I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this subject, which is very important from a constituency and regional point of view. I want to spend much of my time discussing the terrible contamination incident that occurred in my constituency of Halton. The press and television have given much publicity to the incident, which was dealt with in a recent edition of the "Panorama" programme.

ICI is the largest employer in my constituency. In Runcorn, it has developed one of the largest industrial complexes in Europe, which is concerned mainly with the manufacture of chlorine. As part of a restructuring and refocusing programme, ICI announced a few years ago its intention to leave the bulk chemical business, move into fine chemicals and sell the Runcorn site. My constituents are therefore concerned about future employment prospects with ICI.

Prior to that development, ICI established "project pathway" to investigate the legacy of more than 160 years of industrial activity in and around its Runcorn site. That is an example of good practice, which should be welcomed and which many other companies should follow, but the initiative identified a major problem. At Weston village in Runcorn, a 12 hectare former quarry which was tipped between 1920 and 1970 was found to contain hexachlorobutadiene gas, known as HCBD. HCBD has seeped into properties in the adjoining residential area. The indoor air of more than 150 houses has been tested and HCBD has been detected in 21 properties and the local scout hut. Those families have had to move out of their homes, and ICI has provided a compensation package for 476 properties in the village. It has also guaranteed property prices for up to 20 years for those who stay in Weston village and purchased 53 properties from residents. However, eight families are still staying in hotels and seven are in rented accommodation.

It is difficult to describe the devastation and anxiety felt by my constituents in Weston village. The effect on the entire community has been terrible, and the lives of many have been turned upside down. They are concerned not only about their homes but about the health problems that may be caused by HCBD. The health authority, which has been somewhat overrun by this crisis, has carried out medical checks on those who live in the properties directly affected. However, there is a lack of information on the effect of HCBD on humans, and investigations are being carried out into what constitutes a safe level of exposure.

It is clear that ICI must take the blame for what has happened, but we should recognise that it has done much recently to meet its responsibilities and improve its record. Nevertheless, and despite the compensation package and efforts to identify the problems, there are issues still to be resolved. Unsurprisingly, it is not only those nearest to the problem who are anxious; constituents who live on the edge of the village also want guarantees in respect of property and health. ICI is reviewing the zones for which compensation is provided and house prices are guaranteed. The time that the review is taking is a worry to my constituents, and a conclusion needs to be reached quickly.

ICI has released results from borehole testing around the Weston quarries. The quarries were dug out over a number of years, and some of the sandstone from them was used to build Liverpool cathedral. However, the Environment Agency wants more information on contamination in the vicinity—specifically on contamination of groundwater in the area—to be released and put in the public domain. I do not know whether ICI has released that information yet: it should do so immediately. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would see whether he can expedite the release of the information into the public domain.

Nowhere is the concern outside the immediately contaminated area felt greater than in Weston Point, the neighbouring village, which is downhill from Weston village. Weston Point sits next to the giant ICI complex—outside the factory gates. The residents want to know whether the village is affected by contamination from quarries or the ICI site. They have received assurances that it should not be, but there is no definitive evidence to prove that it is not. Boreholes have also been sunk around the ICI site, and the information from them is needed.

There is widespread concern in Weston Point about property prices and whether building societies will be willing to provide mortgages for people who want to purchase properties there. ICI previously held public meetings for Weston village residents. Weston Point residents now want a public meeting with ICI, the council and the health authorities, so that they can ask questions direct. I urge ICI to organise such a meeting in the near future as a matter of priority. Hundreds of my constituents have written to me about it, seeing such a meeting as a way to bring the issues into the open and discuss them.

Contaminated land can have a disastrous effect on a community. Nowhere is that more clearly seen than in my constituency. What has occurred demonstrates how badly a community can be affected and why the Government, local councils, regional development agencies and other partners must tackle the problem of contaminated land as a priority.

I want to speak more broadly about the problems of contamination for Halton. Halton is the original home of the United Kingdom's alkali and chemical industries. There is no household in the country that does not use a product manufactured from materials made in Runcorn or Widnes, so the industry's importance is clear. However, the heritage of the alkali and chemical industries over the past 150 years has been chemical waste tips of the most unimaginable kind. What were once green fields in Widnes became known as gallygu—a local term—and copper smelting, soap manufacture, phosphate fertiliser manufacture and a host of other chemical cocktails added to the present- day legacy. There was also, formerly, a large asbestos industry in my constituency, and again we see the consequences of that.

When Halton council came into being in 1974, it was determined to tackle that legacy. It has made much progress in reclaiming areas of dereliction, making Halton a greener and more attractive place. The contaminated site in Weston looks a very peaceful scene: it is a grassed area, with horses grazing on top of the quarry. One cannot imagine what is underneath it. Widnes, which bore the brunt of the chemical contamination for many years, is also a much more attractive place now. Since 1974, 180 hectares of land have been brought back into use, representing public investment of more than £20 million through the national derelict land programme.

Despite that good work, much remains to be done. The 1993 national derelict land survey identified 203 hectares of land still requiring remediation and reclamation. That represents 3 per cent. of Halton's land area and is equivalent to a 10-year programme. Many of the sites are large and badly contaminated and will be costly to remedy fully. The scale of the dumping in the past 150 years was such that more than 200 hectares of marshland across southern Widnes were tipped on to an average depth of 4 m. Our Victorian forefathers thought nothing of filling in ditches and watercourses with toxic waste from factories.

In the north-west, in Lancashire and Cheshire, such reclaimed sites often have no site value afterwards because they have no active use. That has on-going revenue, as well as capital cost, implications for local authorities, which have to maintain additional open spaces which are not required.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, to which I shall return later.

Councils sometimes come in for great criticism, but the work that Halton council has undertaken in the past 25 years in dealing with dereliction and contamination should be held up as a shining example of how councils, working in partnership with central Government and other partners, can significantly improve the environment and people's lives by showing innovation and the determination to make a real difference.

I want to highlight two examples in my constituency of how partnership with government can transform an area. St. Michael's golf course is a prime example of a local authority acting in partnership with government to transform noxious and dangerous chemical tips—on which I played as a youngster, as did many others. I apologise for any shortcomings that may have resulted. That area was known as "Ditton Alps", and comprised a series of hills of contaminated chemical waste covered in a white crust in which nothing grew. I shall summarise what happened. Fifty-five hectares of land were reclaimed, 60,000 trees were planted, 800 residents and 395 employees in local factories now view a green golf course instead of a chemical waste tip and 35,000 vehicles pass the site on a major highway route. The physical and visual environment has improved tremendously.

The Greenoaks retail scheme in Widnes is another prime example of the partnership approach. It brought back into use a former 7.4 hectare—20 acre—abandoned chemical works and transformed it into a 250,000 sq ft retail scheme, which provided much needed confidence in Widnes town centre. Direct grant aid reclamation to prepare the site for development amounted to more than £5 million. The consultant engineers to the project commented that

there may have been value in open cast mining the site for the barium and zinc spillages that were in the ground.

That resulted in £25 million of investment, 250,000 sq ft of new retail floor space in the town centre, dedicated public transport provision and direct pedestrian links to the existing high street.

Those are two classic examples of how a difference can be made. There are many other examples of work that has been undertaken to reclaim land to make it much greener and environmentally better in terms of jobs and housing.

I do not want to give the wrong impression of Halton. It has changed significantly for the better, even during my 40-year lifetime. Widnes, in particular, which historically has had the worst problems, has seen massive improvements. Many people have moved to Halton to live, which shows that it has become a much more pleasant and attractive place. However, more remains to be done.

It is important to stress that not all brownfields are the same. The term encompasses everything from sites previously used for housing or light industry, with limited problems, to severely contaminated sites containing highly dangerous and toxic chemicals. As I said, Halton's legacy from the chemical industry means that our brownfield sites are difficult and costly to deal with. Of course, Halton is not the only council in the north-west that faces such problems. On many sites in Halton, contaminants are not site-specific; adjoining sites have also been contaminated. The costs and liabilities associated with those sites are such that no developer would be persuaded to take on the challenge without financial incentives or legal protection from future liabilities. ICI accepted responsibility for contamination in Halton and has carried out remedial work, but it is often not possible to pinpoint who is responsible, particularly if the contamination goes back 150 years.

Remediation costs are often high. When coupled with low demand for commercial land, as in Halton, it becomes impossible to release redevelopment opportunities. Because the cost of reclaiming contaminated land for hard end users is so high and the demand for commercial land is so limited, the cheaper option of remediation for green end users has often been the only choice. For example, the cost of reclaiming the 3 hectare site of a former asbestos plant in Widnes was £1.2 million and it was sold to a car retailer for £143,000. When it is possible to reclaim land for housing, the value of surrounding housing often makes it difficult to recoup the cost of reclaiming the land. The cost of reclaiming the 1 hectare site of a former soap works in Halton was £500,000. The environment in the area was better than previously, but the site was sold to a house builder for just over £150,000, who sold the houses at around £47,000.

It is important to bear in mind the changing nature of the game. North West Development Agency funding is now targeted at hard end uses, which are not possible on most of Halton's sites because contamination is so severe and expensive to remedy. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Halton had a rolling programme of direct derelict land grant schemes, which spent an average of £3 million annually. Current spending is £500,000. That shows how the current funding regimes do not help Halton and other chemically affected areas. A fraction of the money spent on the derelict site on which the millennium dome now sits would be needed to deal with the problems in Halton and would make a big difference. In addition, the massively increased costs of removal of contamination to landfill means that it is no longer economically viable to reclaim the majority of Halton's sites in line with current thinking on hard end use. In the early 1990s, the cost of removing contaminated waste was £20 per cubic metre. Today, the cost is £180 per cubic metre. Clearly, there are reasons for that increase, including inflation, but it is a problem.

There is a further problem with the Environment Agency's licence requirement. The cost of contaminated land makes redevelopment less attractive to private developers. The Environment Agency's rules are designed for brownfield sites surrounded by greenfield sites, but Halton has blackfield sites surrounded by blackfield sites. For example, the Environment Agency required a lined cell to be created and £200,000 was spent just to move material around and reshape it on an 8 hectare tip surrounded by 40 hectares of further tips containing the same material. Funding is driven by output—for example, jobs created, length of road built and hectares of contaminated land cleared. Green end use outputs do not carry priority, but when green end use provides the only sensible and practical option, it must be given a high priority.

The easiest and most commercially viable and desirable sites were reclaimed in the 1980s and 1990s. Halton has been left with the expensive, less viable and more hazardous sites. The public health officer in north Halton published a report last week highlighting the fact that Halton has some of the worst health problems in the country and a return to green end use is the only way of tackling some of the health issues related to contamination on many of those sites.

Only 5 per cent. of new house build in Halton is achievable on brownfield sites. The remainder of the brownfield sites are black and cannot accommodate residential uses by the very nature of the ground conditions. It is difficult to do anything with those sites other than to cover them and green them. It is clear that any thoughts of Halton getting anywhere near the Government targets for the redevelopment of brownfield sites are not realistic, and significant help is needed. Halton council will publish its draft unitary development plan in the near future. Much of the debate will focus on any proposed loss of greenfield and countryside sites for development purposes.

There is great anger in the Widnes side of my constituency about Widnes golf club wanting to sell off its land to a housing developer, to enable relocation to occur. I support my constituents' view that it is important to retain this green space in the centre of town, and that it would be a great loss if it disappeared. My constituents see a sizeable amount of derelict land in Halton, and they wonder why we have a problem developing it and why there are arguments about the possible loss of greenfield sites. I have already outlined the reasons. I am sure that, when the unitary development plan is published, major discussions will occur if any proposals are made to use greenfield or green space sites for industry or housing.

