To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is giving to local authorities that wish to help low-income households with draught-proofing, insulation and other means to keep warm in cold homes; and if he will make a statement.

Advice to local authorities on the availability of Government-funded loft insulation grants under the homes insulation scheme 1987 is contained in Department of the Environment circulars 29/87 and 17/88, and advice on the extent to which energy-related works may be funded by home improvement grants is included in Department of the Environment circulars 21/80 and 16/88.

In view of the retraining scheme, which has stopped local authorities using charitable organisations to deal with the problem, will the Minister consider improving the allocation to local authorities under the housing investment programme? In my local authority area pensioners face continuing and increasing problems because of the coldness of their homes.

We are certainly prepared to consider a more flexible attitude towards the HIP allocation for public housing. I had the opportunity to mention that in the Standing Committee that considered the Local Government and Housing Bill. We must consider the difference between public housing and private rented housing. We have brought forward a scheme in the legislation currently before Parliament that will cover the points that the hon. Gentleman has made on the Order Paper. It will be much wider ranging and will meet the requirements that he specified.

Recently I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy why we do not change the law and prevent builders from equipping new houses with ordinary windows instead of with double glazing or triple glazing. That would save the need for insulation later and a great deal of harassment from cowboy operators. It would make buildings warm and proper as soon as they were built without messing around later. Is it not time that the Government woke up to a technological innovation that has been with us for 50 years?

I am certainly prepared to liaise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy but my principal concern and that of the Department of the Environment is building regulations. Rather than stipulating what everyone should have in their homes, we should preserve freedom of choice.

Is the Minister aware of the reply that the Minister for Local Government gave when the matter was mentioned in a debate on the Local Government and Housing Bill? In his wisdom, the Minister for Local Government advised people to wear an extra jumper to keep warm in the winter months. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) suggested that additional HIP resources should be provided, covering local authority and private housing, to stop draughts and keep houses warm. Will the Minister take note of that?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has a superb sense of humour which emerged many times in Committee. Speaking in my capacity as his vicar here on earth, I can confirm that it was said in precisely that spirit. The Local Government and Housing Bill allows a wider qualification for the receipt of improvement grants, which I seem to remember the Opposition welcoming. We did not divide on the issue in Committee.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of pollution in the North sea comes from the Rhine.

According to the North sea quality status report of November 1987, about 50 per cent. of contaminant inputs from rivers to the North sea are accounted for by the Rhine and the Meuse together.

The public will be surprised and shocked by what my right hon. Friend has told the House. They will be surprised because Britain is supposed to be the dirty man of Europe, and they will be shocked to learn of the damage done to the environment by German rivers. They are entitled to be angry at the lecturing we get from Europe. On a more positive note, will my right hon. Friend look to the future? Does he agree that it is not just a question of money and how deep our purse is, but of the long period that will be necessary to do what we can on this side of the Channel to improve the environment and our rivers?

My hon. Friend is right and I will gibe him further details. Of the nitrogen entering the North sea, the eastern North sea receives 768,000 tonnes from the continent as opposed to 75,000 tonnes from Britain. The continental contries discharge 14·6 tonnes of mercury into the North sea, as opposed to 1·9 tonnes from Britain. On cadmium, the figures are 31·6 tonnes against 5·8 tonnes. For industrial waste, the figures are 1·2 million tonnes as opposed to 0·2 million tonnes from Britain. For incineration, the figure for Britain is 2 per cent. and for continental countries it is 55 per cent. It is questionable who is the dirty man of the North sea.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is invidious to come to the House and pass blame on to the continental countries for the pollution that we are causing? Will he acknowledge that the Irish sea is the most radioactive sea in the world as a result of pollution from this country—

Order. This question relates to the Rhine.

I never know why Opposition Members want to knock this country and its excellent record. The Irish sea is not the most radioactive sea by any means. It is 80 times more dangerous to live in Cornwall than in the constituency of Copeland because of natural radiation from radon.

It would be of great interest to the House and to people in the north-east if my right hon. Friend would give us some idea of how much industrial waste is put into the North sea by Britain and West Germany respectively. How much waste is incinerated at sea? As my right hon. Friend will know, the ash and other contaminants that are not incinerated fall into the sea, thus polluting it.

I shall give my hon. Friend the figures on industrial waste. Germany puts in 1·2 million tonnes per annum, which is 60 per cent. of the total. The United Kingdom puts in 0·2 million tonnes, which is 10 per cent. For incineration, the figure for Germany is 58,000 tonnes, whereas for Britain the figure is 2,000 tonnes per annum. I want merely to establish the facts in this matter.

