To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reduction in levels of carbon dioxide emissions is brought about by the use of catalytic converters.

None, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that catalytic converters are not the complete answer to the problem and that it is most important to develop a strategy to control carbon dioxide emissions and the so-called greenhouse effect on the atmosphere?

We have always recognised that catalytic converters play an important part in controlling car emissions, but they do not do the whole job because they have no effect on carbon dioxide emissions. The three-way catalyst rules out the use of lean-burn engines, which offers a promising way of saving fuel and reducing carbon dioxide. The United Kingdom treats carbon dioxide emissions and climate change with great seriousness and it is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is today hosting a seminar on global climate.

Is the Minister aware of the excellent campaign being launched in my part of the world by the Wolverhampton Express and Star inviting companies large and small, local authorities and the private motorist to go lead-free? Even I have gone lead-free as a result of its persuasion. Would the Minister care to make a statement on that?

The campaign run by the Wolverhampton Express and Star has been mentioned to me by several hon. Members and I have met the journalist, Marion Brennan, who has worked so hard on the campaign. It has performed a magnificent task and we wish it well this weekend when it hopes to adjust 1,000 cars in one day and thus get into the "Guinness Book of Records".

Last but not least in my green dress, I thank my hon. Friend for those sentiments and join my colleague the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) in supporting the lead that the Wolverhampton Express and Star has taken in encouraging people to use unleaded petrol. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that unleaded petrol should, be made widely available in Britain so that cars fitted with the latest emission control technology can be sold here?

My hon. Friend is right. The widespread use of unleaded petrol paves the way for the stricter emission standards that we shall be introducing in Britain. The Wolverhampton experience is magnificient. I understand that 50 of its 52 garages are now stocking unleaded petrol, which means that when we introduce the stricter emission standards there will be no difficulty in complying with them.

Is the Minister aware that car exhausts make a significant and growing contribution to greenhouse gases and that the European standards of allowable car emissions are 400 times more polluting than those of the United States? The imposition of United States standards in Europe was supported by Tory Euro-MPs only this April, but it is opposed by the British Government, who intend to veto the move in the Council of Ministers. Once again, Britain is seen in Europe as the friend of the polluter and the enemy of the environment.

It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that in our view the way to protect the environment is by sound science and responsible action, rather than hot air and toxic words. We shall, of course, be considering the vote in the European Parliament. I have made it absolutely clear that catalysts—either oxidation or three-way catalysts—have an important part to play in protecting the environment. We have no wish, however, to rule out the use of lean-burn engines, which offer very important savings in reduced carbon dioxide and in increased fuel efficiency.

Will the Minister stop ducking awkward questions and trying to cause confusion? There is no fundamental conflict between catalytic converters and lean-burn engines, which have not even been developed. Will the Minister take action now to ensure that existing technology is applied in this country to reduce the greenhouse effect? Will she also recognise that if the Prime Minister is to be properly briefed she must be told that the best way to reduce the greenhouse effect is to use existing technology to promote energy conservation rather than multiplying the number of nuclear power stations being built?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should brush up on his GCSE science. Three-way catalytic converters entail greater use of fuel and increased production of carbon dioxide. We shall, of course, be considering carefully the Commission's response to the European Parliament before deciding on the best way forward. The Government have already accepted the strict emission standards agreed in November in the Luxembourg package and we are determined that air emissions from motor cars of a variety of types should be dealt with properly and effectively.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what costs would be involved in introducing a system of local government finance based on capital values and a local income tax.

The Labour party's two-tax system could cost up to four times as much to administer as the existing rating system.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that a local income tax system would do very little to improve accountability, would be complex as well as expensive, and would be grossly unfair to all inner-city residents, while a capital value system would be a disaster for many people in London on relatively low incomes whose house values have risen rapidly?

The two-tax system proposed by Labour would produce all the worst aspects of all the other systems. It would produce the worst side of the rating system and the worst side of local income tax. Last year a ward sister in my hon. Friend's constituency earning £13,000 per year and living in a flat in Bexhill would have faced a community charge of £196, compared with £425 under the Labour scheme.[Interruption.] It is no wonder that Labour Members are trying to make enough noise to drown out the facts about their scheme.

