To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to conclude his review of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

Our review covers finance, structure and functions of local government, so is necessarily complex. The Government will announce conclusions as soon as they are ready to do so.

That answer is not good enough. I expected to see the organ grinder at the Dispatch Box today, but he is not here, and obviously the junior Minister is answering for him. When will speed become the operative word in informing the House when the review will be finished and what will happen then? Our local authorities are suffering, and we will not have any more of it.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to be as speedy as possible, but he will recognise that the matter is complex—and perhaps he will welcome the fact that we are dealing with functions, structure and financing together. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spent a considerable amount of time in the Chamber and said then that he hoped to give first indications of our thinking in the spring. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

When my hon. Friend is considering when to come out with the results of his deliberations will he please bear two points in mind? First, as whatever he decides will be with us for many years to come, can he resist the siren voice of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), despite the vigour of his presentation, and ensure that we do not hurry this decision? Secondly, can he please ensure, when he does decide what should be done, that the community charge remains part of it, so that people have to contribute to the local services that they enjoy in some form, however little they earn?

As my hon. Friend says, it would indeed be nice to arrive at a solution that would stand for many years, so that we would not have to have constant change. Sadly, there is a certain amount of disagreement about the hon. Gentleman's second point, but I note his views and I know that many of my hon. Friends take the view that accountability is an important principle, which should remain in any of our new arrangements.

Will the Minister confirm that the outcome of his review could well mean that the poll tax remains in place?

It could be that and it could be something different.

Whatever else comes out of the review, will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ensure that local authorities remain accountable to the people that they are intended to serve? Local authorities employ one in nine people in this country and, whatever local authorities would have people believe, some give rank bad service—everyone has heard stories of empire building and profligacy.

Yes, I not only agree with my hon. Friend in much of what he says, but I believe that the introduction of the community charge has focused people's attention on the importance of making local authorities accountable. That is why I said, in answer to a previous question, that I believe that that is a principle which many of my hon. Friend's wish to preserve and defend.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects on the services of Newcastle upon Tyne city council following the financial decisions he has taken for the year 1991–92.

I am satisfied that the settlement decisions are fair and realistic for all authorities. For Newcastle they mean a standard spending assessment of £1,000 per adult. Under our intended capping criteria, an increase in budget next year of up to 9 per cent. would be possible—more than enough for an appropriate level of service.

Is the Minister aware that the standard spending assessment means little for the realistic budgets of local authorities? I am pleased that he nods in agreement with that comment. Is he aware that the city of Newcastle upon Tyne is facing £12·5 million in cuts? Does he imagine that such a sum can be found by making savings on paper clips? If not, can he name one area of the council's activities in which he could save one tenth of that amount? If he cannot answer that question, can he say why the Government should inflict such financial policies on councils, without making any assessment of the effect upon people?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, especially for law centres such as Benwell, and I have written to him on the subject. However, it has never been Government policy to tell local authorities how to manage their affairs. The hon. Gentleman invites me to identify areas where savings might be possible. I should be very surprised if there were not some administration areas where savings could be made.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of people sleeping out over the 1990 Christmas period in major cities.

My Department estimates that there are about 2,000 to 3,000 people sleeping out in central London and up to 2,000 in other cities. In London, Crisis accommodated between 500 and 600 rough, sleepers at Open Christmas each night during Christmas week. I can announce to the House today that my Department will be funding Centrepoint Soho to open up Soho Square hospital for the whole of the month of February. The purpose is to provide shelter for those sleeping rough, who would otherwise be on the streets until the hostels being provided under my rough sleeping initiative begin to come through in March. Centrepoint will open the Soho Square hospital on 1 February.

The Minister may know of the Nightstop project, a pioneering project among homeless youngsters in Leeds, which is supported by Barnardos and the churches. Is he aware that in the three months before Christmas, it reported a doubling in the number of inquiries and contacts by homeless youngsters? While I welcome the increased resources for London, will the Minister ensure that resources extend beyond London to the other cities in Britain that are experiencing this problem? Unless social security policy for young people is tackled, it will effectively undermine the Department's initiatives.

