Preamble (Hansard, 26 June 1995)

§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 10 [Preamble], at end insert 'but not of their duty to use the land for educational purposes'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 27, in page 2, line 32 [Clause 2], at end insert— 'the Order' means the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991;". No. 28, in page 6, line 47 [Clause 9], leave out Clause 9.
No. 26, in page 6, line 49, [Clause 9], at end add—

'(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2)above unless he is satisfied that—

(a) the Moxton Street land is not required for any educational purpose; or

(b) the Moxton Street land is not required for the establishment of a new county primary school but is required by the council or any other publicly funded body for another educational purpose and arrangements have been made, whether by disposal of the land or otherwise, for that educational purpose to be fulfilled.

(4) In this section—

the Moxon Street land" means the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order; and the Order" means the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991.'. No. 29, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add— '(2) Within three years from the passing of this Act the council shall, on terms to be approved by the Secretary of State, dispose of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991.'. No. 30, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add— '(2) This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order.'. No. 31, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add— '(2) Within one year of the passing of this Act the council shall transfer without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State the land at Moxon Street which was transferred to the Council by the Order.'. No. 32, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add— '(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless he is satisfied that the council has established that there is insufficient demand to justify the provision of a new country primary school at Moxon Street.'. No. 33, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—

'(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless the council has:

(a) published the reasons for not establishing a new county primary school at Moxon Street; and

(b) consulted in relation to those reasons such persons as appear to the council to be appropriate

620 in the same manner as the council would be obliged to publish and consult upon the establishment, discontinuance or alternation of a school under section 12 of the Education Act 1980.'.

No. 34, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—

'(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

(3) Before making an order under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall require the council to submit a scheme for the future ownership and use of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and, where that scheme is for the sale or use of the land other than for educational purposes, the Secretary of State shall direct the council to consult interested persons for the purpose of establishing that the land is not required for any educational purpose.'.

No. 35, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add— '(2) This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and the use of that land by the council for any purpose other than educational purposes shall be treated as a disposal of that land for the purposes of the Order.'. No. 36, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add— 'It shall remain the duty of the Council to use the land designated for such a school primarily for educational purposes, or for social housing or for a mixture of the two.'.

§ Mr. Cohen
I note that you have taken these amendments in a cluster, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They all deal with the removal of the educational aspect of the Bill. It will, perhaps, be a little tedious but, for the record and the sake of clarity, I shall explain a little of the amendments and comment on them.
Amendment No. 26 is supported by the university of Westminster. It would like the House to carry the amendment. I am happy to support the university of Westminster in that respect. Subsection 3(a) provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the Moxon street land is not required for any educational purpose. I shall explain and give documentary proof that there is an educational need for the land. I have correspondence from St. Marylebone school and a great deal of correspondence from the university of Westminster to the effect that there is an educational purpose for the land. It is wrong to extinguish the requirement to take that purpose into account. I recommend amendment No. 26 to the House.
The Secretary of State should have a role in safeguarding the educational use of the land. It is not right fcr the Government to say that they are neutral on the matter. I am not sure whether they are neutral in any case. I suspect that, when the House divides later, we will see the payroll vote of Conservative Members of Parliament come out to vote against the amendment. That does not imply neutrality; rather it implies that the Government and Conservative Members are on the side of Westminster council and against the university of Westminster.
The Secretary of State for Education has an important role to play in protecting education and giving the university of Westminster a better and a fair deal. Neutrality is not the appropriate word, when Conservative Members will come out and vote the amendment down. That will not take us anywhere. It will be seen through. The Minister should live up to his responsibility and support the university of Westminster and the educational purposes which were clearly laid down in respect of the Moxon street land.
621 Subsection 3(b) of amendment No. 26 provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the Moxon Street land is not required for the establishment of a new county primary school but is required by the council or any other publicly funded body for another educational purpose and arrangements have been made, whether by disposal of the land or otherwise, for that educational purpose to be fulfilled. There is clearly another educational purpose for the land. The university of Westminster is crying out for land for an educational purpose. That should be properly taken into account. Amendment No. 26 is important.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
I am sorry that I missed the very beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He implies that the university of Westminster does a good job and is a popular institution. An article in the press at the weekend suggested that the university awarded Mickey Mouse degrees and did not do a good job. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in putting it on record the fact that some of its courses, particularly its media studies degrees, for example, have been pioneering and extremely far-sighted, that much of its work is at the forefront of new areas of learning and that it is an extremely important institution.

§ Mr. Cohen
I am extremely grateful for that good intervention. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has put that observation on the record. I echo his comments about the excellent work done by the university of Westminster in several respects and with a large number of people. This central London university has many students from ethnic minority backgrounds. It helps them to obtain degrees and educational qualifications that are vital to them. It plays an important role for people who work in London and want to study after work. I echo the hon. Gentleman's expression of support for the university of Westminster and the excellent work that it does.
I hope that the Minister will express his support for the university. I am sure that he will, but it is not enough for him just to say that and to claim to be neutral on the matter while other Conservative Members come to vote and kick it in the teeth. I hope that the Minister will pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), give credit to the university of Westminster and do something about it by supporting the amendment.

§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)
May I help my hon. Friend on this point? The amendment would effectively give the university of Westminster some rights over the possible purchase, leasehold or use of the site at some future date. One good reason for accepting the amendment is that the university has a large proportion of ethnic minority students. Some 40 per cent. of its students come from ethnic minority backgrounds. That is one of the highest proportions in Britain. Given all the problems of inner London, and the fact that ethnic minority students are disadvantaged in getting to university, that is one very special reason for accepting the amendment.

§ Mr. Cohen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose intervention reminds me of a recent letter that I received from the GMB trade union. It stated that almost 60 per cent. of London's black youths are unemployed. The United States Secretary of State for Employment, Robert Reid, said at a meeting that for young people there were upward and downward escalators and that the upward one was for those with qualifications.
622 I reject the allegation that the qualifications gained at the university of Westminster are Mickey Mouse qualifications, because they have to be worked for and earned. By granting qualifications, the university puts ethnic minority youth on the upward escalator and gives them a chance to make something of their lives. That is good for Britain, because disaffection among ethnic minority youth can lead to alienation and riots such as occurred in Bradford. Education is a way out of that, and that adds to the importance of the work that is carried out by the university of Westminster and other universities. That university is at the forefront of educating ethnic minorities.

§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
My hon. Friend is setting out some of the advantages and disadvantages of allowing Westminster university to consolidate and to expand in central London. Some 60 per cent. of its students are part-time, and many of them work in central London during the day. Does my hon. Friend agree that those people could not engage in part-time education at the university if they lived in the suburbs? It is vital to maintain city centre education, not just for city centre dwellers but for those who work in inner London. That unique feature must be taken into account.

§ Mr. Cohen
That is an excellent intervention. It is crucial that people be able to study part time in central London. I studied part-time and recently obtained a master's degree. I studied in the first two years of this Parliament, not at the university of Westminster but at Birkbeck college, which also does excellent work. Such opportunities are vital for people who, like me, work during the day and, as in my case, sometimes have to return to work at night. Excellent courses are available in London and people should be able to use them. The Government are making people work longer and harder and they need opportunities to reach the upward escalator. The university of Westminster gives all sorts of people, including ethnic minorities, a chance to improve themselves.
I neglected to mention the location of Moxon street. It is between Marylebone and Baker street and it is currently used as a car park. It is a perfect site for the university of London to build facilities. Later, I shall go into the detail of its background for educational purposes. It is quite wrong of Westminster council to try to renege on its commitment by way of a clause at the end of a Bill about sex shops. That is an attempt to sneak a measure through the House.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) spoke about part-time students, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) says that it would be a good idea to let Westminster university have access to the site to help such students. I do not wish to appear to be a statistician, but I can tell the House that there are 10,300 part-time students and 9,000 full-time students at the university. We are debating the purchase of the land and the expansion of the university, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget that 16,000 people at that university are pursuing mid-career courses and that the university is anxious to increase their number.

§ Mr. Cohen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting those figures on the record. They show the work that the university is doing and how it can make the best use of the site. Its proposal for the site is certainly better than that of the council, which wants to enter deals with property speculators and land dealers and, perhaps, put a 623 supermarket on the land. It would be far better to use the land to teach part-time and full-time students. On the criterion of the best use of the land, the university wins hands down over Waitrose or Tesco or whoever else the council is trying to put on the site and make a profit from in the process.

§ Mr. Rooker
Every hon. Member will have received a statement on behalf of the Bill's promoters. It should have been received today or on Friday, after the debate had been announced. The final paragraph, paragraph 11, is about clause 9 and it does not mention what Westminster city council plans to do with the site. My hon. Friend spoke about commercial or supermarket use, but that is not mentioned in the statement. Perhaps an hon. Member who speaks for the promoters could say whether they have already fixed things so that, when the Bill is passed, they will know what to do. If that is the case, they are being less than frank in their brief to hon. Members.

§ Mr. Cohen
I think that the council has sought to enter a deal with Howard de Walden Estates, a big property owner and developer in the area. I shall deal with its role and how it is holding the council and the House to ransom. It has some access to the land and is trying to get a deal. It has distributed a newsletter to local residents, in which it states, "It's Waitrose" and that the deal for a supermarket has already been struck. That says something about how Westminster council operates. I have not yet come to the homes-for-votes scandal and all that history—I shall keep away from that for the time being. The newsletter shows how Westminster can enter such a cosy deal because, in it, the developers say that Waitrose has been chosen.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
My hon. Friend introduces matters that I did not know about—Howard de Walden Estates and Waitrose—and says that a deal has possibly been struck. He also mentioned Tesco. Would there not be a conflict of interest over Tesco, in that Lady Porter is heavily related to Tesco and would have an interest which would cause some sort of public eruption? Even in the case of Westminster council, there would be a real problem.

§ Mr. Cohen
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It would not be surprising if Westminster council or Howard de Walden Estates shifted from Waitrose to Tesco in due course if it was thought that that would result in a better profit. My hon. Friend is right. Lady Shirley Porter, the former [...].inster council, is currently up under an adverse report from the district auditor for abuse of her role in the homes-for-votes scandal. My memory goes back further than that, to when she sold—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Cohen
—council homes to hon. Members for 15p.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. If the occupant of the Chair says, "Order," he expects the hon. Member to resume his seat and not to continue his speech. I do not think that detailed references to any member of Westminster city council are appropriate to the amendments before us.