Does the Secretary of State accept that his criticisms of other countries would carry more force if we put our own house in order? What is the cost to the United Kingdom of stopping the pollution of the North sea by sewage sludge, which is expected to be banned by next year's North sea conference, and the cost of stopping the dumping of raw sewage from coastal outflows into the North sea? Should not the Government disclose the costs of those developments, especially as the European Commission is preparing the directive on sewage, or will the Secretary of State suggest that this is another directive on pollution prevention that will be flouted by the Government?

I do not know why the hon. Lady continues to knock the United Kingdom in the face of the figures that I have just given—[Interruption.]I am not knocking anybody; I am merely giving her the figures, which she does not seem to like very much. I dispute the hon. Lady's view on sewage sludge. Putting sewage sludge into the sea may be the best way to deal with it. No doubt the hon. Lady has seen the recently published report on dioxins, of which one of the main sources is the incineration of sewage sludge. Incineration may be the worst environmental option. The hon. Lady should get her science right; she is ill-founded in science. Furthermore, the hon. Lady does not seem to realise that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has recommended that long sea outfalls are the best way of dealing with sewage from coastal towns.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many jobs the city grant initiative is currently creating.

Projects approved since May last year are expected to provide over 8,500 permanent jobs and about 4,600 temporary construction jobs.

Although I welcome those encouraging figures, how many derelict acres have been recovered, how many new homes and factories have been built and, most important, how much private sector investment has been brought in on the back of the city grant initiative?

The answer to the latter question is that for every pound of taxpayer's money that we have invested through city grant, we have attracted four times that figure from the private sector, which is most impressive. About 1,200 homes have been built, 230 acres of derelict and rundown land have been brought back into use, and approximately 3·5 million sq ft of industrial and commercial floor space will be created as a result of city grant.

What is the Minister doing to ensure that city grants are not used as a vehicle to generate greater tax dodges, as is happening with property enterprise trusts? When will the Minister make available to the House the details of the city grants that are given to private developers so that we can investigate where the money is going and how it is being spent? The reply that the Minister has given to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) does nothing to encourage the availability of information or accountability for the money that is spent through city grant. When will the House be given the information about where the money is going?

That question is outrageous. I have never heard an hon. Member of any party ever say that city grant has been used for a dubious purpose. It has been widely recognised as a successor to the urban regeneration grant and to the urban development grant, but it is a much more efficient system. I have made clear to local authorities their significant part in this, because I will not accept an application for city grant unless the project has received planning permission. Therefore, it has been widely welcomed by the local authorities. I am only too happy to give the details to the hon. Gentleman and to the House and to answer any specific questions that he might table. We have absolutely nothing to hide and a great deal of which to be proud.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of County Councils; and what was discussed.

On 29 November last, to discuss local authority capital finance and local authority interests in companies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the duties carried out by county councils could be devolved down to district authorities and be more effectively carried out by them? Does he further agree that the policy of abolishing county councils would command almost universal support, bearing in mind that even the Opposition have come out in favour of abolition, perhaps in recognition of the damage done to them by the leader of Derbyshire county council?

A short month after we regained control of one of the major local authority associations—the Association of County Councils—it would be strange for me to say that we should abolish them. In that context, I congratulate John Chatfield on becoming the Conservative chairman of the Association of County Councils. I invite the Opposition to consider how they think they will ever win an election when they cannot even hold a local authority association of that importance in mid-term. I advise my hon. Friend that we have no plans to abolish the county councils.

When the Secretary of State discussed capital finance with the county authorities, did he recognise that many counties have a problem meeting the large capital costs of developing new waste disposal sites that meet adequate safety levels? Does he recognise that that is an important problem, and will he ensure that the county authorities receive sufficient allocations in future years to meet that need?

I realise the importance of that. As the hon. Gentleman may know, we hope to have early legislation on the counties' responsibilities in relation to waste disposal. We must ensure that the capital allocations follow the policy that we will lay down. If county councils are short of capital, one option is to ensure that the disposal operations are carried out by the private sector and that they are properly regulated by the county councils.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people, including my constituents in Buckinghamshire, believe that they are well served by their county councils? Will he accept my thanks for the fact that he does not at present intend to introduce further changes in the structure of local government?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The Government have in many respects carried out a major reform of local authorities. We should give them a period to adjust to the new circumstances, which they are beginning to do. They are also beginning to perform much more in the interests of their electors and chargepayers-to-be. We should allow them a period to consolidate.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the county councils' concern for the elderly for whom they are responsible? They are especially worried about the way in which the cold affects old people. Is he aware that the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was entirely unsatisfactory, because what is needed to improve insulation is not only more flexibility, but more money? The amount of money available has been slashed because the Government have reduced the number of people in training places. They were doing a tremendous amount of good work in that area.