Of course my Department must help organisations that operate outside London. We have increased the funding nationally for voluntary organisations working with the homeless from £2 million this year to £4·5 million in 1991–92.

At a helpful meeting that I had with voluntary organisations earlier this month, they told me that income support was relevant to the issues that we are discussing and I have undertaken to pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security any suggestions that they make about changes to the income support system.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I support the Government's attempts to increase hostel provision, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible to try to persuade those with spare rooms in their homes to let them to lodgers? It used to be traditional for young people arriving in cities to find digs with a friendly landlady who would take them in and make them one of the family. At present, however, people are being put off by the fear that the council will increase the rates, judging the accommodation to be a boarding house; that the tax man will be after them for a return on the rent; and, worst of all, that the rent officer will come round and start imposing conditions.

My hon. Friend made her suggestion about the friendly landlady at our last Question Time. I can think of no friendlier landlady than my hon. Friend herself and I am sure that she will wish to act on her own proposal. Her suggestion about tax changes is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I shall pass it on to him. She is, however, right in saying that, if we are to make progress in tackling the problems of homelessness, we must use all the resources available to us, including those of the landladies whom she has mentioned.

I look forward to seeing the "To Let" signs going up in Lord North street very soon.

I thank the Minister for his visit to Crisis, which was in Bermondsey this Christmas, and for the initiatives that he has taken before and since, including today's announcement. Can he give a realistic estimate of the date by which, according to Government policy, no one who wishes to have a home will be homeless? Does he realise that a precondition of that is people having the money to pay for housing, which is currently prohibited by the social security system?

We must draw a distinction between those who are homeless, as currently defined by the legislation, and those who are sleeping rough. The object of the initiative that I announced before Christmas is to make it unnecessary for young people or, indeed, anyone else to continue to sleep rough in central London. I believe that enough accommodation is in the pipeline, and coming through it, to fulfil that aim. We have announced 1,000 places in the first round of the initiative, with more coming up.

We are doing an audit with the voluntary organisations to find out exactly how many people are sleeping rough and to obtain a clearer idea of the sort of accommodation needed by those people—some of whom are highly dependent, others less so. We shall then match the results of the audit with the programme that we have on stream. I hope that we shall make progress and ensure that we have the right type and number of places for those who are currently sleeping rough.

My hon. Friend's announcement is very welcome. Does he agree, however, that every time that this issue comes up, year after year, it is pointed out that if Labour authorities in London released their empty houses and flats, the problem of homelessness in the capital would be solved? Has he any evidence that authorities are doing anything about the asset that they have in hand?

My hon. Friend reminds us of the recommendations of the Audit Commission. The commission demonstrated that if the worst performed no better than the average, a substantial number of new units would become available, leaving only about 2,500 families still in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We must, of course, do all that we can to maintain the pressure on the less good performers to achieve the higher standards that we know are possible, and my Department monitors performances regularly.

I welcome that latest announcement, but is not it about time that the Minister realised that the real problem is the lack of affordable housing? Schemes and announcements by the Department will not resolve that. In December, the permanent under-secretary to the Department of the Environment told the Public Accounts Committee that it costs about £9,400 a year to keep a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but £200 to service debt on a council house. The Government's policy is more expensive as well as being catastrophic for people on the street and families in bed and breakfast. Is not it time that something was done instead of talk and no action.

I have tried to explain to the House that we have been doing quite a lot. I know that the hon. Gentleman's concern is genuine, but there are about 600,000 empty properties in the private rented sector. If one wants to help the homeless quickly, it is more productive to examine how such properties can be brought back into use, rather than to address the longer-term questions that the hon. Gentleman raised about supply. It would take some time to increase the supply, so I want to get more properties into use quickly and cheaply. There are ways of achieving that other than the more long-term solution that he outlined.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review his regulations for home improvement grants and building regulations to take account of advances in energy efficiency measures.

