When the General Teaching Council will be operational; and if he will make a statement on its introduction. [81514]

From September 2000, the General Teaching Council for England will be the new professional body for teachers. For the first time, teachers will have a real role in regulating their profession, and we expect that the GTC will quickly become a key player in shaping the education service of the future. The Government are committed to revitalising teaching as a leading profession, and the GTC is a powerful symbol of our drive towards achieving that. The first election to the GTC is expected to take place in spring 2000.

Is my hon. Friend aware of quite how much teachers welcome the establishment of the General Teaching Council? They have long wanted a professional body that is able to represent their interests and articulate their views on a wide range of education issues. Will he confirm that part of the Government's drive towards addressing education issues is to re-establish the teaching profession's morale, which is so essential if we are to raise education standards in our schools?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the reform is long overdue and should have been made decades ago. It is also a very important step in establishing and strengthening the status and standing of the teaching profession in the community as a whole, and in ensuring that professional standards run right through our education system. I am absolutely delighted that this Government have put the reform on the statute book and will bring it into effect. It will have a profound effect on classroom morale.

The Minister is well aware of our concerns about the General Teaching Council, and the fact that it is not the body that it needs to be if it is to encourage more people to join the teaching profession. We are also concerned about the extreme control that the Secretary of State has over members of the General Teaching Council—is not that yet another example of the way in which the Government seek to control from the centre, rather than allowing teachers and the profession to make decisions for themselves?

Given the recently released figures showing that the Government will yet again miss the teacher recruitment target—which the Government reduced, despite the fact that there are still 10,000 teacher vacancies in our schools—when will they accept the real classroom crisis of teaching recruitment and do something about it?

It is a little rich for the hon. Lady to make that point, given that for 18 years the previous Government did absolutely nothing to address those issues. Although I am glad that she has given her general support, her remarks were a bit rich.

I defend the role of the Secretary of State in nominating members to the General Teaching Council on two important grounds. First, there is a public interest in regulation of the teaching profession. It is right that there should be such an interest, and it should be expressed by the Secretary of State in nominating people to the council. Secondly, the Secretary of State's nominations will give real flexibility to the council as it begins to evolve. In the regulations, we specify the Secretary of State's specific responsibility to take account of the needs of parents and of children with special educational needs. I believe that those are very important developments in ensuring that the General Teaching Council will evolve into what we wish it to be—an effective, strong and independent representative of the profession.

The Green Paper, the GTC initiative and all our other specific initiatives and measures —on science and on maths, for example—are designed to tackle teacher recruitment. It would be very refreshing if the hon. Lady gave us some support in those initiatives, rather than simply seeking to niggle from the sidelines, as she so consistently does.

Does my hon. Friend agree that until the profession unites into a council, it will never achieve its full potential? Will he say that he intends urgently to press on and attempt to knock some sense into the profession?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have said on a number of occasions, and I believe it to be the case, that the divided representation of the teaching trade unions damages the profession. I hope that the General Teaching Council will play a role in unifying and strengthening the profession's role in the provision of education, which is why I think that establishing the council is such an important step. I am glad to have his support.

If he will make a statement about the inclusion of information about (a) average class sizes and (b) money spent per pupil in future published tables of test results at ages 11 and 14; and if he will publish such results and information for tests at age seven. [81516]

I have been trying to work out from which wing of the Conservative party this question comes.

We currently have no plans to increase further the amount of statistical data and information published in performance tables. However, I should—under pressure, of course, from the hon. Gentleman—be prepared to publish details of the pupil-teacher ratios and the rise in the number of children being taught in classes of over 30 pupils in the last 10 years of the previous Government.

May I reassure the Secretary of State that, like all my questions, this one comes from the mainstream of the Conservative party? Does he accept that there are three main probable causes of the inadequacy of primary school pupils turned out into secondary education—first, the inadequate sums being spent; secondly, there are too many children per class; and, thirdly, rotten teaching methods? Does he accept that, until we publish data on class sizes and amounts spent per pupil, it will be impossible to tell whether the first two causes are behind inadequate results at the primary level, or whether the cause is really, as I suspect, rotten teaching methods?

From that, I deduce that the question came from the absolute denial wing of the Conservative party. Yes, there was an £80 per pupil drop in spending under the Conservatives. Yes, there will be a £235 per pupil increase under this Government in their first term in office. Yes, there was a continuing worsening of the pupil-teacher ratio; yes, we have already reversed that, and, for the first time in 10 years, primary pupil-teacher ratios have improved. We have managed to get 130,000 infant children into classes of fewer than 30 in the first year that we embarked on the attempt. Yes, of course, rotten teaching methods make a difference—which is why we are always glad to receive the odd moment of support from the Conservative party for the literacy and numeracy strategies that they did not introduce.

What does the Secretary of State say to the school that I visited last week, which because of the rigid implementation of the class size policy is having to turn away pupils whose parents want them educated there? Because funding is allocated per capita, the school is losing money too, and because it is losing money it will have to lose teaching assistants, so there will be fewer adults per class. Everybody is losing because of the rigid implementation of the policy. Many schools throughout the country are trapped in that way. What does the Secretary of State say to them?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman visit schools among the majority that have discovered that with the investment that we have made already in the reduction of class sizes, there are 2,700 extra teachers and 600 extra classrooms. That has allowed us to accommodate a further 12,000 parental preferences for schools under admissions pressure such as the one that he has described. In other words, we are reducing the number of children in classes of more than 30 at the same time as we are expanding preference and increasing the number of classrooms and teachers. That is the exact reverse of what the Conservative Government achieved in their 18 years in power.

If he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to improve standards of achievement in further and higher education. [81517]

The Government have shown by word and deed their determination to improve standards of achievement in both further and higher education. In further education, we established a standards fund of £35 million this year, and £80 million next year. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education is developing new methods of ensuring rigorous and comparable standards in higher education.

I wish my hon. Friend well in his endeavours, and I am looking forward to his visit to my constituency tomorrow. Does he accept that the need to drive up standards in the post-16 sector should be met by adequate and fair funding? Is he aware that studies by the National Audit Office and others have shown that, in my area, for instance, John Leggott sixth form college, which enjoys a national reputation for the standards achieved by its comprehensive intake, has funding 30 per cent. lower than the sixth form of the Queen Elizabeth school in Gainsborough, which is a selective grammar school? Will he use his good offices to look into the figures and ensure that all schools in the post-16 sector get fair allocation of resources, to achieve the higher standards that he wants to put in place?

I am indeed looking forward to my visit to sunny Scunny, as we call it in Yorkshire. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating John Leggott sixth form college, which has a deserved national reputation for its excellence. His remarks must be set against the November settlement announced by the Secretary of State, which put an additional £725 million into the further education sector. None the less, I am aware, as is the rest of the House, of the specific point that he made. We recognise that the system that we inherited from the previous Government has its inequalities, and that is one matter that may fall to be dealt with under the post-16 review.

It is the first time I have heard Scunthorpe described as sunny Scunny, but I will take the Minister's word for it. The Liberal Democrats support the Government's attempts to drive up standards in further and higher education, but does the Minister accept that it is also important to meet the access targets? Does he also accept that the disastrous introduction of tuition fees has meant a decline in the number of applicants to higher education, including a 28 per cent. decrease in the number of mature applicants? Is it not time for the Government to abandon the Prime Minister's target of 500,000 extra students by the end of this Parliament?

I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. I shall give the House some interesting figures. In 1994, the number of applications for home undergraduate places was 2.3 million. In 1996, long before tuition fees, the number was down to 1.753 million. For 1998, the figure was 1.791 million. The 1997 figure was higher because the loans system gave mature students an opportunity to apply, and 1997 was an exceptional year compared to the trend for 1994–98. If the figure for 1997 is removed, the number of applications rose in 1998.

Given that the public standing of universities, and Consequent league tables, tend to be based on research excellence and research funding—I do not wish to argue with that important focus—does my hon. Friend feel that the universities are striking the right balance between research reputation and high-quality teaching? Does he agree that we need to do far more to drive up teaching standards in our universities, in an age when more of our young people are going to university from a variety of backgrounds and tuition fees have to be paid?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have put an additional £1.4 billion into research, but we are aware of the need to keep a balance. As my original answer accepts, we are always keen to improve standards and we are aware of the need to work with the higher education sector to keep improving teaching standards.