The hon. Gentleman cannot ask a supplementary to question No. 1 on question No. 4. which refers to county councils. We are not responsible for the matters with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was dealing.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from tenant groups in favour of a system of local government finance based on capital value rates.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from tenant groups in favour of a system of local government finance based on capital value rates and local income tax.

Not surprisingly, I have received hardly any representations in favour of a system of local government finance based on capital value rates or a local income tax.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be monstrous for tenants to have capital value rates based on the value of their properties? Does he agree that about 20,000 people living in council houses in my constituency would consider it a major injustice if they had to pay rates based on the price of a house in which they have no financial interest?

It is impossible to contemplate basing local authority payments, of whatever description, on the capital value of the houses of those who rent them. It is inexplicably unfair. Council property in central London will be up to four or five times more valuable than council property in, say, my hon. Friend's constituency. Why should those council tenants be expected to pay four or five times more for the same services? Our system is based on the cost of the services that are provided, and is infinitely fairer. The community charge in Lancashire, West, if it had been in place last year, would have been £230 in total. But if there had been a system of local income tax, a single person earning £11,000 a year—about the national average wage—would have paid a tax bill of £495.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has received no representations from tenant groups because they have been working out—as they have been in my constituency—how badly stung they would be by a system of double taxation, not only in the extra burden of the ridiculous administration costs needed to run two tax systems, but in their failure to control their local authority spending, because local income tax would make the local authorities less accountable? Is that not why they have not been pestering him with demands to bring in that outrageous system?

To be fair, my hon. Friend should admit that they never dreamt that it could happen because they could not contemplate the nightmare of a Labour Government. Just in case they should have that nightmare, I should reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. A system based on capital value rates and local income tax would cost up to four times as much to administer as the present rating system. In my hon. Friend's constituency the local income tax rate alone, if that was the system adopted, would be 6·4p in the pound, which is about as much as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has knocked off national income tax.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he cannot back up with factual background analytical material a single figure that he has quoted from the Dispatch Box today? Will he explain to the House how it is that, up to now, he has defended the idea that, among domestic ratepayers, owner-occupiers should pay a tax on occupancy based on rental values, and that it will continue for business men as a tax on the rental value of the property that they own as a means of collecting local authority rates? The right hon. Gentleman has mixed those two up, and the way in which he has answered the question is disgraceful. Capital value taxes or rental value taxes are a tax on occupancy, not a tax on ownership. It is simply a means of raising the revenue. Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that? The revenue should be raised in a fairer way than through a flat-rate poll tax.

I know that it hurts the hon. Gentleman, but I am going to rub his nose in it. The other day he was talking about the iniquities of capital value rents. Why does he support a party that advocates capital value taxes for local authorities based on the capital value of a tenant's house? By advocating that policy rather than the community charge he is selling his constituents down the river.

Why will not the Secretary of State stop misrepresenting Labour policy? Why does he not look at what it says as against what he wants to believe it says? Does he understand that that policy is eminently more sensible than the poll tax? The simple truth is that the right hon. Gentleman is on his backside with the poll tax. The Cabinet is considering paying an extra subsidy to local authorities so that they can reduce the poll tax by £30 per man and woman because the Cabinet knows that it is unpopular. Is that not the truth?

I say to the hon. Gentleman in all humility —[Interruption.]—that if I have made any false assumption in working out the figures that I have given this afternoon it is because I have written three times to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asking for full details of what the Labour party proposes, but on none of those occasions have I had an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me to tell me on what assumptions he bases his twin-tax horror regime—his twin-tax nightmare—I will rework the examples and take the hon. Gentleman through them so that he is satisfied about the enormous havoc that his party's policy would wreak on his constituents. I will not hesitate to tell his constituents on every possible occasion the horrors of the policy that he has advocated.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is appalling that the Labour party should make such outrageous suggestions when it is well known that one of the groups most likely to benefit under the community charge arrangements is the single elderly who live on their own? Are not the people who live in that poverty trap among those to whom any party pledged to care for the less fortunate should pay attention?