The regulations for house renovation grants and building regulations are kept under review by my Department.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on what has been done in this sphere, but will he acknowledge that half the energy used in the United Kingdom is used in buildings and that improving energy efficiency in them would therefore have a dramatic effect in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which is one of his Department's objectives? Will he publicise successful energy efficiency schemes to encourage developers to invest more in energy efficiency, which is financially arid environmentally advantageous?

My hon. Friend is right: we need to promote best practice in energy efficiency, as we do through the Energy Efficiency Office. I am glad to say that local authoriity associations recently published an environmental practice guide for local government, in which they set out many good examples of best practice for energy efficiency in local housing stock. We shall shortly organise a series of regional seminars targeted on chief executives and senior councillors to ensure that they appreciate what they can do to promote and encourage energy efficiency in their housing stock.

Is my hon. Friend aware of an excellent measure that is currently before the House, the Building Conversion and Energy Conservation Bill, which stands in my name and has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House and people from outside the House? It would ensure proper thermal insulation of all conversions, which is not the current practice. Will my hon. Friend seriously consider that as a practical way of improving energy efficiency?

My hon. Friend knows that we always give serious consideration to any idea that he puts forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to tighten regulations on the discharging of sewage around the coasts.

On 5 March 1990, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), announced that in future all significant discharges of sewage to coastal waters would receive at least primary treatment. This policy is being implemented, starting with necessary revisions to those schemes in the bathing waters programme as announced by my right hon. Friend on 14 November 1990. Regulations to give statutory effect to the EC bathing waters directive are to be made shortly.

When does the Minister expect primary screening to be implemented around our coast? Is he aware that South West Water reneged on a pre-privatisation promise to carry out screening at Kieve Mills, which causes considerable pollution along the north coast of Cornwall? Will he join me in condemning that? Have any of the other privatised water companies taken similar action?

On the latter point, I can confirm that the requirements set out in the bathing waters directive on whether primary, secondary or tertiary treatment must be given to sewage is the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority. That will be made even clearer when the municipal waste water directive comes on stream.

Secondly, I am not in a position to accuse South West Water of doing anything of the kind. If the Government had not privatised the water industry in the way that we did, which has allowed the investment of £28 billion to improve water—that is money that I can assure the hon. Gentleman I could not possibly have got from the Treasury—we would not have been able to comply with the European directive in the first place. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to have 100 per cent. compliance with the bathing waters directive by 1997. We will be the first nation in Europe to comply with that European directive at that time. That is good news for this nation, although I do not expect to see it announced in any Liberal party literature.

Is the Minister aware that there is a real problem as a result of raw sewage being dumped in Belfast Lough which, as a result of wind and tide, then comes up onto the coastline of my North Down constituency? In view of that real hazard to health, will he ensure that all dumping of sewage stops as soon as possible?

The most important point that I can make to the hon. Gentleman is that the compliance to which I referred earlier applies to the United Kingdom as a whole, so all parts of the United Kingdom have to comply with the directive. It is clear from the response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the promise of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that we will achieve that objective. I believe that we might possibly achieve that objective by 1995. I certainly hope so.

Does the Minister agree that after 12 years of oil-rich Tory rule, it is a scandal that Lancaster university can report this week that children entering the sea at Blackpool are five time more likely to contract diarrhoea and three times more likely to suffer from vomiting than children who stay on the beach? Why should children bathing at Blackpool have to suffer those health hazards for at least four more years? Does not that report highlight the disgrace of the Minister's visit to Brussels just before Christmas when he tried to get the case against Blackpool dropped or suspended in the European Court of Justice? Will not the report make the Commissioner change his mind?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the previous Labour Government had not cut the amount of money available to the water authorities, we would have been in a much stronger position to comply with the European bathing directive a darn sight sooner. What I consider to be a scandal is the fact that the report, which I understand is still unfinished, was leaked for purely political purposes by the Labour leader of the county council who seems to take enormous delight in dragging down and selling short Blackpool and any part of the Fylde coast. It is a national scandal and a disgrace that she has approached European Commissioner Ripa di Meana asking him not to desist in bringing a prosecution against the British Government. I have never heard of a more scandalous and unpatriotic act.