I am delighted to hear that the Minister will visit John Leggott college, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) that when I was last in Scunthorpe visiting the college it poured with rain, so the town may not live up to the Minister's advertisement for it.

In the context of the post-16 review, the Minister mentioned the great concern about the inequality of funding between different types of sixth form institution. Can he give a guarantee to school sixth forms that none of them will be closed as a result of the post-16 review against the wishes of local parents, teachers and education authorities?

I shall certainly give that guarantee unequivocally. Sixth forms have an important part to play, alongside further education colleges and sixth form colleges. Anything in the post-16 review that did not build on sixth forms or, especially in the inner cities, failed to strengthen, improve and expand them would be strongly opposed by the Government.

What progress has been made in increasing the number of out-of-school child care places. [81518]

The national child care strategy continues to make a major impact locally. I am delighted to say that since April 1998 we have funded the creation of more than 61,000 new child care places, exceeding our target for that year. Indeed, in the first two years of this Labour Government, we have created more new child care places than the previous Government created in their 18 miserable years in office.

I welcome that statement, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister realises that this is an important matter, both nationally and in Coventry. Will she give the general figures for Coventry, and the particular figures for my constituency of Coventry, South?

I shall be delighted to do so. The figures available so far for Coventry in 1998–99 show that 266 new child care places have been created, in clubs such the All Saints club and the Pilgrim club, and in colleges such as Henley college and Coventry city college. Moreover, my Department has just given full approval to Coventry's plans for next year, under which the intention is to create a further 893 new child care places. Funding has also been received for 1,384 new nursery places for three-year-olds, starting in September.

I am most interested in the Minister's reply. I recently visited some pre-schools in my constituency—the Jolly Tots and the St. Paul's pre-schools in Poynton—and I am due to visit one or two more in the near future. Will the Minister say why the Pre-School Learning Alliance is so concerned about the large number of pre-school closures, of which there have been about 1,500 recently? Another 1,700 are scheduled to close over the next year.

I am very interested in this sector of education, as I believe that children's experiences at that early age can dictate what happens in their subsequent educational career. Will the Minister comment, and explain why the Pre-School Learning Alliance is so worried, and why so many pre-schools are closing?

I am delighted to be able to do so. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, and will have been here when the previous Government introduced the disastrous nursery voucher scheme. That, more than anything else, was responsible for damaging the pre-school sector, both private and voluntary, in this country.

We are most concerned that the Pre-School Learning Alliance and the pre-school movement in general should play a full part in the expansion of early education and child care places. That is why we have provided £500,000, both this year and last year, to help pre-schools in financial difficulties. We have also established a review to see how we can ensure that the pre-schools play a full part in the expansion of early years education and child care. That review is due to report to me in August.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am pleased that the Government recognise the importance of, and the need for, pre-school education. Will she say how groups in my constituency that are eager to provide the service should go about receiving Government support for their endeavours? Can she assure me that the Government will continue to support pre-school groups, in my constituency and in the Wakefield area in general, to help them to continue the very important service that they provide to many families?

We have established in each education area an early years child care and development partnership. That is the context in which we hope that plans will be developed in every locality to respond to the needs and preferences of parents and children and to implement the expansion that we want. We are anxious that every sector should contribute to the expansion of early years education and child care. We have placed a duty on those partnerships to ensure the health of both the voluntary and private sectors, and therefore to ensure their continued and sustained contribution.

The Minister did not address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The Pre-School Learning Alliance has specifically identified as part of the problem:

"Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership arrangements created by the present Government."

The Government are driving diversity out of the system, and many parents do not believe that a state primary school is the best form of provision for their four-year-old child. Pre-School Learning Alliance places are closing, and 1,700 of them are in danger this year. Free-standing specialist nursery schools are also in danger of closing. Is it not the case that merely talking about reviews does nothing to address the serious problems that other forms of pre-school provision face?

The hon. Gentleman is well known for his views on parental choice. It is, therefore, completely hypocritical of him to stand at the Dispatch Box denying parental choice and blaming parents for choosing one setting as opposed to another for their child.

The previous Government's nursery voucher scheme began the massive threat to and decline of pre-schools. This Government, in both our years in office, have put £500,000 into support for pre-schools, and, with the support of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, have set up a review, not to find out why pre-schools are declining but to see how they can contribute to the expansion of early years education and child care places.

What discussions he has had with the Secretaries of State for Social Security and Environment, Transport and the Regions about help with housing costs for students. [81520]

My Secretary of State is in regular and continuing contact with colleagues on issues relating to student support. The Government will take steps to support students in the greatest need as and when opportunities arise. For students in higher education, help with housing costs is provided in grants and loans through the student support system. Help for students who have financial difficulties is also available from the access funds of their institutions.

Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues consider the plight of my constituent, Susan, who is on a 16-hour-a-week access to health studies course? She is caught by the 16-hour rule, which makes her ineligible for housing benefit. She is also ineligible for more than a small amount of access funding. She works as many hours as she can as a care assistant, but her income is still insufficient to meet her £45-a-week rent in full. Surely the system should do more to help people such as Susan to get out of low pay and benefit dependency and into worthwhile careers such as nursing.

I am aware of the case raised by my hon. Friend. No matter how flexible the system is, however, there will always be individuals or groups with particular circumstances that it does not address. The Secretary of State is continually aware of that problem, and we constantly move to try to help individuals or vulnerable groups when particular cases arise.

For the individual concerned in this case, the immediate answer would be her institution's access and hardship funds. The amount that she has received from the institution is insufficient, but there is a possible solution, which I should like to discuss further with my hon. Friend. The course concerned is an access course that does not usually give any support to the student. It is a pre-statutory service—I hope hon. Members understand what I mean by that. We might, therefore, discuss with the institution involved why the course does not take 15¾ hours, as that would open housing and other benefits to the student concerned. Why 16 has been chosen as the magic number of hours is an interesting point, particularly when it comes to access funds.

The Minister will be aware that many students live in houses in multiple occupation. The Government's recent Green Paper on HMOs exempted university accommodation from inspection. However, universities are getting rid of more and more of their own accommodation. Does that not mean that more and more students will be at risk in HMOs?

The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but I believe that an all-party parliamentary group is conducting a dialogue with the Minister for Local Government and Housing and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. A policy document or a White Paper on multiple occupation will be issued soon because it is a particular worry. The question whether universities will be included is a matter for discussion, consultation and decision. I am delighted that individual Members with strong university bases in their constituency have raised this because it is a growing problem that affects localities and even relationships in cities where universities have great numbers of students.

May I share with my hon. Friend the experience that I had this week of meeting a young woman called Hazel who is leaving care to go into higher education? Not only has she shown tremendous intelligence to get herself qualifications and tremendous resilience to battle through the disadvantages of a disrupted life and a number of years in care, but she has shown the supreme good judgment to go to Lancaster university on a social work course. Does my hon. Friend agree that help with housing costs is essential if we are to help ever more bright young people cast off the disadvantages of being in care and make it into higher education?

I do not think that there is a Member in the House who would disagree with my hon. Friend. Hazel indeed deserves congratulations. Her achievement in gaining a university place is no mean feat, given the normal background of a youngster in care. I know that my Secretary of State is particularly concerned about that group. All hon. Members, to be fair, would welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health's moves to help youngsters leaving care. The attention given to youngsters leaving care was greatly welcomed and long overdue and it is a wonderful example of this House responding to something which has been a disgrace for years.

I have experienced personally the deep sorrow that a family in my constituency had when their daughter, a student living away from home, died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Does the Minister agree that in principle no public funding for housing costs should be awarded to students or others living in a property, whether in multiple or single occupancy, where health and safety checks have not been carried out?

This matter will be dealt with by the DETR White Paper, and deservedly so. The hon. Gentleman has raised the case from one perspective. The other perspective concerns how youngsters are treated and the conditions in which they have to live in many university towns. The hon. Gentleman's remarks have a resonance which we hope will be reflected in the White Paper.

When he will next meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss post—devolution funding arrangements. [81521]

I have regular meetings with members of the CVCP and last met them on 17 March 1999. They have made no approaches to me on this particular topic, but obviously I would be happy see them, as ever.

What reflection does the Secretary of State have on the evidence, to which I have drawn his Department's attention, from the CVCP and the Scottish universities to the committee under Sir George Quigley reviewing the fee anomaly and on the part that that anomaly might play in attracting fewer students to Scottish universities from England and Wales? Is the downturn of 18.4 per cent. registered by St. Andrews university to be expected by other Scottish universities? Both Heriot-Watt university and Edinburgh university are worried.