§ Mr. Cohen
I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be appropriate for me just to point out that I met 624 representatives of Tesco because it has opened a store in my constituency, which I welcome, that they played down the Lady Shirley Porter role and that they said that she was a minority shareholder in Tesco? They were keen to distance themselves. I do not want to upset Tesco.
In a way, that is a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), but I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try not to refer again to members of Westminster council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) talked about the promoters' statement. I have not really made progress with my speech in relation to referring to the amendments, but it would he appropriate at this point just to refer to the statement issued on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. I want to refer only to a couple of points.
In paragraph 9, they state: The Moxon Street site was originally acquired by the Greater London Council in 1966 under slum clearance powers. At that time it is understood that the site was to be appropriated to education use". That is the admission from the promoters that, ever since it was bought and came into the control of a public authority, the land was designated for educational use. That is a crucial statement. They use the words "education use." I make that point because Westminster council is saying that the land was actually designated and given to it for a primary school and that there is no need for a primary school, so it can get out of that commitment, but we have it on the record, in the promoters' own statement, that the land was bought and appropriated for education use.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire)
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Cohen
The Minister is shaking his head, but it is in the promoters' own statement and he should take that seriously. The statement talks about not just a primary school, but education use. That is why Westminster council has the land. It got it free of charge for education use. It now wants to get out of that commitment by using a clause at the back of a sex shops Bill and to sell the land at open market development rates, make a big profit out of it, and put in a supermarket and some luxury homes. That smacks of the homes-for-votes scandal, in which the council was accused of gerrymandering.
The land was given for education use. It is in the promoters' own statement. That is a vital point. Out of the promoters' own mouth comes the admission that the land was for educational use, and the House should keep it for educational use, especially as the need for such a use by the university of Westminster clearly exists.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
I want to try to act as a mediator between the Minister and my hon. Friend, who said that in, I think, 1966, the land was designated for education use, which is correct. The Minister appeared to be shaking his head in relation to the point that it was designated for education use. I understand that, in 1991, there was a property transfer order and the Secretary of State for Education satisfied himself, or herself, that the site was needed for a primary school. Of course, if it had not been needed for a primary school, the Secretary of State might have deemed that it should be used for general education purposes. That is where the problem between the two sides arises.

§ Mr. Cohen
I take that point. Westminster council is clutching at straws, pretending that the land was 625 designated only for a primary school and that it does not need one now. It wants to sell the land off on the open market and make a big profit out of it. The reality is, however, that, since it came into public ownership, the land has always been designated for educational use. While the need for it to be used for educational use exists, that commitment should not be snuffed out.
I was extremely disturbed to see the Minister shake his head. It made me think that some cosy deal had been done between the Department for Education and Westminster council. When he makes his speech, the Minister might say that he is neutral, yet it is proposed that the education use mentioned in the promoters' statement should be snuffed out.
In paragraph 11 of their statement, the promoters state: Amendments have been tabled to clause 9. Those are the amendments in my name and those of other hon. Members. The statement continues: The City Council is glad of the opportunity for open discussion about the future of the Moxon Street site". The university of Westminster has told me that, basically, it was listened to politely and ignored. The council has not been that keen to have open discussion about the future of the Moxon street site. The council's planning brief plays down the educational aspects of the argument. I therefore dispute that part of the promoters' statement.
The statement continues: The City Council is glad of the opportunity for open discussion about the future of the Moxon Street site, for which there may in due course be competing proposals. It respectfully submits that it would be premature to prejudge these proposals at the present stage. Those are weasel words because the council is prejudging the issue. That is what clause 9 is all about: prejudging the issue, getting the House to make the change, and getting rid of the educational purpose so that the council can sell the land off to developers. If the council was not prejudging the issue, it would have had full consultation and full discussions with the university of Westminster and all others who are interested before sticking that clause at the bottom of a sex shops Bill and trying to get out of its commitment.
I know that I am not allowed to use the word "lie" about hon. Members, but that statement comes as close as it is possible to come to a lie. Westminster council is prejudging the issue and forcing a Bill with this clause through because it wants to get out of its commitment to use the land for educational use.
Once the council has done that, it will tell anyone who protests and the university of Westminster, which says that we should have a better deal, "Sorry, the proposal has been through Parliament, so don't come and talk to us now. You had your chance. It has been through Parliament and that's it. We got a majority because this neutral Government got their payroll vote out and marched them all through to support Westminster council." That would be prejudging the issue with a vengeance

§ Mr. Sedgemore
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the fundamental and important point that he is making is that whereas the Bill's promoters argue that we can discuss later the use of this land and that we should not try to constrict the clause by accepting any amendments, if the Bill and clause 9 go through as they stand, Westminster council would be obliged by law to get the full market 626 value for the land? It would not even have the option of selling the land, because the district auditor and district valuers would be interested.
Unless the clause is constricted now, there is no chance that any educational establishment, whether Westminster university or any other, could conceivably buy the land because the market value for educational use is considerably below that for commercial use by, for example, Waitrose or for residential development.

§ Mr. Cohen
My hon. Friend makes an extremely telling point. It shows that the whole issue is being prejudged by pushing the Bill through the House in this way. Once the clause is accepted, Westminster council will say that it is obliged under the law of the land to sell the site to the highest bidder. It is no wonder that the property developer put out a leaflet saying that that would be Waitrose. The council thinks that this House can be easily rolled over, and that what happens after that is inevitable.
The promoters' statement says: What is desirable is that the way forward should be worked out in discussion with the interested parties, for the benefit of the area and the community. There is no dispute, so far as the Council is aware, that the obligation to establish a primary school should be removed, and the Promoters therefore submit that clause 9 should be allowed to proceed without amendment. There certainly is a dispute about educational use, as Westminster university has made clear.
On the point about discussion with interested parties, all that the council has done in respect of Westminster university is deal with the matter through a few junior officers. The council has not taken the argument seriously; it has not held discussions in a serious manner. The promoters' statement verges on the scurrilous. I am worried that the House might make a decision on the basis of a statement that is as near as it can be to a lie.
I have strayed a little, but I wanted to explain the background to the amendments. I have already explained amendment No. 26, which is supported by Westminster university.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
My hon. Friend has rightly found cause for criticism of the promoters' statement. Being a modest person, I might use less strong words than my hon. Friend. I would describe the statement as disingenuous rather than scurrilous.
Does not paragraph 10 raise a question about integrity? It claims that pupil numbers in the Moxon street area have fallen, and that there are already 31 schools providing primary education. It states: In the event that clause 9 of the Bill were not enacted the City Council would remain under its statutory duty to build and establish a new primary school". That is essentially a primary school that the council does not want, and which the promoters claim would cost about £3 million.
Of course it would be silly to build a primary school that is not needed at a cost of £3 million. However, the promoters must be aware of the amendments, which have been on the Order Paper for some time, under which the council would not have a duty to build a primary school. If it proved that the £3 million would be wasted 627 expenditure, it would be under a duty to use the site for educational purposes, such as for the Westminster university or even for a nursery school.

§ Mr. Cohen
Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point. He was right to use the word "disingenuous" about the promoters' statement. He is better with language than I am. He was also right to point out that the amendments have been tabled for some time. They encompass what was understood to be the position when the transfer—free of charge—originally took place: that the land would he used for educational purposes.
If the Minister is properly looking after his brief to promote education, he should accept that the land should be used for educational purposes. He should accept the amendment, which is backed by Westminster university. It would enable the university to use the land, and it would not cost £3 million. The promoters' statement is ridiculous. The university has ideas for putting nursery provision on the site to help students with children. That is an important element, and it should be welcomed.

§ Mr. Rooker
My hon. Friend has mentioned the very point that I wanted to raise. The promoters' statement refers to a cost of £3 million. Will the Minister give examples of one-form-entry primary schools—seven classrooms, hall, toilet block and head teacher's office—that have cost £3 million to build? That sum does not include the cost of the land. It is double the rate of building costs for primary schools in Birmingham, and I do not believe that the costs in London would be that great, either. I hope that the Minister will give us examples.

§ Mr. Cohen
My hon. Friend highlights the dubious nature of the promoters' statement. It is an untrustworthy document, and it should not form the basis of a decision to extinguish educational use on such an important site.
As I said, the amendment is supported by Westminster university, and I hope that the Minister and the House will agree to it. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will comment on it fully, and not use weasel words about the difference between a primary school and educational use. He should not say, "I can't do anything about it, so I wash my hands of it." The land should be used for educational purposes. If the Minister wants to fulfil his duties, he should accept the amendment. I hope that he will not say, "I am neutral, and it is nothing to do with me."
Another important amendment is No. 36, which states: It shall remain the duty of the Council to use the land designated for such a school primarily for educational purposes, or for social housing or for a mixture of the two. I am the leading signatory to the amendment, which is also supported by every member of the London Labour group of Members of Parliament. After the next election, that group will have many more members, while the Conservative group will have fewer.
The amendment reflects the position of the Labour opposition on Westminster council. It is a sensible opposition, which is more than can be said about the councillors who have ruled the council—as the evidence clearly shows. The Labour opposition believe that the site should be used for educational purposes, for social housing or for a mixture of the two. The social housing element would be affordable housing, unlike the yuppie homes-for-votes housing that the council envisages producing a huge profit.
628 I do not think that this amendment is incompatible with the amendment that relates to the university of Westminster, and I will be happy if either of the options are taken. I would prefer the site to be used for educational purposes by the university, hut there may he some scope for affordable social housing connected with the university on this land.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
My hon. Friend knows that I am the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. The university of Westminster has supplied hundreds of students with brand new housing association homes at the bottom of Pitfield street and Coronet street. Would the term "social housing" in the amendment include student accommodation such as the university provides on that site? If such housing were of the same quality as that which the university has opened in Hackney within the past few months, it would be superb for the students. Their accommodation would also be nearer to where they are taught.

§ Mr. Cohen
I am again grateful to my hon. Friend, whose intervention shows that the university deserves more from this House and from the Minister than mere words of praise—it deserves practical support. The social mix envisaged by the amendment would include such accommodation, and would be of great benefit to students.
I stress that the social housing would be affordable, and that is the difference between the amendment supported by all the London Labour Members of Parliament and by the honourable opposition on Westminster council, and the amendment proposed by the ruling group on Westminster council. I will not say that that group is corrupt, as you would pull me up, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall pull back from saying that, and we must see what the district auditor says in the report on the homes-for-votes scandal.
The ruling group on Westminster council wants to deal with Waitrose, Tesco and other supermarkets, and with Howard de Walden Estates, so that those involved can make a bloody great profit—[Interruption.] I am sorry; a huge profit. My cockney origins are the getting better of me. I am upset that education is to get a kick in the teeth from Westminster council and from a Conservative Government who pretend to be neutral.
The council's ruling group wants some housing involved in the supermarket and property development deal, but it would be highly expensive luxury housing to fit in with its plans. The district auditor has said that the ruling group's housing policy is aimed not at the people of the borough but at winning votes for the Conservative party in Westminster.
I should have thought that, following that criticism, the group might have stepped back from the policy. But here we see the homes-for-votes policy continuing, because the group thinks that it can get away with tagging this measure on to the end of a sex shops Bill. That is a scandal, especially when the measure is compared with what would be a proper use of the site for educational purposes.
7.45 pm
There are a number of other amendments, but, to save the House some time, I shall summarise them. The best way I can do that is to read the notes on the amendments sent to Members of this House by Dyson Bell Martin, the parliamentary agents for the university of Westminster. 629 The amendments are described as Nos. 1 to 8 in the notes, which does not reflect the numbering on the amendment paper. That does not matter, and I shall read what the agents say about the amendments.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should make his own speech.

§ Mr. Cohen
I take the point, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are various amendments, one of which—

§ Mr. Sedgemore
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I used to be a civil servant and a private secretary to a Minister. We used to write notes in considerably more detail than those to which my hon. Friend was about to refer, and the Minister used to stand up at the Dispatch Box and read them out every time.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I was not in the Chair. [Laughter.]

§ Mr. Cohen
Well done, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I shall summarise the amendments in my own way, although I was trying to save the House some time. Amendment No. 28 seeks to delete the clause whereby the council gets out of its commitment to use the land for educational purposes, and would stop the council using that escape route. The amendment would also mean that the land would then have to be used for educational purposes, and Westminster council would have to think again and come forward with new plans.

§ Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd)
Is not tacking a completely anomalous clause on to private business one of the worst features of such legislation?

§ Mr. Cohen
I agree with my hon. Friend. He raises another point which I intended to deal with later, but which I shall gladly deal with now.
We are debating a Bill which deals with sex shops, and which consists of several detailed pages—eight clauses, none of which is short—concerning sex shops. However, tucked away at the end of the Bill is part III, consisting of three lines which seek to remove the duty to establish a new school. The clause states: Notwithstanding the matters recited in paragraph (5) to (7) of the Preamble to this Act, it shall not be the duty of the council to establish a new county primary school at Moxon street in the city. Tribute has been paid on the Floor to the higher education role of the university, and the Government and the council should be helping the university. It is not right that this matter should be dealt with in a Bill concerning sex shops. That is scandalous, and shows scant regard for this House and for education in Westminster or anywhere else. I understand that that can be done under the procedures of this House, but it is not right. It makes a mockery of the House. Although the issue of sex shops is important, it should be dealt with by legislation that relates only to sex shops.
The educational aspects—the role of the university of Westminster and what, in planning terms, the land should be used for—should not be tagged on to the Bill. The fact that they are makes a mockery of the procedures of the House, even though it is probably okay—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We are dealing with a series of amendments which have been grouped 630 together. The hon. Gentleman is now rehearsing matters that would have been more suitable for the Second Reading debate. We have got beyond that.

§ Mr. Cohen
I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, the House is extremely busy; there are always an enormous number of issues before the House. It is often not possible to look at private Bills as they proceed through the House, especially as this private Bill was about sex shops and then suddenly had a clause about education tagged on to it—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman now has the opportunity to talk about the educational features. I suggest that, if he wishes to do so, he does so now.

§ Mr. Cohen
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been doing so for 50 minutes, and I am happy to continue to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) asked whether it was right procedurally to discuss education under this Bill. The procedure is right, as you have confirmed, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that it is proper to deal with the matter in this way. The House has been treated extremely badly—almost contemptuously.
I come now to the important point that you made, Madam Deputy Speaker, about Second Reading. It was—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to make the point. He must return to the amendments.

§ Mr. Cohen
All I wanted to say was that there was no opportunity to raise the education aspects on Second Reading, because hon. Members had not spotted clause 9 at that time. Indeed, the university of Westminster thought that it would get a fair hearing from Westminster city council, so it did not object or bring hon. Members' attention to the matter at that stage. That was not unreasonable. The university thought that Westminster city council was acting in good faith.
However, it has now found that Westminster council was not acting in good faith. It was not possible, because of the circumstances, for these issues to be raised on Second Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish that it had been. I would have raised the issues myself if I had known that the matter would be dealt with in this way. I would have raised the issues on Second Reading, and I would have done my best to block the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, but—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is now engaging in repetition. He is apparently anxious to talk about educational features. I suggest that he does so.

§ Mr. Cohen
I have made my point, and I will not repeat it.
The other amendments need a little explanation. Amendment No. 29 would insert at the end the words: Within three years from the passing of this Act the council shall, on terms to be approved by the Secretary of State, dispose of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991. That would ensure that the Secretary of State for Education had a role. In addition, as far as I can tell from the information from the parliamentary agent, Dyson Bell Martin and Co., within three years of the Bill being 631 enacted, and with the sale being approved by the Secretary of State, the council would be prevented from carrying out a site swap under which it could transfer an existing council function to Moxon street, and then sell the site that was thus released.
Amendment No. 29 is important because we never know what Westminster council will get up to next. It has forfeited the right to have its measures go through unopposed, and it has forfeited the right to be treated as an honest dealer. The district auditor has, in his provisional findings, cast doubt on the council's probity.
The council might well carry out a site swap. It might put an existing council function on to the Moxon street land, and then sell off the land released in a deal with Howard de Walden Estates Ltd. or with some other property dealer. It might then make a profit on land that was given to it free of charge for educational purposes. Amendment No. 29 is important, because it would prevent the council from doing such a deal.
Amendment. No. 30 would insert at the end the words: This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order. Again, that emphasises that the land should be used for educational purposes.
Amendment No. 30 also draws attention to how the land came into the ownership of Westminster city council. It was Greater London council land; the Government wound up the GLC. The land was then transferred to the Inner London education authority; the Government wound up ILEA. The land then went to the London residuary body, which transferred it to Westminster council, free of charge, for educational purposes.
Westminster council now wants to get out of that deal. The important point here is that, when the LRB, which had all the proceeds of the GLC and ILEA, was wound up, the money was distributed to all the London boroughs, each of which got a fair share.

§ Mr. Robin Squire
Of course.

§ Mr. Cohen
The Minister says, "Of course." It was right that each borough got a fair share. However, the land had been given free to Westminster council by the LRB on the condition that it had to have an educational use. Londoners would not quibble with that, and they would not say that they wanted their handouts. The use of the land for educational purposes was a fair, local use.
Two years after the free gift of land for educational use, Westminster council comes along and says, "We are going to get out of the educational provision, sell the land to a property speculator and make a bloody"—sorry about my language, Madam Deputy Speaker—"a bloomin' great killing." The land came from the LRB, which distributed earlier proceeds across London. The money from property speculation, therefore, is not the money of Westminster council. It is the money of Londoners. It is the money of the people of Hackney—the poorest borough in the country. Hackney residents deserve their share of the money, and Westminster should not use the money of Londoners.

§ Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South)
I can abbreviate this passage of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Were the property to be disposed of by Westminster city council and funds to be realised from 632 it, the money would be distributed to the other boroughs. That is the procedure that would apply to any other similar asset.

§ Mr. Cohen
I am interested in that important comment; I do not doubt the veracity of the words of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). However, I should like to know the mechanism for such a procedure. The LRB has been wound up; the distribution of the GLC and ILEA proceeds has taken place.
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that Westminster council will make a gift of the money to the other 32 London boroughs, and that the amount received will be publicly accountable? That is an interesting statement by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I want to know the mechanism for that distribution. As I said, the LRB has been wound up.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
No doubt the Minister will describe the legal mechanism by which the money from the land can be transferred, if there is a large profit. No doubt the Minister will tell us the legal position later.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the equitable distribution of the money, and the fact that Hackney is the poorest borough in the United Kingdom—a tag that we do not like but which, judging by the indices of poverty published by the Department of the Environment, appears to be correct. People in Hackney are desperately keen on education.
Rather than a small, or even a large, sum of money being shared around, the London borough of Hackney, like all the other inner London boroughs, can only benefit from the land being kept in educational use. It would benefit particularly if the university of Westminster used it.

§ Mr. Cohen
I appreciate that statement. We have mentioned the wide range of needy students who benefit from the work of the university of Westminster. I agree that the best use for the land—far better than a Waitrose, a Tesco or luxury housing—would be for educational purposes and for the university of Westminster; then people in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other London constituencies, as well as people who work in London and can pursue only part-time education, would have the chance to get on the upward escalator and improve their lives. That is the best way forward and the best use for the land, rather than distributing the money.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) for pointing that out and I hope that the Minister will say more about how the money will be distributed. I hope that the Government will recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, it is best to use the land for the education of Londoners. That is what they want. They do not want a few quid to be distributed to the 32 councils; they want the land to be used for education and to improve facilities for our people. That amendment is important and it certainly generated some interest in the House.
Amendment No. 27 would insert at the end of clause 2 'the Order' means the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991. It will enable a definition to he included in the interpretation section, which should contain some definitions of the educational aspect, as all the other 633 definitions in the clause concern sex shops. By referring to the London residuary body transfer, the amendment shows that it took place for educational purposes. That should be included in the interpretation.
Amendment No. 31 adds the following: Within one year of the passing of this Act the council shall transfer without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State the land at Moxon Street which was transferred to the Council by the Order"— the order to which I just referred. The key words are that the land should go without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State". I do not see why the Secretary of State cannot accept that amendment. Why does she persist in this so-called neutrality? The amendment makes it crystal clear. One is either for the land being used for educational purposes—the amendment gives the Secretary of State that power and role—or one does not accept this or any of the other amendments and goes with the clause that snuffs out the educational requirement. It is as simple as that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, the panoply of the law would then come into play and Westminster would have to sell the land off to the highest bidder—the property speculator.
The Under-Secretary of State for Schools cannot get away with that neutrality. The amendment beards him in his den. He is either for the land being used for educational purposes or for it going to speculators and to the highest bidder—to Waitrose or whatever. This professed neutrality will not do. If the hon. Gentleman talks about neutrality, perhaps he will mention that amendment, which offers a straight choice. If he says that he will not do anything to protect the educational use of the land but that he is neutral, he will have to explain his position.
When the LRB transferred the land to Westminster, it intended it to be given to an educational body. That was also the intention of the Inner London education authority—the original owners—and of the Greater London council after 1966. The House should fulfil that intention.
Amendment No. 26 states: (2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless he is satisfied that the council has established that there is insufficient demand to justify the provision of a new county primary school at Moxon street. The amendment would prevent the council from being relieved of the obligation to build a school until the Secretary of State was satisfied that it was not required.
In their disingenuous statement, the promoters said that there was no case for a primary school, but we have not seen any proper figures or information resulting from detailed consultation. We should not just take Westminster council's word in that respect.
Amendment No. 33 adds the words: (2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless the council has: 634

(a) published the reasons for not establishing a new country primary school at Moxon Street; and

(b) consulted in relation to those reasons such persons as appear to the council to be appropriate".