Why does Britain test for only two types of sewage bacteria when the European directive allows for 21 tests? If British beaches fail to meet even those basic minimal standards, how can Britain claim not to be the dirty man of Europe?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Britain is certainly not the dirty man of Europe as is clear from all the evidence. We are anxious to comply with the European directives in any particular with regard to bathing waters or water quality of any kind.

Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the work of the National Rivers Authority, which has a major office and laboratory in my constituency? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only since the Government introduced the National Rivers Authority that we have been able to cut the flow of pollutants to the coastline via our rivers and that that is because water authorities no longer police themselves?

I am happy to agree with every single word. I am very happy to compliment the National Rivers Authority. It was entirely the idea of the Conservative Government that we should set up such a regulatory body. The previous Labour Government never even dreamt of setting one up. I am proud to say that it is now the toughest regulatory body in Europe.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters will be discussed at the next meeting of the EC Environment Council.

The agenda for the next Environment Council in March will be a matter for the presidency, currently held by Luxembourg. The agenda has yet to be fixed, but we expect the discussions to include proposals on sewage treatment, diesel engine emissions, dangerous chemicals, the movement of hazardous waste and a labelling scheme for environmentally friendly products.

Will Ministers be setting a date for the introduction of an environmental labelling scheme to help consumers? Does the Minister recall the commitment made in the House in March last year by the previous Secretary of State that, if agreement had not been reached at the end of 1990, the Government would go ahead with a national scheme? As no date has been set by the European Community, when will the Government bring in the national scheme that they promised?

The hon. Lady will have heard me mention in my substantive answer that this matter will be on the agenda of the next Council meeting. I welcome that, as I am sure she will. It is true that my right hon. Friend asssured the House that, in the event of a European scheme's not being brought forward by the end of this year—

Last year.

—this year—we certainly intend to introduce a national scheme. I stand by what my right hon. Friend said.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that, during the discussion on sewage treatment, attention is paid to the discriminatory nature of the Commission in its legal actions against member states? For example, why has no action been taken against the Italian Government, despite the fact that all sewage from the city of Milan goes straight into the Po and out to sea, or has it something to do with the fact that the Commissioner is an Italian?

I am more than a little concerned about this matter. There seems to be a lack of fairness in comparisons between member states. There certainly seems to be a very different way of collecting the statistics that are supposed to be made available to the Commission and an incredible delay in sending those statistics from certain member states. My hon. Friend would not expect me to name a particular country, but I listened carefully to what he said.

Much of the problem would be cleared up if we could set up the European Environment Agency. At the previous Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels I made it clear that the sooner we have that environmental agency the better, so that we can have a common statistics-gathering service. That would enable us to make fair comparisons so that prosecutions emanating from Brussels could be a little fairer. I strongly object to the fact that the Commission is sending letters to member states, possibly threatening prosecution, when the building from which they come is built on an open sewer, which would never be allowed in the United Kingdom.

Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to take the opportunity when the Council next meets to draw attention to the serious problem in Northern Ireland of harmful emissions from power stations and the urgent necessity to have access to natural gas to reduce such harmful emissions?

I am pleased to give that assurance.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce direct elections to the Peak park planning board.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so. However, the Countryside Commission is at present considering a wide-ranging review of national park policy and we shall consider its recommendations when they have been received.

How does my hon. Friend justify the fact that the Peak park is one of only two areas in the country where planning decisions are taken by people who are not directly elected? Does he think that this is fair to people who live in the Peak park, as some of my constituents do?

As my hon. Friend will know, in the 40th anniversary year of the legislation that created the national parks, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, announced a wide-ranging review to consider the future policy and purposes of national parks. Clearly the matters referred to by my hon. Friend are within the terms of reference of that review, the report of which will appear shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that all vacant, dormant, derelict, underused and underutilised land in public ownership is entered on the land register; how many acres are currently on the register; and how much has been sold for private development since 1 January 1990.

