastrophe, it is vital that that does not happen, which is why I ask the Foreign Secretary a number of questions.

The Disasters Emergency Committee raised a staggering £300 million, plus the £40 million that went directly to charities. What plans do the Government have to ensure that the auditing of the dispersal and application of the funds will be robust, in order to reassure the British people that their generosity is being used effectively?

Can the Foreign Secretary clarify the position of the Government's own contribution? At the beginning of January, the Prime Minister said:

"My estimate is we will need to spend from Government several hundred million pounds. So we will far and away more than match the generosity of the British people."

Earlier this month, the noble Baroness Amos said in the other place that the Government would "match the amount" and might well "go beyond it". However, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, who is in his place, said less than two weeks later that the Government's response would be

"guided by the findings of need assessments of the affected countries currently being finalised . . . rather than by linking the Government's contribution to that of the British public".—[Official Report, 15 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 181W.]

So we have had three rather different statements and it would be helpful to know which of those variants is, in fact, Government policy.

Overall, how much money have the Government made available so far? They have pledged debt relief of £45 million to Sri Lanka, but the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister told the BBC on 18 March that his country has not yet received any of the money promised by Governments. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will clarify that. Will he also assure the House that any needs assessment, as referred to by the Under-Secretary, will not result in the Government contributing less than what was raised privately, as that would be regarded internationally as a breach of faith?

The Asian Development Bank reported a shortfall of £4 billion in the money promised to India, Indonesia, the Maldives and Sri Lanka. How is that shortfall likely to be made up? What is the Government's assessment of the allegations that Indonesia is using reconstruction as a cover for forcible moves of population in Aceh?

What is the Foreign Secretary's estimate of the number of people who died in Burma as a result of the tsunami? Does he consider the junta's official figures of the number of dead reliable? If not, have independent organisations been able to make their own assessments?

Italy, France and Portugal have blocked reductions in EU trade barriers that would have helped countries affected by the tsunami to rebuild their economies. Do the Government agree that this is a disgrace and merely piles man-made punishment on to an already devastating natural disaster?

I welcome the internal review that the Foreign Office is carrying out, announced today by the Foreign Secretary. In particular, I welcome his announcement of the setting up of regional rapid deployment teams, and I am pleased that there is at last to be a co-ordinating Minister. I wish the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport well in that important task.

We must ensure that we continue to support the victims of the tsunami, both at home and abroad, and that we do not allow time to undermine our commitment. I believe that the Government should regularly report to the House by way of oral statement on how reconstruction and aid is proceeding, on how much has been spent and on what, on whether other countries are defaulting on their pledges and on what further measures can be taken to assist the recovery of the economies of the devastated countries.

This is an issue that brings the House of Commons together. We must use that consensus to ensure that the victims of the tsunami at home and abroad continue to receive the support that, publicly and privately, we have promised them.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said and for the tone of his remarks. First, he made the point about the passage of time tending to diminish people's recollection of the event. It was partly because of that, but also because of the continuing needs of all those affected by the tsunami, that I made my statement today. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has kindly agreed to take on the co-ordinating role. I endorse the suggestion that regular oral statements should continue to be made to the House by whichever Minister is appropriate, and I shall ensure that that is taken forward with business managers.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a series of questions, a number of which were in respect of development aid. I have made a note of as many as I could, but the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), has promised to write to him and place a copy in the Library in respect of those questions I am unable to answer.

On the time scale, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport reminds me that, in respect of the victims and families of 11 September, support was needed for at least a further three years. We must appreciate that and we are putting in place measures to ensure that we can continue to support families here and British citizens affected abroad for quite a long time, while recognising that the development aid challenge will be long lasting.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about auditing arrangements. I understand that the Department for International Development money is audited in the normal way by the National Audit Office. The Disasters Emergency Committee, a consortium of well established charities, has its own auditing arrangements and, in turn, must report matters to the Charity Commission.

As far as currently allocated money is concerned, I understand that £75 million is in the process of being spent and a further £65 million has been announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. Detailed joint work is taking place with the World Bank.

On debt relief, I met the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka last week and had an extensive conversation with him. He did not complain to me about the speed of debt relief. I understand that the reason that there may have been a delay is that the Paris Club, which has to agree these matters, only met last week.

On overall spending, the issue at the moment is not the availability of resources, either from charities or from the British Government and other aid donors, but the capacity of the recipients to ensure that it is spent effectively.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether there was any evidence that reconstruction in Indonesia had been used as a front to prevent the movement of individuals and to avoid a political settlement with the GAM rebel movement. When I was in Indonesia on 6 January, I raised the matter with the President of Indonesia, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment was there very recently. We have seen no evidence that the Indonesian Government are acting in that way. NGOs were effectively excluded from Aceh from some time in 2004 until the tsunami but my understanding is that they have since been allowed back freely.