My hon. Friend is right. When opposition for opposition's sake is at an end, our system will be seen to be far fairer to people who deserve help and relief than anything that has come from the Labour party.

Humility is a facet of the right hon. Gentleman's character which he has hitherto kept well disguised. I fear that its sudden emergence is rather late to save his skin. If he checks the records of his correspondence he will find that he has received a reply to his letters. Since he appears to be so concerned about the financial well-being of council house tenants, perhaps he should explain to them and to the House why he and his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government plan to increase tenants' rents to make them pay the rents of those who do not pay. Why is he planning to increase council house tenants' rents to make them subsidise the poll tax of those who are much better off? Since, as a scientist, the right hon. Gentleman says that he is always interested in evidence, why does he not consult the records and studies of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Rating and Valuation Association, both of which show that a system of capital values will not only be more efficient, but fairer.

Openness is not a facet of the hon. Gentleman's character which he has ever failed to disguise. Please may we be told what proportion of new local authority revenue will come from capital revenue rates and how much from local income tax? Does the hon. Gentleman plan resource equalisation and is there any system of rebates? Will he answer any of the questions about the Labour party's system? I shall not desist from exposing the figures implied by his system until he gives the proper data to change the figures, and when he does so I will change the figures, and he will not like them either.—[Interruption.]

Order. Perhaps we can now settle down to question No. 6.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to harmonise the design of community charge registration forms.

My right hon. Friend produced a model form in consultation with local authority associations last autumn. He has no powers to prescribe the form.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that several local authorities have, by ignoring the guidelines issued by his own Department, fallen foul of the Data Protection Act 1984? Who is expected to pick up the bill for those forms which will now have to be processed manually?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that local authorities have the right and the powers to produce their own forms, which is perfectly proper. Local authorities often say that they want more independence and this is one area in which they have it. If they decide to do differently they must also take the advice of the Department which is that they should check whether their forms comply with the Data Protection Act. If they do not, that is their responsibility and they must pay the bill.

Is not the Minister deluding himself if he thinks that any cosmetic changes made to the forms will minimise the hatred of the poll tax felt throughout the country? Is it not a fact that despite any design changes which his hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) may propose, the tax is a savage attack on the living standards of the low paid, young, old and women who are presently living in low-rated properties? Almost 1 million people in Scotland have not paid the poll tax and it is likely that by next April, four or five times that number will not be paying the poll tax in England and Wales, notwithstanding any suggestions from the hon. Member for Wimbledon.

No. The facts are that first, the poorest group of the population will pay 25 per cent. less towards the community charge than they presently pay towards the rates, so there will be a cut in the cost of rates or community charge to the poorest. Secondly, the top 10 per cent. of earners will pay 15 times as much towards local authority costs than the bottom 10 per cent. Thirdly, one in four of the population will receive a rebate. Fourthly, 5 million people will, in effect, not pay the community charge because they will receive an 80 per cent. rebate and sufficient to cover a sensible community charge in their area. The policy of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), which was originally to support the rates, would hit the poorest much more than the community charge.

Would it not be a good idea to have different coloured forms for the three different kinds of tax? We could have a blue form for the personal community charge, a green form for the standard community charge, which is a classic property tax, and a red form for the collective community charge.

I prefer to keep the red form for any area that tries to bring in the Labour party's two-tax proposals.

As the Minister has already said this afternoon that poll tax registration officers have already breached the Data Protection Act 1984 with the intrusive and non-statutory questions that they have asked, what advice would he give to people who think that they have a form that includes intrusive questions?

I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to create chaos out of a system that is working rather well. Labour authorities are saying how well it is working, in the sense that they are getting the forms back. I was in Ipswich—a Labour-controlled authority—only last week. The council there compliments itself on the degree to which it is obtaining results—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can take it from me—[Interruption.]

Order. This all very entertaining but it takes up a great deal of time. We are making very slow progress.

Anyone who is asked a question for which there is no statutory backing need not respond to it and if he does not want to answer it he should not.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of global warming.

I hope that global warming will reduce Chamber warming.

I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that one of the important factors contributing to global warming is the destruction of many tropical rain forests. Is his Department encouraging and helping local authorities—many of them controlled by my party—that are trying to adopt purchasing policies to find alternatives to tropical hardwoods from non-sustainable sources?