Labour will never win Bexhill now. [Interruption.]

Order. I hope that the House will try to settle down.

Will the Minister confirm that, quite apart from being immoral, the poll tax will cost a great deal more to collect than the existing rates system?

First, the community charge will cost about half as much as the Labour party's scheme would. Secondly, I hope soon to be able to send the hon. Gentleman a pamphlet on the morality of the community charge.

Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity between now and the county elections next Thursday to explain to the 65 per cent. of owner-occupiers in this country that the financing of local government partly by capital valuation would amount to no more than a wealth tax and would hit especially hard pensioners and people on fixed incomes throughout the nation? Will my right hon. Friend also take this opportunity to denounce the campaign of fear and distortion by Labour party headquarters in Walworth road and the issuing of letters by Labour-controlled local authorities provoking fear and concern about the cost of the community charge?

The community charge is fairer because everybody pays their bit. It is fairer because those who cannot afford it get help with the cost. It is also fairer because it makes a local council accountable. It is the last reason that the Labour party hates, because for the first time councils will be accountable to the electorate rather than to their local management committees and to Militant.

Why are the Tories running so scared about the poll tax that they have to wrack themselves with dishonesty about the issues? Why are Ministers so terrified that they postponed the canvass to introduce the poll tax until after the county council elections? If the poll tax is so good, why have the Government refused to debate the six poll tax orders currently on the Table before 4 May? If the poll tax is so good, why do the Government keep ducking those issues? In view of the Minister's remark that everyone will pay something, will he explain why at the Tory party local government conference the Prime Minister wrongly and dishonestly said that under the poll tax—[Interruption.] Yes, dishonestly.

Order. Not in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw "dishonestly".

The Prime Minister said, wrongly and misleadingly, that 5 million people will pay nothing under the poll tax proposals. How does the Minister explain that? The Minister says that the poll tax is fairer. Perhaps he will also explain—[Interruption.] We have listened to enough drivel from the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Perhaps the Minister will also explain why it is that people with incomes as low as £54 per week will receive no poll tax rebate.

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman wants to ask all those questions when he has refused to answer the simplest questions about his own party's proposals. He is afraid that on the doorstep Labour's two-tax scheme will be given the thumbs down by millions of people throughout the country. Five million people will receive 80 per cent. rebates, and they will receive money to cover the other 20 per cent. in their benefits. In effect, therefore, they will not pay the poll tax. They will not pay the poll tax because it is not a poll tax. The Labour party keeps using the term "poll tax" because it wants to confuse the public and make them believe that everybody will pay the same. Nine million people will have a rebate. Labour councils are trying to frighten people by pretending that they will not get help. When the hon. Gentleman comes clean about the worst proposal for local tax since the window tax, we shall begin to answer his silly questions.

rose—

Order. I gather that the county council elections are some time next week, but right hon. and hon. Members should keep to the subject of questions to Ministers and deal with them in a responsible way.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to change the penalties currently available for breaches of discharge consents into rivers.

The maximum penalties that may be imposed by magistrates for offences under section 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are fines not exceeding £2,000 and terms of imprisonment of up to three months. On indictment in the Crown court there is no limit on the fine that may be imposed, and terms of imprisonment can be up to two years. Penalties for pollution offences are kept under regular review but there are no immediate plans for increasing them.

Is there not a good case for making farms and businesses which break the law and pollute rivers pay the cost of cleaning them up? Does my hon. Friend agree that one current problem is that water authorities are both gamekeepers and poachers? Should not the whole House warmly welcome the establishment of the independent National Rivers Authority as the only effective way of clamping down on those who unlawfully pollute our waterways?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the effectiveness of the National Rivers Authority. At present, water authorities are empowered to recover the cost of work to prevent or to remedy pollution. We firmly believe in an extension of the principle that the polluter pays.