It would require the council to consult the university of Westminster realistically and not, as it has done until now, a few junior officers who are polite but merely say, "Wait until the legislation is enacted and then we'll talk to you." Once the legislation is enacted, they will say, "We have nothing to say to you."
The amendment continues: in the same manner as the council would be obliged to publish and consult upon the establishment, discontinuance or alternation of a school under section 12 of the Education Act 1980. Because the land was transferred free of charge and was clearly always intended to be used for educational purposes, the change should not be brought about through a clause in a sex shop Bill but should be treated in exactly the same way as the discontinuance of a school—under section 12 of the Education Act 1980.
What objection can the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, or any other hon. Member, have to that amendment? It is a serious proposal. It was always intended that there should be a school there—the land was handed over free of charge for that purpose—and, if the council wants to get out of that commitment, the land should be treated as though there were a school there already. That is a reasonable proposal and the Under-Secretary of State could take it on board.
Amendment No. 34, in page 6, line 49, inserts at the end: (2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. (3) Before making an order under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall require the council to submit a scheme for the future ownership and use of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and, where that scheme is for the sale or use of the land other than for educational purposes, the Secretary of State shall direct the council to consult interested persons for the purpose of establishing that the land is not required for any educational purpose. There should be proper consultation on whether the land is required for educational purposes. Westminster council is simply scared. In Baroness Thatcher's words, it is "frit" of a proper consultation because it knows that, other than the big moneyed people—Howard de Walden Estates and property developers—most people in the community, including the university of Westminster, would say that the best use of the land is for education or, as I suggested in an amendment, a bit of social housing as well. Proper consultation should take place before the House allows Westminster council to get away with what it is trying to do.
The final amendment in this cluster, No. 35, is in page 6, line 49, and adds at the end: (2) This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and the use of that land by the council for any purpose other than educational purposes shall be treated as a disposal of that land for the purposes of the Order. The amendment would thus treat the Moxon street site's use for non-educational purposes as a disposal by the council and require the council to account for its value to the Secretary of State, who may require the council to make payments to other ILEA boroughs. That was the point raised by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South.
635 It is interesting that Dyson Bell Martin, the agents of the opponents to the Bill, the university of Westminster, have had to table an amendment saying that arrangements should be made for payment to other ILEA boroughs. Given that the agents have looked closely at the Bill and said that, if the land is to be used for non-educational purposes, an amendment is needed to say how the money will be distributed to other London boroughs, that seriously implies that no such provision exists at the moment. It is an important amendment and I should have thought that the Minister would accept it.
In the interests of clarity, I have summarised the meaning of all the amendments. I should have thought that a Minister responsible for education who was doing his job properly by protecting and enhancing education could accept at least one of those amendments. I now come to the substantive part of my speech.
In 1966, the GLC designated the land at Moxon street for educational purposes, as did the ILEA and the London residuary body. The land was given free of charge to Westminster for educational purposes but, within two years, Westminster council said that it did not need another primary school and set out to relieve itself of that commitment under current law and enter into a cosy deal with land speculators and profiteers.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
I have seen that Westminster changed its mind within two years of the 1991 transfer of property order. The promoter says that it changed its mind because all the figures for primary schools were hopelessly out. Has anyone explained at an earlier stage of the Bill—I have seen none—how such a mistake could be made? The figures for birth rates are fairly standardised and Westminster council must have known about its other school places. What, in such a short space of time, could have brought about such a fundamental change by Westminster council? Might the original transfer of land have been phoney? Perhaps it was not completely open and something was going on behind the scenes.

§ Mr. Cohen
My hon. Friend makes his own point, which casts doubt over the transfer of land. There was some concern that the LRB was a quango which, like so many other quangos set up by the Government, had a Conservative in charge, and that a deal might have been done between the two Conservative leaders on the transfer of land. The LRB was not particularly friendly to Labour councils that wanted to transfer land, yet that transfer went through relatively easily and free of charge. So my hon. Friend might have a point. I do not know. I must assume that the LRB acted in good faith. ILEA certainly acted in good faith and believed that the land would be used for educational purposes and that the first in the queue was a primary school. As my hon. Friend says, the figures must have been worked out at that time, just three years ago.
The land was given free of charge because it was believed that a primary school was needed. For Westminster council now to say that those arguments and figures were spurious is extremely disturbing. As my hon. Friend says, it casts doubt on the original transfer of land, although I still prefer to believe that the LRB acted in good faith and thought that the land was needed for an important educational purpose. It was probably in ILEA's mind when 636 it made that transfer that, if the land was not used for a primary school, it could go to the university of Westminster. It is interesting that the promoter and Westminster council talk in their document of "educational purposes". I suspect that that is what they had in mind.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
I hope that my hon. Friend does not find me tedious if I ask him to help me on the same point. Paragraph 10 of the promoter's statement says: Pupil numbers in the area of Moxon street have not risen as anticipated". If one has studied logic, as I did at university, one would realise that that statement could have many meanings. It could mean that the birth rate was lower than anticipated, although I find that difficult to believe. It could mean that pupils in that area are being sent other schools. We hear that there are 31 schools within the area and that a school called St. Vincent's is next to that site—which makes it bizarre that such a transfer took place. It could mean that the whole of the educational planning by the local educational authority went hopelessly awry. What does that statement mean?

§ Mr. Cohen
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If Westminster council wanted to get out of its commitment, it should have justified that statement. My hon. Friend's question takes me back to the point that some sort of deal may have been done between the LRB and Westminster council. If it was not a deal, Westminster council may have been disingenuous in its original representation to the LRB for the land. Perhaps it went to the LRB and said, "Give us that land free of charge because we need it for a primary school and can produce figures to show that." The LRB, in good faith, gave the council the land on that reasoning, and now the same council has stepped down from that argument without providing those figures.
That is a serious allegation that my hon. Friend is, not making, but hinting at. It is such a serious allegation that, before the House makes any progress on that matter, we should see all the documents relating to the original transfer by the LRB of that land to Westminster. We should know what the documents said then. I am not sure whether quangos keep proper records, but I hope they do. If they do not, that would tell us a lot about quangos and that one in particular and the way in which it was run.
Let us assume that the LRB kept proper records. We should have the right to see them. We should be able to read what Westminster council said the pupil numbers would be, and to read the arguments. I hope that they would all be minuted. That should all be out in public for us to read, because the allegation that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch makes has serious implications.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
For the avoidance of doubt, because it is a serious matter, I make it clear that I am not making any allegations. I am asking what I call pertinent and perhaps difficult questions, but surely it is the function of the House, when a Bill such as this comes before it, to question issues that appear to be incomprehensible.
I do not suggest that anyone has done anything improper; I merely ask questions. I think that my hon. Friend is moving towards the conclusion that something improper may have happened, but nothing is further from my mind. I am simply acting as an investigative Back-Bench Member of Parliament.

§ Mr. Cohen
I appreciate my hon. Friend's statement of his position; it was honourable for him to make it. It is 637 right for Members of Parliament to ask such questions, and they deserve answers. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend said, I am taking the implication of what he says and turning it into an allegation, but when one deals with a council such as Westminster council it is not surprising that any person of logic—my hon. Friend referred to logic—would start to make such implications. It makes the case for full and open disclosure of what took place at the time of that transfer and of what Westminster said at that time even more relevant and worthy of answers from the Secretary of State and from Westminster council.
In considering that matter, I spoke to a couple of opposition councillors on Westminster council. I shall put before the House a couple of their comments, because I believe that they are relevant. First, I spoke to Councillor Ben Summerskill about the subject, and he told me that he thought that there possibly was a need for the school to be there; he was not sure. It is interesting in itself that he was not sure whether there was a need. That shows that Westminster council has not come clean with the figures regarding the need—but I shall not hark back to the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch made a short time ago.
Mr. Summerskill said: What the Council is doing … the site is targeted … by Lady Porter for yuppie housing in a marginal ward, Cavendish. That is the comment that he made to me over the telephone. He said: they are now trying to do a deal with a supermarket. Mr. Summerskill told me during the discussion—or perhaps I told him: I am not sure; I have only a note of our telephone conversation—that the land should be used for a school, or the university of Westminster should have the land because it is desperate for accommodation. There is a note of that conversation.
Because the university of Westminster cannot get its hands on that sort of site in Westminster, it is being forced to build on a site in Harrow. That is disgraceful treatment from the council and the Government. An argument was made earlier about part-time workers in the City of London needing that educational facility. If they work in the district around Marylebone and Baker street and want to improve themselves, why should they not go to a site in Westminster? What will it do for their educational opportunities if they have to go off to Harrow? People in Harrow may be able to take advantage of a site there, but what about those people in central London? That site should have been available for them in Westminster.
That was a good part of my conversation with Councillor Summerskill, which I have related to the House. I return to the argument that the site has been targeted, in a marginal ward, for yuppie housing. Those were Councillor Summerskill's words, and that is a serious allegation, bearing in mind the district auditor's report, which said that the council misused about £21 million in a housing policy designed for gerrymandering—homes for votes. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has produced a paper that shows that the spending was much more than £21 million—it was £100 million.
I see that you are becoming a bit edgy, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall leave that subject. However, this does cast light on the argument. There is a choice between the land being used for educational purposes—for a school or for the university of Westminster, which I believe would 638 be the best use—and it being used for yuppie housing. We either have social housing for students—perhaps some housing association homes which are affordable—or yuppie housing in a marginal ward. The latter smacks of things that are untoward, bearing in mind the district auditor's provisional findings about Westminster council.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
I do not believe there is any reason why my hon. Friend should become edgy about this matter. If there were the slightest suggestion that that was in any way related to obtaining votes—that it was some homes-for-votes scandal—it would provide the House with the strongest possible reason for rejecting clause 9. If there were the slightest suggestion that what my hon. Friend has just said will happen, it would be immoral of the House to allow the clause to pass. I am sure that even the present Government, if they thought that that was partially true or even might be true, would want to desist from allowing the clause to pass and would ask further questions about it.
Is it only a suspicion based on a feeling of a lack of trust or a feeling that Westminster council lacks integrity, or have there been any conversations about that? Are there any documents? Do we need some kind of—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has intervened on a number of occasions. I have no quarrel with that, but each intervention seems to be getting slightly longer than the previous one. I think that he will know my views that interventions should be short and sharp.

§ Mr. Cohen
I accept my hon. Friend's argument, and Mr. Ben Summerskill's argument about the land being targeted for that yuppie housing speaks for itself.
My hon. Friend asks whether there are any documents to show Westminster's intentions. Its planning brief refers to using the land for a supermarket and some luxury housing in a deal with speculators. There is that doubt. The shadow over that land is cast by the district auditor's report on what Westminster council was doing. There is that shadow of doubt, and it is quite a dark shadow—a dark stain, actually. It is a dark stain on Westminster council.
One would have thought that Westminster council would keep its hands clean in those circumstances, yet here we have its proposal which smacks of the supposition that the policy of homes for votes has not been abandoned by the Westminster Tories. That is a serious matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch has said, if there is a hint of that homes-for-votes policy—clearly there is—the House should not agree to clause 9. It should accept one of my amendments—I do not care which one—so that the land is kept for educational purposes for the benefit of the university of Westminster. The Minister and the promoters should respond to that serious charge and come clean on how the proposal is tied up in with the homes-for-votes scandal.
I also had a word with Councillor Peter Bradley of the Westminster Labour group. He told me that the site should be designated for housing to meet the needs of local people or for the education of local people. In his view, those objectives should remain the primary uses of the land.
639 8.30 pm
Councillor Bradley said that the GLC site had been given to Westminster council free of charge, and that when the council took over the land from the LRB, it said that it would be used for educational purposes. Within a couple of months, however, it changed its mind. It is therefore clear that there was some action behind the scenes about that land.
Councillor Bradley also told me that Howard de Walden Estates has plans for a food store and a car park on the site. That is confirmed in the planning brief. Howard de Walden Estates does not own the site, but it controls access to it. In effect, it is holding Westminster council, the university of Westminster and the House to ransom. It is using its interest in a little bit of access land to pull the council into booting the university of Westminster in the teeth. It can then strike a deal for a food store, a car park and perhaps luxury housing.
I do not know whether the council officers got involved in the deal through naivety, or whether they decided that they had to deal with Howard de Walden Estates given its little bit of access land and power. I suspect that might be the case. They have failed to use their common sense and ask about the best use of the land. They have failed to take into account the site's history, when it was handed over free of charge for educational purposes. If those officers had considered that and asked the relevant questions, they would have realised that the land should be used for educational purposes by the university of Westminster.
I suspect that planning officers thought, "Oh dear. Howard de Walden Estates has got some access and a bit of control over the site. We'd better fall into line with everything that it wants." That may be one scenario, in which case those planning officers are not doing their job properly. The House therefore has a duty to take an overview on the best use of the land and should not allow one private property developer to hold the council to ransom.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
rose—

§ Mr. Cohen
My hon. Friend had better be brief, because Madame Deputy Speaker pulled him up for speaking for too long in his previous intervention.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
I am having some difficulty in following my hon. Friend's argument. If a school was to built on the site, access would be needed for people and vehicles. If someone is now arguing about access held by Howard de Walden Estates, either there must have been some mistake in the original planning or that is a spurious argument.