Complete up-to-date information is not available. I am considering what further action should be taken on vacant land, including ways of improving the registers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that were more, if not all, publicly owned land made available for development, it would not only enhance our inner-city areas and facilitate the provision of more much-needed housing, but reduce the pressures for development in the countryside?

What my hon. Friend says is true. At the last reckoning, there were about 82,400 acres of derelict land on the register. Of course, a great deal of land was not registered. Much of that land is suitable for housing. If it were made available, homes could be provided for people who need them and the demand for green-field development could be reduced. I entirely endorse the principles that my hon. Friend has enunicated.

Could the register be extended to include vacant property? How many vacant houses owned by Government Departments, as distinct from local authorities, are there in the United Kingdom?

I do not have the exact figures at my fingertips. From time to time efforts are made to introduce legislation that would do what the hon. Member suggests. I hope that he will accept that there is a distinction between a register of derelict land and a register of properties that are not occupied. There would be considerable problems keeping the latter up to date.

Was not the whole point of setting up the register to identify vacant land in public ownership and then get rid of it? For the past 10 years—since the register came into existence—tens of thousands of acres of vacant public land have been got rid of, but tens of thousands of acres have also been added. Included in the latter is the land that public undertakers took with them when they went into the private sector. If the Government are having difficulty getting rid of surplus public land in local authority ownership, should not they set an example by getting rid of some of the surplus land in Government ownership, over which they have control?

Of course, the Government should lead by example. As my hon. Friend knows, we issued a consultation paper on this subject last autumn and at the moment I am considering the responses. I had a most helpful meeting with my hon. Friend and his co-authors of the publication "PLUMS", which contained a foreword from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am considering how to respond, taking account of the suggestions in that consultation document and of other suggestions. It is clear that fresh initiatives in this area are needed.

When the Minister introduces the register of vacant dormant and derelict land will he include a separate paragraph on the vacant land under the control of the urban development corporations, particularly the London Docklands development corporation, which is being wound up? Will he state the amount of land that is in the charge of the UDCs and the LDDC?

I am sure that that information is readily available from the LDDC. The LDDC took over a chunk of London that was derelict and during the past few years it has been converting that land very imaginatively and putting it to productive use. It will continue to do so until all the vacant land is put to better use.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Association of District Councils and interested local authorities about the shortage of low-cost housing in rural areas; and what action he intends to take to alleviate this situation.

My right hon. Friend receives such representations from time to time. We recognise that there is a shortage of low-cost housing in some rural areas and have taken a series of measures to help to improve supply. We have substantially increased public funding for housing association schemes through the Housing Corporation's special rural programme and we recently announced an extra £50 million of credit approvals for rural local authorities for a new programme of low-cost housing. We have also amended planning guidance to permit development of low-cost housing for local needs on small sites not otherwise designated for housing.

Does my hon. Friend accept that Macclesfield borough council is extremely prudent and responsibly run and has an excellent housing officer, but that there remains a grave shortage of low-cost housing in rural areas? Does he accept that our housing investment programme allocation is effectively wiped out by the capital receipts which are taken into account and that the usable portion of capital receipts will merely cover the repair and refurbishment of existing housing stocks? My Conservative-controlled council is unanimous in its view that we must be allowed to spend more of our capital receipts on providing something that is essential for the health of our area.

I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating his borough council on the efficiency with which it manages its housing. The Government's policy on capital receipts is to redirect the major portion of them to areas where the housing need is greatest, which is not always the same as the area where the receipts arise. However, I share my hon. Friend's desire that rural areas should enjoy an adequate supply of low-cost housing. I commend to him and his borough council the opportunity that now exists for local planning authorities to release small sites in villages, which would not otherwise be designated for housing, for low-cost schemes for rent and for sale to meet local needs.

Low-cost homes are welcome in rural areas, but they do not deal with the real problem of the hidden homeless—people who are living with friends and relatives—or families who move to rural areas but cannot find accommodation. Many such people had their homes repossessed because they could not keep up with crippling mortgage repayments. They need low-cost rented accommodation and councils are in the best position to provide it. Will the Minister take off the artificial restrictions on local councils and allow them to use their capital receipts to provide a choice of homes to rent and to buy?

We have a comprehensive programme. I have already referred to the credit approvals that have been given to local authorities for use in rural areas. But the Housing Corporation programme, which will double its spending over the next three years, will go a long way to providing homes to meet the needs of the people whom the hon. Gentleman describes as the hidden homeless.

Less than one mortgage in 300 leads to a repossession, so it is hardly likely that repossessions are a major contributor to homelessness. Above all, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises the distinction between the people whom he describes as the hidden homeless and the people whom the public may think of as homeless—the rough sleepers to whom my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning referred.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in areas such as south Derbyshire a great deal of land can be released for rural housing through opencast coal mining? Will he welcome, as I do, the efforts of the British Coal opencast executive to develop over 400 acres of land in the Cadley hill area? It hopes to provide housing, industrial sites, a golf course, an hotel and a bypass for the local village, all of which will be welcome. Will he ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to come and see the site when it is finished?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind invitation. There is a great deal of scope for using land —especially land that has been reclaimed, perhaps with the help of derelict land grant—for imaginative housing schemes in areas where it is easy to obtain planning permission and where the scheme will be welcome to the local community.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making with his review of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has announced the new community charge reduction scheme, which is the first result of our review and which will be in place to reduce next year's charges. Work on the longer tens is continuing.

Despite the answers given yesterday by the Secretary of State to me and by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) that local authorities could be flexible about the poll tax and the troops in the Gulf, does the Minister agree that the 32 Tory councillors on Newbury district council must have approved sending a poll tax demand to 20-year-old Private Mark Patchett, who received it in a trench on the Saudi-Kuwait border? Even though I have not altered my opposition to both the tax and the war, does not the Minister accept that he should take the opportunity this afternoon to do as President Bush did in America last week, when he announced that United States rank-and-file service men and women were exempt from federal income tax, and announce that British troops in the Gulf are henceforth exempt from the poll tax?

I listened to the exchange yesterday between the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and my right hon. Friend and I did not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend correctly. What my right hon. Friend said was that community charges registration officers have discretion and that we have recommended to them that where a service man is posted to the Gulf for an indefinite period, he should be regarded as exempt from the day of his posting. The local authority that the hon. Gentleman cited recognised that it had not operated in accordance with that guidance and it issued an apology.

I have no reason to believe that the guidance is defective or that there is need for legislation. If we found that the arrangements were not working satisfactorily for any reason, we would reconsider the matter. The important thing is to give our guidance a chance to work. I have no reason to believe that it is not working satisfactorily.

Since my hon. Friend announced recently that the review would take into account not only the community charge but the functions and status of local government, will he assure me that he is giving careful attention to the need to reintroduce county boroughs which would be popular in all parts of the country?

I have noted that my right hon. Friend and others support that idea. Many of my hon. Friends would like to have more unitary authorities and they look back to the county boroughs which used to exist. Obviously, I cannot give my right hon. Friend a commitment now, but it is within the scope of the review to consider such matters.

In an earlier reply to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), it was suggested that the review was complex. Does not it add to the complexity of the review that although the Secretary of State invited parties to participate, he turned down the offer of the fourth-largest party in the House to take part, especially when that party represents constituents, particularly service men, who will be affected?

I am happy to clarify the matter. The Government do not think that it would be productive to talk to parties from Northern Ireland about conditions in Northern Ireland, because that is a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If representatives of parties in Northern Ireland wish to discuss the effect of the community charge and its arrangements on their constituents who live in Great Britain, I should be happy to accede to that and have a meeting with them.

Can my hon. Friend confirm whether during the review he has had any discussions with the Lord President's office or with your office. Mr. Speaker, about the rules of suspension from the House, to take into account Labour Members who are illegally refusing to pay their community charge?