In respect of Burma, I understand that the figures endorsed by the UN are 90 killed and 21 missing. I remember seeing a presentation about this; it was just a matter of fortune that the tsunami did not strike Burma as much as other areas in the region.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises concerns about the lack of agreement in the EU in respect of what is called GSP-plus, the globalised system of preferences. We have actively sought some change in the GSP-plus arrangement in order better to benefit the countries affected by the tsunami. I regret that we were unable to reach agreement last week, but we continue to negotiate. It is a matter of fact that we work with our EU colleagues in respect of trade. There are many reasons why that is sensible. However, we continue to press the case for a sensible level for GSP-plus.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point was about the internal review, and I will of course ensure that the final conclusions from it will be made known to the House.

The comprehensive response of the Foreign Office to a tragedy unprecedented in scale has been most commendable, and the response of staff has been magnificent. I understand that many Foreign Office staff volunteered to go to the region and many were redeployed. Clearly, there were costs involved in terms of accommodation and transport. Are the Treasury prepared to pick up the additional bill that the Foreign Office has very properly incurred for those?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his tributes. On costs, there is a consular premium on the passport fee that, by arrangements made after 11 September, provides us with a fund to cope with the costs of most emergencies. This is currently running at £7 million. To the extent that that is exceeded, I shall be going along to my excellent and ever-generous right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, seeking a claim on the reserve. As he recognises always the quality of requests from myself for claims on the reserve, and the justice, in any event, of the claim, I know that I will receive a good reception.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of his statement and take the opportunity to renew my sympathies and those of my colleagues for those who lost loved ones or who may be waiting for the outcome of any identification process. I commend the work of the UK staff involved in identification and repatriation and congratulate the Government on identifying single points of contact to simplify the process for people seeking support. I welcome the fact that a date has been agreed for the national memorial service.

I want to raise a few points with the Foreign Secretary. First, on the £340 million that was contributed, the Government made a specific pledge and it would be appropriate for him to tell us when he expects that funding to be delivered and that generosity to be matched. Does he have any evidence that the generosity to the tsunami victims has had a regressive impact on appeals for other regions? I understand that for every $500 raised for tsunami victims, just 50 cents has been raised for those affected by the war in northern Uganda.

On the early warning systems, there have been reports in the past couple of weeks of an increased risk of another tsunami in the region, and I wonder whether anything has been done about the time scale for delivering those early warning systems.

Indonesia suffered the greatest impact. Has the Foreign Secretary had any discussions with the Indonesian authorities about pulling out foreign troops and plans for the aid agencies to pull out in the next couple of months? Is he satisfied that sufficient resources will be available for the victims' basic needs?

The tsunami took 300,000 lives nearly three months ago. The communities affected will have to live with that memory for generations and our contribution should not be just financial. We should demonstrate that we have learnt from the disaster and that we will be able to respond more effectively next time. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be willing to return to the House—he has suggested that he will—to report on the progress of the initiatives set out at the end of his statement. Good progress on those will be suitable demonstration of our even greater willingness to play our part internationally and to show international solidarity.

As I said to other colleagues, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's congratulations to the staff of the Foreign Office and many other Departments, as well as police officers, for the extraordinary way in which they responded. We all accept, not least those families who were affected, that there were some failings in the way we operated. That is not a criticism of any of the staff involved, who worked longer hours than it was reasonable to ask anyone to do. We faced a scale of disaster that we had never anticipated; I do not believe that anyone in the world had anticipated a disaster of such a scale. We must learn the lessons; we owe it to all the victims and their families to do so.

The hon. Gentleman asked, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), about the £340 million donated by private individuals and how the Government will match that. That will be dealt with in the letter that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I shall ensure that I see the letter first—I am responsible for my statement—and that it is placed before the House.

There is a risk of another tsunami, but we do not know when. I attended the international meeting in Jakarta on 6 January which was called by the President of Indonesia. There was high-level discussion about putting in place an early-warning system. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister for Trade and Investment have been actively involved in taking that forward. The Association of South East Asian Nations has already committed itself to such an early-warning system and the European Commission has committed €2 million to put the project on track.

Our troops have now left Indonesia, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment and the Vice-President for Indonesia had discussions last week about Indonesian troops and ensuring proper access to non-governmental organisations. I believe that those conversations were satisfactory.

The impact of the humanitarian relief carried out by the British Navy was incredibly impressive and showed its professionalism and training. Does the Foreign Secretary not feel that the Indonesian Government's rejection of help from the Gurkha regiment stationed in Brunei was unfortunate, although understandable for historic reasons? Did he consider deploying that unit to Sri Lanka or India?

The right hon. Gentleman referred in his statement to improving the emergency plans of our diplomatic posts abroad. Might not that run into problems because he is thinking, is he not, of closing some of the posts in the Pacific area where tsunamis are likely to threaten?

May I make a correction so that the authority with which the undertakings were given is appreciated? My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment had discussions with the President of Indonesia, and the British ambassador in Jakarta had discussions with the Vice-President. Both produced the same assurances.