There is no doubt that the polluters should pay, but the difficulty lies in identifying them. As I said earlier, it was very clear in the ICI case who the polluter was, and ICI accepted responsibility. However, in Halton and many other places in the north-west, polluting has been going on for 150 or 160 years or more. Many of the companies responsible no longer exist or have been amalgamated with others, making identification difficult. When they can be identified, they should pay, but in many cases it is not possible to identify those responsible, especially in areas such as Halton.

I have had detailed discussions with my local authority, Halton, whose wealth of experience and knowledge on these issues is probably second to none. Halton has won several awards for reclamation schemes. I shall suggest a number of solutions, which we can debate and which I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider.

The suggestions include the introduction of a strategic plan and framework for dealing with contaminated sites, rather than pepperpotting resources on an ad hoc basis; bringing together different funding streams and bodies working on contaminated land issues; and the establishment of more detailed classification criteria to highlight the varying degrees of severity of contamination on different sites. That last proposal is important, especially in Halton, because some sites are very contaminated and others only mildly so.

Further proposals include the development of a task force, similar to the coalfields regeneration initiative within English Partnerships, to tackle the severely chemically contaminated sites; the introduction of a greenfield development levy on highly profitable developments, to be used to subsidise the development of brownfield sites where negative land values and high-cost remediation combine to discourage private investment; the greater use of landfill tax credits to remediate chemically contaminated sites; and, finally, the possible introduction of a separate strand of national lottery good causes to deal with especially large and problematic contaminated sites. Those ideas are being discussed locally and they are shared by others in the region. It is worth introducing them into the debate, in relation to dealing with this problem.

I shall turn now to the problems in the north-west region. During my speech, I have dwelt on the problems affecting Halton, but they apply equally to many other parts of the north-west. Estimates suggest that there are between 100,000 and 200,000 hectares of contaminated land in the United Kingdom. The Environment Agency has estimated that there could be more than 300,000 hectares, although much of that contamination might be relatively minor.

I want to express my concern to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary at the delay in producing a definitive study on the issue, caused by problems associated with defining contaminated land and identifying money to tap-remediate such land once it has been defined as contaminated. However, I welcome the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2000, which came into force on 1 April 2000, and the important role that local authorities will play in their implementation. I am sure that authorities such as Halton will take proper advantage of them. Placing control with local authorities is right and proper.

The scale of derelict and contaminated land remains a serious problem in the region. With 9,900 hectares, the north-west has 25 per cent. of the country's derelict land in 11 per cent. of England's land area. That is the largest figure for any region. Sixty-eight per cent. of the dereliction in the north-west is in the Mersey belt, the industrial and economic heartland of the region. The regional development agency and the regional assembly see the reclamation of derelict land as a priority, and the assembly is addressing the issue of derelict land in the forthcoming draft regional planning guidance, which will be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the end of the month.

In its regional strategy, the North West Development Agency proposes a review of priorities and objectives for land reclamation, in partnership with the region's local authorities. The review will cover the 20-year lifetime of the regional strategy and will pay particular attention to the problems created by the chemical industry's redundant and derelict sites.

The physical environment is an important component of sustainable development in the region. It is critical to the quality of life—including health and safety risks—in deprived areas and to the image and perception that businesses and investors have of those areas. That is an important issue for the north-west, which does not do as well as some regions in attracting and retaining investment. Dereliction and contamination can affect a region's image.

Twenty of the 100 worst districts listed in the DETR's index of deprivation are in the north-west. It is no coincidence that those areas suffer from some of the worst problems associated with derelict, under-used, neglected or contaminated land. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that that list includes my constituency. The North West Development Agency supports the Government's policy of re-using brownfield land for new development, but believes that that can be done in the north-west only with public sector support. If polluters can be identified, they will be made to pay. However, that will not often be the case. Like Halton council, the agency believes that the variations in the property market mean that, in extensive areas in the region, extra costs are associated with building on previously used sites. The north-west of England has inherited significant environmental liabilities.

The land and property budget of the RDA is the main source of funding for dealing with dereliction. The North West Development Agency is concerned about DETR's plan to distribute the land and property budget nationally. That would reduce the NWDA's share, both in real terms and in proportion to other regions. The region has evidence-based policies, known as net environmental investments, to build on its better assets and bring brownfield sites into beneficial use. The north- west needs sustained commitment to physical regeneration and land restoration if it is to see an urban renaissance and tackle social deprivation. The scale of the problem and the time it will take to address it—a minimum of 20 years—justify additional resources; I need only look at my own constituency to see that. Partnership is the key to real change.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) on securing the debate. I could detect no shortcomings in what he said, or anything that could be attributed to his having played on contaminated sites. I will not attempt to match his expertise on the subject of contaminated land in the north-west of England or on the activities of Weston or ICI in the area. I hope that my comments will be relevant to the north-west, but also to the whole of the United Kingdom.

The question of what we should do with contaminated and derelict land and how we pay for reclamation is a crucial one for all areas of the country, including the north-west. It touches on important issues, such as housing, regeneration, the environment, the countryside and—in particular, in the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituency—health. The United Kingdom has many assets, but lots of land is not one of them. Of the land that we do have, about 300,000 hectares, according to the Environment Agency, is affected by contamination, and a smaller area is itself contaminated. The available land that we have is under increasing pressure, and we need to use it as effectively as possible. If we do not, we shall continue to eat into the green belt and build on greenfield sites in urban and rural Britain. The countryside will continue to suffer, and the communities that could benefit from regeneration and the cleaning up of derelict and contaminated sites will continue to decline.

When the Government came to power in 1997, 52 per cent. of housing development took place on brownfield sites. Their target is to increase that figure to 60 per cent., which is an improvement on the previous Government's target, although it is still too timid—an overall national target of approximately 75 per cent. would be an ambitious target for the next 10 years. I know that this is a controversial subject—some argue that such a figure is unachievable, but others maintain that it can be realised. Unless we have an ambitious target, the Government will not be pushed. The overall figure, which would apply nationally, would be an average figure that would allow for local flexibility by reflecting the different circumstances that prevail in different regions.

It is disappointing that, according to the report by Lord Rogers, which was published in 1999, the Government's current performance indicates that they will fail to hit their 60 per cent. target. We need to take decisive action to ensure that the target is reached. Hon. Members of all parties share the laudable aim of seeking to maximise the development of brownfield land, but there is less agreement about the way in which to do so. Various solutions are possible—the hon. Member for Halton outlined several that would benefit the north-west of England, by bringing contaminated land into use, and the rest of the country, by reducing development on greenfield sites. In my constituency, the issue involves building on greenfield sites rather than cleaning up contaminated land because, fortunately, we have few contaminated sites. A couple of them have already been successfully redeveloped as housing projects and, as far as I am aware, only one such site remains in my constituency—a large gasholder that may be cleaned up at some stage.

One solution, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Halton, is to impose a greenfield development levy, which could encourage greenfield development and subsidise the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites. He cited the costs of clean-ups in his constituency—everyone accepts that such costs are phenomenal. The practice of building on virgin land will continue unless something is done to redress the balance between the costs of developing on greenfield and on brownfield sites—the extra costs are significant on contaminated brownfield sites. The tax system could be used to redress that imbalance.

Another good approach involves the use of VAT, which is set at zero for new build and at 17.5 per cent. for the renovation or conversion of existing buildings. Many hon. Members and housing and regeneration organisations regard that as ridiculous. That disparity should be redressed very quickly—if possible, in the next Budget. If VAT equalisation was achieved using a 5 per cent. rate, for example, any surplus generated could, as the Rogers report suggests, be used to subsidise the decontamination of the sites that the hon. Member for Halton mentioned. The Chancellor has an opportunity to introduce a greenfield development levy, which could be used to tax the excess profits on land sales. The bulk of the revenue raised could be used to clean up brownfield land, with a small proportion going to environmental projects that benefit local communities. That would help to redress the balance. The cost of cleaning up contaminated land is excessive and, although we have made use of less-contaminated sites that are easy to clean up, many sites require extensive clean-up.

The issue of contaminated and derelict land cannot be addressed without taking into account the role of land speculators. The uniform business rate taxes businesses on improvements that have been made to property, which discourages developers from improving property, because it would increase their tax bills. Developers who build up land banks for speculative purposes and leave the land undeveloped, in a dilapidated condition or even completely out of use, suffer no financial penalty. Does the Minister agree that it is time to consider alternative arrangements to replace the uniform business rate?

Site value rating would levy a tax on the value of unimproved land, but not on buildings on the site. The land alone would need to be assessed and a tax would be fixed on the basis of that value. A tax on land values would be unaffected by a landowner's decision to make good or bad use of the land and it would therefore pay landowners to make the best possible use of their land to gain maximum income. If the urban landowner is taxed on the value of the land, whether it is used or not, the cost of land speculation would pass from the community to the landowner. Urban areas would be regenerated without costly intervention and the pressure to develop green-belt land would diminish.

That is another positive measure. Derelict sites could be brought into use more quickly, which would speed up urban regeneration and reduce the need to develop greenfield sites. The much clearer picture of land availability and housing demand in rural areas would be an added bonus. It is hard to predict demand and know how much land is available for development, which means that more is brought into the planning system for development than is necessary.

It is right that the cost of clean-up should fall on the polluter. However, as the hon. Member for Halton said, the polluter often cannot be found. In such cases, the cost of cleaning up contaminated land falls to local authorities and extra costs are put on the Environment Agency. In an ENDS—Environmental Data Services—report of March 2000, the agency stated:

If … the Agency's role should extend to the provision of guidance on any site where a local authority requests assistance, this is clearly a new duty and will require substantial new resources.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when local authorities consider new planning applications for opencast coal mining, they should be able to take into account the costs of future reinstatement? Bonds are often insufficient and costs that are not met by the private sector are picked up by the public sector. Does he accept that if we are not careful, we will create new areas of dereliction because local authorities cannot consider the financial standing of bodies that make such planning applications?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his useful intervention. Local authorities should be able to take into account the cost of future reclamation. I shall ask the Minister a question on that in a few minutes, in relation to ICI.

I welcome the Government funding in the comprehensive spending review to support the implementation of the contaminated land regime, but I question whether sufficient funds have been made available. I do not know the precise estimate of the costs of cleaning up the quarries to which the hon. Member for Halton referred.

You have made an important point. At present, no definitive answer has been given on how the quarries should be reclaimed. The removal of materials may cause more contamination and pollution. A membrane could be used, but what guarantees will that give to my constituents that the pollution will not spread in the next 20, 30, 40 years?

Order. Before the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington replies, I must inform the hon. Member for Halton that I have not made any interesting observations. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington may have done so. As the Chair, whatever my personal views are in a debate, they are withheld.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that if you had the opportunity, you would make many interesting and useful contributions.

I have not seen the estimate of the clean-up costs. Indeed, from what the hon. Member for Halton has said, no estimate has been made at present and nor has a best approach been decided on to sorting out the problem. It is not unreasonable to think that the clean-up costs will be very substantial indeed and could eat into any funds made available through the comprehensive spending review. That is why I question whether sufficient funds have been granted through the comprehensive spending review to deal with the level of clean-up that is required. Any further moneys could be part-funded through a greenfield development levy or by additional revenue generated by VAT equalisation.