We must take this problem extremely seriously, and internationally. That is why we have proposed in the United Nations and in the United Nations environment programme general council that there should be a global framework convention on climate change, under which various protocols can be negotiated, including one on tropical rain forests. The right way forward is to involve all the nations of the world; our initiative in this field has been taken very seriously and has received a great deal of support. We cannot do this at only the national level, let alone at the local authority level.

I support what my right hon. Friend says about the inevitable international impact of this issue, but does he agree that the problem of carbon dioxide, which is not covered by the steps that have already been taken to control power station emissions, and which will be exacerbated by the catalyst solution for cars, remains one of the single most pressing problems?

My hon. Friend is right. One of the worries is that the drive to improve nitrogen oxide emissions from motor vehicles and to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations has the result of increased fuel consumption and hence increased emissions of carbon dioxide. I am afraid that carbon dioxide, which is the most important greenhouse gas, has become the Cinderella of environmental policies, and we must watch out and make sure that our policies have the effect of reducing, not increasing, carbon dioxide.

Does the Minister agree that only two thirds of the 50 per cent. of the CO₂ that goes into the environment comes from burning fossil fuel and that methane, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide and surface ozone are also significant contributory factors? Will he admit that the experts who attended the Prime Minister's special seminar on the greenhouse effect pointed out that a 15 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, which a change of emphasis to nuclear power stations would produce, is three times less than the reduction that would take place from the major energy conservation initiatives that the Government not only refuse to contemplate but are cutting back on?

The hon. Gentleman says that only two thirds of carbon dioxide comes from burning fossil fuels. Therefore, one would have thought that that would be the area where one would start to seek to make reductions. Secondly, since I was at the Prime Minister's seminar and he was not, may I tell him that his account of it is far from accurate.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of garages now stock unleaded petrol.

It is estimated that well over 50 per cent. of petrol stations are now selling the fuel, and that two out of three refuellings take place at a petrol station where unleaded is available.

Does that not show the effect that the Government's green policies are having both on environmental pollution and on public health? Can my hon. Friend tell us what further progress has been made as a result of the Budget provisions?

Certainly the uptake of unleaded petrol is a clear indication of action, not words, in regard to environmental protection. The Chancellor increased the differential in the Budget. It is now the second highest in the European Community. Since then the uptake of unleaded petrol has risen threefold. It was 6·4 per cent. in March and it is now approaching 20 per cent. This is an indication of the popularity of environmental policies and the success of the Chancellor's differential.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to the lead that Wolverhampton has taken with its recent highly successful lead-free campaign, the town can now proudly boast that 98 per cent. of its garages stock unleaded petrol?

I think that the entire House would like to pay tribute to the success of Wolverhampton's initiative. In one day alone mechanics managed to adjust the magnificent total of 1,126 motor vehicles. As a result it is now able to enter the "Guinness Book of Records". I hope that others will follow Wolverhampton's example.

Does the Minister agree that the important measurement is the percentage of unleaded petrol that is used in cars and not necessarily what is stocked in garages? Can she tell the House how that percentage compares with West Germany's progress?

West Germany is already making greater progress than we are in the uptake of unleaded petrol. We have made rapid and fast progress. We want others who have cars that can be adjusted to get that done. Several million cars that could use unleaded petrol still need adjustment. It is an area where helping the wallet also helps the environment. The Government are committed to take all possible opportunities to promote and encourage the uptake of unleaded petrol. We hope that environmentalists will take steps that are already within their power and use unleaded petrol which protects the environment.

Welcome though the progress in unleaded petrol is, does my hon. Friend agree that if we are seriously concerned to deal with the major environmental problem called the internal combustion engine, we should look at the Californian example? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, please obtain from the state government of California full details of their proposal to eliminate completely the internal combustion engine by the early years of the next century? Will she put those details in the Library and give the Government of which she is a member a target of achieving the same objective here?

Perhaps I should ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether I can go on a ministerial visit to California to look at the arrangements there. I shall look into this matter further. Already, people can avoid churning the equivalent of 300 double-decker bus loads of lead into the environment every year. Lead is a cumulative poison, which is potentially damaging to children's health and development, and it is time that people made sure that they were not unnecessarily polluting the environment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of rent and rate arrears in London.

At 1 April 1988, the rent and rate arrears of London authorities amounted to £350 million—just under half the total for England. Arrears ranged from less than 5 per cent. of the annual rent and rates due for such authorities as Hillingdon and Barking and Dagenham, to some 20 per cent. or more for Brent, Lambeth and Southwark. High arrears can be attributed only to the boroughs' poor management. It is for authorities to see that rent and rates are collected, but the measures that I announced last Monday should encourage greater financial discipline.