The figures published on Tuesday by the higher education statistics agency showed that we must compare like with like. Although there was a downturn in the number of students applying last year to Scottish universities from England, the number registered as taking up places for the current academic year rose by 3 per cent. Although there was a downturn in those entering in the first year, there was an upturn in those entering later, in the second year of four-year courses. Enrolment, as opposed to applications, was up. That is encouraging, both for Scottish universities and for the new system. I was encouraged when I was in Scotland yesterday to learn that the university with the largest number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, Paisley, had had an upturn in applications for the coming year.

What has been the total increased capital allocation to schools in Hendon since May 1997. [81522]

Schools in Hendon have benefited from approximately £2.31 million of grant under the new deal for schools and to remove outside toilets. Nine schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have benefited. Both initiatives were launched by this Government after May 1997.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and say how much not only I, but the children at the schools affected welcome the additional funds? I recently visited Deansbrook school, which welcomes the announcement because it will no longer have to put up with old huts, but will have a brand new building. St. Vincent's primary school welcomes it because it can now merge on to one site instead of using a split site with a main road through the middle. Copthall school welcomes it because it will get a brand new building. That is excellent news for my constituency and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his announcement

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am finding it difficult to think of some controversy to generate. The truth is that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have appreciated the support that we have been able to give in capital spending to schools in their constituencies. Many schools that have been waiting for decades for resources to be spent on improving them are beginning to get them. There is much more to be done, but I believe that we are going down the right path.

What representations he has received concerning the outcome of the new deal for schools: capital programme phase 3. [81523]

Since the announcement of successful projects under the new deal for schools, the Department has received many representations from hon. Members, local education authorities and schools, including one from my hon. Friend.

I appreciate that everything cannot be funded at once, especially the provision of new schools. Derbyshire has had resources allocated to build a new school at Swadlincote. In my constituency, the Holymoorside school needs to be replaced. I encourage the Minister to examine our proposals. I hope that he will visit the school because it is vital that provision be made for it in next year's allocation. Derbyshire has many problems with the state of its schools and a strong case can be made for this one, although we realise that it was stuck behind another application.

My hon. Friend understands the situation fully and argued a powerful case for Holymoorside school. I am prepared to visit it to see for myself the conditions about which he is concerned.

What a man!

My right hon. Friend is right. Hon. Members may be interested to learn that under phase 3 of the new deal for schools, the amount per pupil paid for Derbyshire was greater than for any other shire county except one. It had a good settlement, but I am acutely aware of my hon. Friend's points.

Can the Minister confirm that only 1,053 out of 5,909 bids under phase 3 of the new deal for schools have been successful? As Allan Shaw county school in Steeple Claydon and Chackmore school in my constituency have had their bids rejected by him, can he confirm that where health and safety considerations are involved, special priority will be attached to bids by the schools in question?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's confirmation of the terrible backlog in school spending that we have inherited. I repeat that, although we are making good progress, we are the first to recognise that there is a long way to go to deal with the problems. I have received representations from the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the two schools that he mentioned. He wrote to me and I wrote back with a full answer. I am speaking from memory, but I think that the schools were not given sufficiently high priority by the LEA to be given a grant. He is right about health and safety. It is the first consideration in the new deal for school spending and the first criterion under which LEAs submit their bids.

I spent 25 years in classrooms before I entered the House, the last of which was spent teaching in a portakabin. I wonder whether hon. Members realise how dispiriting it is for children and teachers to have their lessons in sheds that are too hot in summer and too cold in winter. I welcome the effect that the new deal capital programme is having in my constituency. It is making a start on taking out the 18-year inheritance from the Conservative party of terrible portakabin classrooms, especially at Carlton Colville primary school and Warren special school. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking to continue the work of ridding this country of these horrible classrooms? They are wrongly referred to as mobiles, as they rarely move, but they are on the move now.

My hon. Friend is right; he has highlighted an important point. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have given priority to the new deal for schools precisely because, unlike other capital allocation processes, it focuses on dilapidation and serious problems of the type that my hon. Friend describes, and health and safety, to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred, among other issues. The new deal programme focuses on ridding this country of the terrible backlog of 18 years of Conservative neglect.

When the Minister is reviewing the new deal for schools, will he reflect on two things? One is the proliferation of bidding processes, which Labour decried in opposition, and the other is the massive scale of the problem of temporary classrooms referred to by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). There are 800 so-called temporary classrooms in Somerset, which represent a huge inefficiency in terms of cost and the teaching environment. It is a massive problem which needs to be addressed with huge resources to provide the sort of teaching accommodation that we want for our children.

We are addressing the problem with huge resources—far more, I may say, than the penny on income tax that the hon. Gentleman's party has suggested. We acknowledge that there is a massive amount to be done, and we are doing it. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the bidding process, but that is why we are asking LEAs to introduce asset management plans. We are funding the process precisely to achieve the most efficient local assessment of needs, management of capital and all the rest of it, so that the bidding process becomes less important. We will have a better system as a result of that and of the Government's commitment.

In what ways the additional funding for research announced in the comprehensive spending review will be used by the universities. [81524]

The substantial investment in research announced as a result of the CSR, totalling some £1.4 billion over three years, will allow research in universities to be transformed. It will allow for institutions to invest in the modern equipment and infrastructure needed to maintain the United Kingdom's world-class science base.

The additional money is welcome after 18 years of miserable Tory neglect. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that universities, such as Cambridge, that already have a world-beating record in research will benefit from the extra money? When will an announcement be made about the allocation of funds as a result of the joint infrastructure fund bid?

I thank my hon. Friend for accompanying me during my visit to her constituency this week, and for introducing me to so many committed professionals who are delivering such an excellent service to the people of Cambridge.

In answer to her question, the university of Cambridge has already received £3 million for the Babraham Institute and there will be a decision about the other funds in May.

What was the percentage of school leavers going on to further or higher education in the local authority areas with the (a) lowest and (b) highest percentages in the most recent year for which figures are available. [81525]

In 1996–97—the latest year for which figures are available—the proportion of 16-year-olds participating in education was lowest in Salford at 57 per cent. and highest in Kingston-upon-Thames at 97 per cent. Unfortunately, information on school leavers entering higher education is not available by local authority area.

My hon. Friend will know that, in places such as Burnley, the number of school leavers going on to further and, ultimately, higher education is much lower than the national average, and that there are repercussions for towns where there is a lower than average take-up of education at the higher levels. How well does my hon. Friend think that the Government's initiatives to encourage more people throughout the country to go on to further and higher education are working? Does he propose to take any further action to encourage more people to take up those forms of education?

The dual objectives at the centre of the Government's education and training policy are to raise the competitiveness of the British economy through increasing the skills base of the work force, and to end social exclusion. My hon. Friend should take heart and realise that the problems faced by the youngsters in his constituency are a central feature of our objectives. Without taking up too much time, I should like to run through some initiatives.

Learning partnerships are very much at the centre of the battle to improve standards; we are bringing together training and enterprise councils, local government careers services and further education. We are setting local targets and persuading people, by every possible means, to reach the objective of increasing numbers. We are in the second year of the new start scheme, whereby schools, careers services and further education colleges are attempting to bring vocational education into schools for 14 to 17-year-olds. There is retargeting in the careers service so that it can work more closely with individuals who are in danger of falling out of the system. That is working extremely well. We have introduced legislation to ensure that there is a right to time off for study for 16 and 17-year-olds who have not reached an acceptable educational level. Without straining your patience too far, Madam Speaker, briefly, those are some of the things that we are doing.

Does the Minister accept that the percentages relating to school leavers depend on what has been going on in the schools? Is he aware that a local Staffordshire newspaper unequivocally stated, "Our schools betrayed", next to a picture of the Prime Minister? Does that not demonstrate that local newspapers and, indeed, local people are profoundly concerned, in the run-up to the local elections, about the way in which schools have been betrayed by this Government? Is the Minister aware that the standard spending assessment in Staffordshire is a complete disgrace, and that there is no reasonable comparison between what is going on there and in other counties, such as Hertfordshire?

Is the Minister also aware that there has been a Cabinet decision—in which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment were intimately involved—which means that there will be no changes whatever in the SSA for the next three years, and that that is admitted by the Department for Education and Employment? A Cabinet decision has been made for which the Government are responsible—they have betrayed our schools.