I am grateful for the tribute paid by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) to British troops who did, as always, a fantastic job and are a credit to this country. We offered the help of the Gurkhas, but there are special reasons why the Indonesians were sensitive about that so we worked round the matter and provided naval helicopters. I cannot be certain, but I believe that consideration was given by the chiefs of staff to deployment elsewhere, but that was a matter for my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary. The assessment was that there was urgent need in Indonesia which was not being met from elsewhere.

On the closing of diplomatic posts abroad, we face constraints on spending and I have had to look at the network of posts. I made an announcement to the House on 15 December. With a bit of luck, this is an ecumenical occasion and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether his party, if it were in power, would expand the number of posts or whether it would feel not just similarly constrained but even more so.

May I recommend to the House the paper submitted by the Foreign Office to the Foreign Affairs Committee which shows the work that the Foreign Office in particular did at that time? Will my right hon. Friend and the new co-ordinating Minister bear it in mind that some charities that may not immediately be thought to be related to such a disaster—for example, Cruse Bereavement Care, of which I am a patron—have played an important part in helping suffering relatives? When their future funding is considered, will he take into account the extra role that they take on when disasters arise abroad and reward them sufficiently?

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her commendation of the Foreign Office. [Interruption.] I apologise for my cough, which I am told is not as bad as it sounds.

My hon. Friend is right in saying that some charities inevitably received greater publicity from their work with the disaster than others and that some charities that did important work have gone unsung. That includes agencies working with bereaved people. I pay tribute to them and will certainly take on board her point about their future funding.

The Foreign Secretary may have read, as I have, some anecdotal reports of access difficulties for aid and individuals to some parts of Sri Lanka, notably the Tamil-held areas. Has the Foreign Office looked into that and does the right hon. Gentleman have any updates?

There were problems with access to the Tamil-held areas, but I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development that aid is getting through. However, in some Tamil-held areas there have had to be negotiations and brokering with the LTT to get it through.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At about quarter to 7 this morning, a van travelling on the A6 Market Harborough bypass leapt over the bridge barriers and crashed on to the main Leicester to St. Pancras railway line. The driver of the van was not seriously hurt, but the potential for serious loss of life and injury was clear. The van was hit by the southbound express train, which continued for half a mile with the wreckage disintegrating before it.

We are all pleased that nothing more serious resulted, but may I ask, through you, for a Transport Minister to come to the House at the earliest possible moment to make a statement about the current state of the investigation, which is already under way, thanks to the Leicestershire constabulary and the British Transport police? The Department for Transport must have an interest in the matter, bearing in mind previous railway disasters. I urge you to encourage a Minister to come here as soon as possible.

The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that that is not, strictly speaking, a point of order for the Chair. Obviously, everybody will have heard the comments he has made and our sympathy will go out to everybody who was involved in that incident. The Front Bench will have heard those remarks, but it is not the Chair's job to insist that Ministers come to the House to make statements. However, no doubt they will bear in mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and the general situation.

We now come to—[Interruption.] Order. As a general point, when we move on to the next business, it would be helpful if instead of everybody leaving as if at the end of a football match, we could get on to the next business in an orderly fashion and hon. Members would leave the Chamber gently, as and when they can.

BILLS PRESENTED

Procurement of Innovative Technologies and Research

Mrs. Anne Campbell, supported by Mr. Martin O'Neill, Sir Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McFall, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Kerry Pollard, Mrs. Louise Ellman and Mrs. Betty Williams, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to the awarding by government departments and agencies of research and development contracts for innovative technologies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June, and to be printed [Bill 93].

Air Traffic Emissions Reduction

Norman Lamb, supported by Norman Baker, John Barrett, Mr. Colin Challen, Sue Doughty, Mr. Michael Meacher, Dr. John Pugh, Alan Simpson, David Taylor, Sarah Teather, Mr. Simon Thomas and John Thurso, presented a Bill to provide for the preparation and implementation of an integrated air transport plan to reduce air traffic emissions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 June, and to be printed [Bill 94].

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make certain enforcement activities in relation to parking on private land subject to regulation under the Private Security Industry Act 2001; and for connected purposes.

This Bill aims to extend the requirement for a licence to parking services companies that are operating within private car parks and issuing fines for alleged offences. In the last few months, I have had correspondence from a number of constituents who have received penalty notices from three companies operating in different private car parks. At the outset, I would like to make it clear that I have no reason to believe that the companies have acted illegally and also that I have had a considerable amount of correspondence with one of the companies and I have received prompt and detailed replies.

In order to explain my concerns, I would like to describe exactly what happened in relation to one of the car parks. It is located behind five business premises and for about the last 30 years there have been no significant controls on parking there. In mid January this year my office, which is nearby, was suddenly inundated with phone calls, visits and letters because constituents had received penalty notices through the post demanding that a fine of £150 be paid, reduced to £75 if paid within 14 days. The letters arrived about a month after the alleged offences and came as a total surprise to some people who simply had not seen any signs and to others who had read signs but who were unaware that they were only permitted to park if they visited at least one of the listed five business premises and no others.