Is the Minister aware that one of Britain's worst industrial polluters is the so-called smokeless fuel plant in my constituency owned by British Coal? Is he aware that twice in the past three months that company has been found guilty of, and fined for, discharging pollutants into the river at six to nine times the permitted level? How does the Minister intend to get British Coal to clean up its act? Is he aware that according to the Welsh Development Agency the existence of the works is a major disincentive to bringing new jobs into the worst unemployment black spot in the whole of Wales?

As the hon. Lady knows, I am unaware of that particular case and would not have responsibility for it as it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, giving due courtesy to the hon. Lady's question, I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why both business and agriculture continue to discharge pollutants into rivers, apart from the fact that they do not economically care very much, is that when they are hauled before the courts the fines are so small—nothing approaching the £2,000 to which the Minister referred—that they are not effective? Does the Minister agree that until the courts impose realistic fines, the poisoning of our rivers and harbours will continue?

The Government agree that fines should he at a deterrent and not a nominal level. That is why my right hon. Friend the former Lord Chancellor urged magistrates to impose fines for pollution offences sufficient to act as a deterrent. I accept my hon. Friend's point and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has again drawn the attention of magistrates to the need to impose realistic fines for water pollution offences.

Does the Minister agree that it is not only the level of fines that is important but the frequency of prosecution? Is it not a fact that many polluters take a calculated risk that it is cheaper to pollute a river and risk a rare prosecution and a small fine than to invest in controlled pollution prevention? Is the Minister aware that his concern on this issue is not taken seriously in the light of the Government's decision to exempt from prosecution many sewage treatment plants which are in breach of their consents? When can we expect some consistency from the Minister on the principle that the polluter should pay?

The hon. Lady will continue to have total consistency from the Government when it comes to the importance of upgrading sewage treatment plants. That is why we are putting £1 billion behind that programme by 1992. I totally refute the hon. Lady's initial premise. It is obviously important to make sure that programmes of remedial treatment are put in action and agreed with the Department. That is the first and foremost priority and it will be reinforced by the National Rivers Authority.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the very grave disquiet in South Devon about the Hope's Nose outfall, and has he seen the latest photograph of the discharge of untreated sewage, even if the photograph is three years old? Does he agree with me that it is unacceptable to have untreated sewage pumped either into our rivers or into the sea?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the facts about the picture published recently to the attention of the House. He will be aware that the Government share his concern that we need major improvements. That is why we are committing substantial capital expenditure towards achieving the very improvements that he and the House seek.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which urban development corporations publish a code of consultation with local authorities in their areas.

As required by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, all urban development corporations have prepared or are in the course of preparing codes of practice as to consultation with the local authorities in their areas. UDCs are not required to publish them.

According to evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment, the London Docklands Development Corporation failed to provide such a document in 1982. It took the corporation another seven years to find it. Is that not a clear contravention of section 140 of the 1980 Act? Will the Minister ensure that the requirement is complied with by all development corporations, both in spirit and intent?

I am happy to give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. We have made it clear to all UDCs and to local authorities in the areas in which UDCs operate that they should consult one another. As I indicated in my substantive reply, if they both agree, they should publish.

On the subject of underused land, can my hon. Friend confirm that the canal port of Sharpness in my constituency faces a bright and prosperous future, and that three factories are currently being built in the area? Can he also confirm—

Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary to question 4.

Yes, Sir—on the subject of under-used land. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is question 5."]

Out by one.

There is considerable concern in London about the delay in setting up any consultation process in the docklands. Will the Minister consider introducing an amendment to the Local Government and Housing Bill to allow parish councils to be constituted in the docklands corporation part of London, which would fulfil such a purpose?

The simple, straightforward answer is no. I am not aware of a problem with consultation at present. Indeed, it is my clear impression that consultation with local authorities in the LDDC area is better than it has ever been.

Is the Minister aware of the damage and danger caused by lack of consultation, which applies particularly to the LDDC, because of its failure to consult adequately and the lack of proper social facilities? Is the Minister aware that the errors that have been made include failure to match the provision of transport and other services, and failure to consider what the development is for and who will gain and who will lose?