What assessment has the Minister made of the costs associated with part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990? What assessment has he made of the cost to local authorities in this and future financial years? How does the Minister expect those costs to be funded? What assessment has he made of the role of insurance in the clean-up of contaminated sites? Does he agree that insurance is underused because the insurance companies are not in a position to insure budgets against overspend in relation to the clean-up of contaminated sites if that proves to be more costly than had been anticipated? Does he think that if ICI buys out all the homeowners in Weston—as was suggested in an article—it will have breached the spirit of the Act? Does he think that the purchase of the homes, while ensuring that the polluter pays, will allow it to pay less than the genuine cost of the clean-up?

Financial and fiscal rules are crucial to the debate. The planning process also needs to be reformed, perhaps through the creation of special planning zones for major reclamation projects, which would simplify and regularise the present, perhaps over-complex process. A shift from greenfield to brownfield development and the clean-up of contaminated land could be achieved by a small number of relatively simple fiscal changes. The question is whether the Chancellor will bite the bullet.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) on raising the subject. It sounds as though he has been preparing for the debate for the past 40 years, given that he has acquired practical experience of the subject since childhood and in his constituency. I admire your restraint, Mr. Deputy Speaker: no doubt, you have views on the subject, which relates to that part of the country which is your home, and you would have expressed them, had not the rules of the Chair restrained you.

The subject of the debate might be less sexy than those of others in the Chamber this week, but it is arguably the most important. I say that the subject is less sexy, but even Hollywood has taken it to itself—it is topical. The current film "Erin Brockovich" goes to the heart of problems that the hon. Member for Halton has described. It is a shame that more hon. Members are not here to share their experiences, to hear of the problems in Halton and to tackle the Minister about the Government's attitude.

The subject is important in two main respects. First, we all have examples in our constituencies of contaminated sites: such sites might be former landfill sites, where there is a risk of contaminants leaching into nearby residential areas or into water aquifers. That is a potential problem in my part of the country, which contains the chalk downs of Sussex. Problems might also arise from former industrial sites. The hon. Member for Halton mentioned severely affected sites in Halton and referred to ICI. If those sites are not properly cleaned up—often because the liabilities of the polluter, if he, she or it is known and is still around, are uncertain—they are wholly unusable for future industrial, residential, leisure or other developments. The advantage of tackling the problems is that redevelopment brings community benefits. Many successful schemes have come from community partnerships. They bring many dividends, not least in terms of economic development and improvements to residents' health.

Secondly, the subject is important because derelict land, whether or not it is derelict because of contamination, is a wasted resource. We can ill afford such waste, which is a shared national problem. A thousand hectares of unused brownfield sites in the north-west represent 1,000 hectares of greenfield sites in the north-west or the south-east that could be saved from bulldozers. The problem is mutual, shared across the north-south divide and between town and country. The more that we can do to bring derelict areas in and around cities back into use, the greater protection there will be for green belts, greenfield sites and our countryside. Yesterday, the south-east regional planning committee voted on the Government's proposed house-building figures. The Government's response appears to be that they will carry on regardless—that is, regardless of the views of democratically elected members of councils in the south-east.

Proper recycling of derelict and contaminated sites will become more urgent by the day, especially if the Government stick to the White Paper forecasts of a 20 per cent. increase in the number of households from 20.2 million to 24 million by 2021. The forecast contradicts the experience of the past 30 years, during which the number of houses increased by only 10 per cent. at a time of a falling birth rate.

We welcome the new contaminated land regime legislation, which came into force in England on 1 April of this year. It results from part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995, which was introduced by the previous Government. That legislation had five key points: focus, transparency, integration, consistency and better tools. We all agree with those aims and hope that the new framework will be successful, because we all have an interest in solving the problem.

As the hon. Member for Halton suggested. perhaps nowhere will the success of the legislation be judged more accurately than in north-west England, which, as he pointed out, has more than 25 per cent. of the all the derelict land in England. That is not surprising, given his constituency's history of heavy industry, especially the chemical industry. He referred to ICI, which has acknowledged its responsibilities and liabilities and is now seeking to take action. We can argue about whether its decisions are the right ones, but at least the company has acknowledged that it is responsible. A bigger problem is smaller businesses that have long since flown the coop leaving behind problems for others to clean up at their own expense.

The north-west also has environmental problems: I gather that its 6 per cent. tree cover is the lowest in Europe, which has average tree cover of 35 per cent. In addition, one third of the region's rivers are classified as poor or bad, and Liverpool and Manchester are the second and third worst cities in the United Kingdom in terms of failure to meet urban air quality guidelines. The north-east has an acute interest in making the legislation work, but it must provide a solution that the whole of the country can share and enjoy. We have a shared interest, politically and geographically, in the success of the new regime. I do not take issue with the legislation, especially as much of it was introduced by the previous Government. It is too early to judge its success, as it took effect less than two months ago.

I should like to ask the Minister some questions. I am sure that he will have copious time in which to respond to my comments and those of other hon. Members. First, I shall deal with spending. The hon. Member for Halton mentioned several times the number of successful schemes conducted during the past 10 years or so, under the present and previous Governments. However, in the financial year 1994–95, spending in the north-west on derelict and contaminated land treatment was £29.07 million, whereas by 1998–99, it had more than halved, to £13.62 million. During that time, 899 hectares of land in the north-west were reclaimed: £76.82 million was spent on the reclamation, which works out as roughly £85,500 per hectare, which is not cheap. The hon. Gentleman cited many examples that involved the expenditure of a seven-figure sum per hectare. That all goes to show that reclaiming land involves no small amount of resources.

Why was spending reduced during that period, and what are the Minister's future spending projections? Will there be a significant increase and, if so, where will the funds be found? How will liability be split between local authorities or central Government and private companies? Will the Minister give us some indications as to the size of the bill?

Does the hon. Gentleman accept the point that I made earlier? Sometimes, local authorities are not prepared to go ahead with schemes because they involve an on-going revenue commitment that cannot be met. For example, if they create a new open space, the grass must be cut. Even if the cost of such work is minimal, it is an additional cost that often cannot be met.

I agree that such schemes are not one-offs. It is no good reclaiming a site and then letting it go, as that merely builds up problems for the future. I shall deal in a moment with the implications of orphan sites, which can arise from different sources. The problem remains of how to sustain funding, not least for the 20 years that most reclamation projects are designed to last.

I hope that the Minister will address the question of spending on the land reclamation programme, which provides funding for local authorities to reclaim derelict land if private-sector firms have no incentive to undertake the task. Under that scheme, because local authorities do not receive central Government funding specifically for that purpose, 100 per cent. of the eligible cost of approved projects is met. To what extent is the programme likely to be expanded? What percentage of the total area of derelict land under consideration has been identified as orphan land? How important is that consideration to the submission of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Treasury in respect of the current comprehensive spending review?

What tax breaks do the Minister and his Department think would act as an obvious incentive for a private clean-up in cases where no obvious private liability can be shown? The Minister will be aware that it often proves too risky for new owners of previously contaminated land—or even land that is only suspected of being contaminated—to assume such a liability, given the much greater legal requirements that are, rightly, placed upon them and the consequent risk of being sued for contamination damage. Mixed ownership, where various firms or private individuals own a contaminated area, is also a problem. What measures do the Government envisage taking to ensure that a common approach is adopted toward such landlords, companies or individuals?

My third question relates to definition, which has already been mentioned. What is a brownfield site? What are the blackfield sites mentioned by the hon. Member for Halton? There is an inconsistency in the definitions used in the national land use database, which came into force in May 1999. Under those definitions, derelict land may include existing landfill sites. It may also include derelict land next to railway stations that is used for car parking, which use we and the Government would encourage, as we want to promote interchange facilities between various forms of transport to maximise the use of public transport. In no circumstances would we want housing, supermarkets or factories to be built on such land because that would have a detrimental effect on our transport strategies.

It has been estimated that only 20 per cent. of what is termed derelict or brownfield land in England is available and suitable for development. That equates to only 164,000 new dwellings, which is substantially less than the number of houses that the Government want to be built on brownfield sites. That potential shortfall is enormous, so the definitions must be correct.

A fourth factor is regional influence. The Rogers report recommended that the Government should have a strong economic policy to incentivise regeneration and the use of derelict land. I praise the north-west regional development agency report on derelict and contaminated land for recognising the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Halton. The report stated that land reclamation will be a "central task" for the agency, which, at an early stage, will carry out a review of priorities and objectives for land reclamation in partnership with local authorities. However, it warned that it had serious doubts about the accuracy of the national land use database figures. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that we are all singing from the same song sheet and that that song sheet contains the right notes? There are many grey areas in relation to brownfield sites.

I am sorry to ask the Minister so many questions, but I am sure that he will be delighted to write to me in reply, because I know that he takes these matters seriously. What value additional to that offered by local authority projects does he think is added by the involvement of regional development agencies in these matters? All the schemes mentioned by the hon. Member for Halton were local authority projects that were instigated long before regional development agencies appeared on the scene. How much derelict land reclamation work is to be funded in future by regional development agencies and how much by the Environment Agency grant in aid assistance for special site designation for orphan linkages—the problem of unclaimed land where the polluter cannot be traced? It seems to me that all the current action of regional development agencies takes the form of reviews and studies. When will those agencies tackle the problem and clean up the sites, rather than continue to hold apparently endless consultation exercises and reviews of the problem?

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) mentioned insurance. I have had discussions with an organisation called Certa, which specialises in insurance underwriting for contamination problems. Will the Minister comment on the work that has been done in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency on the availability of environment insurance and risk transfer mechanisms? The Environment Agency in this country has been surprisingly quiet on the matter. Open-ended liability is a real problem, as it acts as a disincentive to companies becoming involved; exploring insurance underwriting to minimise the risk is a practical solution. Will we hear more from the Government about promoting that practical solution?

It would be helpful if the activities of the west midlands-based ground water and contaminated land national centre were more widely known. Much expertise is to be found at the centre, on which many authorities, especially those in the north-west, could draw, but it seems to be an unsung organisation. There are also problems where the Environment Agency has supported the use of an insurance-backed bond to satisfy the regulatory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, the general opinion of the waste management industry is that bank bonds are the only mechanism available. Will the Minister comment on the use of bonds?

Let me give an example from personal experience. I was employed by a City merchant bank that had an investment trust. That merchant bank dated back to the 1870s and had been built on the financing of railway construction in north America. The investment trust was deemed to be liable for some asbestos that had been used in the original railway building work back in the 1870s. As recently as two years ago, it faced the prospect of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit for something done by the builders of those railways, in which the investment trust had invested 130 years ago. If that lawsuit had gone ahead and a settlement had been made, the investment trust would have gone bust. Long-term insurance liabilities are open-ended risks, because one might be liable for events that go back not just a few years, but centuries, especially if there are American ramifications, because of the litigious approach adopted to such matters in that country.

The Rogers report called for fiscal action to recycle derelict sites, especially the 1.3 million urban buildings that it calculated were lying empty. We are told by a report in The Guardian in May that

The patience of new Labour's favourite architect finally snapped this week.

The article goes on to say that Lord Rogers described the Government's attitude to the urban report, which was produced almost a year ago, as "disappointingly negative". Lord Rogers has now

decided that the only way to influence the Government is to go over the head of the Deputy Prime Minister and appeal directly to the Treasury,

possibly on the basis that the Chancellor would be more likely to be in the country, as we are told that the Deputy Prime Minister has now become the Prime Minister for the third world. The article quotes a member of the urban task force as saying:

But it is clear that the urban agenda has not yet occupied the centre ground of Government thinking.

What progress has been made, after three years of the present Government and 12 months on from Lord Rogers' urban regeneration report and the formation of the urban task force? What recommendations have been implemented, as opposed to further consultation being held, such as on stamp duty? Why did the Government not support the Urban Regeneration and Countryside Protection Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), which dealt with many of the problems that I have mentioned? We were told that Government measures would make that Bill superfluous, but I see no evidence of that.