Obviously, the owners or, in this case the management company, have a right to manage their private car park. In this instance, one of the businesses had asked a particular car parking services company to police the area, which resulted in a contract being drawn up and agreed between the parking services company and the management company. The car parking services company wrote in a letter to me that the management company was

"more than happy to appoint a company that did not clamp motorists".

The letter continued:

"For your information the car park provider asked us to make sure that only cars that used the premises of the five businesses be allowed to park in the service area. To visit any other premises is an infringement of the parking restrictions even when they have visited the above premises. It is to visit the premises of the shops or business in question and then leave the car park. Our car park attendant is vigilant, makes comprehensive notes of all cars that enter the car park and is vigilant in where the motorists go for complete accuracy."

The company also wrote that notices were agreed between all parties and were legal in their content and they were erected in December 2004.

In the same letter a comment is made:

"I knew from experience that a private car park that had been used as a free public car park for many years would ruffle feathers from certain members of the public when restrictions were placed upon it. People do not like being told where to park especially if they have parked for many years in a particular place without a restriction."

So was it just a case of ruffled feathers? Was it just a case of a total misjudgement by the businesses concerned? They might not have upset so many of their customers if they had arranged for warning signs to be placed on windscreens and flyers to be handed out in their premises for a few weeks before the changes were actually implemented.

The case raises two areas of particular concern to me and that is why I feel that further amendment is required to the Private Security Act 2001. The first issue is the following of people by the car park attendant, which in itself is not illegal, I understand. However, letters from the car parking service company state:

"He witnessed this female walk down Lower Blandford Road and waited until this female was 30–50 metres past the last shop in the scheme."

In another case, the letter states:

"In fact he says that you walked past the traffic lights some 200 metres from the . . . Building Society on leaving the car park. In our opinion he was quite right in believing you were on other business along Lower Blandford Road."

When I mentioned to our chief constable about this practice of following people, he certainly reacted with some surprise and concern. Many of the people who initially received penalty fines were elderly people going to the building society to draw out cash. It certainly seems to me that a company operating in that way should be licensed. Although there were no problems with the attendant in all of those cases, questions arise about what might happen in other circumstances.

Although it was a condition agreed with the management company, the aspect of visiting only the listed premises seems fraught with difficulties. In one case, a person went to a cash machine before buying goods at one of the premises, and in another a man went to check his bank balance first. The car parking company did consider appeals and applied a test of proportionality, but people who were let off the fines were still charged an administration fee of £5, or £10 in one case known to me. Some elderly people simply paid the fine because they were so frightened about the possibility of being asked for £150, if they did not pay immediately. That is very unfortunate because in the case of a visit to the building society there was absolute proof, through transactions shown in the passbook, and many people who supplied that proof were let off the fines.

The second point of major concern is the fact that the fines are sent in the post four weeks after the alleged offence with no notice on the car windscreen at the time. That means that it is impossible to challenge exactly what signs were on display and what they said about conditions. Different people have different recollections, but most of the people who have contacted me claim that the signs were changed over the space of a few weeks and that there was one sign that said penalty notices would be placed on windscreens. There was certainly ambiguity about the need to visit only the five listed premises. Did that mean that all was well as long as you visited at least one of the listed premises, and that it was okay to pop across the road afterwards to Boots? If the penalty notices were placed on the cars at the time as in a public car park, one could check the notices and know whether one had inadvertently breached a condition or be able to challenge any ambiguity in the notice.

Allied to the four-week delay is the fact that the parking services company is able to obtain information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Several of my constituents have raised concerns about this aspect and I asked a parliamentary question on the matter. I asked the Secretary of State:

"under what circumstances the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is allowed to issue details of car ownership to private companies who operate within private car parks and issue fines for alleged offences; and what assessment his Department has made of whether the issuing of such information is compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998."

The answer was:

"Regulations provide for the release of vehicle keeper details from the register maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to applicants who can demonstrate 'reasonable cause' for their request. The enforcement of parking restrictions on private property meets the 'reasonable cause' criterion."—[Official Report, 10 February 2005; Vol. 430, c.1707W.]

I believe that my constituents would be reassured if the applicants were licensed to carry out their activities before the "reasonable cause" criterion is met.

Another constituent wrote to me about a different company. His wife had parked the car in a pub car park, had a meal there and left the pub immediately afterwards. A penalty notice was sent three months after the event. This time, the £150 charge was to be reduced to £85 if paid promptly. My constituent writes:

"Most people would not be able to recall specific incidents after this length of time and I have no doubt that many people would feel intimidated to pay up on receiving a letter of this nature. I must assume that my details were obtained from the DVLA data base and I would question that such a company should be allowed access."

That example also highlights the need for regulation to justify information being given out by the DVLA.

