---

Mr. Peter Francis

I was not aware that the matter was with the police and Crown Prosecution Service, but I know that my hon. Friend understands that I could not comment even if I were aware, because the legal process must run its course. It is not a matter in which I could or should intervene. Neighbourhood renewal funds in Walsall have been a recurrent theme in the debate in connection with the investigations. It may be helpful if I say something about that. Walsall is one of 86 local authority districts which are currently eligible to receive neighbourhood renewal fund resources. This is an unhypothecated grant introduced in 2001 and made available to local authorities with the greatest levels of deprivation in England. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South spoke of the need to spend the money on tackling deprivation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North is right to say that the purpose of the fund is to ensure that local authorities and their partners in the most deprived local authority districts have money available to improve core services and conditions in their most deprived neighbourhoods. The neighbourhood renewal fund is a non-ring fenced grant. How it is spent is a decision between the local strategic partnership and its partner organisations. Local strategic partnerships are expected to use their local knowledge and spend their resources in a way that helps to meet national and local targets for reducing deprivation. The fund is flexible and locally controlled. Unlike earlier regeneration funding schemes, it does not require central Government approval for individual projects, and monitoring by Government has been focused on the outcomes of those projects, not on the details of expenditure on particular initiatives or projects. I understand that there has been a series of internal audit reports between 2003 and 2006 to investigate the concerns raised locally about the NRF. In some cases—I repeat, some cases—those reviews were carried out jointly with external auditors and confirmed that there were significant procedural weaknesses, which have been addressed or are being addressed. As I said, I cannot comment on any possible police investigation regarding those matters. It is worth reflecting on the use of the Government’s statutory powers of intervention, as both my right hon. and hon. Friend have asked me to address the point. Those powers enable the Secretary of State to take action if she feels that a local authority has not made sufficient arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions. It is important to recognise that those intervention powers relate to current performance and they allow Government to take action to address issues affecting service delivery. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South for commending the Government on intervening in Walsall to ensure delivery. However, the powers cannot be used in respect of past failings of a council or its officers, and Walsall council’s performance gave sufficient concern to cause it to be placed under close external scrutiny, with a Government monitoring board in operation between 2002 and 2005. As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, major reforms were carried out during that period and there have been significant improvements in the council’s performance, with Government support. Notwithstanding those achievements, it is clear from the employment tribunal outcome that something went badly wrong in the handling of the case. The council must consider the lessons carefully. The issues raised by the case must be dealt with in a way that is transparent, open and honest and shows that the council has learned from experience. It is not helpful for me to speculate or make any further comment in advance of the report’s findings or the council’s independent inquiry. I reiterate the assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government that once we have the facts before us, he will meet hon. Members to listen to their concerns and digest the content of the two reports. Question put and agreed to. Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Six o’clock. Correction