"the free play of market forces is not going to produce the best results in terms of quality".

"I fear that in 25 years we will look back on Docklands in exactly the same way that we now look back on 1960s housing schemes."

I entirely reject all that the hon. Gentleman has said. He and his colleagues should break the habit of a lifetime and say something nice and positive about urban development corporations, especially the LDDC. The corporation's single-minded and single-purpose approach has regenerated an area of London which has been stagnant in the past and was certainly going downhill under the last Labour Administration. We have revived it, creating wealth and work. That means jobs, and the hon. Gentleman should recognise that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of unused and underused land were added to the register in the last five years, and how many were removed, in 1988.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of unused and underused land will be removed from the register as a result of the privatisation of the water authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of unused and underused land will be removed from the register as a result of the privatisation of the electricity boards.

A total of 37,805 acres were added to the registers in the five years up to the end of 1988, and 10,943 acres were removed in 1988.

Does my hon. Friend realise that 17 per cent. of all land—vacant, public, derelict, dormant land —on the register in 1983 has been disposed of, but that 83 per cent. remains on the register? In his answer my hon. Friend said that more than 37,000 additional acres of public land—vacant, dormant and under-utilised—had been added to the register. Is he aware that even without any extra land being added it will take more than 30 years to get rid of the surplus public land that is vacant and it will cost the Government about £19 million in Civil Service costs to the Department to run the register for that period? Surely my hon. Friend should do something more dramatic. Why does he not auction off the land?

I think that my hon. Friend is being unfair. If he looks carefully at the figures he will see that the Department's policy has been very successful. Since 1981, 164,900 acres have been entered on the register. By 31 March 1989, 80,700 acres had been removed, which is about half, mostly because the owners had sold it or brought it into use. There were then 84,200 acres on the register. There has been a net reduction of half in a very short time, and I consider that most impressive.

Does my hon. Friend accept none the less that the amount of unused and underused land on and off the register is still far too large? Will he do everything that he can to ensure that that land is brought into use? Does he agree that without in any way avoiding the planning rules, weak as they are, the privatisation of water will help to bring some of that unused and underused land into use to save our green fields and our environment?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's last comment. The difference between land in private ownership and land in public ownership is that the publicly owned land is not subject to the market conditions and disciplines which apply in the private sector. Of course I am not satisfied—it would be silly for me to say that I was—with the amount of public land registered as unused and underused. But we are making significant strides in reducing that amount. Ministers in various Departments should set an example to local authorities, and we are undergoing a period of consultation to produce a code of practice which will enable us to set that example.

Why is my hon. Friend so resistant to bringing more public vacant land on to the market by the utilisation of the public land urban management scheme, which is supported by nearly 200 Conservative Members, or by some other private scheme which will result in an even greater amount of public land being brought into beneficial use for society?

My answer is very simple and straightforward. My right hon. Friend and I have listened very carefully to the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and we are not convinced that the PLUMS alternative is in any way better than the existing system. As I have said in my substantive and supplementary replies, we are achieving the desired objective in a speedy fashion.

Will the Minister comment on the extending and intensifying problem of land which is surplus to British Coal's requirements as a result of the rapid contraction of that industry? I think that he recognises, but will he maintain, that we need urgently a dramatic, imaginative and extensive additional programme of derelict land grant?

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter at some length in the past. I was pleased to respond to his request and to give an additional allocation to the Dearne Valley after he showed me round his constituency and explained the problems that exist there. I and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment recognise that where there are mining closures there needs to be a concentration of derelict land grant. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have met his concern, at least for the moment.

Will the Minister bear in mind that some unused land is available as a green lung to urban areas such as Low Moor in my constituency? Will he ensure that local authorities do not try to corrupt the local plan to avoid submitting proposals for change to his Department so that the wishes of local residents to keep areas of unused land are frustrated—particularly in areas such as Low Moor, where there are two major chemical plants—because areas of unused land are an extremely valuable asset in those circumstances?