§ Mr. Cohen
My hon. Friend may be right that that is a spurious argument. All I am doing is relating my telephone conversation with Councillor Peter Bradley.
Howard de Walden Estates has obviously got significant leverage in some way or other either over planning officers or the Conservative councillors because it has been given, or is in the process of being everything that it has asked for by Westminster council.
According to Councillor Bradley, the council's development brief "represents a blank cheque" to Howard de Walden Estates. I am not sure that that is a spurious argument. It is beneficial for the issue to be considered in the House because it means that it is made public. We 640 should know all the facts before the Bill, and specifically clause 9, is passed and extinguishes the educational use of the land.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
Before my hon. Friend and I get at a loggerheads over a confusion, it is clear that I am losing the power of coherent speech, because I did not suggest that my hon. Friend's argument might be spurious. I suggested that the argument of the planners might be spurious.

§ Mr. Cohen
That is a good point. It certainly appears that the planners have caved in and, as Councillor Bradley said, given Howard de Walden Estates a blank cheque. Westminster council owes us an explanation about that.
I sought to raise this matter during Education Question Time on 24 January. I got close to getting some information because my oral question was the next one to be asked and the Minister was briefed with the answer. Just at that moment Madam Speaker said that time was up and we moved on to Prime Minister's Questions. I had tabled a question To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received relating to the City of Westminster Bill[Lords]; and what was her response. In a written answer, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools said: There has been correspondence with Westminster city council about the need for clause 9 of the Bill which would relieve the local education authority of its duty under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 to build a new school at Moxon Street. No other correspondence about this aspect of the Bill has been received."— [Official Report, 24 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 163.] It would be interesting to know exactly what correspondence the Minister received from Westminster city council; whether it lobbied him for support and how that influenced his attitude.
The Under-Secretary should have spoken to the university of Westminster once he had had notification of the proposal from the council. I understand that he is busy and has a big job trying to clear up the mess in education that the Government have created over the years. The Minister may laugh but class sizes are shooting up and—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going very wide of the amendments under consideration. I remind him also that he is beginning to rehearse his arguments. I shall watch that carefully.

§ Mr. Cohen
I will try not to rehearse my arguments. I was referring to a parliamentary answer on the specific subject that was given on 24 January. The Minister claims to be neutral and that it is nothing to do with him. That amounts to a brush-off of the university of Westminster, but it does not stop Ministers, Conservative councillors and officials at the Department for Education from criticising universities such as the university of Westminster for what they claim to be their high costs. They have sometimes been referred to in inspection reports.
Those high costs are incurred because the university of Westminster has to operate from a number of diverse, small campuses. That is why it has developed plans to replace a number of those smaller sites with five large sites by the year 2000. As I have told the House already, one of those sites is going to be not in Westminster but in Harrow. The Moxon street land would be ideal for such a site.
641 There is a chance to solve, at least partially, the university of Westminster's problems. It is not right that the Department of Education should ignore the university while criticising it for high costs that are brought about by having diverse sites.

§ Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton)
Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent survey of staff at Westminster which showed that one of the problems that they identified in their work at the university was the dispersal of sites? As my hon. Friend rightly said, the dispersal includes a site in Harrow. Therefore, for the very best of educational reasons, an attempt to bring an element of concentration to the university's operations would greatly assist staff morale and improve the quality of education generally.

§ Mr. Cohen
That is an excellent point. That point from the Labour Front Bench, which is currently the Opposition, was very ministerial. Increasingly, right across the board, statements from the Opposition sound more and more like the statements of a Government. The Government are a shambles.
My hon. Friend's remark showed that he is aware of the problems of the university of Westminster. If he were in the Department of Education, he would help the university. Its aim of improving education opportunities for Londoners is my hon. Friend's aim, too. If my hon. Friend were a Minister, even though he would be busy cleaning up the mess on education left behind by the Conservative Government, he would send an official to have a word with the university of Westminster and ask it what its problems were. He would have told the university that the Bill was before the House and that the council wanted to get out of its commitment to using the land for educational purposes and asked what it thought of the matter. That is what would have happened. It did not happen under the Government. The university of Westminster has been given the brush-off.
The Minister should have intervened. He is responsible for education and for improving education. That is his job and he should have taken that on board in this case. If he had, he would have been backing the university of Westminster.
I say that there is a proven educational need but Westminster council is trying to extinguish that commitment. It is justifiable to extinguish such a commitment to educational purposes—for which it got the land free of charge—only if there is no need for those education purposes. I submit that there is a need.
I have a letter from Dr. S. M. K. Wilmington, the chairman of the governors of the St. Marylebone school, of 64 Marylebone High street, W1M 4BA. He says: Dear Mr. Cohen City of Westminster I understand that you were one of the three Members of Parliament who opposed the private Bill the city of Westminster is promoting, Clause 9 of which deals with the former county primary school in Moxon Street. I thought accordingly that you might find it helpful to have a copy of the attached letter to Councillor Robert Davies of 22 March from one of my fellow Governors. This is the culmination of a long correspondence between ourselves and Westminster members and officers. He encloses a copy of the letter to Councillor Robert Davies, the chairman of the planning committee at Westminster, from Robin Majdalany. He says: 642 Moxon Street Site I write in advance of the meeting planned for the 10th of April to express my concern with regard to the planning brief for the Moxon Street site. This appears to imply an intention on the part of the council to dispose of the site. I wish to enquire how the education needs of the area will be satisfied, and whether an option might be retained for a development to incorporate a school. I write on behalf of the St. Marylebone school which, as you may know, is restricted on its present site. The site is held in trust for the benefit of the School. The School can neither move out of London, nor develop the present site further. There is considerable demand for places at the School and the Governors believe that growth in the capacity of the School can only be accommodated on a site fairly close to the present school premises in St. Marylebone. Moxon Street would provide an ideal and close site for this purpose. I trust that you will be able to take our interest into consideration in your deliberations of the planning brief. May I also ask for a response with regards to the points raised". 8.45 pm
That is a letter from a nearby school, the St. Marylebone school in Marylebone High street, saying that there is a need for a school on the site. It is crystal clear from the governors of that school that there is a need for a school on the site. Yet all we have had is assertions from Westminster council and the promoters that there is now no longer a need for a school. Those assertions are shown to be false by the letter from the governors of St. Marylebone school. The fox has been shot by that letter. There is clearly a need for a school and assertions that there is not are downright untrue. We should not pass clause 9 on the basis of untrue assertions.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
Could my hon. Friend tell me how what he has just said, which I have not heard before, fits in with the statement of the promoters? They say: The City Council would therefore be in the position of having to build a school in a part of the City where there is little demand, to the detriment of educational provisions in other parts of the borough. I do not know whether my hon. Friend's letter came from a teacher or head teacher but it says that there is a demand. How do those two statements square with each other?

§ Mr. Cohen
That is exactly my point. The first letter that I have read into the record was from Dr. Wilmington, the chairman of the governors. The letter to Councillor Davies was from Robin Magdalene, MA, FCA, FRSA. He has plenty of qualifications. I want plenty of qualifications for Londoners through the use of the site. He is a governor and chairman of the finance and premises committee. I will not repeat it, but he clearly says that St. Marylebone school is restricted on its present site and that there is much demand for places at the school that is not being fulfilled.
The Prime Minister—I do not know how long he will be Prime Minister—said only last week that the Conservatives were for giving parents choice about schools. It is not choice. It is the right to express a preference. There are not really places available. The Minister may laugh but when I wrote to him or his predecessor last year giving cases of people who cannot have their choice and asking him to intervene, his Department refused and said that it was a matter for the local authority. It is about a preference, not a choice.
The surface language and the presentation from the Government is that there is a choice. Here we have a school to which many parents want to send their children. It is restricted on its present site, children cannot get in 643 and parents cannot have their choice met. If the site, or part of it, was made available to them, the Government's language of choice could become more of a reality. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) was absolutely right. The nonsense and disingenuousness of the statement issued by the promoters has been exposed.
Representations have been received from the university of Westminster. Professor Burlin sent a briefing to hon. Members which said: Within two years, the City of Westminster had reached a radically different view of projected numbers of children, and was seeking through the current Bill … to be released from the requirement to build a primary school on the Moxom Street site. Planning guidelines have been produced … indicating a predominantly residential development,("a substantial number of new, high quality, residential units") and other uses, including retail development. There we have it: Westminster council wants to build luxury houses and a supermarket.
Professor Burlin went on: Much local publicity has been given in preparing for the expectation that, if the Bill is successful, Westminster will sell the site to the Howard de Walden Estate, providing a Waitrose supermarket and residential development. Other property developers are believed to be interested. Incidentally, he included with his briefing an article from the Hampstead and Highgate Express of 12 May 1995. The article is headed "Rivals line up for prime site battle". It is reported that, as the university developer and supermarket chain prepare to fight it out, there is an "unseemly scramble" for a car park. It is only unseemly because of the action of Westminster council which is trying to make a profit out of the site. The article also states: The Howard de Walden estates, the largest landowner in the area, has so far been the most vocal of the parties interested in the site. The estate sees itself as a natural choice to buy the site, as it owns many of the properties that surround it and would therefore avoid running into the access problems that would discourage others. The estate has teamed up with Waitrose and set out its stall in a new publication, The Marylebone Newsletter, which was recently distributed to local residents trumpeting the happy headline 'It's Waitrose!"' It also states: For the University of Westminster, acquisition of the site would be a godsend, enabling it to expand its Marylebone Road site and ditch some of the smaller, cripplingly expensive venues that it is currently forced to lease all around the borough. Perhaps the most legitimate claim to the land is the most neglected. The University of Westminster has an undeniable claim to a property that, after all, was intended for educational use. It then praises the university.
The article concludes by quoting Professor Burlin,who said: We might not be able to compete financially with a developer like the Howard de Walden estate or a supermarket chain like Waitrose … They may be able to bid more money—but what it really comes down to is the value the council actually puts on education in Westminster. It is not only a question of the value that the council places on education but of the value that the Government and the House place on it.
644 There are two options. If we allow the clause to be passed, Westminster will be duty bound, as has been said, to sell the site to property developers and the supermarket chain. Otherwise, the commitment is retained and the site is allowed to be used for educational purposes, in which case we place the proper value on education, as Professor Burlin said.
In his briefing to hon. Members, Professor Burlin said: Since this site was acquired by the GLC in 1966, it has been promised for educational use … If it were put on the open market, there is no way that educational organisations, such as colleges or universities, could compete with the financial resources of developers. Therefore, to retain the site for educational purposes, it is vital that it remains designated for such purposes Although the site may not now be required as a primary school, there are other important uses which, when they are examined, justify retaining the educational designation. These are nursery provision and post-compulsory education … The University of Westminster runs an over-subscribed day nursery on the Marylebone campus close to Moxon street, and with more space would be happy to cooperate in increasing various forms of nursery provision in the area. I do not want to read all the briefing into the record—I would if I had more time—but it is clearly relevant. It states that the proven need for an expansion of full-time and part-time higher education is being ignored.
The briefing goes on to say that the university has been trying to overcome its problems caused by being dispersed uneconomically over 20 sites and has a programme to consolidate on five major sites by the year 2000. It continues: Purchasing a further major building, against commercial competition, would overstrain our resources, given that many of the properties we have for disposal are leased rather than owned. If the university had the site in question, it would not have to replicate such facilities as refectories and libraries and services such as heating, caretaking and cleaning. The university of Westminster has shown how it could cut its costs while pointing out the diversity of its needs.
Another briefing was sent to hon. Members earlier this year. I do not want to spend too much time on it, but it states: The mission of the University of Westminster is to be the leading provider in the capital city of a high quality accessible portfolio of higher education and associated strategic research.