The situation that I have described in great detail clearly could have been managed a great deal better, and much distress could have been avoided without any need for legislation. However, I feel that the issues that have arisen have highlighted the potential for some other operators in the future to act in an unscrupulous way. I believe that this potential is more likely to be harnessed, given that car clamping companies have to be licensed. I believe that such enforcement in private car parks should be a matter for public legislation and that there should be published guidelines.

My Bill creates a new category of regulated activities relating to private parking enforcement other than by methods already covered in the amended Private Security Industry Act 2001. A comparable offence to that of unlicensed car clamping is created in relation to unlicensed private parking enforcement activities on private land. There is also a requirement upon the Security Industry Authority to produce guidance on private parking enforcement.

I hope that the House will support my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Annette Brooke, Sue Doughty, Mrs. Patsy Calton, Mr. David Rendel, Andrew George, Mr. Edward Davey, Paul Holmes, Dr. John Pugh, Brian Cotter and Simon Hughes.

Private Parking Enforcement (Regulation)

Mrs. Brooke accordingly presented a Bill to make certain enforcement activities in relation to parking on private land subject to regulation under the Private Security Industry Act 2001; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 April, and to be printed [Bill 96].

I am delighted to be able to open this final day of debate on the Budget 2005, which extends and entrenches the Government's commitment to economic stability. It also puts in place and reinforces the measures needed to enable British business and workers to cope with the challenges presented by the global economy, and to seize the opportunities that arise.

Our country is doing well. We are enjoying the longest period of unbroken economic expansion on record. Inflation has fallen to its lowest in 30 years, and interest rates are among the lowest for more than 35 years. Unemployment is at record lows and the number of people in work has risen by more than 2 million since 1997—the highest level of employment in history. There are 300,000 more businesses than in 1997, and 1,000 new businesses start up every working day. The rate of business failures is at its lowest level since 1993.

There is no doubt that Britain leads Europe in competitiveness. I hope that hon. Members of all parties are proud of what our entrepreneurs, working people and business leaders are achieving.

Amid all that pride, will the Secretary of State tell the House when was the last quarter of negative economic growth in Scotland? Will she point to two measures in the Budget that would boost Scottish economic performance?

The economic stability and public investment delivered by this Government, and confirmed by this Budget, are good for Scotland and every other part of the UK. If the policies espoused by the Scottish National party were ever put into effect, Scotland would be the first to suffer.

However, we know that more needs to be done if Britain is to be and to remain a leader in the world's knowledge-driven economy. For example, China is set to be the world's largest economy inside a generation, and India already produces 3 million highly skilled and well-qualified graduates every year. The challenges set by those countries make it clear that there is more for us to do.

Other developing countries are growing fast, but India and China have growth rates three times higher than Europe's. Their populations, and potential consumer markets, are five times bigger, while the wages paid in both countries are a tenth of the rates paid here and in the rest of Europe. However, we can be confident about our ability to compete. Our high-technology manufacturing industries have made great achievements in aerospace, pharmaceuticals and the new and fast growing field of biosciences. Our financial services sector has also done very well, and our knowledge-based business services in general have delivered more than half of the job growth enjoyed in this country in the past decade. In addition, our creative industries sector is one of the most successful in the world.

All that shows that Britain is poised to compete in the knowledge-driven economy. We lead the EU in the share of value added that comes from our technology and knowledge-based businesses, whether they be in manufacturing or services. It is increasingly clear that Britain is making the goods and services that people around the world want to buy.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the great contribution to job creation made by the Dundee company Cyclocel? It is the fastest growing and most highly financed spin-off venture to come out of any university in Europe. Is not that a tribute to the work being done in Scotland to contribute to the UK economy?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I readily congratulate the company on its extraordinary achievements. It is just one of the successful spin-off companies that we have helped to support. I am sure that he—if not the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—will welcome the fact that the profits made by the top 300 Scottish companies increased by 292 per cent. last year alone.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be as pleased as I was with last week's announcement by the Chancellor of changes to Government procurement rules for small businesses. They will do a lot to benefit the small firms in my constituency, but does she agree that they need a very thorough overhaul? At present, they are designed to get the best value from the purchase of paper clips and large IT systems, and are not suited to the purchase of research and development. Will she look carefully at my Procurement of Innovative Technologies and Research Bill, which I presented to Parliament today? It contains some good ideas about how that overhaul can be achieved.

I agree strongly. My hon. Friend has been at the forefront in promoting the cause of science and of innovation in science-based companies. The Budget measure to which she refers will give a direct boost worth £100 million to small companies, which now know that they can bid with real confidence for research contracts funded by the public sector. I shall certainly look with great interest at her Bill, and I take this opportunity to congratulate her and her co-author, David Connell, on the excellent White Paper that they published to accompany her Bill.