It is a delight to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about something that is not Europe-based. I have been a Member of the House for several years and saw how the previous Government operated. The Labour Government are the first Government to approach post-16 education with the understanding that what happens to youngsters at the age of six months relates to where they will be at the age of 16.

We are struggling to deal with the problems of the post-16 age group: there are 5 million people in the community who have no basic skills, and 7 million without accreditation in the work force. Through the work of my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, we have put together an integrated set of policies targeted on improving standards in schools, so that the post-16 problems do not exist because we have dealt with the disease, not the symptoms.

If he will make a statement on his proposals for the use of and access to learning mentors. [81528]

From September 1999, each secondary school pupil in six inner-city areas will have access to learning mentors. Learning mentors will devote the majority of their time to the children who need extra support to realise their full potential. We shall agree the detailed arrangements for deploying mentors with the relevant local education authorities, in partnership with their schools.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that a voluntary mentoring scheme for those leaving care is proving to be of great value in the Bristol area. Given the importance of that scheme, will all the schools in the six areas be encouraged to take up mentoring schemes?

I pay tribute to the voluntary mentoring scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. From travelling throughout the country, it is clear to me what a huge impact the voluntary schemes are having. I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise that the initiative we have launched to employ mentors to support some of the most disadvantaged children and so ensure that they get a decent education will do nothing to detract from the contribution that the voluntary sector makes to mentoring. In fact, one of the duties given to mentors on their appointment will be to make sure that they co-ordinate with voluntary mentoring and work with schools to raise standards even further.

I am sure that the Minister knows that, as part of their new deal for employment, the Government have appointed employment advisers who, to a great extent carry out mentoring in respect of education. Is she upset—as all of us should be—that, since the new deal was introduced, in every quarter, the number of unemployed people in the 18 to 24 age group has gone up? Is it not time that the Government carefully examined mentoring in respect of getting people into educational courses? Perhaps people are being ill advised and are not getting jobs at the end of the process.

I only wish that the hon. Gentleman had benefited from the numeracy hour; if he had, he might have realised that youth unemployment has gone down by a third since the introduction of the new deal. The work we are doing to provide mentors, not only for those who, having left school, are trying to enter employment and training, but for those who are still at school, will ensure that children and adults who are at a point in their life when they have to make key decisions are at last given the high-quality advice and support that they need to ensure that they have access to the life opportunities that have so far been denied to far too many people.

When he plans to launch the code of practice on age diversity in employment; and what responses he has had to the draft code. [81529]

I am pleased to say that the code will be launched next month. Its launch will be a great tribute to my hon. Friend's Employment (Age Discrimination in Advertisements) Bill and to other hon. Members who have also campaigned with such energy on this important issue.

We received 356 responses to the consultation: respondents found the code generally useful, clear and relevant. There were suggestions for improvements which, as far as possible, we are incorporating.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I congratulate the Government on their action to launch the code on age diversity in employment. It is one of several measures relating to older people that the Labour Government have taken—far more than the Conservative Government managed. I understand that the code will be monitored and fully evaluated by February 2001. If we are not satisfied with progress by then, will the Government consider legislation on age discrimination, perhaps in the next Parliament?

I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for the code. I believe that it will make a difference in spreading good practice, in helping to change attitudes and in challenging outdated assumptions. As she says, it will be closely monitored and carefully evaluated. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in a written answer on 15 December, the impact of the code will be evaluated and that will inform future plans for legislation in that area.

When he last discussed with the European Commission the harmonisation of policies to stimulate employment within the EU. [81530]

Ministers have regular discussions with the European Commission and other member states, and we are making good progress through the employment guidelines on active labour market policies to promote employability and to combine flexibility with security. However, that progress is being achieved through co-operation, not harmonisation. Employment policy and employment action plans remain the responsibility of individual member states.

Are the Government aware that the harmonisation of value added tax on the importation of works of art from outside the European Union will effectively double the rate of VAT on those works and will gravely damage the London art market? Far from encouraging employment, it will destroy jobs in London and throughout the country. What do the Government intend to do about that? Will they ignore the proposal and just accept it blithely, or make a stand for British jobs and the prosperity of the British people?

The hon. Gentleman should know that the Government have made vigorous representations in the interests of the British art market. We want to sustain the jobs and the commanding competitiveness that that market enjoys. The employment guidelines to which I referred earlier explicitly include—at the behest of the United Kingdom—the requirement that every regulation be examined to gauge its effect on employment levels. Moreover, we will promote adaptability, flexibility, equal opportunities and entrepreneurship in employment policy. We want to sustain that entrepreneurship in the British art market of which we are so proud.

Will co-operation, or the harmonisation or co-ordination of employment policies across Europe, have any effect—good or bad—on the new deal?

The employment guidelines promote an active approach to the labour market which guarantees young people who have been out of work for six months the help that they need through an adviser, training programmes and assistance into employment. The good news is that that approach is being extended to other countries. I have received an enormous amount of interest, not just from Europe, but from countries throughout the world, in the achievements of the new deal.

In answer to the accusations that Opposition Members made earlier today, youth unemployment among the eligible group has fallen by more than a third since the new deal was introduced. We have the lowest long-term youth unemployment in this country for 20 years, and we are proud of the fact that the Labour Government have reduced long-term youth unemployment further in 18 months than the previous Government managed in 18 years.

If he will make a statement on the number of bids received for education action zone status in the latest round. [81531]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 123 applications, which come from every region in England.

Does the Minister agree that the key benefit of an education action zone is not just the additional money that it brings— although that is welcome—but the fact that it brings parents, teachers and the public and private sectors together to boost educational achievement? That has been my experience in working with schools in Harlow to produce a bid. Will my hon. Friend look carefully at Harlow's bid, which is unique in involving the local cable television network to increase access to the internet? By linking it to schools, it will engage parents more meaningfully in their children's education.

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Of course the money allocated to education action zones is welcome but, more importantly, the zones are levers for the sort of partnership that we have not seen in our education service for the past 18 years. When education partners in the community work together, the children in our schools will benefit. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he and his colleagues have done in Harlow. He is correct to say that the bid is unique in using cable television, but he can imagine the number of requests that I have received from hon. Friends asking me to look carefully at their bids. I assure both him and them that I will do so.

What steps have been taken to support early years education and quality child care through pre-schools and playgroups. [81532]

I am delighted to put on record the Government's support for pre-schools in the expansion of early years education and quality child care. Pre-schools and playgroups contribute to good quality early education and child care through local early years development and child care plans. The Government have recently announced up to £500,000 in grants to support good pre-schools and playgroups in temporary financial difficulty, and an independent review to identify any barriers that prevent pre-schools and playgroups from developing their role.

My constituents welcome the Government's investment in early years education. However, pre-schools and playgroups still have to fund-raise and apply for lottery grants to improve their services. Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents that the Government's commitment to improving child care and early years provision will continue as long as they are in power?

The answer, clearly, is yes. We hope that the pre-school movement will be able to play its part in ensuring that every child in this country gets the best possible start to their educational experience.

I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the Government's record on allowing building in the Green Belt and development of greenfield sites and their failure to meet even their own targets for new building on brownfield sites; condemns their refusal to increase their 60 per cent brownfield site building target in line with their recently revised household projection figures; and deplores the Government's failure to protect the countryside.

It is a little over two months since our last debate on the Government's lackadaisical approach to protecting the countryside and their penchant for concreting over vast tracts of green belt and green-field land, with areas such as Stevenage, West Sussex, Sutton Coldfield and Newcastle as monuments to their anarchic approach to protecting our countryside and the green belt. Since then, there have been two significant Government announcements. First, there was the long awaited and long-overdue publication of the draft revised PPG3—planning policy guidance—on housing. Secondly, there were the revised housing projections, which showed a reduction from 4.4 million houses to 3.8 million.

In the light of those announcements and, given that some green-field development will be carried out, we must ask how it can be minimised and brown-field site development maximised. Will the Government's preferred approach enable us to do that sustainably and rationally, rather than by pursuing the field-by-field, trench warfare approach so characteristic of their efforts so far? Can the process be improved so that it becomes an opportunity rather than a threat?

Both in government and in opposition, we have maintained that as much building as feasible should be on brown-field sites. That is why we originally set the 60 per cent. target. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised it to 66 per cent. early last year. I am delighted that the Government have come some way towards our way of thinking and have accepted a 60 per cent. target, even if the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who I understand is to reply to the debate, regards the Government's policy as a recipe for disaster. It would be helpful if he would give greater details on how they will seek to achieve the target.