That is entirely a matter for planning legislation. I maintain that planning controls in that respect are very tight and very effective.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many simplified planning zones have been set up since their introduction; and if he will make a statement.

In England, simplified planning zones have been adopted and brought into operation by Derby and Corby. Schemes are at various stages of preparation in Birmingham, Rotherham, Cleethorpes, Glanford and Scunthorpe, Enfield and Slough. Other authorities are considering possible designations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the response by local authorities and others has been somewhat disappointing? Does he agree that some of the obstacles placed in the way of entrepreneurs and developers, who are trying to regenerate our inner cities and urban areas, are put there by planners and planning regulations, which, in turn, puts more pressure on green field sites to be made available. Is it not, therefore, important to encourage the greater use of simplified planning zones? If my right hon. Friend agrees with that, can he tell the House how he intends to go about encouraging councils and developers to set up more simplified planning zones?

I agree that it is somewhat disappointing that so few simplified planning zones have come forward and I agree that the existence of a relaxed planning regime is an essential ingredient in getting redevelopment going in derelict industrial areas. The difficulties often stem from councils—sometimes even under Labour control—having an antipathy to relinquishing their detailed powers of development. I do not know why they should have that antipathy if they believe in the renewed prosperity of their areas. I wish that there was something that I could do to encourage them to be more bold. The electorate will have a chance to do something fairly soon at the coming county council elections.

Does the Secretary of State agree that in the climate that exists in many inner cities, the value of planning has been demeaned by economic and financial pressures and that planning permission is given which is not necessarily to the long-term benefit of those who have to live in inner cities? The marjority of people who live in green sites areas see what little there is in the inner cities in terms of land available for leisure, which is at a minimum, to say the least.

The hon. Gentleman, who comes from a declining industrial area in one of our inner cities, must realise that there is a choice between detailed and over-fussy planning control and the regeneration of areas leading to jobs for the people and the rebuilding of prosperity in his city. He seems to imply that he is taking the wrong choice in that dilemma.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish tables showing the average community charge in each local authority if introduced in 1989—90; and if he will make figures available arranged by reference to the controlling party in each such authority.

As last year, the illustrative figures will be published once we have obtained and analysed the data needed from local authorities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that roughly £4 out of every spent in county council areas is spent by the county councils themselves and that the level of community charge over the next few years will be determined largely by which party gains control of county halls next week? Is that not the best reason why in counties such as Cumbria, which has a minority Labour administration sustained by Liberal support, the electorate should vote Conservative for lower community charges and better value for money?

My hon. Friend may have noticed that the 10 councils with the lowest rate poundage are all Conservative. None of the 10 with the highest rate poundage are Conservative. The community charge will reflect largely whether there is a prudent authority in county hall or whether Labour, which is always followed as fast as possible by the SLD, Liberals and the rest, continues to control them. It is good to see one Liberal present in the Chamber.

If the poll tax had anything to do with accountability, as the Government have claimed repeatedly, why did they not accept the option when the Local Government Bill was going through Parliament to allow county councils to collect their own poll tax? Is it not true that areas such as north-east Lancashire will have massive increases in the poll tax next year, regardless of political control, because the Government will give less money to local government to run essential local services?

The community charge will be collected by district councils, just as the rates are. It will be quite clear from the bill which portion comes from the county council. In Lancashire, it will be clear that Lancashire county council has been over-spending permanently during the period of Labour control.

In the black roll of dishonour of the highest spending county councils in England and Wales, does not Derbyshire have a prominent and special place as one of the most irresponsible, profligate and high-spending councils in the country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if people in Derbyshire want a lower community charge next year the best way to achieve that is to vote out the pack of pocket Lenins who have made Derbyshire among the highest-rated counties?

Derbyshire is, in fact, the worst-run county in Britain and until this year it had the highest rate in England. It has just been beaten by Labour-controlled Cleveland. The only way in which Derbyshire ratepayers can get a reasonable deal is to remove the leader and his followers of Derbyshire county council, which has a bad record of overspending and underproviding. The cost per library book in Derbyshire is unbelievably high because its services are unbelievably badly run.