§ Mr. Bryan Davies
Does my hon. Friend think that the university of Westminster might have approached the local authority with rather greater optimism some time ago when the authority might have had a greater awareness of the university's history—its first constituent college was founded by the first Lord Hailsham, or Quintin Hogg—and of its long association with that aspect of the Conservative party which always showed itself to be concerned with education and the good of the people of London? Now, the university seems to be dealing with the modern and rather different Conservative Administration, who have different values.

§ Mr. Cohen
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The university has certainly been treated poorly by the current Conservative council and by the Minister who, despite his so-called neutral stance, has not done what an Education Minister should have done. The present Conservatives have not listened properly, and I think my hon. Friend is probably right to say that the Conservatives of the past were concerned about education and would 645 probably have given the university a fairer hearing than the current lot, who are interested only in land speculation, property development and such commercial activities.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. However, I thought that he was going to make a different point: I thought that he was going to suggest that the university of Westminster would get a better hearing if clause 9 were not passed.
That is certainly true. If the clause is passed, the Conservatives on Westminster council who are not interested in education—who turn a deaf ear to it—will say that, because the legislation has been passed by Parliament, they have a duty under the law to sell the site to the highest bidder. The university of Westminster will not get any sort of hearing once the legislation is passed.
If we are to strengthen the hand of the university of Westminster in its discussions with the council, it is absolutely crucial that we do not pass the clause and that we pass the amendments to which I have referred. In view of the nature of the Conservatives with whom the university is dealing, it is correct that the House should try to strengthen the university's hand—the hand of education—in the negotiations. My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.
9 pm
In the January briefing, the university of Westminster said that it is building on a major site in Harrow which it owns. However, that removes educational facilities from central London and the communities which they serve. That is a very good point. The briefing states: The Moxon Street site … would be ideally located for a major building of the University of Westminster". It continues: Architects have undertaken preliminary drawings and estimate the site would accommodate a building with 17,000 sq m floor space. This would provide a large building in an ideal location for the University".

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is now repeating arguments that he has already put to the House.

§ Mr. Cohen
I do not wish to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was trying to put the argument in the words of the lobbyist, Professor Burlin. Some hon. Members cast doubt upon the statements that I made earlier in the debate and suggested that I was not stating the facts. I have tried to show that that information has not come from me; it has come from Professor Burlin, the university of Westminster and the St. Marylebone school. Professor Burlin's briefings and the letter from St. Marylebone's school show that there is a clearly established need for the site to be used for educational purposes.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Leyton has made his view quite clear on several previous occasions. He is repeating the arguments.

§ Mr. Cohen
I do not want to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Bryan Davies
My hon. Friend is seeking to stress that the authority he is now quoting—the vicechancellor—was acting in an entirely dispassionate way. He has no conceivable political axe to grind; he is simply concerned about the educational opportunities of his 646 institution in relation to the decision about that crucial piece of land. Therefore, it is rather important that my hon. Friend develops clearly the arguments that Professor Burlin has put to several hon. Members but which have not been clarified on the Floor of the House as yet.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Member for Leyton that he should be giving his own speech. He may wish to adduce the arguments of others, but it is not a sufficient excuse for him to repeat a series of other people's arguments as a means of getting around the strictures that I have just offered him.

§ Mr. Cohen
I understand your concern, Madam Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can help the House? You always guide us beautifully and we accept your guidance every time, but I am slight puzzled about this. What if my hon. Friend quotes 500 high-powered sources who are saying roughly the same thing? It has never stopped Ministers quoting 500 high-powered sources, so why should it stop Back Benchers doing the same?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for Leyton has already received the answer: it is incumbent upon hon. Members to make their own speeches and not simply to quote from other sources, however eminent, as a substitute for their own views.

§ Mr. Cohen
I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. You were correct in describing the sources as "eminent"; Professor Burlin, who is speaking on behalf of the university of Westminster, is certainly eminent. Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand what you have said about not repeating my argument and I do not want to do that. I was seeking to add emphasis and to give weight to my point.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member has already done that; he does not need to do it again.

§ Mr. Cohen
That is fair enough, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to make it clear that those points were not mine but those of the eminent people whom I quoted. My hon. Friend, in his intervention, made a good point about Professor Burlin—a new point, not made before. From Professor Burlin's point of view, this is not a party political matter. I am sorry in some ways that a Labour Member must raise the matter on behalf of the university. I am trying not to make my speech party political.
In some areas, doubt has been cast on Westminster city council. I am afraid that the district auditor's report will become a party political issue, but the arguments concerning the university must be judged on their merits. I just wish that the Minister would do so and that, when there is a vote at the end of this debate, hon. Members who have not been present in the Chamber will consider the arguments on their merits and not treat the matter as party political. If they did that and considered the points made by Professor Burlin in a non-party political fashion, they would not agree to clause 9.
Dyson Bell Martin drew attention to the meetings between the university of Westminster and the council. I have made this point before but I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will allow me to quote Dyson Bell Martin, which is important in this context: The University of Westminster has been interested in acquiring part or all of the site for educational purposes since it became clear that the Council did not intend to build a school on it. University 647 representative have met members and officials of the Council at various times to discuss the matter. All such meetings have been polite, but rarely helpful and it is apparent that the Council has never had any intention of entering into serious discussions with the University about the land remaining in educational use. That is all that I shall quote; otherwise, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will accuse me of repetition.
That quotation makes a weighty point about the council's treatment of the university, which the council has not taken seriously. Once the council gets the Bill in the form that it wants, it would not have to take the university seriously and will not do so. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make that point.
I will address next the planning brief, which is new information. I should like to take the House through some aspects of that brief, which is a long document.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is speaking to a group of amendments. If he wants to use the planning brief to support his amendments, that will be all right—but he is not here simply to go through a series of documents.

§ Mr. Cohen
I will not do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will notice that I have just a few sheets of paper. Otherwise I might have read out the whole planning brief. In fact, of course, I would not have done so because you would have stopped me. I have selected key areas of the brief which relate to the use of the land for educational purposes and I will quote relevant parts in support of my amendments. I am sure that you will stop me if any of them are not relevant.
The planning brief is entitled "Main issues arising from the public consultation exercise" but, amazingly, it gives no specific consideration to educational use issues, particularly in respect of the university of Westminster. The extinction of the land for education purposes has been virtually taken for granted by Westminster council in its planning brief. That is shocking. One of the central arguments is that the site should be used for education purposes and that the university of Westminster should have first crack at the land—in other words, the option to use it. Yet the planning brief virtually ignores that argument. I accept that the argument is taken up in little bits but it is not dealt with coherently. It is not considered as an option.
The council has virtually taken it for granted that it will get its Bill through the House and thereby extinguish education use. That enhances the argument advanced by Dyson Bell Martin that the university has been treated extremely badly. Indeed, it has been virtually ignored by the council.
The planning brief refers to Howard de Walden Estates and a food supermarket. That is something that gets plenty of space in the brief. Indeed, it seems to have coloured the council's views. I shall not repeat that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely say that the largest landowner in the area, Howard de Walden Estates, had a bearing on the council officers' views when they came to prepare the brief. There was little discussion about education use and plenty of discussion about a food supermarket and what Howard de Walden Estates wants. It is not an especially sensible planning brief.
The planning brief includes a planning history of the site. It states: It was intended to be a short term measure"— 648 that is, the use of the site as a car park— pending redevelopment on a properly planned basis for educational purposes. That does not mean a primary school but use for "educational purposes". That was stated in February 1995. That is what appears in the brief. The council officers make it clear that the land would be used for a car park pending redevelopment on a properly planned basis for educational purposes. The officers have given the game away. The history of the land turned on "education purposes", and that is why it was given to Westminster. The Minister is again looking exasperated. Let him understand that I am referring to the words in the brief. There we have it, "education purposes". Whatever the result of the Division, the argument is won. The site should be used for "education purposes".
We are told in the brief that the policies set out in the development plan are guided by a number of long-standing planning objectives, of which maximising residential accommodation and ensuring a high quality environment are the most important to the development of the Moxon Street site. It adds that new residential building is usually by way of demolition and replacement rather than providing substantial net increases of housing on previously non-residential land. On the whole, however,opportunities for such gains in the future will be few. It was referring to opportunities to obtain sites for social housing. The same goes for sites for educational purposes and opportunities to improve the environment. Such opportunities will be few. We are talking about a busy, built-up, urban area. The opportunities for social housing and educational land will be few. That was in the officers' brief.
9.15 pm
So why should a supermarket be put on the site? If it is a matter of scarcity, what should be the priority? The future opportunities of land for the university of Westminster, are not in Harrow, in Timbuctoo or on the moon, but in Westminster in central London. Aneurin Bevan said that socialism was the language of priorities. In many ways, politics is the language of priorities. The House has to decide on priorities. If the opportunities are few, I say that the land would be best used for educational purposes and some social housing rather than a supermarket. It is there in the planning brief. It says: opportunities for such gains in the future will be few.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point several times. I do not think that any of us can have failed to take it in.

§ Mr. Cohen
I hope that the Minister and other hon. Members have indeed taken it in. I was about to move on, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was just my way of emphasising the point.
The planning brief goes on to say: Creche and nursery facilities would also be appropriate. Having regard to the long history of school proposals on the site, educational use—including higher education—is also considered appropriate. Then the planning brief goes off at a strange tangent which shows how the officers were thinking. It refers to a creche for staff, shoppers and community use. 649 It said that there was a need for nursery and creche facilities and for higher education premises on the site. I have read out Professor Burlin's letter, in which he said that the university would love to have the site to improve its nursery provision and creche facilities on its main site.
While the officers recognise that there is a need for such facilities, they do not attribute the need to the university of Westminster but go off at a tangent talking about shoppers. That shows how their minds were working and how they their attitudes were coloured by Howard de Walden Estates. They had it fixed in their minds that they would go for the supermarket. But the truth has come out: nursery facilities can be provided without a supermarket being built—they can be provided by the university. That is an important point.
The planners go on to say: With regard to the Moxon Street site, traditional plot width articulation would be an advantage—particularly if residential elements are to be incorporated—and the design may benefit from additional emphasis on the corners. If the site includes educational use the relevant part of the development should have an appropriately designed civic character. Any development should incorporate traditional, high quality materials. That was the officers' thinking about educational use. That was almost their sole reference to the argument that the site could be used for educational purposes. Then along comes the deal with the developers for a supermarket and the educational use gets flung out of the window.
The section of the planning brief that I have just read out gives a clue to the thinking of the council. It did not intend to give a fair and proper hearing to the University of Westminster.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point several times. It does not need rehearsing again.