The matters that I have raised are detailed, but they are of concern to everyone present and to many of our colleagues who did not attend this morning. We have a mutual interest in ensuring the proper working of the new legislative framework, whether we represent southern or northern, Welsh or Scottish, urban, rural or suburban constituencies. I ask the Minister to consider what I have said, although he might like to deal with it in more detail outside this Chamber.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) has raised an issue that is serious, not only to his constituents, whose predicament he graphically outlined, but to the whole country, especially its old industrial areas. He comes from the north-west; I represent part of Sunderland in the north-east, which has many of the same problems. He described a truly shocking state of affairs relating to Weston quarries. I can well understand the devastation and anxiety caused to those of his constituents who are directly involved. The only mitigating factor is that ICI has accepted its responsibilities and is taking action. All too often, in areas of contamination, the original polluter has long since disappeared, or it makes arrangements to do so when the scale of the problem becomes obvious.

Amid the bad news, some better news and some lessons for the future can be found. I am glad to say that we are not creating more sites of the sort in question. Industry must now comply with rigorous controls on the way in which it disposes of waste, policed by the Environment Agency. We must still identify and resolve problems from the past, but the interesting lesson of Weston quarries is that the polluter, ICI, found and owned up to the problem. Thanks to the company's diligence in investigating problems that may have been caused by its past operations, risks to Weston residents have been identified. From my hon. Friend's remarks, I understand that some arguments about the details remain to be resolved with ICI, but the company is actively exploring ways in which to deal with the contamination risk. It also accepts that it will have to pick up the tab.

It would be wrong to say that everything has been handled perfectly or that it is now plain sailing—far from it. We have a lot to learn about the underlying science, and long-term solutions are still to be found. I am sure that ICI will have heard my hon. Friend's plea for the process to be accelerated. I shall raise with ICI the need to release information more speedily. In this case, ICI has taken a responsible attitude, but if the company had not done so, strong new powers are available to local authorities and the Environment Agency to deal with contaminated land.

The new contaminated land regime in part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came into force in April this year. It places local authorities under a duty to inspect their areas to find problem sites and gives them regulatory powers to ensure that the polluter pays to deal with contamination. However, it is clearly better not to have to wait for legal action and for intervention by regulators: industry should find the problems that it has caused and sort them out.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment wrote in April to the chairmen of the top 300 companies asking them to help to clean up Britain's past and challenging them to act responsibly if they were responsible for problem sites. He specifically asked them to develop their own company strategy for identifying contaminated sites for which they are responsible—to be positive, instead of waiting for the regulators to call. I am pleased to say that the initiative is receiving a positive response from industry and that many companies are well ahead in looking at their land holdings to find problems and clean them up. That is good business practice, apart from being good for local communities and the environment. At few contaminated sites are the problems as dramatic or stark as they are at Weston quarries, but contamination issues must be considered carefully wherever old land is recycled to new uses.

The development industry, the professions and the emerging specialist land remediation industry are doing a great deal to clean up and inject new life into old contaminated sites, but we still face a significant problem throughout the country of derelict land, much, but not all, of which is contaminated. In some cases, contamination is the straw that breaks the camel's back and prevents redevelopment from taking place. I am sure that the north-west has more than its fair share of such sites.

My Department is working with Ordnance Survey, English Partnerships, the Improvement and Development Agency and local authorities to develop a national land use database. The first phase of the work has produced a snapshot of previously developed vacant and derelict land and other land in use that may be available for redevelopment. In 1998, that work identified 2,830 hectares of vacant land and a further 3,400 hectares of derelict land in the north-west. The figures for my hon. Friend's constituency are 38 hectares vacant and 31 hectares derelict.

Such areas of land in the north-west are noticeably smaller than those recorded in the 1993 derelict land survey. That reflects three factors. First, some of the land has been redeveloped and is no longer derelict—indeed, my hon. Friend described the work of his local authority and others in helping to deal with the problem. Secondly, some of the derelict land in the 1993 exercise was not counted in the new database, because it is urban and not suitable for new development. Land in that category includes derelict mines and quarries, and railway and military land that has blended back into the natural environment. Thirdly, there may be some under-recording on the new database. All that has been produced so far is a first snapshot: more work needs to be done to complete the database as a regularly updated source. Despite the lower figures, the database still shows that some 20 per cent. of the national total area of vacant and derelict land is in the north-west, compared with 25 per cent. as identified in the 1993 survey.

The Government are committed to bringing derelict land, in whichever region it is located, back into use for housing and other purposes. That is an important part of our goal of urban renaissance, which aims to improve the quality of life for local communities and to tackle social exclusion. My hon. Friend gave a couple of examples from his constituency—the golf course, reclaimed at great expense from a chemical waste tip, and Greenoaks retail centre. In Sunderland, there is the well-known example of our football stadium, which was built on the site of the old Monkwearmouth colliery and seems also to have improved the quality of the football played.

In the north-west, the regional development agency is responsible for the Government's land and property programme, which addresses the need for land for a variety of purposes, including industry and commerce, infrastructure, housing, leisure, recreation and green space. The national budget for the land and property programme is £254 million for the current financial year, allocated to the different regions on the basis of relative economic, social and physical need, as well as on-going commitments to projects. The north-west's share of the budget is £81 million.

In addition, English Partnerships is taking forward a national coalfield programme, which involves working with RDAs to assist coalfield communities who are suffering deprivation as a result of pit closures. An investment package of more than £354 million over three years is in place. In part, that might answer the point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), who quoted figures suggesting that spending declined between 1994 and 1998. In the light of previous discussions with the hon. Gentleman on Government spending figures, I want to examine, not merely the two figures that he plucked out of it, but the entire picture, which is often rather different.

I should make two important points: first, for 1998–99, we operated according to the previous Government's spending plans; secondly, and more significantly, money for regeneration comes from many different budgets, not just the one to which he referred. I have mentioned some of them, such as English Partnerships' national coalfield programme. In the north-west, 26 hectares of land at the former Agecroft colliery, near Salford, have been reclaimed and serviced. The land is ready for development, and developers are showing a strong interest.

I appreciate that there are concerns about the budgets that will be available to RDAs and English Partnerships as receipts from the sale of industrial properties begin to decline. The long-term resource requirements of RDAs are being considered in the 2000 spending review. The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and for East Worthing and Shoreham invited me to give an insight into the current spending round. Far be it from me, at my lowly level in government, to make commitments on behalf of Her Majesty's Treasury. However, my Department has made clear to the Treasury the importance that we attach to reclaiming derelict land and making it attractive to developers, and recycling money in some of the ways that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington suggested. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton can rest assured that their points about VAT and the greenfield levy have been put to the Chancellor by various parties over a long period, and my right hon. Friend is well aware of the arguments. Indeed, I recall making some of those arguments, too, in a previous incarnation. However, I am now a servant of the Government and everything that I say has to be strictly in line with the official position, which is that the Chancellor is considering all such matters.

On VAT, the Government have made it clear that the door has not been closed—it may not be wide open, but it is at least ajar. Does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary agree that it is up to all of us who believe that there is a case for VAT to be equalised between new build and renovation to make that case very strongly to the Treasury?

I certainly agree that the Treasury is the right place to make that representation and I would not prevent my hon. Friend or other hon. Members from making those points to the Chancellor. I think that he is probably well aware of them already, but repetition can do no harm.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halton made a number of very helpful suggestions. His first two—the introduction of a strategic plan and framework for dealing with contaminated sites rather than pepperpotting resources on an ad hoc basis, and the bringing together of different funding streams and bodies working on contaminated land issues—are the reasons why we set up the regional development agencies, which we hope are beginning to make progress in those respects.

I shall certainly reflect on my hon. Friend's proposal for a task force similar to the coalfields regeneration initiative within English Partnerships to tackle severely chemically contaminated sites, although it might, to some extent, be at odds with his earlier suggestion, in which he wanted everything brought together. I have already dealt with the introduction of a greenfield development levy; the same point was raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.

My hon. Friend mentioned greater use of landfill tax credits to remediate chemically contaminated sites. We stated in the waste strategy published a week or two ago that we are reviewing the use to which the landfill tax credits are put. That proposal is one possibility. The introduction of a separate strand of national lottery good causes to deal with especially large and problematic contaminated sites is a matter that my hon. Friend must pursue with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. As hon. Members have pointed out, some lottery money has already been spent on projects involving contaminated land, the best example of which is the millennium village in Greenwich.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made the reasonable point that we must do all that we can—perhaps we are not yet doing enough—to increase the amount of new development on brownfield sites. One of the difficulties is that there tend to be more brownfield sites in the north of England, where there is least development pressure, and fewer in the south of England, where there is greatest pressure. All Governments have to face that difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton made the point that some brownfield sites are not suitable for development—they are, in effect, blackfield sites, on which houses should never be built. He cited the example of the Weston quarry.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked several detailed and difficult questions, and, having given them mature consideration, I shall probably have to write him a letter setting out some of the replies. One or two of his points were of a pettifogging nature, if he will forgive my saying so; they were attempts to score points, and do not merit a reply. On his question about insurance, he might be interested in a research project on the management of financial risks that is reaching its conclusion. It is funded by DETR and organised by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association. Its report is to be published soon and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman. That is all that I can usefully say in response to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, save that we can all learn from his point about promoting insurance underwriting in the light of the American experience.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halton for drawing this serious problem to the attention of the Chamber. Those of us who represent the older industrial areas have more reason than most to confront the consequences of our industrial legacy. The Government take that very seriously, and a great deal has already been done. Although I cannot promise that the problems will be solved overnight, I can offer the sustained commitment to addressing them for which my hon. Friend asked.

Partnership is the key to change; it cannot all be achieved by Government or local authorities. The polluters must also play a part. I am glad to say that in respect of those who are the most responsible, of which ICI is one, that is what is happening.

The debate has come to an end a few moments before time. As the initiator of the next debate, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is present, and the Minister has arrived in the nick of time, we can progress immediately to the next debate, which concerns the Government's response to the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

I have chosen to bring before the Chamber the report that was produced by Lord Neill to review the actions of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Lord Neill is chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which reviews not only the House of Commons, but the House of Lords and other public institutions.

I am concerned about the fact that, although the report was produced six months ago, the Government have so far shown no inclination to bring its findings before the House of Commons. Those findings are extremely important, especially in view of the way in which the Standards and Privileges Committee has come to function in recent times. The recommendations would go a long way towards reinforcing public confidence in the House, which has become coloured, and to some extent eroded, by some of the proceedings that are currently associated with the Committee.

In October 1994, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), established the Standards and Privileges Committee to replace the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which was established in 1975. That Committee required Members to enter in a register any assets or earnings that might be considered to influence their political judgment. In connection with the establishment of the new Committee, another innovation was the introduction of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to act as a conduit for complaints that people wished to submit to the Committee for consideration.

The tradition of Parliament disciplining its own Members goes back a long way. Such procedures were initially introduced to protect the parliamentary body from the Executive, which was inclined to intervene, in the form of the Crown or other bodies, to attempt to influence the decisions of Parliament—dramatically so, in the case of Charles I.

Recently, the Committee and the commissioner have assumed an altogether different complexion, in that they have become a conduit for members of the public to lodge complaints. Some of those complaints are sensible, some not so sensible and some are what courts of law would describe as litigious, and they can involve political opponents or, indirectly, newspapers. The aim is to get a Government Committee to consider matters under privilege—if the press had published details of a case de novo, libel action might have resulted. The Committee's role is considerably different from that which the former Prime Minister had in mind when he instituted it.