Why did the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) sign an early-day motion in support of Derbyshire county council's initiative in connection with Toyota if he feels that it is such a disastrous authority? What will be the impact of the poll tax on local authorities in view of the fact that figures published yesterday show that 35,000 people are missing from the electoral register in Liverpool, 14,000 from the electoral register in Glasgow, 14,000 in Manchester and 9,000 in Birmingham?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the electoral register is wholly different from the community charge register. The only reason why anybody should make the mistake that they are the same is because of Labour party propaganda using the phrase "poll tax". If anybody is off the register for that reason, it is the dishonesty of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that has led them in that direction.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".]

Order.

I withdraw the word "dishonesty" and substitute "misleading".

Will my right hon. Friend consider the point that has just been made by the Opposition spokesman for the environment, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in view of the fact that Toyota has just come to Derbyshire? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason Toyota may have come to Derbyshire is that we will have a uniform business rate which will mean that businesses will not be put at a disadvantage by loony Left-wing councils, such as Derbyshire county council?

My hon. Friend is right. Had the present system continued, Derbyshire county council would have continued to push business out of Derbyshire by imposing high rates. Now it cannot force jobs out of Derbyshire because the uniform business rate will bring down the rates in high-rated Labour authorities and ensure that there are more jobs in the areas of the country that most need them. That shows once again that we are giving to each according to his need and taking from each according to his ability.

Is it not typical of the confused double standards of the Tory party that Conservative Members congratulate Derbyshire on its successful attraction of the Toyota investment—one of the biggest inward investments ever to come to Britain—and then, for their own naked political opportunism, come here and abuse the same county? As the Minister of State mentioned rate poundages, may I remind him that people do not pay rate poundages, they pay rate bills? May I also remind him that the counties with the highest average domestic rate bills are Buckinghamshire, which is Tory-controlled, where the average rate bill is £664, and Surrey, which is also Tory-controlled, where the average rate bill is £614, and that the three counties with the lowest average rates bills are all Labour-controlled—Durham Lancashire and Cumbria?

The hon. Gentleman represents the party that wants people to pay higher and higher rates on the value of their houses; the party that would exacerbate that unfairness by increasing the cost in all those areas where the value of housing is high and decreasing it in other areas. The only fairness is to consider the rate poundage. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the present rating system, which is why he opposes the community charge. The community charge will make the system fair.

If my right hon. Friend publishes projected figures for the community charge, will he make sure that he publishes the figures for the five years following the year in question so that my constituents will see the reduction caused by the removal of the safety net, which at present penalises those living in outer London boroughs?

I cannot publish the figures because I do not know what the local authority will spend in each of those successive years. Every pound per adult that a local authority overspends means an extra pound on the community charge. That is why the Labour party hates the community charge—because it means that every time they spend an extra pound on the police monitoring committee or on special arrangements for the gay bereavement cause, that pound goes directly on to what is paid by the ratepayers. The community charge produces a fair system because everybody knows whether a local authority is overspending. If one looks, for example, at the local authorities in London, one has to say that overspending has become a way of life.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to retain the existing district structure of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

No Sir. We are currently reorganising the field force of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on an integrated basis to produce a much more effective deployment of resources. A three-region structure is being developed covering the north, south-west and south-east. This approach was adopted to ensure large enough management units to secure an adequate mix of skills to match the varying types of processes subject to control by the inspectorate.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern that exists among local authorities and industrialists lest the Government's proposals for restructuring the inspectorate result in a loss of continuity at local level, with knowledge that has been built up locally over many years being lost? Will the Government further consider these local elements?

No, Sir. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The new streamlined organisation that we are proposing will greatly facilitate the integration of control of pollution to the three elements—air, water and land —which of course was the point of the integration, which is why the solution that we propose is a good one. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the fact that one of the five deputy chief inspectors left to take up a post in the private sector. But, then, so did Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk. Another of the chief inspectors resigned after changing his mind about some of the detailed aspects of the reorganisation proposals. That is exactly what the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) did.