The latest available figures show that building on brown-field sites is lagging behind the target, at 53 per cent. PPG3 is supposed to be the blueprint for ensuring that the target is met, but will it have that effect? While we have waited for the guidance, and its long overdue publication, major green-belt developments have been given the green light in places such as West Sussex, Hertfordshire and the west midlands. If new housing continues to be built on green-field sites at the current rate, an area the size of Suffolk will disappear under concrete by the time today's school leavers reach retirement. It is worth noting that, in Cambridge city council, both Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors voted for a major review of the green belt to be in the East Anglia regional plan. As the House knows, that means that several thousand houses will be built in south and east Cambridge on green-belt land if the changes take place. That would destroy the purpose of the Cambridge green belt, which is to preserve the unique setting of an historic city. PPG3 talks of extensions to urban areas, which we believe is in some ways misplaced, because it threatens the green belt in the example that I gave. I should be grateful if Ministers, instead of chattering among themselves, would give some thought to how, if the policy in Cambridgeshire goes ahead, the Government will fulfil the purpose of the green belt and protect the historic city of Cambridge.

In PPG3, the Government talk about urban extensions, but will such extensions not put an unbearable strain on existing infrastructures? We are told that we are to have a sequential approach to the choice of sites, with brown-field sites considered first. Will that slow the planning and development process yet further? Will the Government end up falling even further behind their own targets?

This is pathetic.

It is rather pathetic that all that the Minister can do is sit there and try to disturb my speech because he simply does not like having pointed out the inadequacies of his Government on this matter in the past two years.

As the Minister will know, a recent study published by the Civic Trust and the House-Builders Federation focused on 54 potential brown-field sites identified for building purposes as long ago as 1986. The study revealed that only 39 sites—72 per cent. of that land—had been developed at all in the intervening years and that only between 29 and 54 per cent. of the land had been developed for housing on all or part of a site. The report listed such constraints as contamination, problems of land assembly and what the authors called

"a lack of flexibility, creativity, technical and market knowledge in some local authorities."

If the possibility of developing a brown-field site is to be considered for years, but is ultimately to be discarded, the sequential approach could significantly slow up development.

While we are on the question of contamination, may I draw to the attention of the House the fact that, as I am sure the Minister accepts, this problem needs to be addressed urgently? Last summer, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee report highlighted the issue. It said:

"We would be appalled if the necessary Regulations on land contamination has not been laid within 10 days of the House returning from the Summer Recess."

That was the summer recess of 1998, to be of help to the Minister. That was six months ago and no orders have yet been laid.

On 22 July last year, the Minister for the Environment said that the Government would bring the legislation into force in July 1999. Since then, there has been significant slippage. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), told me in a written answer on Tuesday that he hoped that the regulations would be laid in July this year and that they "should"—that was the word that he used, interestingly—be in force on 1 December.

The slippage and the pedestrian attitude that has highlighted the Government's general approach suggest that there is no sense of urgency. The Government seem to be oblivious to the fact that local government, the industry and environmental interests all eagerly await the regulations. The sooner they are in force, the sooner the clean-up and development of brown-field sites can go ahead. [Interruption.] I hope that Ministers, instead of asininely sitting on the Treasury Bench, saying, "Hear, hear," will pull their fingers out and do something so that we do not have the slippage that the Select Committee so hoped almost a year ago would not happen.

Barely do we have the revised draft PPG3 than the Secretary of State publishes his revised household projection figures. The previous figure of 4.4 million houses—on which all planners had been working—has been reduced to 3.8 million. At a stroke, the Government's targets for overall development, as well as for green-field sites, seem—superficially—to be more attainable. There will be less new development, presumably including that on green-field sites—or is that too good to be true? That remains to be seen, but the Opposition will certainly carefully study those figures and the assumptions that underlie them—when we know exactly what those assumptions are.

Does my hon. Friend not think that it is odd that the figures have been revised without the workings being published? Has my hon. Friend noticed that a former professional adviser to the former Department of the Environment has said publicly that he cannot believe that those figures are correct and that he is unable to judge them because the workings have not been provided? We shall have to wait until this autumn to find out how the Government arrived at that conclusion. It would be nice if we could be given that conclusion, but is it not odd—indeed, even suspicious—to publish a new figure without explaining how it has been reached?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Given the fact that the Government pay so much lip service to open government, one would have assumed that, when publishing sets of figures that would have such an important impact throughout the country, they would publish the assumptions and workings behind them. It is quite extraordinary that they have not; sadly, it is typical of the contempt in which the Government hold the House and the way in which it carries out its business that they are prepared to publish a result without the workings that elaborate on it.

If that is the case, perhaps my hon. Friend will suggest to Ministers that, if they could manage a commitment of 60 per cent., or 4.4 million, of houses on brown-field sites, and, even if we are now to assume that the number is 3.8 million, they might agree—roughly speaking—to my hope, while I was Secretary of State for the Environment, of 75 per cent.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can reassure him that I shall deal with his intervention later.

At present, however, hon. Members in the Chamber are in a fortunate position, because the purpose of the debate is to hold the Government to account for their failings in a matter that has such a great impact on communities throughout the country. My right hon. Friend raised a most important point in relation to the publication of the new projected housing figures without any of the background work to support them. We are fortunate in that two Ministers are sitting on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps at least one of those Ministers would like to deal with the extremely valid point made by my right hon. Friend. Ministers could intervene now or, if they have to bide time by seeking the advice of their civil servants, we shall await their comments in either their opening or their closing speeches.

It remains to be seen whether the figures are too good to be true. We shall certainly examine them extremely carefully—as well as the assumptions that underlie them—when all the reasons for the Government's decision are available to us and to the rest of the country. However, we can calculate on the basis of the former figures that, if the Government have got the figures wrong, 600,000 families or individuals will have nowhere to live during the time span of the projected housing figures. [Interruption.] I can reassure the Minister that I fully appreciate—

Order. I would be grateful if hon. Members stopped making casual remarks from sedentary positions—that would be most helpful to the debate.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you appreciate that I am fully aware that the time span has changed with the announcement of the latest figures, if only because the Government made it clear when they published the new figures in their press releases, which they kindly send to me.

We can calculate on the basis of the old figures that, if the Government have got it wrong, 600,000 families or individuals will have nowhere to live. We understand that the projections remain much the same in the south-east, but that there will be sharp falls in other parts of the country. We shall have to await the Secretary of State's contacting the regional planning conferences to outline the details before we know for sure whether our understanding is correct, but that is certainly what is rumoured. Will there really be fewer widows and divorced people in the next 25 years than were previously expected? If so, it would be interesting to know the basis on which the Government reached that conclusion. When will the Secretary of State tell regional planning bodies how the reduced 3.8 million projection will affect their areas?

My hon. Friend makes a most interesting point about a hypothetical reduction in the number of widows and divorced people. Is the reduction in the figures not attributable, at least in part, to a projected increase in cohabitation? Whereas in the past people would live separately, they now live together openly.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The somewhat sketchy information which has so far been published gives the increase in cohabitation as one of the reasons for the reduced housing projections. It is important that we should have access to the workings that have gone into the figures, because it would be interesting to know the rate of split-up of cohabiting partners. Obviously, some cohabiting partners split up, as do married couples, but we are in the dark as to its impact because we do not know the details of the workings for the figures. Our uncertainty would be eased by being told exactly how the Government carried out their calculations, but I fear that time alone will tell.

The Government's announcement is hedged around with qualifications. It stresses that 3.8 million is not a precise figure; yet, even on the sharply reduced forecast, we shall need 150,000 new households a year, every year, for the next quarter of a century. All in all, the Government's recent announcement raises more questions than it answers, because they did not publish the evidence and the workings when they published the figures. The Government have got matters back to front by making an announcement of that nature and then expecting the country and interested parties to wait six months or so to see the complete picture that would enable them to form an independent view on how accurate and realistic the figures were.

Given that the emphasis on housebuilding will, in many cases, revolve around urbanism, the first objective must be mixed-use development.

As it appears that quite a lot of disinformation is going around, I should like to point out that the press release on household growth that was published by my Department on 29 March 1999 laid out the regional figures.