The examples given by both my hon. Friends illustrate well the point I want to make: our success in Britain, in the face of the extraordinary technological and competitive challenges of globalisation, requires action by the Government as well as by business and industry. That is the fundamental point of difference between Labour and the Opposition parties. We recognise that the scale and speed of the changes that are taking place in our world demand as an absolute imperative that Government, business, the work force and unions, our universities and colleges, the regions and local communities all need to work together and that the Government, in particular, must make the investment and take the actions that only they can undertake—in science, skills, infrastructure and much else—if our businesses are to be enabled to thrive, grow, compete and succeed.

The Opposition parties simply do not get it. Like many of us, I was astonished that in the debate on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement last week the Leader of the Opposition had nothing to say—not one practical, positive proposal—about what the Conservative party would do to help British business deal with globalisation. In fact, we know what they would do and I am not surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not care to mention it last week. We know that the Conservatives would slash spending on science, just as they starved science of investment when they were in power. We know that they would cut the support that we give businesses that are making investment in growth, and we know that they would cut support for British exporters. So it is hardly a surprise that the Leader of the Opposition chose not to mention any of that last week.

We know, too, that the Liberal party would not be content merely with slashing the budget of the Department of Trade and Industry, but would abolish us completely. Both Opposition parties have fallen into the old ideology, believing that businesses can succeed if Governments simply leave things to the market. No successful country does that. The United States does not do that. France, with its investment in technology, does not do that. Germany, with its investment in research and development, does not do that. Finland and Israel, two of the most innovative economies in the world, do not leave things to the market. China certainly does not. Wherever there is success in the knowledge-driven economy, we see modern partnerships between Government, the public sector, the universities and our entrepreneurs and the business community.

The work of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Industry and the Regions at the time of the Jaguar closure was much appreciated. What consultations did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hold with Peugeot before its recent announcement about redundancies?

We have been working with Peugeot for some years, so we were disappointed that the company decided recently to announce that it did not plan to make the replacement for the Peugeot 206 in the United Kingdom, despite our offer of investment support and the hard work of my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions. I greatly regret the loss of 850 jobs, announced by Peugeot recently, which will be very bad news indeed for those employees and their families. We shall of course do everything we can, especially through Jobcentre Plus, to ensure that all the individuals affected get new jobs, with retraining and new skills if necessary, as quickly as possible.

I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber for the beginning of my right hon. Friend's remarks, and I hope that I shall be lucky enough to catch the Speaker's eye later in the debate.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether there is any way of getting in touch with Peugeot at the highest level to find out precisely what the company proposes for the future? There have been progressive cuts over last year and this year, although they are going down, but why will the company not tell us its intentions? It must know what it intends to do, because the car industry has to plan four to five years ahead.

My officials and I, as well as other Ministers, are regularly in touch with Peugeot and other major automobile and manufacturing companies. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that the chief executive of Peugeot, Jean-Martin Folz, announced at the Geneva motor show that production of the current 206 at Wrighton will continue until 2010 or beyond. We shall of course remain close to the company so that we can understand its plans and ensure that we help it in whatever way we can.

The Secretary of State has twice mentioned China. Does she accept, as we have said all along, that lifting the arms embargo on China will do serious damage to Britain's relationship with the United States, and hence serious damage to British business and British trade?

Let me underline for the right hon. Gentleman—as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done repeatedly—that discussions about the arms embargo in respect of China need to be seen in the context of the extremely strong controls that we have put in place in Britain, and helped to establish throughout the European Union, on the sale of arms or dual-use technology to any country. Those controls, which we shall continue to strengthen, would apply if the arms embargo were lifted. We continue to discuss that with the American Administration and I hope to reassure them on that point.

I return to the theme of what the Government need to do, not to substitute ourselves for business—we can never do that—but to create the climate, the environment in which more people can set up and grow a business. We recognise that we must do even more than we have done already. The research and development tax credits, for instance, have already delivered more than £700 million worth of support for growing businesses that are willing to make the investment in research and development that will keep them competitive in the future. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, we shall make it even easier, especially for smaller firms, to claim that support in future.

We are encouraging more high-tech small businesses to develop their research capability, with the £100 million reserved for them to which I referred earlier. I particularly welcome the announcement in the Budget that we shall be investing further in the most disadvantaged areas of England to promote enterprise through a new local enterprise growth initiative worth £150 million a year by 2008–09.

What my right hon. Friend is saying shows some recognition of the fact that the United Kingdom biotech start-up is one third the size of the United States biotech start-up. Will she strongly emphasise her commitment to ensuring that the R and D tax credit system reaches smaller enterprises, especially those in less favoured regions?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We have been determined from the outset to ensure that the R and D tax credit is designed to meet the needs precisely of the smaller firms whose growth in the past was all too often choked off. By continuing to make the R and D tax credit even more accessible to small businesses, by setting up support for public sector R and D contracts and by sustaining the regional capital venture funds, which we created, we can ensure that those exciting businesses in the biotech sector, and in other sectors, can indeed fulfil their potential. I have no doubt that some will become the world-beating and job-generating companies of the future.