§ Mr. Cohen
I am not rehearsing it, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am just pointing it out.
I come finally to the planning brief appendix. The House will appreciate that the brief is an inadequate document. The consultation on it was inadequate and that alone puts the preamble in doubt. Westminster council is taking a momentous step in extinguishing educational use for that land and putting the boot into the university, and it is doing that on the basis of an inadequate planning brief. The House should not tolerate that. We should send the whole thing back and say, "Think again and consult properly with the university."
There was amazing consultation towards the end of the exercise with people who responded to the council. Right in the forefront is Howard de Walden Estates and the answer to everything that it wants is, "Yes, yes, yes." The appendix shows that the answer to whatever it asked for was yes.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has also made that point several times.

§ Mr. Cohen
Appendix 2 in the table of consultation—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. In the House we do not proceed in debate simply by extensive quotations from documents. Hon. Members are expected to make their 650 own speeches, adducing particular points if they wish, but they are not expected simply to go through a whole series of documents.

§ Mr. Cohen
These are crucial documents and it was through them that the Bill came to the House. I am dealing with the consultation by virtue of which the council says that it is justified in extinguishing educational use for the site and putting a food supermarket on the land.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have explained that references to documents are in order. However, the hon. Gentleman is now engaging in considerable repetition of arguments that he has already put forward.

§ Mr. Cohen
I do not think that I am doing that.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I say that the hon. Gentleman is doing that. Is he challenging my ruling?

§ Mr. Cohen
No, I am certainly not challenging your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am trying not to be repetitious. An analysis of my speech will show that it is my own. I have referred to documents, but only to relevant ones and I have quoted the appropriate parts and commented on them. If I had referred only to the documents, my speech would have been over in half an hour; as I have said, I have sought to comment on the relevance of the documents and I shall continue to do that.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to confuse quality with quantity.

§ Mr. Cohen
I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the House will not confuse quality with quantity—the quantity of the quids in a deal with property developers and the quality of educational use. Education should be provided on this site. That is the quality and quantity argument that the debate is all about.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
Is my hon. Friend aware that his stance of argumentum ad verecundiam is one of the most powerful ways of debating that is known to mankind? If my hon. Friend wants that translated, it means arguing by reference to wise authority.

§ Mr. Cohen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, I do not propose to take that line of argument as I might upset you even more, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to do that—I want to make my own speech.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. One can also argue ad nauseam.

§ Mr. Brooke
Following the substantial conspiracy theory that the hon. Gentleman has adopted for the past half hour or so, would he like to tell the House how many planning applications are before Westminster city council for the Moxon street site, including those from the university of Westminster?

§ Mr. Cohen
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question himself when he makes his short speech, as I propose to sit down and allow him to do so. What value, however, is a planning application from the university of Westminster if the law has changed, as would be the case under the Bill? If the law has changed, the council is under no obligation to use the land for educational purposes.
651 As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said in an intervention a long time ago, and as was made clear by Dyson Bell Martin in its correspondence, Westminster council would be under an obligation to sell the land to the highest bidder. A planning application from the university of Westminster would be worthless in those circumstances. If the planning application is to be meaningful, it would therefore be best for the House not to pass the clause and for one of my amendments to be passed instead. If the right hon. Gentleman is putting weight on the university of Westminster's planning application, he should support one of my amendments so that it can become a meaningful application.
I am coming to a close because I want to give other hon. Members a chance to speak, although I could continue for longer. I want to continue without, I hope, referring to the planning brief too much. I am trying not to do that—I have dealt briefly with that brief. In the consultation, the recommendations of the university of Westminster were greeted repeatedly with the answer "no". Other people were consulted. The Marylebone Association said: For a supermarket to be viable it would have to attract thousands of people from outside the area. This would increase traffic in the area, which the surrounding streets are unsuited for. Additional traffic could cause gridlock in the area, noise and air pollution in this largely residential area. It adds that, as well as traffic problems, there would be night-time delivery problems. Again, you will not let me quote directly, Madam Deputy Speaker, but clearly there would be traffic problems. In its reply, the council says: The City Council is concerned that a supermarket use, if granted planning permission, provides for local needs and does not attract traffic into the area. The traffic, highway and environmental implications of a proposed supermarket use will be assessed, in detail, when an application is submitted. The St. Marylebone Society talks about a supermarket not being necessary in the area because there are large stores in Oxford street and other aspects.
The Marylebone Association and St. Marylebone Society make a genuine point. If a supermarket were to be located in this region, there would be additional traffic, noise and nuisance in an area which already has heavy traffic. The council admits that that is a distinct possibility. That is why it is saying that any application for a supermarket would have to be considered closely. It is not saying that there would not be additional traffic, noise, fumes and everything. By the nature of its reply, it is virtually saying that that is a distinct possibility and that that would be a nuisance to residents.
The case is overwhelming that this land should be retained for educational purposes. That was the intention of the Greater London council, the Inner London education authority and the London residuary body when that council transferred the land free of charge to Westminster council. There is an educational need—I spelled that out—from St. Marylebone school and, on a non-party political basis, I have spoken a great deal about the university of Westminster's position, saying that its need is massive.
The council has acted in a dubious way on a number of things. The district auditor's report says that the council—this is public knowledge—likes to make 652 property deals with property developers and speculators. Who knows what some of the options on those deals might have been?
The House should examine the matter openly and in detail. At the end of the day, we should reach a decision based purely on the merits of the case—that is, the best use of the land for the community. If that question is considered, the answer can be only educational use, perhaps with some social housing as well. That is way ahead of anything proposed by the property speculators, such as a supermarket.
The House should not accept the clause. Instead, it should support one of my amendments. We should do the right thing by Westminster university and for education in London.

§ Mr. Robin Squire
It may help the House if I intervene in the debate at this stage. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)—indeed, the whole House—is now well aware that the purpose of clause 9 is to relieve Westminster city council of the duty to establish a primary school on the council-owned site in Moxon street, Westminster. Approval for the project was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, under section 12 of the Education Act 1980, on 22 February 1991.
I understand that, subsequent to that approval, the authority concluded that there was no longer a need for new primary school places in the relevant catchment area. The judgment of such need is a matter for the local education authority, which is responsible for providing education for children in the area. To relieve the council of the duty to implement my right hon. Friend's decision under section 12, it is necessary to introduce a private Bill clause broadly in the terms of clause 9. Until such a clause is enacted, Westminster city council remains liable to implement my right hon. Friend's 1991 decision.
It may be helpful to Opposition Members if I offer some clarification of the conditions attached to the transfer of the site to Westminster city council in 1991. The transfer was subject to the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991. Part I of the schedule to that order listed the recipients of land transferring from the London residuary body, with a short description of each property concerned.
I must emphasise that, although the Moxon street site was identified in the following terms: site for proposed new primary school, Moxon Street/Cramer Street W1", those words were a description, not a condition, of the transfer. The condition attached to the transfer was set out in article 4 of the order, which stated that land transferred in the way that the Moxon street site was transferred was subject to the condition that it, or any interest in it, should not be disposed of within 20 years of the transfer date without the consent in writing of the Secretary of State. It would be open to my right hon. Friend to withhold that consent. Further, when giving that consent, my right hon. Friend may impose conditions regarding the distribution of the disposal proceeds between the inner-London authorities.
The House will note that, contrary to the repeated claims of the hon. Member for Leyton, the conditions governing Moxon street do not restrict the site to 653 educational use. It is true that, in some other property transfer orders, education use was a condition of the property transfer. For example, some land was requested to be brought into educational use by a specific date or else disposed of.
It is not possible to say specifically, after some years, why different conditions were imposed, but I can confirm—this is most important in the light of the hon. Gentleman's repeated accusations directed at Westminster council—that the conditions which I outlined for Moxon street apply not just to Westminster city council, but to other councils that received property under part I of schedule 6 of the order. They include Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Hertfordshire. It is clear that Westminster was not singled out for any special treatment.
It has not been the practice of the Department for Education to verify with authorities the use that they are making of the sites in question. That is a matter for the authorities that own the sites. In this case, Westminster council concluded that the census projections no longer warranted the establishment of a new school and brought the matter to the attention of the Department. Acting on the basis of advice from my Department's officials that a private Bill would be the appropriate means of relieving the council of the duty to implement the Secretary of State's section 12 approval, the council introduced clause 9.
I have a high regard for the university of Westminster and I wish it well in its various plans. Unlike schools, universities are private sector, autonomous institutions. They receive much of their income from private sources, determine their own admissions policy and curricula and are free to organise academic business affairs as they wish. Most important, under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the Government may not intervene in such affairs or direct funds towards individual institutions. The House will understand why I cannot say more about the amendment that related to the university, to which the hon. Gentleman made considerable reference in his speech.
Amendments Nos. 26, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34 could impose new responsibilities on the Secretary of State for Education. They would include making an order; establishing whether the site was needed for an educational purpose, whether for the council or another body; approving the disposal of land within three years; within one year, ordering the transfer of the site to an educational body; satisfying herself that there is insufficient demand for a new county primary school; investigating whether Westminster has published and consulted about reasons for not wanting the school; and requiring the submission of a scheme for future ownership and use of the site.
Those requirements exceed by some considerable way what is required in the case of other property transferred by the order that covered Moxon street. The House would not be surprised if the Secretary of State were to regard those proposed duties as onerous and excessive.

§ Mr. Brooke
There were no petitions in relation to the Bill in either House, and the sponsors were not approached by any of those who are now taking an interest in the Bill until after the Committee in this House—the second House to consider the matter, as the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. I congratulate 654 the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on the interest that he has developed at a late stage in the subjects with which the Bill deals, even though I am not sure that I would congratulate him on much else.
I realise that the hon. Gentleman's primary interest is in the sex shop issue to which we will come at a later stage. The hon. Gentleman seemed anxious to defer that later stage this evening.

§ Mr. Cohen
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Brooke
I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman was on his feet for two and a half hours.

§ Mr. Cohen
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has just said something that is quite untrue. I wanted the other stage of the Bill to come first, and this stage to come second. The choice was purely in the hands of the Clerks.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair, but a point of substance. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way, that is the end of the matter.