We did that, first, because it conformed with the practice of previous Administrations: nobody would question the ability and credibility of staff at the Office for National Statistics and, in one sense, the figures are not Government figures, but a reflection of what the ONS has said.

We did it, secondly, because, starting on 14 May, an important hearing will take place in the south-east—the examination in public of the guidance produced by the South East regional planning conference. The Government thought that it was responsible to ensure that the regional information was available to that hearing; but, as usual, the more detailed district and county information will be published later this year.

I fully accept what the Minister says, because we have all seen the press release. My point is that the Government have published figures up to a certain level, which they have not gone beyond. A Minister recently told me in a written answer that the Government could not confirm whether there would be any change in the projected figures for the county of Essex. He said that we had to wait until the Secretary of State had written to the regional planning bodies. The junior Minister has kindly confirmed that that is absolutely correct. Of course it is, but, to understand the significance and the impact of the figures fully, we must know their effect on specific planning areas in a county. We do not have that information.

Is it not extraordinary that the Minister prays in aid the fact that an examination in public is about to take place and the new figures are now available? However, when I asked him about the county structure plan and the EIP that had taken place in Devon but had not yet been finalised, he dismissed my question and said, "It has already taken place, so we cannot take account of new information." The Government seem to have one rule for one part of the country and another for somewhere else.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the situation is nothing short of chaotic. That is totally unacceptable to the House, to local authorities which must do the work and to the public who want to know how the Government's policy will impact on their local communities.

rose—

I will give way once more and then I must make progress. Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.

Is my hon. Friend not being far too kind to the Government? They have given a figure, but we know that the Office for National Statistics usually provides a range of figures and that the office must have done the work in order to produce that figure. Why do we not have the details of that work? Either the Government have those details, and will not publish them, or they do not have the details, in which case the figure is meaningless. In one way or another, the Government have got it wrong.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is inconceivable that the Government would not be prepared to publish the figures if they had them. It will be fascinating to hear the Minister's explanation. We want to know whether the Government have the figures. If they do have them, why can they not publish them, so that we can examine them now instead of waiting until later this year?

rose—

I said that I would take no more interventions; I wish to conclude. The Minister will have the opportunity to speak in about three minutes, when he will be able to provide all the answers that he likes.

The agenda for this building must be determined by scale, certainty, planning for sustainability and the proper use and distribution of planning gain for the benefit of the whole community. We believe also that, logically, if the projected housebuilding figure is to be reduced by about 600,000, it is time for the Government to be bold and to raise their 60 per cent. brown-field site target. The Government now have a golden opportunity to raise that figure to 66 per cent., as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has done, which would be environmentally friendly and show badly needed common sense.

The Government know full well that some people, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), have suggested an even higher figure of 75 per cent. for brown-field site building. I believe that it is time for the Government to re-examine their 60 per cent. commitment and to raise it, given the changed circumstances.

The first two years of this Government's policy on the green belt and on green-field building have been characterised by bullying, destruction of the green belt and a lack of clear direction. The publication of the revised PPG3 and the reduced housing projection figures give the Government the chance to put their mistakes and the damage of the past two years behind them. Now is the time for the Government to think again and come up with a policy that is environmentally friendly and relevant to the country's housing needs, and will not ruin whole swathes of the countryside. I urge the Government to seize that opportunity.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside and promoting an urban renaissance, and maintaining tight planning controls over the Green Belt and other designated green spaces; recognises that the Government's decentralised and integrated policy approach is helping to achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's commitment to increase the proportion of new housing on previously-developed land in urban areas, smaller towns and villages from 40 per cent in the mid-1980s to 60 per cent; recognises the benefits of replacing the previous 'predict and provide' approach to the issue of household growth with a more flexible 'plan, monitor and manage' system; and believes that the Government's inter-linked policies for urban regeneration and protection of the countryside will enhance the quality of life for people in both rural and urban areas.".

I shall begin by addressing the Opposition's charges against the Government—which have been poorly made—as stated in their motion. The Opposition claim that we are allowing large-scale development in the countryside and the green belt. Given the previous Administration's record, their charges are opportunistic, even hypocritical. I remind the House that it was Conservative Members who let the market rip. Clearly, they are trying, in speeches by their Front-Bench Members, to dissociate themselves from that policy. They did nothing to deal with the problems of urban sprawl and the decline of our inner cites.

Under the previous Government, large areas of the green belt were released for development and little effort was made to promote housebuilding on recycled land. Their record reveals that, between 1985 and 1995, only 42 per cent. of new homes were built on recycled land. They knew that their policy was not good enough, but they did not have the bottle to widen people's horizons and take on the "not in my back yard" syndrome. The previous Government approved development in the green belt in places such as north Kent, Manchester, south Bedfordshire and Woking. Conservative Members deliberately mislead the public on housing development by confusing green-field sites with the green belt.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I shall proceed further with my speech before I let the right hon. Gentleman intervene.

It was, of course, also the previous Administration who embraced the inflexible, top-down, predict-and-provide approach to household growth and denied local people a say in how much new housing should be built and where in their region it should be built.

The right hon. Gentleman quoted four places, but I can, off hand, point out that, in two of them, the developments were not housing: one was Manchester airport, which could hardly be built in the middle of a city; the other was a much-needed opportunity for jobs which the Labour party demanded. Will the right hon. Gentleman please not misinform the House?

I shall not misinform the House. I shall give right hon. and hon. Members the facts and they can, if they want, read the three-page list of places where the Conservatives allowed green-belt development to take place.

What are this Government doing to promote new thinking on planning for housing and urban renewal? We are decentralising decision making and replacing the top-down mentality, with its predict-and-provide approach, with a more flexible system of plan, monitor and manage.

I shall contrast the previous Administration's role with the actions of this Government and past Labour Governments. The post-war Labour Government introduced the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, they did, and we are proud of the fact that they established the green belt and the national parks. If we read the history books, we find that Conservative Administrations have done nothing to protect the countryside and the green belt. They did not even challenge the predict-and-provide approach, as we are now doing with our system of plan, monitor and manage, which will be much more effective.

Conservative Members do not need to tell us what their plans for the green belt are, because in certain parts of Britain, those plans are evident. In north Lincolnshire, the area that I represent, the unitary authority that was formed in 1996 now has a Labour administration, which has drafted its first local plan. That would reduce green-field development, protect the green belt and prevent the over-development of villages. The Conservatives in opposition on the council oppose that draft plan and will stand for election next Thursday saying that they will overturn it if they are elected. They would increase development on green-field sites and in villages. A number of their candidates have, in the past, been personal beneficiaries of that policy, and they want it to be reinstated. That is what the Conservative party does to green-field sites and the green belt.

That speaks for itself. It may be a Labour party political broadcast. Are there some elections in the near future?

indicated assent.

Yes, there are. Well, I hope that the electorate who will have the opportunity to vote in the local elections have taken note of what my hon. Friend said, which was very telling. Such behaviour obviously follows on from what the previous Administration did when they were in power.

The Government are developing innovatory ideas to regenerate towns and cities—a legacy of that previous Administration—to increase the use of recycled land and improve the quality of life of everyone who lives in urban areas. Our aim is nothing less than to drive an urban renaissance, providing for sustainable growth in both urban and rural areas.

What the Government have grasped, which unfortunately Conservative Members cannot seem to see, is that there is a link between protecting the countryside, the green belt and urban renewal. Everyone agrees about that. Many members of the Conservative party believe that we are approaching these issues in precisely the right way, and our approach has been commended by some Conservative Members from time to time. What is more, there is widespread support for the approach that the present Administration are taking to land use and transport planning. That support comes from the Confederation of British Industry, the house builders, and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, to name but a few. I shall quote from the CPRE press release.

"The Government's new planning policies begin to put teeth into its commitment to protect the countryside and revitalise the towns.

They should have a significant impact on the geography of new building and help to contain urban sprawl."

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No.

Therefore, I welcome the debate—the fifth that we have held on the subject in less than two years. I thank the Tories—the official Opposition—for letting us have a free party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour party. May we have many more in future? If we can arrange one just before the European elections, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might help to get more Labour votes.

Let me repeat what we have already achieved since the previous debate on the green belt, requested by the Conservative party, in February. Our statement "Planning for the Communities of the Future" marked a break with the past and set out our objectives for the urban renaissance that I have mentioned. It signalled a departure from the days of predict and provide, and the previous Administration's laissez-faire policies.