Relating to pollution and possibly to underused land, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the port of Sharpness in my constituency has a prosperous future, with three new factories being built? Can he also confirm that it is not suitable as a site for a toxic waste dump, despite rumours to the contrary?

I can confirm that there are no sites taking hazardous waste in the Sharpness area or indeed anywhere in my hon. Friend's constituency and that there are no plans for any such hazardous waste sites there. If any hazardous waste site were to be proposed near the Sharpness canal or any other area in the lower reaches of the Severn, there would be severe water pollution problems, and that would be strictly against the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. In addition, the necessary consents would, of course, be required.

Does the Secretary of State agree that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is in a complete mess? It is still unable to recruit staff. Is he aware that Dr. Martin Biggs, who heads the local authority unit in Birmingham, is still working from his front room at home because after eight months it has not been possible to find an office for him? How can the Secretary of State justify the departure from the organisation of HMIP at district level, which used the local knowledge of local authorities? On this very day of all days, when supposedly such urgent discussions are taking place at Downing street, why will he not come to the House and tell us that he will take effective action to ensure that the country has the integrated pollution control system that it needs.

I have come to the House, abandoning the important discussions to which the hon. Lady referred. I am disappointed that I have had to come to the House to deal with such a piffling point. The hon. Lady is wrong. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is in very good health. The organisation has had to be changed. It is being improved. I think that it would help the cause of protecting the environment if the hon. Lady were to stop trying to make quick, cheap points of the sort that she has just tried to make.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the case for a system of local government finance based on capital value rates and local income tax; and whether he will make a statement.

Not surprisingly, I have received scarcely any representations in favour of Labour's two-tax system, which would be cripplingly expensive, would do virtually nothing to restore local accountability, and would replicate the unfairnesses of existing domestic rates.

Is it not the case that two of the many disadvantages of Labour's twin-tax policy would be that under a local income tax Labour councils could bleed their residents dry and under the capital value tax residents would have to pay increases every time house prices rose, irrespective of increases in income? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the silence of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on the issue is due to the realisation that Labour has shot itself in the foot again?

There is a serious problem about a capital value tax because four out of 10 people who live in more expensive houses have less than average incomes and, therefore, would not have the means to pay the tax. The truth is that Labour Members no longer wish to talk about their tax system because they found it so unpopular on the doorstep.

Does the Minister realise that the electors whom he is trying to reach with his statements today will treat his remarks about the Labour party's proposal with disdain because they recall that it is not so long ago that he, other Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers were dismissing the poll tax with equal disdain and saying that it was iniquitous and would never be brought in? Now they have changed their minds.

I am happy to say that I have been a supporter of the community charge, not just since the Government proposed it. The reason that I am a supporter is that it is fairer first, because everbody pays his bit, secondly, because everybody who needs help gets it, and thirdly, because it means that the local community has control over what the local council spends on its behalf. None of those three things applies to the two-tax Labour scheme.

My right hon. Friend will know that Clifton estate in my constituency of Nottingham, South consists of 9,000 properties; it is the second largest in England. Nearly half of those properties have been purchased by the tenants under the Government's right to buy. All of them have poured their life savings into what are now their homes. Is there any moral basis for charging those people a higher local tax merely because they have improved their homes?

No, there is not, but it would be worse than that under Labour's proposals. My hon. Friend must remember that all the tenants who have not bought their homes would be charged the capital value of the houses of which they were tenants. So neither they nor their children could even look forward to realising that capital value. Not only would they not have the means whereby to pay the tax, but they would be hit as tenants on the capital value of the houses. It is a scandalously immoral proposal.

Will the Minister accept that his last answer is such gobbledeygook that it is not even worth commenting on? When people register and find out what the poll tax means, the 21 million people who will lose and everyone else who has a sense of decency and believes in a tax based on the ability to pay—whether in Northumbria, Cumbria, Lancashire or Avon—will cast their votes on 4 May for a fair tax system that takes from people with the ability to pay and distributes grants in a sensible fashion.