I have not had such discussions, although the question arises sometimes when local authority members who are not paying their community charge have voted on questions of non-collection. I believe that grave legal issues arise. I do not know how they would be resolved in a court of law, but elected representatives should be cautious not only about the example that they set but about voting on matters in which they have an interest.

In my letter to the Secretary of State on the exemption from the poll tax of service personnel in the Gulf, I offered the full co-operation of the Labour party in passing any regulations necessary to ensure that such action could be carried out by local authorities throughout the country. In the light of the comments yesterday of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) about the increase of £14 per head to residents of that area because of the number of people affected by the Gulf crisis, are the Government willing to reconsider yesterday's announcement so that full reimbursement can be made to local authorities, clarity can be provided to ensure that all people have the same treatment, wherever they live, and fairness and decency can apply?

I am grateful for the Labour party's offer to speed through any necessary legislation, but, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), I am not satisfied that there is a need for legislation. Our recommendations will cope satisfactorily with the generality of cases. The specific case of local authorities with a large number of service men posted to the Gulf which are therefore losing community charge income will be raised at a meeting which I shall have at 4 pm with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who is leading a delegation. I shall listen carefully to what he has to say and it will be of broader application to other local authorities. When I have heard the case I shall consider it carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to encourage the recycling of waste.

The White Paper on the environment, "This Common Inheritance", sets out a number of measures that we will be pursuing vigorously to ensure successful recycling. We will be pressing industry to increase both the recycling of materials and the use of recycled material; encouraging retailers to provide collection facilities for recyclable material for their customers; and persuading industry to expand its capacity to process reclaimed material.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that this country still has a long way to go before we can be satisfied with the amount of material that we recycle? Will he encourage other Departments to follow the example of the Department of the Environment in making available bins for recyclable material and in using recycled paper?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Government Departments are seeking to put their houses in order. The Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry pay a reasonable premium when purchasing recycled paper and will adopt a policy of positive discrimination in favour of recycled goods wherever practicable and economic. The Department of the Environment has introduced green bins into its main buildings as part of the scheme to recycle office grade waste paper. I hope that other Departments and every office in the country will follow that lead.

Is the Minister aware of the technology for and possibility of using sewage in gasification for power generation or other purposes? Can he point to a single piece of research issued by his Department to local authorities to make them aware of the possibilities of recycling and using sewage in that way?

We seek to ensure that local authorities are aware of best practice in recycling, as in every other area.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with west midlands councillors to discuss the community charge review.

My right hon. Friend met members of Birmingham city council on 18 January and discussed with them a wide range of issues relevant to the review of local government structure and finance.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has demonstrated wisely his willingness to go and listen to the voice of the west midlands and to consult widely politicians of all parties. I thank him for that. Will he go a stage further and give those councillors the reassurance that they need, which is that he will carefully assess the weaknesses and strengths of the community charge, not least the principle that each individual should make a contribution to the payment for services received? Have Labour Members, especially those who represent west midlands seats, taken advantage of that and contributed to the debate? To date, I have heard a great deal of criticism, but not much constructive help.

I give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. We shall give due consideration to all that she says. It is true that throughout the country Ministers are meeting members of local authorities of all political parties. We are meeting Liberal Democratic Members of the House and we are grateful for their contribution to the debate. It is a matter of some sorrow that the parliamentary Labour party is not interested in taking part in the discussions.

At the meeting did west midlands councillors complain about the bureaucracy surrounding the poll tax? Is the Minister pleased that nationwide £130 million has been wasted on updating poll tax registers during the past 12 months?

The Secretary of State discussed with city councillors income from the charge, the level of standard spending assessments and the fact that Birmingham has an 18 per cent. increase in its SSAs. They discussed the overall role of government in controlling spending. There was a discussion with Labour councillors and others about the question of payment of councillors, the number of councillors and the possibility of a directly elected leader and whether he should be paid. It is curious that those councillors did not raise the point to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department counts Shropshire as being in the west midlands? Does he therefore accept that we in Shropshire do not regard the county borough option, which is being widely canvassed, as a suitable solution to the problems of accountability? As long as we have two-tier local government, accountability will not be achieved.