We have set a clear 60 per cent. national target for new housing to be built on recycled land, which was supported by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. We believe that it is realistic and challenging, and will encourage the regions to go even higher. By contrast, the Conservative party still seems unable to agree on any national target, and bandies figures about—as we heard this afternoon—without any idea of how they will be achieved.

We announced a significant increase in the funds available for urban regeneration and the protection of the countryside. We have launched the new deal for the communities initiative. We have increased the funds available through the single regeneration budget. We have freed up £5 billion of capital receipts for local authorities to use in their housing programmes. We have strengthened PPG6 to make an even firmer declaration of our intention to curb the excesses of out-of-town shopping.

We have devoted real resources to address the economic and social problems in rural areas. To mention one initiative, we have put £170 million into rural bus services. As a result, in many areas, people now have a bus service after years without one.

The right hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid the CPRE. Will he explain why another non-governmental organisation, Friends of the Earth, described the recent Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee report as

"a damning indictment of Government plans"?

Why did the Labour-dominated Committee say

"The Government's proposals are well-intentioned, but vague"

and

"not adequate to achieve their aims"?

How does he answer that accusation?

We have answered the Select Committee report; I am a great supporter of Select Committees. I look at these matters historically and I am describing what we have done. The Opposition give me the opportunity to present a monthly report to the House on planning generally and I have set out what we have done, up to the February debate. I shall now tell the House this Administration's achievements since February. I am giving an update, and I have no doubt that the Select Committee will consider those issues. Friends of the Earth will then be able to make its judgment. I have no doubt that, like the CPRE, it will be converted and say that the Labour Government are doing an absolutely first-class job.

I have stated the Government's record up to February, and we have not been resting on our laurels in the few weeks since the Opposition last initiated such a debate. We have not stopped working and we will continue to modernise. We have issued revised drafts of planning policy guidance on development plans and on regional planning—PPG12 and PPG11. We have released the new household projection figures, set up a new system of plan, monitor and manage and officially launched the new business-led regional development agencies, which take a strategic overview of the needs of each of the English regions.

On 12 April, I published a report detailing progress on our modernisation planning initiative over the past 15 months. I sent every Member of the House a copy, to keep them informed. I have not heard any criticisms of the report since Conservative Members received it. If anything, I have had slight congratulation from one of them. We are now moving in the right direction.

On 23 March, we published our revised PPG3, on housing. I was asked about that in the, previous debate on this subject. I am happy that the revised PPG3 was warmly received, even by those on the Opposition Benches. It represents a major departure from previous policy and introduces, for the first time, a sequential approach to planning for housing.

rose—

I shall give way in a moment.

No longer will there be a stampede to build ad hoc on green-field sites. Priority must be given to recycled land and vacant sites before green-field sites are built on—brown-field first must make sense. If Conservative Members think differently, they should say so. I give the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) the opportunity to do so now.

The Minister intervened earlier to say that it is important to distinguish between green-field sites and the green belt. He rightly says that the draft of PPG3 refers to a sequential approach for development plans in which previously developed land is considered first and green-field sites after, but PPG3 also refers to urban extensions. That could come into conflict with the green-belt policy. In respect of that sequential approach, why did not he say expressly in PPG3 that building on green-belt land should be a last resort?

The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a presumption against building on green belt—it is quite specific. It is for local authorities to make recommendations—on structure plans and through the examination in public, which I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking part in—if they want to change the green belt. That is up to them. It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether to accept such changes.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on any specific application or development of a structure plan, but the debates that people are having during the examination in public try to resolve some of those difficult issues. I remind him that there is a presumption against building on the green belt.

I do not wish to misrepresent the Minister's view, but can I take it that I am therefore wrong to think that PPG3, which refers to considering extension of urban areas before considering the use of green-field sites, can come into conflict with PPG2 on green belt? Is it to be presumed under the sequential approach to development plans that building on, and allocation of, green-belt land for development should be the last resort?

I repeat: there is a presumption against such development in PPG2, which refers to the green belt. If a planning authority wants an urban extension, which would be a major shift, that will have to be in its structure plan and the planning guidance. We have treated PPG3 like any other planning guidance. It is out for consultation at the moment and we will make the final decisions. I reiterate that there is a presumption against building on green belt. That stands. Let me deal with what will happen in the future. As I have said, I have given you an update on what has happened since the February debate—on what we have done in practical terms.

Order. The Minister keeps using the word "you". I must ask him to use correct parliamentary language.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Government's record up to and beyond February has been presented to the House; let me now say what we shall be doing in future. In a few weeks, we shall release the first figures from the national land use database, which will be a domesday book for the new millennium. We have had a big debate about building on brown-field sites. When this Government came to office, I asked a simple question: how much brown-field land was available? The answer was, "We do not know." One of our first moves was an attempt to establish the facts, so that we could have a reasonable debate. We wanted to discover exactly how much brown-field land we had in this nation of ours—and we should know the answer in the next few weeks. The information will give details of all brown-field sites that are ripe for development.

Before the summer, Richard Rogers's urban task force will publish its report, which will inject new ideas and momentum into our goal of returning life to our towns and cities. That report will be followed, later in the year, by urban and rural White Papers setting out practical policies for the implementation of the ideas presented in it. All our initiatives attack not just the symptoms but the causes of urban decline, with the aim of creating urban renewal. If we can make our urban centres more vibrant, exciting and pleasant places in which to live, work and play, we shall already have gone a long way towards protecting our countryside from the pressures of continued development.

My hon. Friend is aware of the situation in Nottinghamshire, because he has been there. He is now referring to perhaps the most crucial aspect of the planning system. If we cannot end the depopulation of our cities by means of the "joined-up" policies that he has mentioned, we really are in trouble. Urban regeneration—the tackling of problems such as crime, poor housing, the lack of services such as education, and under-achievement —is fundamental to the easing of pressure on the green belt.

I know of the problems that my hon. Friend experiences in the Nottingham area. Under the new deal for regeneration, the Government have committed more than £3 billion over the next three years. That will complement the housing investment that I mentioned, and will make real improvements in the most deprived areas—areas to which my hon. Friend has referred.

On Monday I was in Manchester, announcing the names of the winners of a competition to build new homes at Britannia basin in Castlefield. That regeneration project attracted 162 entries, which was the second-highest response ever received by the Royal Institute of British Architects. The response demonstrates the extent of interest in the reuse of brown-field sites. Similar initiatives are under way elsewhere in the country, but that particular initiative involved designers and developers such as Tom Bloxham of Urban Splash, along with RIBA, in a creative move to combine the talents of many young people. We were told that that had never been encouraged under the last Administration.

Our enthusiasm for the urban renaissance shows that we are fully committed to the countryside. As the House is doubtless fed up with being told, more Labour Members than Conservative Members represent rural constituencies, and they are doing a damn good job. Our concern must be not just with the enjoyment of the countryside for its own sake, but for those who live and work there. Only this week, I had a discussion with members of our Back-Bench rural group to try to find new ways of returning life to the economies of run-down areas of rural England. Rural England is changing, and the new Labour Government will respond to that change.

The rural White Paper will examine the long-term future for the English countryside and how policies on the economy, health, education, crime, agriculture and the environment will support a sustainable countryside and rural communities in the future. It will consider how the prosperity and competitiveness of the rural economy can be strengthened, how development and regeneration policies can help those areas in need, and how we can ensure that all rural people have opportunities to participate fully in society.

Our consultation on the discussion document "Rural England" ends tomorrow, and we shall consider the responses carefully as we prepare the White Paper. [Interruption.] It is no good Conservative Members complaining. They initiated the debate, and I thank them heartily for enabling me to present the Government's record. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am getting on with it. I hope that Conservative Members are enjoying it.

There will be close co-ordination as we link the urban White Paper to the proposals being developed in the rural White Paper. This is joined-up government with joined-up money. Our commitment to protecting our green spaces and green belt could not be stronger. As Opposition Members know, development is permitted in the green belt only under very special circumstances. There is a presumption against such development. We see the green belt as vital to stopping urban sprawl and supporting sustainable development. There is no evidence that we have any intention of weakening our policy on the green belt. The facts speak for themselves. Since we came to power two years ago, we have increased the size of the green belt by some 30,000 hectares. That is not a loss: it is a major gain.

I remind the House that green belt does not mean green field. A green-field site is any undeveloped land. Not all green belt is free from development. Many developments existed long before the green belt was defined. Development in green belt frequently involves redevelopment of previously used sites. This Government, like their predecessors, have a policy to try to ensure that such redevelopments yield environmental improvements compared with the developments they replace, and that happens by and large.