We in Britain are seeing a real change in people's attitudes towards entrepreneurship, with a significant increase in the number of people expecting to start a business over the next few years. Last November, over 150,000 young people took part in the inaugural enterprise week, and there is the increasing success of the Business Link network in helping businesses to grow. Last year alone, Business Link helped 458,000 small businesses, and another 164,000 pre-start-ups. Its reach into the business community continues to grow, as, I am delighted say, does the satisfaction of its customers. As the regional development agencies take responsibility from next month for the Business Link service, that business support will not only be sustained but made even more effective as it is delivered along with other regional support in the way that small business customers need.

How will my right hon. Friend ensure that the creative industries continue to enhance the productivity of our manufacturing and engineering base?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, because I know very well from all the manufacturing companies that I visit that the ones that are succeeding best in the global economy are those that are harnessing the outstanding capability that we have in Britain, particularly in industrial design, and using that, as I saw for instance at a clothing company in Leicester last week, to keep themselves competitive, even against very low-wage competitors. The announcement in last week's Budget that George Cox, former chairman of the Design Council, will be invited to look specifically at this area of harnessing the creative skills of our people for the benefit of our manufacturing industry, will be welcomed by my hon. Friend, and certainly by industry.

If the Secretary of State believes that the Government have a special talent for helping disadvantaged areas in the regions, why did they first of all introduce and then withdraw disadvantaged area relief from stamp duty for commercial property?

The stamp duty relief on property was a time-limited programme that has come to an end, and as the Chancellor said last week, we have now put in place a new local enterprise growth initiative which will deliver £150 million worth of support by 2008–09. If I may say so, I deplore the somewhat sneering tone that the hon. Gentleman adopted on the issue. I have seen the real impact that our policies are having in many of our most disadvantaged communities as far more people obtain the skills, confidence and support that they need to move into self-employment and, as their businesses grow, even to start taking on new employees of their own; and that is what we need.

The Secretary of State was asked about the short-lived stamp duty relief. I assume that when these flows of initiatives come out some attempt is made to evaluate the impact of such targeted tax reliefs. Has any evaluation been done on this and, if so, does it demonstrate any benefit to those who live in disadvantaged areas? How much is it estimated was wasted on giving stamp duty relief to developers who found themselves lucky enough to be in a place where they could take advantage on a valuable site of the tax relief that the Chancellor, probably unwisely, put forward?

As I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor evaluates every initiative and policy that we put in place in order to ensure that taxpayers' money is used as wisely and effectively as possible.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, will that evaluation be published and made available to the House?

All Freedom of Information Act requests are dealt with quite properly under that Act. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will, I know, want to return to the point about stamp duty in more detail when he replies, but by offering that support in disadvantaged areas we have helped to bring back into use some of the old properties, particularly derelict properties, left behind by the demise of some parts of our manufacturing industry, and that has been to the real benefit of people in disadvantaged areas. The new enterprise growth programme will be a better targeted form of help on enterprise in those communities.

The stamp duty relief was available extensively in areas of Liverpool where there has been significant deprivation, and it has made a significant difference to people seeking to buy their first homes, many of which were abandoned properties that have been brought back into use.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because reviving and strengthening the housing market in disadvantaged areas is essential if we are to get both economic growth and social inclusion in every community in every part of our country. That is perhaps not a point that those on the Opposition Front Bench understand.

Will the Secretary of State clarify whether she is saying that the commercial property relief under the stamp duty land tax was a success or a failure? Is it being withdrawn because it was a failure, or is she celebrating its success? Would she also remind the House that the revenue that the Chancellor is gaining by abolishing the relief is said in the Red Book to be £350 million a year, £150 million of which she says she is putting into the new scheme? That is a net increase in the revenue from disadvantaged areas of £200 million.

The stamp duty relief has helped in exactly the ways that I and others have outlined within disadvantaged areas. It has undoubtedly helped, but the new relief will be a better targeted support for disadvantaged areas, which I hope that both sides of the House will welcome.

One of the areas on which we have made real progress but on which there is still more to do is regulation. It is worth reminding the House that in 1990 setting up a company took five working days from receipt of papers until registration, but we have cut that to 24 hours for those filing electronically, and in the EU we have now won the argument about the need to simplify European regulations in order to give business right across the EU an even better basis for growth.

Last week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor published the reports of Sir Philip Hampton and David Arculus, and we have accepted all their recommendations. The Chancellor, the Prime Minister and I had an excellent meeting with representatives of business organisations last week at which we discussed the practical steps that we will take to put those recommendations into effect. By bringing together different regulatory bodies, and by ensuring that all our regulators take a risk-based approach to enforcement and inspection, we estimate that we can cut the number of business inspections by at least a million a year—a significant saving in time for our entrepreneurs and business owner-managers that again will give a further boost to their businesses. That lighter-touch regulation for the vast majority of law-abiding businesses, coupled with tougher penalties for those who do break the law or who continue wilfully to flout the law, is the right approach.