A system that takes from people according to their ability to pay cannot be fair if it is based on the value of a house. If one accepts that, how does one explain to the four out of 10 people who have less than average earnings, but live in houses which would have above—

Rebate.

So it would be done by rebate. What is wrong with the rebate on the community charge? The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has again shot himself in the foot. The hon. Member refuses to give the information upon which his tax proposal could be commented, because he is afraid of doing so. He then misleads the public by refusing to point out the rebates which we have in our system.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Housing Corporation to discuss the corporation's budget.

My noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside and I meet the chairman of the Housing Corporation regularly.

Further to that answer, can my hon. Friend confirm that the Housing Corporation will enable housing associations to have ample provision in rural areas such as north Oxfordshire? What are the Government doing to encourage local authorities to take advantage of the new planning powers for development, to enable the building of more local homes for local people on low incomes?

We are certainly providing for an expansion of housing association provision in rural areas, and north Oxfordshire will benefit from that expansion. We will soon be issuing to planning authorities a revised version of our guidance on land for housing.

Will the Minister have urgent discussions with the Housing Corporation to ensure that any redevelopment of the Lower Grange estate in my constituency has adequate properties to rent at rents that those who wish to live on the estate can afford to pay?

That was the purpose of the Housing Act 1988. It encourages housing associations—perhaps sponsored by the Housing Corporation—to make available properties at rents within the means of those on low pay.

When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Housing Corporation, will he express our congratulations to the housing association movements on their contribution to housing? Will my hon. Friend also tell the chairman that it is no part of its remit to lock people out of home ownership and, therefore, will he bring forward plans to give the right to buy to housing association tenants and, in the meantime, encourage equity-sharing schemes?

I shall certainly pass on the congratulaions of my hon. Friend to the chairman of the Housing Corporation. My hon. Friend will be aware that approximately half of the housing associations have properties where the right to buy can exist. It depends on whether they are charitable or non-charitable. If they are non-charitable, they can certainly allow people to buy their homes.

The Minister will be aware that in areas such as mine young couples have terrible problems in finding a home that they can afford to buy or rent, especially in small rural villages. Will the Minister remind the House of the pitiful proportion of the Housing Corporation's funds that go to rural areas? What proportion does he hope will be spent in future in rural areas, as that is at least one way of alleviating the problem for couples in areas such as mine?

It is not a pitiful proportion. The amount of money that we are making available to the Housing Corporation for the need identified by the hon. Gentleman has quadrupled. The hon. Gentleman also chooses conveniently to forget that we can have private sector finance or even mixed funding going into developments in the rural areas. [Interruption.] I am answering the question. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has the attention span of a gerbil, but I am trying to answer the question.

Order. Remarks of that kind do not help us here.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I am answering the question. I am addressing the precise point which the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise. It relates to the development of rural housing which is within the reach of people on low pay. That is precisely what we are doing with the new housing association initiative and the mixed funding which is now allowed under the Housing Act 1988.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give fresh consideration to removing the right to buy out the freehold from shared equity housing schemes.

No, Sir. But we have announced proposals which would allow housing associations in certain rural areas the right of first refusal if a shared owner wants to sell, and where a scheme is entirely privately financed, it is already possible to restrict the shared owner's right to buy the freehold.

Is my hon. Friend aware of my continuing concern about low-cost housing in rural areas? While applauding the easing of the planning constraints by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor's announcement about the tax treatment of the proceeds of the sale of land below market prices for the purpose of affordable housing, does my hon. Friend accept that it is the success of this Government's policies in encouraging home ownership which has meant that the modern generation aspires to own their own home rather than to tenant it? Any additional help which my hon. Friend can give to housing associations to provide for that market will be very much appreciated.

I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has mentioned the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the recent Budget about tax changes which will help development in rural areas. My hon. Friend also referred to the announcement recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the easing of planning constraints. I simply draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that although I accept that he may not have liked my substantive answer to his substantive question, the truth is that the Housing Act 1988 has made it possible to offer privately financed shared ownership schemes with non-staircasing and we are not restricting those in any way at all.