Equally, green belt is not a landscape designation. All kinds and qualities of land, including derelict sites, may be in the green belt. Less than 5 per cent. of green belt overlaps with statutory national landscape or wildlife designations. Green belt is also not a national designation: it is primarily a local designation within a regional framework, and decisions about the setting and altering of boundaries, or about permitting development, rest primarily with the local authority and local people, and that will continue. That is why regional planning policy guidance shows the weight we attach to continued protection.

The future is about harnessing growth to promote a better quality of urban life and to bring life back to the hearts of our towns and cities. That will relieve pressure on the countryside. The Government aim to provide sufficient housing so that everyone who wants one can have a decent home. We also aim to ensure that houses are of better quality, built in a better environment, and provide for sustainable communities in which people are proud to live.[Interruption.] We even have young people on our side. That was a little cheer and a "Hear, hear". If Conservative Members disagree with the objective of providing decent homes for people to live in, they should say so.

Urban renaissance and protection of the countryside are not mutually exclusive: they are interlinked. That was one of the weaknesses of the previous Administration's policies. They let development rip in the green belt and on green-field sites, and they allowed inner cities and towns to rot. Let us stop this nonsense about urban versus rural and town versus city. Let us get on with the job of improving the quality of our housing and environment and creating real sustainable development. That is exactly what we are doing, and what we shall continue to do.

The subject of the protection of green-field sites in my constituency is not new to the Minister, because I have raised this matter with him. It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity of today's debate, initiated by my right hon. and hon. Friends, to bring to the House's attention again the grave injustice in the county of Devon.

The Devon county structure plan consultation began almost two and a half years ago, when I was a Minister in the previous Government. I made representations in a written submission on behalf of my constituents. I wrote to my colleague, the then Minister at the Department of the Environment, prior to becoming involved in the county structure plan consultation. In November 1995, the then Minister, Mr. Robert Jones, wrote to me when I queried the number of houses predicted for Devon, and in particular the proposal for a new town to be built in my constituency on green-field sites. He said that

"these figures should not be regarded as inflexible targets and they should be subject to testing through the structure plan process."

As a constituency Member of Parliament, I do not claim to be an expert in planning matters. However, I have learned quite a lot in the past two and a half years. I have made written submissions at every opportunity throughout the structure plan process, and I spent four days at the examination in public in Devon, on three of which I gave evidence. The message that came home to me was that when the Government came to office, they did not share the previous Government's view that the figures should not be regarded as "inflexible targets" and should be subject to testing through the structure plan process.

As a Member of Parliament, I have used every democratic process open to me, including an Adjournment debate on the Floor of the House. I have personally presented a letter at the door of No. 10 Downing street to try to get Ministers to recognise the views of the people of my constituency. I am not the only one involved. On Conservative-controlled East Devon district council, there is cross-party opposition to the plan for a new town to be built in east Devon.

We know why there needs to be a new town in east Devon: it is nothing to do with my constituents, but it has to do with the views of the Labour-controlled city of Exeter, which wants to grow. That is not an unreasonable request, but it wants to expand at the expense of my constituents in east Devon, and to extend the borders of the city of Exeter into my constituency. That was made very clear at the examination in public, and it is why the Labour-controlled city council and its Member of Parliament have supported the proposal for the new town.

I should be interested to hear the Minister's views because although the area in question is not green belt, it is green field. When we talk about urban sprawl and pushing out the boundaries of urban areas, we are talking about such development coming into my constituency.

There is an additional complication in this particular part of my constituency. The land that has been identified as the most likely site for the new town borders Exeter airport in my constituency. The airport is vital to the economy not just of my constituency but of that part of Devon. There should be no development close to the border of the airport which would restrict its growth and development—that is important for its future viability.

That matter was raised in specific terms at the examination in public. Indeed, evidence was taken from people who gave the panel their views on the noise from the airport—noise such as that produced during the ground testing of aircraft engines at night when they are being repaired and serviced. I was shocked, because one of the Minister's predecessors in the previous Government told me in writing that examinations in public should not be site-specific. One cannot get more site-specific than the taking of evidence about the noise generated in a particular locality during the ground testing of aircraft engines.

What has really saddened me—and saddened my constituents, as proven in my own surveys, in questions from the media, and in public meetings that I have held—is that there is universal opposition to building that new town in my constituency. The people do not want it; the people do not need it. East Devon district council planning authority, which is the representative body closest to local people, does not want the new town, and has opposed it at every stage of the consultation process. Conservatives members of Devon county council have opposed it.

The Liberal Democrats on Devon county council are the ones who approved the new town and voted yes to it. Although some of the district council colleagues of the Liberal Democrats on Devon county council walked with me up to the door of No. 10 Downing street to oppose the plan, those county councillors voted for it because their leader said that, had they not done so, the Deputy Prime Minister would have imposed on the county of Devon even more punitive requirements—and the Government's bully-boy tactics generally in planning bear that out.

I am rather surprised by my hon. Friend's comments, and should like to be absolutely clear about them. I assumed, perhaps rather naively, that Liberal Democrats on the county council would be sensitive to local opinion, but perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify the true position, which I feel should be amplified. Although we already knew that the Labour party is in favour of urban sprawl and of developing green-field towns, is she telling us that the Liberal Democrats in her part of the country are also in favour of destruction of the green belt, green fields and the countryside?

They voted yes; I sat in the county hall and personally witnessed it.

Perhaps we should not be so surprised that Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions take the views that they do and create the impression that people hold of them—those Ministers carry baggage. The Minister for London and Construction, on 23 January 1997, before he was elected to government, told Planning Week that a target of 60 per cent. of brown-field sites would be "a recipe for disaster" because it would create excessively high densities in cities. He also said that there was "absolutely no doubt" that the only realistic way of meeting the housing figure was to develop new towns and settlements. The Minister shakes his head, but, if he has been misquoted, I hope that he will print a correction.

Before I initiated an Adjournment debate on the matter, to which the Minister replied, I took a rather unprecedented step: I telephoned his private office prior to the debate to let him know what I would say, because I was seeking some co-operation and help from the Government. I went even further.

I presented a letter at No. 10 Downing street to the Prime Minister, seeking his intervention, so that at least the planning authority—East Devon district council—might be able to sit down with Ministers and talk through its grave concerns about the proposals being imposed on it. I wrote:

"Your Government has proposed that more homes should be built on brown field sites rather than green field sites. We agree. You have personally assured the people of Devon that local views will be listened to."

I took the Prime Minister at his word—more fool me: not only did he not intervene, but local people have not been listened to. I as a Member of Parliament have not been listened to, and the district council has not been listened to. The Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon county council has been bullied into pursuing a certain route— [Interruption.] Perhaps that is what the Lib-Lab pact is all about—or perhaps those Liberal Democrat councillors reached their decision voluntarily.

Before the hon. Lady mentions bullying again, will she just recall that the Conservative Minister whose record she was praising a moment ago proposed a housing figure for the county of Devon that was 7,200 higher than that which the Government have approved because of the county structure plan inquiry? Is that bullying by the Government, or hypocrisy on the part of the Conservative party?

I personally wrote to the Minister, although he may not recall my letter, asking whether, if the Liberal Democrats who control the county council genuinely felt that they did not want to support the figure, but were genuinely concerned that Ministers would force them to accept an even higher one if they refused the initial one, he would—before we reach the final stage in the structure plan consultation—confirm to me that the councillors were misguided in that assumption. We have never had—

Answer the question.

I shall answer the question in a moment. I do not intend to dodge the Minister's questions, as he has been dodging mine for the past year.

I wrote to the Minister so that I might be able to take his reply to the county council and say to its Liberal Democrat leader, "You have this wrong. Ministers are not going to foist anything on you. Democracy is alive and well and is living in Devon. Local people will be listened to, as the Prime Minister promised." But I was not able to do that.

We must therefore assume, in the absence of the type of assurance that I was seeking from the Minister, that perhaps the Liberal Democrats were right. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head and says no. I think that we must assume that the Liberal Democrats, like Labour-controlled Exeter city council, are in cahoots in the matter and are anxious to foist the new town, against the wishes of the people, on my constituents. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. We are going to have the town—we know it now—which will be a tribute to new Labour. We must find a suitable name for it.