My hon. Friends and I have already mentioned the whole issue of science, but let me say a little more about that, because it is central to our ability to compete in the future. We are an astonishingly successful nation in terms of our scientific achievements—1 per cent. of the world's population funding 5 per cent. of the world's science, publishing 9 per cent. of scientific papers and receiving 12 per cent. of world citations. We lead the G8 on citations per pound invested in publicly performed research and development. We have three of the world's top universities for biomedicine here in the United Kingdom. As the Budget confirmed, we are now delivering the largest sustained growth in science investment for decades—more than £1 billion of extra investment for the UK science base by 2007–08.

We know however that it is not enough simply to invest in the science base. We must take the new ideas and technologies out of the laboratories and get them into our factories and businesses, so the investment that we are making—for instance, £300 million in the technology programme—will help our universities and research institutes to link up with businesses and spin-off companies. We are seeing the success of those early programmes all around the country—in Lancaster university, for example, where InfoLab 21, a major project backed by £10 million of Government money, is attracting inward investors and will create a world-class centre of excellence in information and communications technology.

That support for science and innovation in our economy is central to the next stage of economic strategy in the United Kingdom, but it is an investment that would be put at risk by the Opposition parties. It is essential to manufacturing in particular, and it builds on the industrial strategy that I put in place four years ago with our industrial leaders and trade unionists, and which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions is taking forward through the Manufacturing Forum. By ensuring that our manufacturing companies can benefit from the manufacturing advisory service and now from the technology programme, we are giving practical help to thousands of our smaller manufacturing companies and their work forces all around the country.

If we are to succeed in this competitive world, we need to continue investing in our people and raising the standards that working people can enjoy in the workplace. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has just published a landmark White Paper on adult skills, which shows once again how we in the Government are working successfully with the business community and with trade unions to put in place the investment and reform that are needed to correct a skills deficit in Britain that goes back to the 19th century. However, we need to do more.

We have shown over the past eight years that, contrary to all the fears that were raised by the Opposition eight years ago, it is possible both to raise standards of protection for working people and to raise the growth rate and the employment rate in our economy. That is what we have done through the minimum wage and through the advances that we have made on family-friendly working, trade union recognition and much else besides. We have set out in the Budget and in the recent consultation document that my Department published how we propose to move forward in the years to come to ensure that we get the best standards for our employees, because that is the way to get the high-performance workplaces that are central to Britain's future as a high value-added, high-wage, knowledge-driven economy.

The Budget reinforces the economic stability that is the essential foundation for business success and employment creation, which we will never put at risk. It also puts in place the measures that are needed to help more of our businesses create the new products and the new production processes that will keep them competitive in the global economy, and which will continue to deliver increased employment, higher living standards and a better quality of life for our people. I commend the Budget to the House.

I draw the attention of the House to the entry in the Register of Members' Interests.

I welcome the opportunity to assess the real implications of this vote now, pay later Labour Budget on Britain's wealth creators, risk takers and entrepreneurs. Beginning with the broad economic background to the Budget debate, I am conscious of the tradition on these occasions—at least under the present Chancellor—to include grand historical analyses of the state of the economy. I am more than happy to continue the custom.

The Government and the Chancellor claim credit for 50 consecutive quarters of growth, so when did that start? For the vast majority of businesses and people of this country not brainwashed by the spin to which Labour is addicted, it started in the final quarter of 1992. The solid foundation on which the UK's macro-economic stability was built, and on which British business so vitally depends, was in fact established during the last four and a half years of the previous Conservative Government.

What has Labour done while building on our golden legacy? The Chancellor—[Interruption.]—and in domestic matters his sidekicks, the Prime Minister and a string of Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, have presided over the largest trade deficit—[Interruption.] since records began in the reign of William and Mary.

Order. The House listened with civility to the Secretary of State making her speech—[Interruption.] Order. The House ought to do the same when the Opposition spokesman is speaking.

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Chancellor has presided over the largest trade deficit since records began, and the lowest economic growth of any major English-speaking economy over the past seven years. Following the even worse experience of 2001, more regulations were introduced by the Government in 2004 than in any other year in the past half-century.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a golden legacy. Will he apologise to my constituents for the dreadful waste that was inherited in 1997, when we were paying out more to keep people unemployed and to service the national debt than we were spending on all our schools?

I am absolutely sure that my party and those who were responsible for building that golden legacy have nothing to apologise for, as we ensured that we locked in the macro-economic stability so valued by business.

A greater number of regulations were introduced by the Government last year than in any other year in the past half-century. So much for Prudence Brown and her sister, Constant Spin. What is the role of the Department of Trade and Industry in all this? According to the Department's recent business plan, the DTI's principal policy goal is to

"raise the rate of productivity growth"

and improve the competitiveness of the UK. Tragically, for the entire eight years under the Government's heavy trudge, the Department's overriding policy objective has had a staggeringly miserable record. Productivity growth is down by a third in comparison with the last Conservative Government, and the UK's competitiveness under Labour has fallen from fourth to 11th, according to the renowned World Economic Forum.