Does the Minister recognise, as many authorities including Tory authorities do, that the massive increases in rent arrears result, substantially, from the Government's £650 million housing benefit cuts last year? Does the Minister accept that, as the Government's policy unfolds next year, with the poll tax and rent increases, the tenants who pay their rents regularly will be picking up the tab for the barrage of Government policies that, increasingly, penalise the poor?

That cannot possibly be true, because if it were, the rent and rate arrears in the Labour-run authorities of Hillingdon, Dagenham and Barking would be similar to those in Labour-run Brent, Lambeth and Southwark, but they are not. Arrears in Brent are bad because, until recently, it did not even have a list of its tenants and the keys to its council houses were being sold in Nigeria. It is not surprising that it cannot collect the rents.

Are not the biggest lists for rent arrears, rate arrears and squatted properties in London in the Labour-run boroughs? Are not such boroughs cheating on the homeless and on those who desperately need repairs to their homes? Is it not high time for those who, loyally and legally, pay their rates and rents to have some recompense from such dissolute councils?

My hon. Friend is right. If rents are not collected, other people have to pay for them, whether they are the ratepayers or other tenants. In those authorities that already do not subsidise their rent from ratepayers, the other tenants have already been contributing. Some boroughs do not collect the rents because their system of rent collection is extremely inefficient, and they have no intention of collecting it. When a borough has on its arrears committee a councillor who is herself in considerable arrears, it is not surprising that people do not pay their rents.

I believe that the Minister is aware that the leaders of Brent borough council in particular recognise the force of what he is saying and have made it clear to him that they are making strenuous new efforts to resolve the problems of rent arrears, as they should be doing. Will the Minister reflect again on the answer that he has just given to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who was asking for protection for tenants who pay their rents? Is the hon. Gentleman aware, as the Minister is because he announced it, that the Government are planning additionally to place burdens on those tenants by making them pay for that shortfall?

The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at the programme that was announced by Brent. I have done some work on the more detailed programme produced by the Labour-controlled London borough of Southwark. If it proceeds with its new tougher policy, it should have started before the Spanish Armada had arrived if it wanted to collect its rent arrears by today. The borough will collect only a tiny proportion—£78,000 a year—of rent arrears of £37 million.

Treat this seriously.

It is all right for the hon. Lady, but the people who pay for those rent arrears are the tenants and the ratepayers who pay their rents and rates. Why should the tenants of Barking and Dagenham pay for the inefficency of the Labour council in Southwark? Why should the tenants of Hillingdon pay for the inefficiency of the Labour party in Brent? We must have an efficient system, and if Brent collected its rents the paying tenants would not have to suffer. Because of the Opposition's rottweiler tendency, they are determined not to listen to the facts—[Interruption.]

Order. It is very unseemly to make animal noises.

Because the Opposition do not want to hear the facts—which are that the tenants and the ratepayers who pay their rent and rates have to carry the cost of those who do not—the rottweiler tendency wins again.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Sports Council; and what matters were discussed.

I have met the chairman of the Sports Council on a number of informal occasions since his appointment on 20 May. My first formal meeting with him will be on 3 July when we will discuss the council's corporate plan.

During the Minister's meetings with the chairman of the Sports Council, did he discuss the potential damage to the Commonwealth games next year if rugby players from the United Kingdom accept invitations to play in centenary matches in South Africa? In particular, did he discuss with Mr. Yarranton the potential conflict between his two positions as chairman of the Sports Council and vice-chairman of the Rugby Football Union?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to my answer, he would have heard me say that I have yet to meet the new chairman of the Sports Council formally. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the chairman's views on apartheid are quite clear. In a press statement on 12 June he said:

"I abhor the apartheid system of South Africa as I do all forms of racialism. As chairman of the Sports Council I shall do my utmost to support the Gleneagles agreement."

Does my hon. Friend agree that many users of watersports facilities on rivers and lakes would not want consent levels for sewage works to be relaxed because that might pollute rivers unnecessarily? Has he received any representations from the Sports Council on that matter?

I have indeed discussed that subject with the Sports Council, although not yet with the new chairman. One point that he has welcomed in the water privatisation measures is the fact that we are going further than we have ever gone before to protect and enhance the use of our water courses for sport and recreation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will warmly welcome that.