The first commissioner under the new regime was Sir Gordon Downey, who had previously been with the National Audit Commission. When he retired, he made several salient recommendations. He said that there should be a statute of limitation, and that complaints about matters that occurred more than seven years ago should not be taken up. It was difficult to produce relevant evidence from that long ago, and the need for hon. Members who were complained about to produce evidence in their defence would place inordinate burdens on them. He warned that a tit-for-tat political war might break out if parties sought to use the Committee as a political weapon. In fact, that is what happened—the war has been hotting up recently in a manner that does Parliament's reputation no good in the public's eyes, although it is helpful to the media because it generates much interesting copy.

An examination of some of the Committee's more recent judgments shows that it is not unreasonable to say that it has been used to whitewash the activities of some hon. Members, especially those of various Ministers. The commissioner made stringent criticisms of Ministers, but the Committee did not take them up, although if comparable complaints had been made against ordinary hon. Members, that might well have solicited the demand for an apology to the House. The system can also be used to intimidate hon. Members. I pray in aid the recent case involving the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), whose face did not seem to fit some of the Government's criteria for the office that he was seeking. I do not blame simply the Labour party in this context—both parties have had a go.

Since the Committee's inception, about 50 or 60 hon. Members have been reported to it. The fact that the numbers are increasing is surprising—when the new rules were in place and the new intake of hon. Members realised that a different regime was in operation, one might have expected the numbers to decline.

Interestingly, those hon. Members who are reported are almost exclusively from the Labour or Conservative parties—the Liberal Democrats do not seem to feature. That may reflect their political chances of being in government, although there may be skeletons in their cupboard. Even the Prime Minister has been reported to the Committee, and we are still awaiting the outcome. That places the commissioner in a significant dilemma—to criticise and to bring charges against the Prime Minister would be novel and the process would be fraught with overtones that hon. Members would understand. Two previous Prime Ministers have also been reported. The great and the good are not exempt from the process—everyone appears to be in the firing line. Some will say that that is how it should be.

If a complaint is made with enough substantiating evidence, it will go forward and a report will be produced along with documents and other information that may be of great interest to newspapers. Sometimes, a complaint will undoubtedly have been initiated indirectly by a newspaper—the press will have a field day because they would be protected from libel action.

In December 1999, when the Committee had been in existence for five years, Lord Neill presented a review of its functioning, in which he made a number of important recommendations that I believe the Government and the House should consider and would wish to implement, not least in defence of the reputation of the House, because this tit-for-tat war is hotting up rather than receding. Far from protecting the reputation of the House, the Committee is open to manipulation by a number of bodies that have a view or a dislike of a certain hon. Member, or may simply try to discourage that hon. Member from pursuing a course of action that the trade union or organisation happens not to like. That impinges on the hon. Member's right to free speech or may influence his or her decision to pursue certain courses of action or types of investigation.

There is no doubt that the structure of the committee lends itself to those criticisms. It is based on the Select Committee procedure. The Neill committee does not go so far as to say that that is possibly a wrong formula, but it makes a number of criticisms of the formula. We all know that membership of Select Committees is based on the relative numbers of the parties in the House, so the Government have a predominance of members on the Committee. The present Committee has eight members of the Labour party, two Conservatives, one Liberal Democrat and an independent. As it now deals not simply with matters such as "What did you put in the register?", but goes much deeper into what would be matters of legal complaint if they were made outside the House, the nature of the Committee, as Lord Neill says, must be looked at and the balance of members on it made more even.

Lord Neill also points out that the Chairman is always a member of the Government. However much we respect the individual who holds that office, he says that that could be politically influential in weighting the opinions. He believes that the Chairman should not be drawn from the ruling party.

Lord Neill also says that hon. Members who are indicted—the Committee functions as a court of law—or are in the firing line have no redress against the committee's decision. Indeed, they do not know what it will be until the report is printed and they have two hours in which to review the report. Unless they have made an earlier plea, they have no opportunity to request a delay in the implementation of the report, so although they may have thought that the commissioner's position and their point of view were closely aligned, they find themselves without any redress and perhaps with no time to deal with the matters in detail.

Lord Neill deals with that point. He emphasises that individuals who disagree with the Committee's decision should have a right of appeal before an independent judge, or a person with judicial experience, and before two senior Members of the House. They may also require help in complying with the commissioner's demands for information, if the investigations are extensive. Lord Neill says that they should be given that help and granted legal assistance if they opt for a review of the committee's findings before an independent judge.

In the recent past, a Member of Parliament was accused of neglect by a disgruntled constituent and it seemed that the matter would be brought to court. The House considered whether legal expenses should be paid with parliamentary assistance in such cases. The response was favourable and the Government are considering what the next step should be. There is a strong case for Members of Parliament, as for any professional body, to have some form of insurance for legal expenses, and whether that is administered through the House or by individuals is a matter for consideration.

Before I came to the House, I was a business woman and carried legal expenses insurance. One never knows whether a customer might find fault with one's service or goods and it is necessary to protect oneself. Employers also need legal expenses insurance to cover the possibility of an employee going to an industrial tribunal. Members of Parliament are in a similar position and more vulnerable than previously. The well-publicised, "open sesame" system invites complaints that would not have been thought significant in the past. Such complaints are often more related to the political nature of this institution than to straightforward offences which, in other circumstances, might be subject to litigation.

Lord Neill said that there is no doubt that Members of Parliament are vulnerable to such complaints and suggested that we should bear that in mind when examining his recommendations. Hard cases make bad law and the setting up of the Committee was a reaction to a number of initiatives mounted by the Government when in opposition. It led to a reaction that may prove inappropriate and, if we pursue this line, require assistance for hon. Members who become caught up in it. It is time consuming and damaging to those concerned if newspapers become involved. The newspapers have the opportunity to report matters which, had they raised them de novo, might have resulted in libel actions by hon. Members to protect their reputations. Page 30 of the Neill report states:

Given the politically-charged environment within which MPs work, it is Likely that ill-founded complaints will be made from time to time in order to discredit the accused MP It would be naïve to think otherwise.

When considering its general reputation with the public in pursuit of its legitimate political goals, the House should consider what we do about such complaints. Once upon a time, they might have been brushed aside because, in the old days, they did not create such a stir when hon. Members tended to trust each other to be honourable. The Committee has taken a political perspective, which I do not believe was intended, and both its structure and method of functioning are an abuse or contradiction of natural justice, which is the right to have a defence and to be tried by an independent body. All Committee members are related in some way to the hon. Member under investigation, either politically or because they know him. People who make judgments in our courts must prove that they have no acquaintance with the person whom they are judging. If that principle were applied to the Committee, its members would be excused from duty. For that reason, we need an independent judicial element, perhaps in the form of the commissioner. There must be a right of appeal to an independent body if all else fails so that the hon. Member and, to an extent, the House believe that the matter has been handled with complete independence.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman did not notify me that he wanted to speak. I am not sure whether he has asked the Minister or the initiator of the debate for permission. I shall therefore call the Minister to respond.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on securing the debate The sixth report of the Neill committee is undoubtedly an important matter. The committee chairman set up the report in March 1999. Hearings were held between the middle of June and July and it took six months before the report was published in January 2000. It covers a wide range of issues that are of interest to Members of Parliament, Ministers, civil servants, special advisers and lobbying and all-party groups, and that are relevant to sponsorship of Government activities, public appointments, proportionality in public appointments, task forces and business appointments.

The sixth report reviews the Nolan committee's first report, which made 55 recommendations. It contains 45 recommendations which, as the hon. Lady said, cover a range of important matters. For that reason, the Government have taken time to consider the issues in detail. She began her speech by saying that she did not know when we were going to reply to the report. In response to a written question from the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that the Government intend to report before the end of this Session. That is some comfort for the hon. Lady.

Hon. Members should welcome Lord Neill's declaration that there is less cause for concern about the disreputable or dishonest behaviour that characterised the period before the Standards and Privileges Committee was established. It is important to remind ourselves of the environment that existed in the early to mid-1990s when Members of the House were accused of and proved to be taking cash for questions. There was a feeling of sleaze and all of us in public life, no matter how honourably the vast majority of us behaved, were affected by the bad reputations of others. It is to be welcomed that Lord Neill has recognised that the situation has improved. Anthony King, who was originally a member of the Nolan committee, said in his evidence to the sixth inquiry that, if it had not been for Neil Hamilton—this is probably the one good thing that Neil Hamilton did for parliamentary procedure—the dark places and the decline in standards of the late 1980s and early 1990s would not have been looked into.

I welcome the process that has been undertaken. Not only did Lord Neill's committee say that an improvement had been made, but its report focused on a shift away from the direct influence on hon. Members and people in public life by the payment of cash to the indirect influence of lobbying. Lord Neill was considering the matters that I listed when he produced the first report.

In some ways, the hon. Lady leaves me in a difficult position. Many of the points that she made are matters for the House to consider after the Government have reported. In preparing for this debate, however, I have taken the trouble to read many of the reports published by the Standards and Privileges Committee. I was present when the hon. Lady was herself the focus of one of those reports. I was present in the Chamber to hear her speech and the comments of other hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I read the report on her case, as well as other reports. It is only fair to say that I could see no evidence of political bias in the reports. The vast majority of the reports are unanimous. I do not think that anyone would accuse the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who is a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, of political bias for or against any of the political parties represented in Parliament. As I said, the Committee has reached many unanimous decisions.

The hon. Lady's point about appeals is, in the final analysis, a matter for the House, but it is worth while commenting on it now. She was absolutely right: Lord Neill said in his recommendations to the Committee on Standards and Privileges that different processes should be put in place and that there should be an appeals process. It was made clear during the debate to which I referred, however, that that process would not have applied to the hon. Lady's case.

Lord Neill is very specific. I shall quote from paragraph 3.22 of the sixth report, which lists classifications of allegations, on which he makes proposals. Item A on the list is

allegations of misconduct amounting to a criminal offence.

The report contains a clear recommendation that such matters should be handed over to the courts. It goes on to list the following categories:

B. allegations of serious misconduct not amounting to a criminal offence, the facts of which are in dispute (contested allegations of serious misconduct);

C. allegations of other misconduct, the facts of which are in dispute (contested allegations of other misconduct);

D. any allegation of misconduct not amounting to a criminal offence, the facts of which are not in dispute (non-contested cases);

E. malicious or frivolous allegations of misconduct.

In the hon. Lady's case, it was clear that the facts were not in dispute, as was pointed out in the debate about the matter. Lord Neill's recommendations relate to cases in which there is dispute about the facts, in which there should be an independent appeals process. I wanted to make that clear, because I did not want it to be misconstrued outside the House.

Many of the other points made by the hon. Lady formed a specific attack on the integrity of those who serve on that Committee. It is outrageous to suggest that those hon. Members, from all parties, would want to whitewash Ministers or that the Committee is being manipulated. There is no evidence of that. One or two unwarranted allegations were made against hon. Members, and I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw those remarks. She used those unfounded allegations to make her case that the House should not regulate itself. Like many of the points that she made, that is a matter for the House of Commons and not for the Government. On those issues, she will find herself in a small minority.

Is the Minister aware that there would be a wider audience for his remarks if the Committee on standards and Privileges were not meeting at this moment? Would he confirm that all hon. Members are under a duty to support the commissioner in her inquiries, so that facts can be put to the Committee and, if appropriate, to the House?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. I was not aware of that fact, although there is obviously more interest in Westminster Hall today than for most debates. It is a matter of great importance, and, as Members of Parliament, it is our responsibility to take an interest in such matters.