§ Mr. Brooke
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has also embraced the interests of my constituents at the university of Westminster, who enjoy my admiration every bit as much as they enjoy his. However, his scatter of amendments would throw the Moxon street site open not just to the university of Westminster, but to every publicly funded body with an educational purpose. Incidentally, the city council does not favour or oppose the aspirations of the university of Westminster. It recognises that, as a planning authority, it has a duty towards the site and it appreciates that the university may well have a close interest in it.
In his long speech, the hon. Member for Leyton said that clause 9 was all about prejudging the issue. At present, there is an obligation to start building a primary school by 1 September 1995; that is a couple of months away. The only way in which the council could escape the obligation was by introducing a clause in private legislation—hence clause 9, which has been in the Bill since November 1993.
In amendment No. 28, the hon. Member for Leyton seeks to remove clause 9 from the Bill. He would thus oblige Westminster city council to build a county primary school on the Moxon street site, although there is reasonable agreement that there is no need for a county primary school there, and that to build such a school there would do nothing for the interests of the university of Westminster, which the hon. Gentleman says he espouses.
The history of the planning of the primary school site came up at length in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Westminster city council inherited planning which had been initiated by the Inner London education authority before the site was transferred. The shadow education committee of Westminster city council looked at the matter in January 1990, before the transfer, endorsed ILEA's plan and got permission from the then Secretary of State to put up a primary school by 1 September 1992. The council has, however, revisited the planning statistics.
The expectation, held first by ILEA and then by Westminster city council, was that there would be a considerable influx of Hong Kong Chinese children into that part of Westminster because of what would happen 655 in Hong Kong in 1997 and because the Chinese community had its centre in Soho, in my constituency. Those expectations have not been fulfilled.
The hon. Member for Leyton produced a random scatter of amendments. I shall briefly pay him the compliment of referring to them, even though some are in conflict with each other.
Amendment No. I was the first for the House to consider. The fact that we are discussing the educational aspect first is a function, therefore, of an amendment that the hon. Gentleman tabled and not of a decision by anybody else. Amendment No. 1 is legally incorrect because it implies that the city council has a statutory duty to use the land for educational purposes wider than a primary school. In fact, the only statutory educational duty on Westminster city council in relation to the site is, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, to establish a county primary school.
Amendment No. 27 is a paving amendment for amendments Nos. 30, 31, 34 and 35. I have already alluded to amendment No. 28 in which the hon. Gentleman seeks to strike clause 9 out of the Bill and thus to oblige Westminster to embark on a county primary school by 1 September this year.
My hon. Friend the Minister has commented on amendment No. 26 and the series of subsequent amendments. As he says, they would impose a range of duties on the Secretary of State which there is no evidence that she would seek. In amendment No. 26, the hon. Member for Leyton asks the Secretary of State to have done all the things described in it by 1 September this year, which is unreasonable. Amendment No. 29 is in conflict with amendment No. 31. I ask the hon. Gentleman what would happen if no applicant met the requirements or if the Secretary of State would not accept the terms.
Amendment No. 30 is superfluous, as the conditions under the order are not removed by clause 9.
Amendment No. 31 states: the council shall transfer without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State the land at Moxon Street". There would be a potential conflict of users, as the hon. Member for Leyton has thrown the transfer open to all educational bodies that are publicly funded. I am not sure how that would be resolved. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that Hackney would forgo its share, but I must correct the hon. Member for Leyton, as the 13 local authorities that are the successors to ILEA would enjoy that windfall, and not the 32 London boroughs.
9.45 pm
I shall not comment elaborately on amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which are unnecessary to the central purpose. Amendment No. 35 is also otiose.
Amendment No. 36 enjoys the signatures of all the Labour Members who represent Greater London. There may be a potential conflict between those who represent outer-London boroughs and those who represent inner-London boroughs. I am a little surprised that a series of Labour Front-Bench spokesman have attached their names to an amendment that states: It shall remain the duty of the Council to use the land designated for such a school primarily for educational purposes, or for social housing or for a mixture of the two", 656 when there is no duty to use the land for social housing or a mixture.
The right of National Car Parks, which occupies the site, to a new lease would inevitably restrict the scope for the owner, whoever that may be—including all the potential owners to whom the hon. Member for Leyton referred. Height restrictions are also imposed on the site, which would limit the potential development of the site.
At this juncture, it might be helpful—not least given the reference of the hon. Member for Leyton to the council's planning department—if I said a general word about Westminster city council's position.
As the site was transferred from the LRB specifically for the purposes of the new school, it may not be used for other purposes involving a disposal of any legal interest without the consent of the Secretary of State for Education being obtained, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools said. Unless the Secretary of State were satisfied in respect of any alternative proposals, he might direct that the site be sold and the proceeds distributed among the inner-London boroughs. As a local education authority, the city council has no alternative proposals for the site.
As a local education authority, the city council is conscious of the legal restraints affecting the future use of the Moxon street site. The council's role as a local planning authority, however, imposes additional and not altogether compatible duties on the council. For some time, there has been considerable interest from third parties concerning the use of the site, to which the hon. Member for Leyton referred. In view of that, as a planning authority it has been incumbent on the council, as the hon. Gentleman said, to draw up policy guidelines as to what might be acceptable uses for the site. To that end, draft planning guidelines were considered by the city council's planning and transportation committee in November 1994. The guidelines were reconsidered by the planning and transportation on 28 March and approved. They show that acceptable uses would be mixed residential/ commercial, educational/social and/or community use. The hon. Gentleman gave us a protracted account of that, but that is what the guidelines contain.
Although officers of the city council's planning department have met representatives of various interested parties, including Howard de Walden Estates, which figured in the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton, and the university of Westminster, the city council has received no valid planning application for the development of the site. It has made no policy decision on the future use or disposal of the Moxon street site, as any such decisions would be subject to the following: clause 9 of the Bill being successfully enacted; the city council deciding whether it required the land for its own purposes and, if not, the consent of the Secretary of State for Education to disposal being obtained; and, finally, resolving the issue of National Car Parks occupation of the site, to which the hon. Member for Leyton made only a passing reference.
The clause will absolve Westminster city council from an obligation inherited from ILEA to put a county primary school on a site where, according to the local education authority, there is no demand for such a school and enable the city council to proceed to subsequent decisions on what should be done with the site. The conspiracy theory of the hon. Member for Leyton does not have much substance.
657 I commend to the House the proposal that we pass a clause that will give the local authority the ability to free itself of an obligation which it inherited and perpetuated.

§ Mr. Bryan Davies
I congratulate the sponsor of the Bill, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), on the way in which he replied to the debate and clarified some of the issues. He was, however, somewhat unfair to two parties. First, he was unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who did not seek to say that the educational aspects of the Bill should be put first. As the right hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend's arguments were simply a straight reflection of where the amendments appeared on the amendment paper. My hon. Friend sought to emphasise that his major anxiety was about the later clauses dealing with sex shops.
The second party to which the right hon. Gentleman was unfair was the university of Westminster, which he suggested was a late entrant in the race. That may be so, but that does not detract from the strength of the argument that land that had been the subject of such a transfer should be used for educational purposes. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister should recognise the sensitivities in many parts of London and further afield about such land transfers.
The London residuary body was an undemocratic body set up by the previous Conservative Administration to take over the role of former elected administrations in London. As a consequence of that role, it began to dispose of substantial land assets, placing restrictions on certain transfers but few restrictions on others. Labour Members are bound to be anxious about decisions taken about land that was formerly subject to direct democratic control but then fell into the hands of the LRB and subsequently individual councils, which may or may not have put the land to the use originally intended. I do not say whether Westminster is right to seek to reach decisions on that matter, but the land has a chequered history.
The issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and others have sought to draw attention is that, only a short while ago, the land was clearly expected to be used for educational purposes. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South said that it was expected that Hong Kong refugees would flood into this country and that their children would be educated in that school.
That may be so, and we accept his argument that the authority does not need that site for a primary school. But given that we are dealing with land designated for educational use, the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect hon. Members simply to take the view that a university that applies to enter the frame and be considered for the land's use should be regarded as just another private body. He is right to say that universities are private institutions, but undue favour towards the university would be outwith the Minister's power.
Equally clearly, the university of Westminster has a good case to put to public authorities, the local authority concerned and hon. Members, as it could put that land to good use. That is the case with a number of inner-city higher education institutions but, with the exception of the City university, Guildhall and certain colleges of London university, the university of Westminster is competing for the most expensive real estate in the United Kingdom. Those institutions are doing that with limited resources— 658 resources that the Government do little to increase, in circumstances where demands on higher education institutions increase apace.
It is therefore not surprising that the university of Westminster, seeking to respond to the needs of our community for more higher education places, and to expand the facilities at its disposal—and in doing so at present being forced into the constraint of having to develop an institutional facility as far away as Harrow—looks on the Moxon street site.
The site is close to the three major sites that the university already uses. It would be especially advantageous for the university to consolidate its premises, giving it the chance to serve the very students whom it exists to serve, especially, as was mentioned earlier, the many part-time students and students who come from relatively deprived backgrounds. For those students, travel is bound to be a problem in terms of distance and of cost. Therefore, there is a great advantage in the university being local and able to provide courses and opportunities where those people have their homes and where they work.
The understandable and excellent case that has been made by the university of Westminster in the context of the Bill will undoubtedly have exercised the minds of hon. Members. It calls on them to reflect on whether the proposals underpinning that part of the measure are entirely advisable. On that basis, I believe that the sponsor of the measure, although he has ably responded to the debate, has not cleared up all our anxieties about those proposals.

§ Mr. Sedgemore
I am delighted to take part in the debate, if only for a few minutes. I congratulate the sponsor of the Bill, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on his usual lucid, sharp speech. He presented an enormous amount of information in a short time, and he cleared up a matter that had worried me—how it came about that there was a transfer in 1991 and why the council changed its mind so quickly in 1993. He said that it was about a misreading of the number of children from Hong Kong who would come to London.
I do not believe that that negates anything that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said. He spoke for two and a half hours. He spoke with great force and clarity, and he convinced me that that land should be kept for educational purposes and/or for social housing.
I think the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South was a bit unfair when he said that some of the amendments contradict themselves. It is not unusual, in my experience, or in his—he is much more experienced than I am—for Governments or Back Benchers from either side of the House to table amendments that contradict one another. In effect, my hon. Friend is giving the House a chance to consider several amendments and to say, "That is one I want," and he is allowing us to have a vote on that one. I am not sure which one he wants to vote on.
I first interested myself in the Bill when the university of Westminster opened several homes in the London borough of Hackney as student accommodation. The vice-chancellor then mentioned to me the Bill that is now before us, and said that he would consult me subsequently to discover whether I could help.
659 I do not suppose that I can help. I dare say that the might of the Government Whips on this private Bill will carry the day. Nevertheless, I can think of no reason why I should not try to make a few intelligent comments on behalf of the university before the vote tonight.
As I understand the legal position, obviously Westminster council is the local education authority in the city of Westminster. Clause 9 would relieve the city council of its statutory duty to build a primary school on the Moxon street site in the City, pursuant to section 12(9) of the Education Act 1980. That is interesting in itself, because the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South said that the university of Westminster had come late to the debate; but, to my certain knowledge, the university first expressed an interest in the site in 1980 and it has expressed an interest in it ever since.
We know that the site was originally acquired by the GLC in 1966 under slum clearance powers. As I was working at the Ministry of Housing, as it then was, and signing most of those documents, it may well be—

§ Mr. Cohen
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear what my hon. Friend is saying—

§ Mr. Brooke
rose—

§ Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)
It is a point of order.

§ Mr. Cohen
I am mindful of your earlier comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, about repetition. I think that there is an element of repetition in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). If that is the case, and given that you chastised me over repetition, why should my hon. Friend repeat the same points that were made earlier in the debate?

§ Mr. Brooke
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it the case that if someone moves a point of 660 order just before 10 o'clock that precludes any other hon. Member from moving that the debate be brought to a close?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
It is not possible for the occupant of the Chair not to hear a point of order.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I observed my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) rise before 10 o'clock and I thought that I heard him say that he wanted to move the closure. If another hon. Member has raised a point of order some time before 10 o'clock, with the clear intention of continuing his point of order until 10 o'clock is reached, how is it possible for an hon. Member or a right hon. Member to move the closure?

§ Mr. Cohen
That scurrilous comment is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have to hear a point of order even if it is raised just before 10 o'clock. I am afraid that there is no other way out of it.
It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
To be resumed upon Thursday next.