I note my hon. Friend's point and I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding about it.

In the light of the earlier admission from the Minister of State that the poll tax review might leave the poll tax in place in the west midlands and elsewhere, can the Minister say what has happened to the Secretary of State's reforming zeal and to the ferocious attacks that he made on the poll tax when he was campaigning for the Tory leadership? Why will not the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleagues admit that the poll tax is totally discredited and must be abolished? Why cannot he see that that simple admission will clear the way for a proper discussion of what might take its place?

My right hon. Friend made an exceptionally robust contribution in the House yesterday afternoon and he listened for some hours to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise the widely accepted points in favour of the community charge, such as that everybody should contribute something, which would remain valid whatever one called it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the average increase in housing association rents in the London and south-east region during 1990–91.

Information on rents is not available in this form. Most housing association tenants pay fair rents, which are subject to re-registration every two years. Increases for housing association tenancies re-registered in London and the rest of the south-east during the second quarter of 1990 were 21 and 23 per cent. respectively, over two years.

Does the Minister agree that those rent increases are absolutely disgraceful for the many poor families who live in that accommodation? The Government's inability to provide sufficient funds to the Housing Corporation to support housing associations' new-build programmes has forced them to borrow money from the private sector, through the banking system. Therefore, they have to pay enormous interest rates. That is one factor which has forced up housing association rents, together with the Government's general trend towards deregulation.

Does the Minister accept that the problem of homelessness can be resolved only when we have sufficient affordable housing for rent? Only that will end the scandal of homelessness in London and the south-east.

I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. The increase in rents was about the same as the increase in average earnings—average earnings went up 22 per cent. over two years as against rent increases of 21 and 23 per cent. For those not earning, housing benefit will bear the brunt of the increase. Such people are shielded against the increases about which we are speaking.

In the new regime under which housing associations operate they are registered charities and they are required to set rents within reach of people in low-paid employment. Although the new rents may be higher than fair rents, they enable the housing association movement to sustain a much bigger programme of new homes, for which the hon. Gentleman was calling at the end of his question.

Tenants of housing associations, councils and the private sector face a disgraceful position. Did not rents in the housing association sector go up by about 25 per cent. the other year? Is not it also true that council rents will go up dramatically in the next couple of weeks and that private sector rents are out of the reach of many people? In those three examples housing benefit does not meet the needs of many people, particularly pensioners with small occupational pensions. What will the Government do about rents that are increasingly unaffordable in a rented sector has suffered a collapse, with the loss of 1·5 million properties in the past 10 years? There must be an answer that produces affordable rents in affordable properties.

I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman based his question. Housing benefit will underpin market rents—we have made that absolutely clear. If people cannot afford to pay that market rent, housing benefit will take the strain. It is not true that fair rents have increased faster than earnings—they have increased broadly in line. Over two years there has been a 22 per cent. increase in fair rents and, in London, there has been a 21 per cent. increase in earnings. Therefore, it is not true that rents are rising faster than average earnings.

I repeat that the housing benefit system exists to enable people to pay their rent. There can be no question of people losing their homes because they cannot afford to pay reasonable rents.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings he estimates will be made as a result of the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering.

The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 required local authorities to expose building and highways work to competition and compulsory competitive tendering was extended to a number of other local authority services by the Local Government Act 1988. My Department has commissioned research into the effect or the 1988 Act. Information about financial effects should be available shortly.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the Labour party proposes to abolish compulsory competitive tendering for local services, despite the benefits that it has brought to local people in the form of reduced costs and better services? Does he agree that it shows that, despite the rhetoric of the Opposition, which appears to commit them to efficiency in local government, they are in fact committed to the maintenance of socialist dogma in many of Britain's town halls?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. One of the greatest safeguards for local consumers of services is the Audit Commission. The Minister of State drew to the attention of the House in yesterday's debate the fact that the Labour party has plans to subsume the Audit Commission—another telling example of its intentions.