Does the Minister appreciate that press statements or letters on the very important subject of apartheid and the involvement of British sportsmen in South African sport are inadequate? Is he aware that the Gleneagles agreement calls upon him and Government Ministers, as a duty, urgently to combat those evils

"by taking every practical step to discourage contact or competition"?

I wrote to the president of the Rugby Football Union on 17 May drawing attention to the Government's commitment to the Gleneagles agreement and the implications that such a tour may have for other sports. I strongly discouraged the passing on of invitations to players to compete in South Africa. I have also spoken to the RFU and colleagues in Scotland and Wales have written in similar terms to their respective unions. The Government are fully committed to the Gleneagles agreement, but in a free society such as ours their role is limited to giving advice and seeking to persuade.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures were agreed at the recent meeting of European Community Environment Ministers to ban trade in ivory.

The Environment Council strongly supported the United Kingdom Government's proposal for an immediate ban on the import into the Community of raw and worked ivory.

I thank my hon. Friend for that positive result. Is she aware that the British people are delighted by the Government's strong lead in trying to stamp out that evil trade? One could say that we are in a position to blow our trumpet. What success has my hon. Friend had in persuading other countries to follow our example?

I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute. My noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside visited Kenya and was most successful with the initiative taken at the Environment Council. All members of the Community now ban raw and worked ivory, Hong Kong has taken further steps to ban imports, Japan is strengthening its controls, and the United Arab Emirates have announced their intention to become parties once again to the CITES agreement.

Is the Minister aware that elephant tusks from east Africa tend to be shaped differently from those originating in central and southern Africa, yet photographs of tusks imported into Britain and Europe over the past few months supposedly from central and southern Africa clearly originated from the Kenya national parks and are a result of the serious poaching there? In view of the corrupt, irresponsible and illegal nature of such activities in east Africa, will the Minister ensure not only that a ban is enforced by Britain and Europe but that there is a great deal more international effort to stop that particularly disgraceful trade?

Very great care was taken to control such legitimate trade as was allowed through the ivory trade monitoring unit at CITES, which has worked closely with our Customs and with our managing agents in the countries concerned. As a result of concern about the species, we decided that the African elephant should be included in appendix I of CITES, which will outlaw all ivory trade.

While warmly welcoming my hon. Friend's reply and the very fine example set by the United Kingdom, is she not afraid that by banning ivory we could drive that evil trade underground? Is she aware that South Africa and Namibia have found ways of cutting out illegal poaching, though both countries are so openly criticised by Opposition Members?

I am well aware of the steps taken by the countries that my hon. Friend mentions to control the ivory trade. Our primary concern must be the conservation of the species, and we have decided that the time is right for the African elephant to be included in appendix I of CITES together with the Indian elephant, and to outlaw trade in its ivory.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with fellow European Ministers of Sport on producing a common European football identity card.

None. I gave a report on developments on a national membership scheme for England and Wales at the sixth conference of European Ministers with responsibility for sport in Reykjavik from 30 May to 1 June during the discussion on spectator violence. European Governments are kept informed about the scheme through our membership of the Council of Europe standing committee on spectator violence.

Is it not a fact that European Ministers laughed out of court the Minister for Sport's proposal for a common European football identity card, which was also condemned by the European Football Association? It is their belief and ours that it would militate against genuine football supporters as against the hooligan element. Can the Minister explain why Britain is once again out of step with Europe?

The answer to all the hon. Gentleman's questions is no. At Reykjavik European Ministers warmly supported our determination to stamp out football hooliganism and the package of measures, including the Football Spectators Bill, that we are putting in place. That may be the reason why Holland and Spain are considering their own membership schemes—which will, rightly, be drawn up as appropriate for the problems that those countries face.

Will my hon. Friend waste no more time on the European dimension? It will be difficult enough for us to operate the scheme here without worrying about what they do in Italy.

As my hon. Friend will know, I am merely answering the question tabled for my response, and that covers Europe. Suffice it to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend about the practicality of the scheme in this country. The strong commitment of the Government and the vote last night has shown not only that we shall see the scheme in place, but that it will prove a very important measure in ending the problems of violence associated with football in this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received over the decision by the Leeds development corporation to use its compulsory purchase powers to acquire riverside land in the Calls development area in Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir, other than those from the hon. Gentleman.