Before the Minister sits down, will he express an opinion on the other point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), when she referred to the constraints placed on hon. Members when defending themselves before the Committee, and the lack of resources allowing them to do so?

The hon. Lady made a sound point. The Government will consider it and, in time, we shall give our response in the House.

The debate has come to an end three minutes before time. We therefore move on to the next debate, which is initiated by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar).

Some seven months ago, I spoke in a similar debate on Operation Lancet—a Police Complaints Authority probe into alleged corruption in Cleveland police. I need to update the House on the progress, or lack of it, on that matter. which is vital to the policing of Teesside. Since that debate, many people in my constituency and throughout Teesside have been in touch with me asking for the matter to be kept under the spotlight of parliamentary scrutiny. That debate touched the pulse of the people, which is why I raise the matter once again.

Operation Lancet is the probe under which Detective Superintendent Ray Mallon, famed for his pioneering work of zero tolerance policing in Britain, has been suspended for more than two and a half years. His suspension was accompanied by the suspension of another seven Cleveland officers. It is with regret that I have to tell the House that the questionable activities of that inquiry have continued for seven months. More serious, I must inform the House that it seems that we and the Teesside public have been misled about the true cost of the operation. Those costs are paid by the public purse, which causes me great concern.

The Government are rightly committed to modernisation and to justice and opportunity for all, rather than to allowing the old boy network to rule public services. It is time for a complete overhaul of the way in which the police are policed. It is time to bring in checks and balances to ensure that police officers act in the best interest of the taxpayers who fund them rather than in their interest and that of their friends.

The handling of Operation Lancet has raised such serious questions about the misuse of public funds and the perversion of justice that it is time for a public inquiry to ensure that the truth comes out. Operation Lancet has been flawed from the start. The crucial flaw came when Cleveland's chief constable and the Police Complaints Authority placed in charge of the inquiry a Cleveland officer who had, at best, limited experience of leading major crime investigations. That has contributed to the rambling, unfocused way in which the operation has stumbled on. The officer leading the investigation had recently been in charge of the CID at Middlesborough police station. Many of the 40 officers allocated to his investigation team had also served there. They were effectively investigating themselves—a clear conflict of interest.

Sadly, senior officers involved with Operation Lancet have repeatedly failed the public. Detective Superintendent Mallon was suspended on 1 December 1997 by Cleveland's acting deputy chief constable Robert Turnbull. Most people would make such a decision knowing that they should take—and could be expected to take—responsibility for the consequences. Not in this case, however. Mr. Turnbull left in controversial circumstances, pocketed a large pension and commutation courtesy of the Teesside taxpayer and took up a senior position in the sun-kissed Turks and Caicos Islands.

Mr. David Earnshaw, who became acting assistant chief constable, took over Mr. Turnbull's mantle. He insisted that Ray Mallon and his colleagues remained suspended. He also did not feel that the issue merited being seen through to the end. He has now quit the Cleveland police, pocketing a vastly enhanced pension and commutation in excess of £150,000, thanks to his activities on Lancet. However, his presence is still felt in the corridors of the Cleveland police headquarters because he has returned to take up a newly created senior civilian post. He is not the only officer who has left the Cleveland police who has been offered immediately a civilian post that had not been advertised openly. That smacks of a jobs-for-the-boys attitude. Such an attitude is clearly contrary to the equal opportunities policy that the Government and, presumably, Cleveland police have signed up to.

A litany of senior police officers has fallen by the wayside while Operation Lancet was in their control. Mr. Richard Brunstrom, Cleveland's other assistant chief constable and another person with oversight for Operation Lancet, slipped away quietly for the possibly quieter life of the North Wales police.

Mr. Andrew Timpson, the outside Warwickshire chief constable appointed to oversee Operation Lancet, was also replaced in controversial circumstances following complaints about his conduct. The man who replaced Mr. Timpson, and who so far seems to have survived the curse of Lancet—Assistant Chief Constable Lloyd Clarke of West Yorkshire police—clearly had severe reservations about the way in which the operation was evolving. Those reservations have taken root and Mr. Clarke has removed several of the officers who were helping to conduct the inquiry. I am told that he has completed his investigation and returned to West Yorkshire. I suspect that he is writing the report. The public surely have a right to expect senior police officers who launch costly inquiries to stay in post until the inquiries are complete. It is wrong that such officers can dodge possible disciplinary repercussions simply by retiring or otherwise leaving the force. A basic tenet of English law is that justice delayed is justice denied. The delays that beset Operation Lancet despite Mr. Clarke's latest efforts are still intolerable.

Ray Mallon was suspended from duty on 1 December 1997 for alleged activity—which he vehemently denies—that could be construed as criminal. In January 1999 he submitted to the Lancet inquiry a lengthy statement dealing with every allegation against him. The file on Mr. Mallon has been passed from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service, then to Treasury Counsel and finally to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, where it has remained since December. In January, Mr. Mallon was informed that the criminal investigation into him was complete. Will my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General explain why, if the investigation was complete and the Treasury Counsel recommendation was passed on seven months ago, Mr. Mallon still has not been told whether he faces prosecution? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure the House that the Director of Public Prosecutions is not letting political interest overtake justice.

The costs of Operation Lancet are a very serious matter. They are expressed in two forms—the direct cost to the taxpayer and the cost of the loss of public confidence in the police force. That loss of confidence is based on the perception that a police force that appears to be totally introverted and obsessed with internal inquiries does not have its heart in fighting crime. I received a letter last week from June Goodchild, a well-respected member of the community who is vice-chairman of Easterside community council, who wrote:

In the summer of 1997—

that is, before Lancet—

we had a brilliant relationship with both the Community Team and also the Police Chiefs.

However, she states:

Since the Lancet investigation began we have been very lucky to even see a Policeman.

She adds:

I would like to know why members of the Public of all ages…feel they have no quality of life and also feel very unsafe, surely this should be the opposite, when we pay so much for the Police we have a right to feel safe but after so many complaints not everyone can be wrong.

The Cleveland police force recently announced its latest crime figures. A well-spun press release trumpeted the falling number of crimes such as burglaries, drug offences and car crime, but also showed, in an almost hidden paragraph, that the detection rate had dropped. Simple arithmetic should show that there should be a rough correlation between a drop in recorded crime and clear-ups. Such a correlation does not exist in Cleveland. Why? Perhaps the press release gives a clue to that, too. It states that the drop in the detection rate

is thought to have been affected by a number of long running, serious and complicated inquiries which have tied up officers.

Many of those inquiries are, of course, operational, designed to investigate and solve serious crimes, but hidden behind that innocuous phrase is the truth that Lancet and the ever-increasing number of subsidiary inquiries are tying the force in knots. That means a serious cost to the public. Many of my constituents tell me their fears and their stories of stolen property that is not recovered, stolen cars that are never seen again, personal injury from assaults and, above all, the loss of confidence that police response will be speedy and criminals will be apprehended. That loss of confidence will take a long time to be repaired.

The direct costs of Operation Lancet can and should be quantified. Last month I tabled a written question about how much it had cost and was told by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), that the cost at that time was —2.6 million. It has been brought to my attention that the police authority papers over the three financial years show the cost to be far in excess of that. In addition, the continuing salary costs of eight suspended officers bring the real costs, I suspect, to double the figure that the House was given. I must ask for an explanation of the House being misled in that way, and whether there are other costs of which the House has not been informed.

It is imperative that those costs are given open and honestly. After all, they are coming out of the pockets of Teesside taxpayers who are picking up the bill and have a right to know what it has cost them. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that an independent auditor should be brought in to begin an assessment of the true cost of Operation Lancet and associated inquiries. Only then will the public be able to judge whether they have had best value. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering reforms to both the mechanism and methodology of the Police Complaints Authority, which I applaud.

I suggest that the lessons learned from an inquiry into how Operation Lancet was handled will prove invaluable to such a shake-up. That will show how not to do it. It is not only the eight suspended officers who have suffered in Cleveland; the consequences of their suspensions have brought pain and suffering to their families as well as to the suspended officers themselves. The rumours and stories that abound do nothing for the morale of decent rank and file policemen and women. At the start of the inquiry, the Police Complaints Authority suggested that wholesale corruption, widespread brutalism and drug abuse were rife in the Middlesbrough police district. That has so far proved to be utterly unfounded and is a gross slur on the hardworking officers of Cleveland police—men and women who are a credit to their force and to their service. The least that those people deserve is an apology from the Police Complaints Authority.

I shall end by reiterating the basic facts of the matter. Eight Cleveland police officers have now been suspended for more than two and a half years without a single criminal disciplinary charge being levelled against them. The cost of Operation Lancet now stands at £5 million, which has been funded by the Cleveland taxpayer. The buck stops with the Government, who must explain what is happening. The public in my constituency have been hit by the largest hike in police precepts in Britain, yet those responsible for launching the inquiry have deserted the sinking ship. Moreover, they have walked the plank, but with very fat pay-offs and the knowledge that they have avoided any possible disciplinary repercussions. I urge my hon. Friend to agree to hold a public inquiry into the Operation Lancet fiasco once it is officially over, so that there is never again such an abuse of public office and public money in the police service.

May I begin, as is conventional, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) for raising those issues, as he did in the previous debate to which he referred on 10 November last year? I am acutely aware of the interest that the inquiry continues to attract, both nationally and, more importantly, among the constituents of my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the area covered by the Cleveland police.

I shall begin by referring to what the Government are doing overall. I made a statement to the House a month or so ago to launch our whole approach to police complaints. There have been two inquiries; one by KPMG and another published on the same day by Liberty, which identified the best ways in which to fulfil our commitment to establishing an independent police complaints system. One of the key drivers in that is to reduce the time that is taken up by police complaints.

Unfortunately, the example from Cleveland described by my hon. Friend is not unique in terms of the length of time that the inquiry has taken for a variety of reasons, although the scale of that inquiry is more substantial than most of those undertaken by the Police Complaints Authority. We believe that, for some of the reasons stated by my hon. Friend, the system should be reformed. We are committed to reforming the system and have published a consultation paper based on those two reports, to which we are seeking early responses so that we can take action as rapidly as possible. Therefore, I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's main point that the length of the inquiry has led to difficulties in delivering policing, and those difficulties must be addressed. However, it is still the case that the performance of the Cleveland constabulary is good, and morale in the force, according to Her Majesty's inspectorate, is also good.

Some of the language used by my hon. Friend was unwarranted, but, before I explain why, I shall put the facts of the case in context. The inquiry began in late 1997, following serious and disturbing allegations against a number of officers, not only Mr. Mallon. It would be inappropriate for us to discuss the details of the cases under investigation while the possibility of criminal and disciplinary proceedings exists. The Crown Prosecution Service is considering a number of files from Operation Lancet. The Lancet team began submitting files to the CPS in November 1998. The CPS referred them to Treasury Counsel for advice, and is now considering those papers. The investigation team asked to make further inquiries, after which, in the near future, the CPS hopes to be able to make decisions.

More files were submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service last year. Many of them have also been referred to Treasury Counsel, and I understand that there is material still to be submitted. That material will also need to be carefully considered, before decisions are taken on possible criminal proceedings. Responsibility for such matters rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I know that he is taking a personal interest in the case.

I must rebut my hon. Friend's suggestion that there is any question of political interests conflicting with justice. The sole responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this area is to secure justice. No political interest conflicts with that, and it would be wrong if it did. That is not how the DPP operates.

The chief constable and the Police Complaints Authority are responsible for considering the disciplinary aspects of the inquiry and for determining whether officers should face disciplinary proceedings. The Police Complaints Authority has the power to recommend or direct that the chief constable bring disciplinary proceedings, if there is evidence that an officer has behaved improperly. The Home Secretary has a role in the process as the appellate authority and may be called on to consider any disciplinary appeals from officers arising from the inquiry.

Public confidence in the police service rests entirely on its reputation for integrity. That is why allegations, from whatever quarter, must be properly addressed and investigated. The length of time taken is, as I have acknowledged, a serious concern, but it would be wrong if serious allegations of the kind that have been made were not investigated. When allegations of misconduct are made, bringing the reputation of the service into question, there must be thorough scrutiny. That is why I am pleased that Cleveland acted robustly, initiating an investigation into the allegations, although I share the concern that the inquiry should be brought to a conclusion as swiftly as possible.

My hon. Friend referred to costs. As I told him in my answers, the overall cost of the Lancet inquiry, to the end of April, was —2.6 million. The costs can be broken down as follows: for Cleveland officers, including salaries, overtime and travel and subsistence, they are £1.271 million; for officers from Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and West Yorkshire, including salaries, overtime and travel and subsistence, they are £1.169 million; for other costs, such as accommodation and office expenditure, they are £182,000. Those are the costs, and they are based on figures given to us by Cleveland police. The only explanation that I can give for the difference from the figures quoted by my hon. Friend is that the figures that I have just given, which I also gave him in an earlier parliamentary answer, do not include the salaries of the suspended officers.

The report produced by Cleveland police on budgeting provision shows that supplies and services for an inquiry that was unforeseen at budget time created an additional cost of £266,000. Similarly, for 1999, the cost of the special inquiry was significantly in excess of the original £1 million budget—an excess of £1.087 million. In the budget for this year, the cost of the special inquiry has exceeded outturn forecasts by £950,000—a total of £1.95 million. It is in the Cleveland authority's papers; that is where the money is going. It has not budgeted for it, and it is not accounted for in the answer that the Minister has given.

The figures that I have given are based entirely on those given to my Department by Cleveland police authority. That is the way in which such things are done, and that is how we should proceed. I shall of course look at the detailed figures that my hon. Friend has given, and ask my officials to discuss them with Cleveland police authority. Perhaps my saying that the overall cost of the Lancet inquiry was calculated to the end of April has caused some confusion. Another possible explanation is that, as I said, the figures do not include the salaries of suspended officers.

My point is that the information that I have given this Chamber is not misleading—it is open and honest, and I regret that my hon. Friend has decided to use such language. An independent audit is not necessary, nor would a public inquiry help matters. However, in the light of my hon. Friend's comments I am willing to ask my officials to discuss the precise figures and try to establish whether there is any sense in which the published figures do not correctly represent the total cost to the police authority. However, I should reiterate that I do not believe that there is any inaccuracy in what I have said to this Chamber.

On personnel, Lloyd Clarke, the deputy chief constable for West Yorkshire, replaced Andrew Timpson, the former chief constable for Warwickshire, as investigating officer for Operation Lancet, after allegations came to light about Mr. Timpson's conduct. Those allegations were made in relation to Warwickshire constabulary, and were unconnected with Operation Lancet. Mr. Timpson subsequently resigned his post as chief constable, but the process had nothing whatever to do with Operation Lancet.

I acknowledge that the departure of Mr. Timpson as officer in command of the inquiry was unfortunate, and partly explains the time that the process has taken. However, Mr. Clarke, who was swiftly appointed in his place, took forward with vigour the task of completing the inquiry. Several officers from Cleveland who are working on the inquiry have now returned to other duties and, as my hon. Friend said, Mr. Clarke's team has relocated to West Yorkshire, which will prove more cost-effective at this stage of the inquiry.

Eight officers are still suspended from duty, and Cleveland police regularly reviews such suspensions. Matters involving the suspension of police officers are governed by the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985, and unless the chief officer decides otherwise, suspensions may continue until a decision is taken not to bring disciplinary charges, or the case is resolved. As I said, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to delays in the process, and I hope that they will be rapidly resolved.

My hon. Friend also made some points about senior officers. Officers who have completed 30 years' service are legally entitled to retire on pension and seek further employment. He asked whether that is right. Outstanding issues of discipline need to be considered. Such matters arise in relation to this inquiry and elsewhere, but the law of the land is as I described it.

Mr. David Earnshaw, to whom my hon. Friend referred, retired from the police force on 31 March 2000. He had completed 33 years' service, and had deferred his retirement on two previous occasions at the request of the chief constable. Mr. Earnshaw performed the duties of acting assistant chief constable from 8 February until his retirement, and was therefore entitled to a pension commensurate with that rank. Mr. Earnshaw has been employed by the chief constable on a fixed-term contract in a civilian advisory role to Operation Teak, which is investigating alleged police corruption and is completely separate from Operation Lancet. Operation Teak is at a crucial stage, and the Crown Prosecution Service is considering relevant papers.

My point related to equal opportunity policy. The Government and Cleveland police force might believe in the equal opportunity policy, but they do not demonstrate as much in reality. The post to which Mr. Earnshaw was appointed was not advertised, and the Minister cannot avoid that fact.

The tone that my hon. Friend is adopting is entirely unacceptable in a debate of this kind. Mr. Earnshaw was employed on a fixed-term contract in a civilian advisory role. As far as I am aware, the chief constable fulfilled his proper obligations in respect of the appointments procedure, and in a manner entirely compatible with the equal opportunities policy and other relevant matters. I realise that my hon. Friend is angry about the case of Mr. Earnshaw, and he is entitled to express that anger, but the allegations that due process was not correctly followed are entirely wrong.

The allegations against Mr. Earnshaw were fully investigated by Mr. Williamson, deputy chief constable of Nottinghamshire constabulary, under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. I understand that the police authority considered an interim report on the investigation on Mr. Earnshaw's final day of service. The report said that there appeared to be no evidence to substantiate the allegations made against Mr. Earnshaw and that, therefore, there was no reason to defer his retirement. The result of the completed investigation was reported to the police authority on 8 June, a few days ago.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the case of Richard Brunstrom. Nottinghamshire constabulary is continuing to investigate allegations made against Mr. Brunstrom, who is now deputy chief constable of North Wales. I understand that the investigation is expected to conclude shortly. The departure of Mr. Brunstrom to North Wales was unconnected to Operation Lancet.

As my hon. Friend described, Deputy Chief Constable Turnbull applied for the post of deputy commissioner in the Turks and Caicos islands on 30 November 1998 and was notified that he had been successful on 2 February 1999. Consequently, he retired from Cleveland police on 8 March 1999 after 32 years in the police service, including almost two years with Cleveland police. Mr. Turnbull retired for personal reasons, to enable him to take up the post abroad; his decision was not linked in any way to Operation Lancet.

I have tried to demonstrate as openly as I can that I sympathise with my hon. Friend's and his constituents' reasonable frustrations at the time taken to complete the inquiry and the way in which it has proceeded, with the changes of senior investigating officer throughout. His suggestion about the motivations of those involved in the inquiry is totally unwarranted. It would have been entirely wrong if we had not investigated properly the serious allegations of corruption in the force, because people must be confident that the police operate with complete integrity. It was therefore right to investigate the complaints, although I acknowledge that the time it has taken has led to a series of problems.

My hon. Friend is concerned about the quality of policing. In the HMIC report last year, general morale in the force was described as "buoyant". I understand, although I am open to correction, that the chief constable has been fully and publicly supported throughout this period by the chair and all members of the police authority. I have noted the strength of my hon. Friend's support and that of others for Cleveland police's positive policing methods.

My hon. Friend referred finally to a public inquiry and to the lack of confidence. The best way to establish—or re-establish if that is necessary—full confidence in Cleveland police force is to conclude the inquiry, which is now near conclusion, publish its reports openly and take whatever disciplinary measures are necessary, so that the people of Cleveland can be confident that there is no corruption in Cleveland police force. That is a course of action to which the Government are committed and which I believe the House as a whole would want them to take, in relation not only to Cleveland police but to other police forces. I see no merit in a public inquiry that simply keeps the uncertainty going longer at a time when, as my hon. Friend correctly says, we must address the issues, so that they can be seen to have been resolved openly and directly and as quickly as possible.

I conclude by urging my hon. Friend, who has campaigned strongly on this matter in debates in the House and in private representations and whose integrity in pursuing the case I fully respect—I understand his motivation entirely—to do what he can to ensure that when the issues are resolved, which I hope will be soon, the positive approach to policing in Cleveland that is so necessary will he re-established.

I have tried to answer the various points made by my hon. Friend and I hope that he will accept my comments in the spirit in which they are made.

We now move on to today's final debate in Westminster Hall. I call, for the second time this morning, Mr. Brake.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel a sense of déjà vu in appearing before you an hour after I last did so.

I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate on mobility issues in the London borough of Sutton and beyond. Had time allowed, I should have liked to cover many aspects of mobility—for example, access to and from trains and platforms. I am sure that that subject will be discussed during a public meeting that I have organised with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), at which Connex South Central and Go-Via, the two train companies that are competing for the Connex franchise, will be represented. I should also like to have talked about the Londonwide Taxicard service.

I had anticipated that the Minister with responsibility for transport in London would respond to the debate, because mobility involves transport as well as health-related issues. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see here the Minister of State, Department of Health. Most of my subject matter concerns the national health service rather than mobility transport.

I shall focus on four services in Sutton that provide services for people who are elderly or have a disability: the Shopmobility service, Banstead mobility centre, the medical engineering resource unit and the wheelchair service.

Transport and mobility are increasingly important as the population gets older and the number of people in the community with disabilities increases due to improvements in medical care. Many local facilities are dominated by much larger and more centralised services. That is especially true of the NHS, which has experienced successive mergers of trusts, such as the acute trust, the mental health service and the community trust. There is a risk that those mergers will make services less accessible to people who are not fully mobile. In Sutton, steps have been taken to create, as far as possible, a barrier-free society, including initiatives such as dropped kerbs, the freedom pass, buses that lower their platforms and developments at Sutton railway station—which will, with the exception of one platform, be accessible to people with mobility problems.

As the Minister will be aware, many people of limited mobility are unable to use public transport and therefore need an adapted car, electric wheelchair or special bus service. Generally speaking, a person with a disability should be enabled to move within a three or four mile radius of where they live, so that they can access health care, shops and other services that they need to use regularly.

The Shopmobility service can help with that. It is situated in St. Nicholas square in Sutton's shopping centre, has been established for more than 10 years, is open for six days a week and provides a free service to no fewer than 3,300 members. Members do not need to bring their wheelchair with them. They can arrive, leave their car, go shopping in the centre and return the wheelchair when they have finished.

The Shopmobility service is funded by local authority traders and voluntary donations, and would benefit from increased ministerial recognition and support to ensure financial stability. Such is the renown of the service that people from Japan have come to Sutton to learn about the way in which it is provided.

I visited the medical engineering resource unit a couple of months ago. It has engineers on site who adapt computers and wheelchairs to make them usable by people who are more disabled than is normally the case. Children with weak arms, for example, require a sensitive control to operate their wheelchair or computer. The unit offers an excellent, constituency-based service.

I shall dwell in greater detail on the Banstead mobility centre. It is one of eight units that belong to Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for Disabled People. It was established nearly 20 years ago

to assist disabled people to achieve an optimum level of outdoor mobility which would enrich the quality of their working and social life.

It recently received an Investors in People award and has been re-accredited with the Forum of Mobility Centres. It provides a service to people of all ages and disabilities, including, for instance—I shall not quote the full list with which I have been provided—those with strokes, multiple sclerosis, arthritis or cerebral palsy. The people who access the centre typically live within a 50-mile radius of it—it offers a valuable service to all London boroughs.

The centre has four main purposes: to provide information on mobility, assessments for relevant forms of transport, training and research. It has charitable status and is supported by Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for Disabled People and Ford. It provides free information to people with disabilities, family and friends about outdoor mobility. In a typical year, it takes about 8,000 phone calls from people who are seeking information and it receives between 300 and 400 visitors.

During the past couple of years, no fewer than 1,000 people have been to the centre for assessment as drivers, passengers or wheelchair users, and each assessment lasts for most of a day. There is a bungalow that people can use while they are taking an intensive driving course in preparation for their driving test and, critically, there is a track on site that can be used for practice and tests. The training programmes are many and varied—the centre provides training packages for people who want to pass their test and for driving instructors who want to specialise in disability work.

I draw the Minister's attention to a problem that the centre is experiencing. As tenants on the site, the centre has access to the private roadway of what was Queen Mary's children's hospital. Part of that site has subsequently been sold for residential development, which means that the road network to which the centre has access for tests has been halved. A copy of the relevant map was faxed to the Minister, and I hope that he is aware of the site's current layout.

The residential development has brought some benefits. For example, the developer created a new park—the site contains green-belt land—to ensure that the footprint of development was smaller than, or equal to, the previous development on the site. The park will bring enormous benefits. However, it will not increase the centre's access to safe roads on which people can practise driving and take their test. For that reason, the centre wants to purchase land on the site that is adjacent to the property. There is a football pitch close to the centre that has rarely, if ever, been used. It is certainly not in current use, and could be converted to create additional road space on which the drivers could practice. The Minister can see the location of that site on the map.

This point would perhaps have been more suited to the Minister with responsibility for transport in London, had he responded to the debate. However, I understand that there would not be an issue if a track were created on the site, in relation to its open land or green-belt status. The creation of a small amount of road space would not infringe any planning rules or regulations.

A further service on this site that I have not yet mentioned is the wheelchair service, which is funded by the NHS and provides a broad range of wheelchairs to more than 4,500 users a year. The Minister might be aware that this service has been quoted as an example of good practice at a recent meeting in Llandudno. The wheelchair service, the Banstead mobility service and the medical engineering resource unit are, therefore, all adjacent to one another on the same site.

I should like to emphasise to the Minister the importance of keeping together this cluster of organisations specialising in mobility issues. Their collaboration has developed in the past decade, and they share equipment and road space. It is important for people who want to access their services that all the services are located in the same place. If someone were coming not only to look at an adapted car, but to access the wheelchair service, he or she could do so in the same location, thereby reducing the amount of travel and avoiding the problems that someone with a disability might encounter if they had to access those services across a much wider area.

I also want to raise with the Minister the concern that the wheelchair service, which is now part of the larger South West London Community NHS trust—formerly the Merton and Sutton Community NHS trust—might be moved. I would discourage that, for the reasons that I have outlined.

We need to keep this cluster of organisations together: it could become a centre of excellence for the whole country, in relation to mobility services. The medical engineering resource unit, which has a website, receives requests from all over the world for the equipment and facilities that it provides. It makes this provision in a research and development capacity, rather than a production capacity. It is dependent on other organisations to develop commercially the products that it has developed in a trial environment. Another reason for keeping those services together is the fact that the wheelchair service and Banstead mobility centre provide modular courses that have received national accreditation on that site.

Finally, I should like to pose a small number of questions. I shall be quite happy if the Minister responds later in writing, particularly as some of my questions concern transport rather than health.

What assessment have the Government made of the role of the Shopmobility service in integrated transport? It is all well and good to get people to shopping centres on adapted bus services, but what can be done to integrate schemes such as Shopmobility into the transport picture? Are there any plans to extend the network of Shopmobility services throughout the United Kingdom, and what is being done to promote the scheme? I am sure that the Minister recognises the valuable work of that service in enabling housebound people to have access to shops and social activities. What is the Minister's view about keeping Banstead mobility centre, MERU and the wheelchair service together, and does he agree that that facilitates the exchange of information and ensures that the services remain accessible to users who want to make contact not just with one service, but perhaps two or three? Does he believe that the cluster of mobility services could be promoted as an example of best practice to encourage other regions to institute similar services? Will he confirm or deny whether there are plans to move the wheelchair service from Carshalton, and will he comment on allegations that managerial staff at the wheelchair service are not being consulted on plans about their future by managers in the NHS? Does he agree that the cluster is a good example of voluntary and statutory organisations working together and of joined-up mobility services?

I extend an invitation to the Minister from the Banstead mobility centre to visit the centre, as other Ministers and Members of Parliament have done, so that he can appreciate the importance of allowing those services to thrive together. With the Government's support, Carshalton could have a cluster of mobility services that is unique in the country.

I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for providing the opportunity to discuss the provision of mobility services. I shall try to respond to the specific issues that he raised, although, as he said, some are the responsibility of other Departments. The Minister in my Department who deals with most of the day-to-day matters is in Committee, but I shall try to respond to them.

It may be helpful if I outline what the Government are doing to secure the future of the mobility service nationally and examine some of the local issues. We are committed to effective joint working across different organisations and one of the aims of last year's White Paper, "Modernising Government", was to remove the artificial barriers between different public services to ensure effective co-operation. We want a seamless and efficient provision of services.

Mobility services require close working across many different sectors and different Departments with joined-up government and strong partnership working from all stakeholders. We have tried to achieve that by working closely with colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and other Departments. Only last Friday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport announced three-year funding for mobility centres. We are aware of their enormously valuable contribution in enabling disabled and older people to obtain impartial professional advice on driving and vehicle choice as well as on a wide range of other aspects of personal mobility. In last week's announcement, my hon. Friend said that my Department and the DETR had agreed to contribute more than £1 million jointly to the 11 English members of the Forum of Mobility Centres. That funding, which was secured for an initial period of three years subject to annual review, will be used by mobility centres to improve and expand their services and provide a comparable level of professional advice and service at all the centres.

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the recent chair of the Forum of Mobility Centres, Mrs. Morigue Cornwell, is the manager of Banstead mobility centre in his constituency. She has been leading the campaign for the funding to be secured, and I am pleased to say that Banstead mobility centre, as one of the leading centres in the country, will receive £78,000 from the fund this financial year. Indeed, Banstead mobility centre, which is a voluntary organisation and is part of Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for Disabled People, provides an excellent example of this service, and I take this opportunity to place on record our appreciation of and gratitude for the good work carried out there.

I want to relate a number of issues that the hon. Gentleman raised to his constituency interests. I am pleased to say that local stakeholders in Sutton are actively working together to plan for the future of mobility services. Indeed, I believe that Banstead mobility centre was represented at a planning seminar held last Friday for statutory and voluntary agencies involved in transport provision for older and disabled people. The seminar was held by Sutton's Disabilities Issues Group, which is part of Sutton's multi-agency planning structure, and included representatives from the South West London Community NHS trust and the local health authority, as well as the manager of London Transport's unit for disabled passengers. A wide cross-section of voluntary organisations was also represented, including South London Dial-a-Ride, Sutton Community Transport, Sutton Mencap, Sutton Volunteer Bureau, Sutton Alliance of Disabled People and Sutton People First.

The aim of the seminar was to establish key priorities in improving service provision for users. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that it is generally recognised that, compared with some boroughs, Sutton has a well-developed range of accessible transport services. However, the seminar was about more than discussing problems: it identified a range of issues to improve service provision as well as two clear priorities for action. The first was the need to provide comprehensive information for users and service commissioners about what is available and how to obtain access to a service. The second was the need for better co-ordination of the range of services to enable the optimum use of resources, pooling them wherever possible. There was also a discussion about the way in which the transport infrastructure in Sutton can be improved to benefit those with mobility needs. Representatives will have an opportunity to give their organisation's views on the council's interim transport plan before the council finalises it in July.

We welcome the fact that an action plan will be drawn up following that meeting and that all those different organisations can work together in this way towards as common goal. It is a good example of joined-up working. The local efforts will be complemented by the work being done nationally to improve mobility services.

The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the valuable contribution to local mobility of disabled and older people made by Shopmobility schemes. It started with three schemes in 1981, by 1987 there were 13 schemes and now more than 231 schemes are used by more than 200,000 people a year, who undertake about 1.5 million trips. The schemes vary in size and in the facilities that they offer. That is one of the reasons why there are no standard funding arrangements. Some are completely funded by local authorities, some are run by volunteers and others have a mixture of local authority and voluntary funding. The National Federation of Shopmobility, an independent registered charity that supports existing Shopmobility schemes and encourages the formation of such schemes throughout the United Kingdom, supports them.

We recognise the important role that Shopmobility schemes play in the chain of accessible local transport for disabled people. We believe that the decision to introduce such a scheme should be taken at a local level. The provision of schemes is also best dealt with at a local level, through the retail sector, as in the case of many shopping centres, or by local authorities, which are best placed to judge the needs of their areas.

It is worth noting that shopkeepers in many areas have reported a significant increase in their takings following the introduction of a Shopmobility scheme—not only because disabled people are good customers in shops to which they have access, but because their friends and families are more likely to shop in places where they can go together as a family or a group. I recognise the good reputation that has been earned by the Shopmobility scheme in Sutton, which offers services such as manual and powered wheelchairs and powered scooters, escorts, including escorts for visually impaired people, and parking for blue—formerly orange—badge holders within 40 m of the office.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Banstead mobility centre. As he will know, Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority—supported by the local community NHS trust—has announced, following a process of public consultation, its intention to close Orchard Hill as a base for residential services for people with learning disabilities. That has caused concern among related users of the site, such as those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. The proposed closure of Orchard Hill is subject to judicial review, which is due to be heard in the High Court in July. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment further, other than to say that I believe that the proposals for change have been made with residents' best interests at heart.

In relation to the work of Banstead mobility centre, the hon. Gentleman referred to the possible availability of the football pitch and the possible co-location of the mobility centre, the medical engineering resource unit and the wheelchair service. I shall bring him up to date on the current position. The land, along with the rest of the Orchard Hill site, is held by the NHS executive London regional office. It will take the request from Banstead mobility centre into account in determining the future use of the site, and fully assess it against all the other options. The local authority will deal with other issues, and any application will have to go through due process.

Does the Minister believe that Banstead mobility centre, which has been the tenant of the site for many years, should be given any priority in respect of the land sale?

I fully recognise the role that the centre plays, and pay tribute to its excellent work. However, it would be invidious of me to say that a group should be given priority without full knowledge of the competing priorities that might be involved. The claims and interests of Banstead mobility centre in applying for use of the land will be given appropriate consideration by the London regional office.

On a wider level, the trust has initiated a rapid review of its wheelchair services, which will deal with arrangements for the future delivery of those services, including the relationship between Sutton wheelchair services, Banstead mobility centre and the medical engineering resource unit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the trust's review will carefully examine the issues surrounding the benefits of collocation that he discussed.

May I encourage the Minister to express a view on whether he thinks that collocation is the way forward?

Some of these issues are best dealt with by people who work at a local level with local stakeholders. It is not necessarily right for Ministers to say in Adjournment debates, "This must be the conclusion of a review which is currently under way and hasn't yet completed its work."

I want, above all, to assure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that a process is in place to consider not only the future of wheelchair services but the strength of the arguments for collocation that he has put during today's debate. As Minister, I would not want to think that those arguments would go by default because no part of the system was charged with the responsibility of considering them. I am sure that the review will do so.

I hope that I have covered the majority of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. If I find that any matters are outstanding, I shall write to him or draw them to the attention of my colleague at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.