Does the Minister recognise that the use of compulsory powers by Leeds development corporation has caused considerable consternation among local businesses? When will this Government-appointed body—made up entirely of place men responsible to the Secretary of State—take account of the wishes of local business, and when will it recognise that its chairman has now completely lost the confidence of local business and will soon lose that of the local chamber of commerce as well?

I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's final comment. As for his substantive question, no compulsory purchase order has been laid for the area that he mentions. The Leeds development corporation will proceed in exactly the same way as local councils which prefer to negotiate without the use of the CPO.

Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House notes the continued and overwhelming rejection of the Conservative Party's colonial regime in Scotland, the willingness of the Labour Party leadership to place Trident submarines on the Clyde against the wishes of the Scottish Labour Conference and majority Scottish opinion, the results of the European elections which saw the Scottish National Party gain 26 per cent. of the vote and move into a clear second place in Scottish politics, the continued alienation of the United Kingdom from its European partners and the obstruction to European Community co-operation presented by the Prime Minister's little Englander attitudes; and recognises that the only constitutional change which can meet fully the need for economic and social progress in Scotland is independence as a full and equal partner within the European Community.

"In fact the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland are not unlike those of a colonial governor."

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 10 of the 15 members of the Forth Valley health board live in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? Not one comes from the highly industrialised constituency of Falkirk, East and of the others, a small number are shared between Falkirk, West and Clackmannan. Is that the sort of bias to which he is referring?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and aware of what he says. My colleagues and I recently met a Scottish Trades Union Congress delegation, which gave us the facts and figures of how this pattern is being replicated all over Scotland. So it was ironic that Councillor Meek mentioned the Lothian and Borders police board but did not refer to anywhere else in Scotland —or even to his own appointment as a prominent member of Livingston development corporation. I do not think that the new town of Livingston has ever elected a Conservative councillor in its electoral history. So throughout Scotland there is a colonial system of government imposed by the Tory majority.

I was somewhat puzzled when I read the Order Paper because it says:

"This Opposition Day is at the disposal of the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13. The selection of the matter to be debated has been made by the Scottish National Party."

The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his ignorance of House procedures. I know that he has been here for some time but he has learnt very little. As I understand it, under Standing Order No. 13 the second Opposition party in the House is the Ulster Unionist party because of the name change and the disintegration of the alliance parties after the election. Just as in the previous Parliament it was the prerogative of the alliance to allocate the second party Opposition day, that is now the prerogative of the Ulster Unionist party. I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing more sinister in the Supply day than that. [Interruption.]

"Oh, they can't possibly be a nation, they can't possibly have a national Government, they haven't got the population or the size',—it is an absolute nonsense of an argument, it is a patronising argument and on the lips of Englishmen it really is quite disgraceful because it's almost a proconsular argument, as though we were colonial peoples who hadn't yet got the resources for independence and that is complete and utter rubbish."

I know that the hon. Gentleman is fastidious in these matters, so I make this point for the sake of accuracy. Is not the support for a Scotland independent in Europe at 22 per cent. in the latest MORI poll? The hon. Gentleman has added another factor—Scotland independent outwith the EEC—to get his 35 per cent.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman appreciates where his argument is leading him. Will he differentiate, in the devolution element of the poll, between his policy of independence from the United Kingdom, the Democrats' policy of quasi-federalism, the old devolution policy of the Labour party and the policy of David Martin, which is quite different from that of any of the other policies? We were given a choice between independence, devolution and the status quo. The figures that I have quoted are those recorded in the poll. I suspect that even the hon. Gentleman will not deny the figures of between 52 per cent. and 61 per cent. saying yes to a direct question of yes or no to independence in Europe, in three successive opinion polls.

May I pursue the hon. Gentleman on the question of independence for Scotland inside or outside Europe? As I understand it, the nationalists see much of their appeal coming from the fact that they are offering Scotland independence within the European Community. If the terms for Scotland remaining in the EEC are renegotiated and found to be unsatisfactory, do I take it that the nationalist line is independence outside Europe, come what may?

I shall be dealing with that matter later in my speech.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall answer his question.

rose—

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.

rose—

I wish that hon. Members would contain themselves.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.

rose—

I have been very generous in giving way to Labour Members. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later if he allows me to develop a few more points.

rose—

If hon. Members will allow me to develop a few points, I might be generous enough to give way later.

"There is no precedent or provision for the expulsion of a member state, therefore Scottish independence would create two member states out of one … They would have equal status with each other and the other eleven states. The remainder of the UK would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland."