To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received encouraging him to replace the community charge with a tax on property values.

As far as I am aware, no one has made a representation to me in favour of a roof tax based on capital or site values.

I welcome my honourable—soon to be right honourable—Friend to the Dispatch Box at his first Environment Question Time. If he manages to extricate himself from his present job with the same high distinction with which he served in the previous two he will deserve the title of the Houdini of the present Government.

My hon. Friend's opening remarks were very kind. He is exactly right: the trouble with the rating system, as all parties recognise—at least they did at one time—was that property is no proxy for the means that a person has, and any taxation system based on property will be unfair for that reason. One must assume, in the absence of any details, that Labour's new plans would be as unfair as, if not more unfair than, the rates.

Does not the Minister recognise that the change from rating to a poll tax has meant that Salford needs to employ 300 extra people to collect the poll tax and to spend about £110,000 on an extension to house them? How does he justify that?

The cost of collecting the community charge is about double the cost of collecting the rates, and the number of people paying the community charge is about double the number who were paying the rates. The correlation is exact; the cost per head of collecting the community charge is the same as it was under the rates. This is a fairer and broader-based tax, and that is a price worth paying.

Will my hon. Friend try to provide just a little more detail about the roof tax? I must declare an interest, in that I have been fortunate enough to buy an old mill and a few acres in my constituency, but it is not in very good order—10 years ago the roof fell in. Should I repair it or leave it as it is?

I wish that I could help my hon. Friend. He must, I am afraid, address his appeal to the Opposition. It is for them to supply the details of the new roof tax and, in particular, to explain who will pay it. We understand from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that who pays it will be based on maximum choice, and we now have interesting evidence from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who says that whether one pays the community charge is a matter for the individual. Presumably that begins to elucidate what maximum choice in payment is about.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new task and to the bed of nails that is the poll tax. I accept that, given the work that we understand he is doing on changes to the poll tax, he cannot yet tell us what his alternative will eventually be, but can he at least give us a clue about the features of the poll tax that he finds objectionable and intends to change? Is it the unfairness; or is it the administrative and cost complexity to which he referred; or is it the fundamental principle of a head tax which, as he knows, is shunned in every country with the single exception of Papua New Guinea? Will the changes that he proposes require legislation and, if so, when does he propose to introduce it?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome to me in my new job. If it were a bed of nails the hon. Gentleman would have cushioned the impact considerably by providing me with the opportunity to attack the Labour party, which criticises us without providing any alternative or any details of its policies.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums of investment are planned in improved water standards over the next 10 years.

On present plans the water industry will be investing £26·3 billion over the next 10 years to improve standards and to repair and renew its infrastructure.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure is the strongest proof that water privatisation has been extremely good news for the environment? Can he confirm and emphasise that in contrast to the days of state control, such expenditure is no longer subject to the uncertainties of the annual public spending round?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is now a massive investment programme in the improvement of the water environment. We look forward to hearing tomorrow the Labour party's plans for renationalising the water industry. I am sure that that programme would enable Labour, if it were ever in office, to do what it did on the last occasion when it cut investment in water and sewerage by 50 per cent. in real terms.

Will not the Minister admit that the Government's record on investment in the water industry has been pitiful and is one reason why there are a number of cases pending in the European Court of Justice? Would not it be far better for the Government to make sure that more investment was put into the water industry so that those cases may be withdrawn?

I am more than happy to stand on the record, which is that since 1980 investment in water has risen by 50 per cent. in real terms. Under the previous Labour Government investment in water fell by 50 per cent. in real terms. In so far as I understand the Labour party to have any plans for the water industry, it wants to spend taxpayers' money on buying back water shares.

To facilitate future capital investment more than £5 billion of water authority debt was written off ahead of privatisation. How will the taxpayer bear the cost of that write-off? The obligation to repay £5 billion does not disappear into thin air. How will the taxpayer be required to meet that obligation?

The taxpayer has made an important investment in the improvement of water quality. We were able to secure a green dowry for the water industry when we privatised it. As I said, we shall spend over £26 billion on investment in water quality over the next 10 years. It will be interesting to see whether Labour plans to increase that investment programme or whether it will follow past practice which is, whatever it says about infrastructure investment, to cut such investment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to attain the targets for reductions in sulphur emissions in the United Kingdom set by the directive from the European Community.

The Government set out their general plans for implementing the directive in a consultation paper published in August 1989. A further consultation paper setting out more detailed figures will be issued shortly.

In her speech to the United Nations the Prime Minister boasted that Britain had a £2 billion programme of flue gas desulphurisation which would reduce acid rain emissions from our power plants. Why within six months of that speech has the programme been slashed by at least a third, and why is Britain turning to the much less effective but cheaper alternative of importing low-sulphur coal which has the added disadvantage of threatening thousands of jobs in the British mining industry? Is it because the Government give a higher priority to cutting public spending and boosting private profits than they do to protecting the environment or the jobs of British workers?

The Government give a higher priority to the environment than the Labour party ever could. I detect from the hon. Gentleman's question that not only is he in a mess, but so is his party. The Labour party seems to wish us to burn as much coal as possible, but at the same time to reduce CO₂ levels. It will be interesting to see how it squares that circle with the release of its policy document tomorrow. Labour's concern for the environment is not worth the paper it is written on. Its order of priority is the National Union of Mineworkers first and the environment second. That illustrates perfectly why the Labour party will never be a credible party of the environment.

What will be the relative cost to the consumer in attaining those targets, of flue gas desulphurisation and of the importation of low-sulphur coal?

I hope that the consultation paper that will be issued shortly will give the informaton on costs that my hon. Friend requires.

Will the Minister ask his colleagues in the Department of Energy why it supported British Coal's programme of closing the pits that produced low-sulphur coal? Will he also ask the Secretary of State to reinstate the programme to ensure that our power stations are cleaned up so that they can use British coal rather than cheap imports, and we can retain jobs in the Nottinghamshire coalfield?

I am certain that the overriding concern of British Coal is economics. The hon. Member knows that its strategy is aimed at achieving a competitive coal industry. That is the best guarantee of mineworkers' jobs. Keeping uncompetitive pits open will destroy jobs in the long term.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to assess the need for new housing in the rented sector in rural areas.

There is a requirement for low-cost housing for rent and sale in some rural areas. That is why we introduced our rural housing initiative, including a special Housing Corporation programme and new planning rules enabling additional land to be made available for low-cost housing for local people.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the shire district councils are experiencing acute frustration in discharging their function as facilitators of housing in rural areas, having made their assessments on requirements for both rented and for-sale accommodation? Is he aware that, for example, time and time again South Herefordshire district council has had a housing association interested in a project but has received no money from the Housing Corporation? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the balance of distribution within the Housing Corporation's resources properly reflects the real requirements of the rural areas which, in view of demographic changes, have exactly the same needs as the urban areas in terms of homelessness?

I hope that the Housing Corporation will give priority to rural schemes where local authorities have provided their own resources, including cheap land. At least five initiatives specifically relating to rural areas have been taken. The Housing Corporation is placing special emphasis on housing for rent in rural areas. The others are the low-cost home ownership programme, the Rural Development Commission's start-up programme, the low-cost shared ownership programme and the special planning arrangements for low-cost homes. I hope that authorities in rural areas will take note of those schemes and make the best use of them.

Further to the question of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] At long last, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has shown that he can count fingers. That is an advance on his previous state, when he could not even count.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on this matter, and that is why we announced the initiatives. I think that we should let the initiatives go through and see how they work out.

Would not the encouragement of young people, or people of working age, to remain in rural areas through the provision of low-cost housing, to which I think we all attach importance, help in the retention of village post offices and village shops generally which are threatened—I make no complaint about this—by high interest rates and a combination of the uniform business rate and the community charge? That is definitely a problem in rural areas, and I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to it.

I agree with my hon. Friend that if people live in villages, especially people with young families, they will spend money in the local post office, and that that will be good for those businesses.

The Minister has developed an unenviable reputation for not answering questions on housing, and his performance today has been no exception. I shall ask him a nice easy question today to help him regain his reputation. Why are Lady Anson and the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, as well as nearly every Conservative-controlled local authority in rural areas, saying that the schemes that the Minister has introduced do not begin to touch the problem and that a major change of Government policy is required if the housing crisis that is the result of a lack of affordable accommodation for rent or sale in rural areas is to be reversed? Why, in the hon. Gentleman's judgment, is Lady Anson wrong?

I shall answer the hon. Gentleman directly. Five initiatives have been introduced only recently. IF an initiative has been introduced in the past few months, which in some instances is true, the best course is to see how it works out and to make a judgment later. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, all the signs are that low-cost houses are being built in rural areas, and that did not happen under Labour Governments.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the way in which community charge is levied on owners of empty property.

I have received a large number of representations about the level of standard charge which some authorities have set and the degree to which they have used their discretionary powers.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the insistence of many local authorities on levying a standard charge on the owners of empty properties which are awaiting resale following the removal of the owners to a new permanent address? Will my hon. Friend make it clear to local authorities that, as Parliament has given them the power to levy either a personal charge or a nil charge on some properties, they should consider making wider use of that power?

I share the concern that my hon. Friend has stressed. That is why we shall write to local authorities to ascertain how they have been exercising their discretion. If we are dissatisfied, we shall have to consider whether we should specify the maximum multipliers that they can use in certain cases.

Will the Minister explain why poll tax, if it is not a property tax, is levied on second homes? Why is it levied on empty properties? Why is it levied on caravans, with the result that people in Leeds who own a modest caravan can no longer afford to go on holiday? Is not it a property tax?

Domestic rates used to be levied on empty property. My recollection from sitting in Committee with the hon. Gentleman is that the Labour party is in favour of a contribution being made by owners of empty properties towards the cost of local government expenditure. That is why we have a standard community charge.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many young people in my constituency and throughout the country who have bought a home in a bad state of repair to renovate are now being charged double standard community charge as well as their personal community charge? It is a disgrace. What will my hon. Friend do about it?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. Responsibility must lie with individual councils. They have discretion, and some have not used it as I would have done. That some local authorities have found a reason to exempt their own empty council properties from the standard community charge shows the sense of priorities of some local authorities.

Why, if the local authorities are to blame, was the scheme introduced by the Government in such a way, and why were 100 per cent. collection rates presumed, on the presumption that the money would be made up from the standard poll tax and the grant distribution would be assumed to have a standard poll tax collection rate of two per empty property? Is the Under-Secretary of State willing, in the review that we hear so much about, to ensure that local authorities are properly funded so that they can use their discretion to help all the people that Opposition Members believe should be assisted? Will he tell us why a property tax that is not a property tax needs a property tax to catch up on those who own second homes, who need to pay for local community services but cannot pay a property tax because the Government have abolished it?

Perhaps my answer will be too brief for the hon. Gentleman. The Government make no assumptions about income from the standard community charge when calculating revenue support grant. Therefore, there is no pressure on English local authorities to set the maximum multiplier in all cases. There is absolute discretion, and many Conservative Members are concerned that local authorities have not been exercising that discretion reasonably.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the Government's package of aid to replace trees lost in the recent storms.

In February I announced a £1 million package of aid to Task Force Trees and English Heritage to help to replace amenity and historically important trees lost in this year's storms. We shall consider the provision of further aid as part of this autumn's public expenditure survey. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently anounced special cash help to assist planting of broadleaved trees in woodlands damaged by the storms.

Although I pay tribute to the Government, the Countryside Commission and English Heritage for the work that they are doing to restore the widespread damage following the storms, does the Minister agree that it is now perfectly obvious that more needs to be done? Will he have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to get him a little more interested in restoring damage and planting acorns—concepts that should not be utterly alien to the Treasury?

I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's underlying point. It is perfectly clear from the way that the Government have responded, especially with the near £30 million that has been spent following the incredible tragedy of the 1987 storms, that our commitment is total. Obviously, we shall have to wait for the negotiations in the public expenditure survey round later this year, but I have sympathy for the underlying point.

Is the Minister aware of the storm devastation that still exists in the south-east? A number of trees still have not been cleared, never mind new planting. I echo what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said. Much more money is needed. How many trees were lost in those two major storms and how many trees have been replanted, given the small amount of money that the Government have made available?

We have had a substantial number of applications from various bodies, including local authorities, and it would be impossible for me to catalogue the total number of trees affected, but after the recent storms we received 148 applications which I believe are eligible for grant aid. Some of that money will be forthcoming this financial year and some more next year in the public expenditure survey settlement. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I admit that the bulk of the cost is not in planting but in clearing fallen trees.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a person on average male earnings would pay in local income tax in 1990–91 in order to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge in Truro.

If we had a system of local income tax which raised the same amount as the community charge nationally, a single person in Truro on average male earnings could have paid up to £888.

I thank my hon. Friend for that most interesting and illuminating reply for which I am sure the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is grateful. Would it be even more helpful if roof tax figures were available for Truro and the rest of the country? Does my hon. Friend agree that the expected publication of Labour's mini-manifesto tomorrow is likely to throw no more light on the subject than Labour has shed on it in the past? Do not the public have a right to expect an answer concerning the Labour party's proposals?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be helpful to have authoritative figures from the Labour party on the roof tax. My hon. Friend speculates that tomorrow's policy document will not provide much illumination on that subject. I can hardly believe that that is true. Labour party spokesmen—Mr. Peter Mandelson in particular—have more or less assured us that the details will be spelt out in tomorrow's document. Therefore, my hon. Friend must be mistaken if he says that they will not be forthcoming tomorrow.

I assure the Minister and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) that Truro has absolutely no interest in the Labour party's roof tax. It is, however, interested in the local income tax proposals. Although the Minister is new to his job, he ought to be aware that his figures are not based on the kind of local income tax system that we would introduce. The local income tax figure for an average household in my constituency is £317, compared with an average household poll tax bill of £622. Cheadle constituents may be interested to know that the average local income tax bill for each household there would be £365, compared with an average household poll tax bill of £798. The hon. Member for Cheadle lost his seat as a councillor to the Liberals and no doubt will lose his parliamentary seat at the next general election.

All I can say is "abracadabra." The SLD has come up with a system under which everyone everywhere pays less. Today I can reveal how that trick is achieved. Part of the trick is to take last year's figures, thus raising only £7·2 billion in local income tax in England whereas this year £10·8 billion is being raised from the community charge. Immediately, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's figures are out by a cool 50 per cent. Furthermore, my figures compare what a person on average male earnings would pay in each constituency. We are looking at what a person on the same level of earnings would pay in each constituency, which seems to be the only valid comparison.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent international conference on the environment at Bergen, Norway.

I led the United Kingdom delegation to the ministerial conference on sustainable development in Bergen on 8 to 16 May which was attended by all member countries of the Economic Commission for Europe. It examined progress within the ECE on implementing the recommendations of the Brundtland report and allowed us to consider, from a regional point of view, the most crucial issues that will need to be decided at the United Nations conference on environment and development in 1992. It was also the first opportunity for western Environment Ministers to meet their newly elected colleagues from east Europe. The United Kingdom won praise for its constructive approach to the conference as whole, and in particular for its contribution to the forward-looking ministerial declaration which was adopted unanimously and by acclamation and a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

Does the Minister agree that it is a scandal that the conference failed to agree on even the modest first step of holding carbon dioxide emissions at their current level in 10 years' time? How can the Government say that they are committed to fighting global warming when all that they did at the conference was slavishly to follow the United States line?

That is drivel. If the hon. Gentleman compares the Noordwÿk declaration with that which was agreed to at Bergen, he will see that a step has been taken in the right direction. The Bergen conference was not about carbon dioxide emissions but about sustainable development. The conference which is to concentrate on carbon dioxide emissions, their stabilisation and future reduction, is the second world climate change conference in Geneva, when the United Kingdom delegation will be led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is absolute tripe and demonstrably daft for the hon. Gentleman to suggest to me, of all people, that we adopted the American line when we acted as honest brokers in bringing the Americans together with all the other countries at the conference.

When my hon. Friend and his colleagues attend conferences, do they ever discuss not just man-made problems but natural problems? Many of the difficulties and hazards to the environment are caused by nature. Is it not about time that we began to consider methods of rectifying the problems which result from natural disasters?

I accept entirely that one of the most important issues that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to address is global climate changes which are caused by man-made problems and those which occur naturally. That will be the subect of the three reports which I hope will be made public prior to the final report from Professor Bolin in late August.

Is the Minister aware that we welcome the seriousness of his approach to the problems in Bergen and acknowledge that he played a part in telling everyone how serious the problems under discussion were? Is he aware that we are disappointed, as were many of the participants, that he blocked some of the proposals, particularly the attempt to get agreement on an immediate commitment to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000? Is not it a fact that the Minister and the Secretary of State recognise the scale of the problems being discussed but are constantly undermined by other Cabinet Ministers, including the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Energy and the Prime Minister herself"? When does the Minister expect to make progress with his Cabinet colleagues, or will this be another case of Environment Ministers saying, "abracadabra"?

What a pity—I was most impressed and incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for the way in which she commenced her series of questions, and I am most grateful to her for her kind words about me. I have said already that the conference was not about carbon dioxide. If the hon. Lady had been in my place at that conference, she would not have agreed to a target or to any level, and many other countries also would not reach such an agreement—it was not just Britain and the Americas—because those matters have to be addressed in Geneva in November. The Government have been a large subscriber to the IPCC process, both financially and in terms of human resources, so it would be ridiculous for us not to wait until the IPCC has reported before deciding targets. The point was effectively made by the Danish Minister at the conference, who said that she was fed up with having to attend so many international conferences—seven in the past nine months—at which every main issue expected to be addressed involved carbon dioxide emissions. The hon. Lady must be a little more patient as it is only a few months until the Geneva conference.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the role of the proposed European Environment Agency.

The aim of the agency is to provide the Commission and member states with objective, reliable and comparable environmental information at Community level. It will work by co-ordinating information from a network of national institutions and co-operate with other international bodies to avoid duplication. The regulation setting out the role of the agency in detail was adopted on 7 May 1990.

My right hon. Friend will agree that the agency will gather statistics, which will prove once and for all that Britain is well ahead of many other European countries in protection of the environment. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour council in Cambridge has said that it does not wish the agency to be based in the city of Cambridge, thus displaying the council's real level of concern? May I assure my right hon. Friend that there are many suitable sites in my constituency close to the Cambridge city boundary where we would be pleased and proud to see the agency based?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Whatever others may have done or said, he has consistently and vigorously pressed the case for Cambridge and the Cambridge area as the best base for this important agency. Cambridge has all the resources that the agency needs to operate successfully. It is the best candidate in the European Community, and I very much hope that the decision will take account of the overwhelming case for Cambridge and the surrounding area.

Will the Secretary of State also recognise the strong case that has been made by Aberdeen university to share in the work done by the environment agency and in the north of Scotland? As we do not wish to see centralisation, would not it be appropriate to steer some of the work north of the border?

If we had the opportunity at this Question Time, I have no doubt that more than 600 good cases could be made for the agency to be sited in different parts of the country—I will forbear to press the argument for Bath—but whatever the case for other universities, it is recognised well beyond our shores that Cambridge has an outstanding case.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many simplified planning zones have been set up since the scheme commenced; and how many are in the pipeline for future approval.

In England, simplified planning zones have been established in Derby and Corby. A further eight zones are at various stages of preparation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems facing entrepreneurs trying to bring enterprise and jobs to inner-city areas are the obstacles placed in their way by unhelpful planning authorities such as Kirklees council? Does he agree that we should be doing everything in our power, including the use of simplified planning zones, to make it easier to develop in inner-city areas, thereby reducing the pressure to build on green field sites?

I recognise the excellent work that my hon. Friend has done in trying to persuade his council to use a simplified planning zone. [Interruption.] Some Labour Members laugh, but many Labour councils have recognised the benefits of simplified planning zones for regenerating areas where there has been industrial after-use and for jobs. I am surprised that Labour Members laugh at the prospect of councils working with Government to create jobs.

Does the Minister recognise that many local authorities are extremely anxious that deregulation will lead to danger for the community and a risk to the environment? Will he guarantee that simplified planning zones will not give freedom to the irresponsible entrepreneur, who may be most interested in such development?

The hon. Member will know that a simplifed planning zone is established not at the direction of Government but at the request of the local authority concerned which, as with local plans, must undertake proper consultation, taking into account the important point that the hon. Gentleman made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Derby we are thrilled to bits with our simplified planning zone, which has enabled the quick clearance of a derelict site and the erection of fine industrial units which have been let or sold, to the delight of the local business community? Will my hon. Friend come and see what we are doing in Derby so that he can assure Opposition Members that their fears are groundless?

It is always a pleasure to accept my hon. Friend's invitation to visit Derby. If I did so, I would see the 41-hectare site which, as a result of an imaginative response by the people of Derby and the simplified planning procedures, will enable an area of industrial plant to be brought back into active use in the interests of local people.

Does not the Minister's reply show that the simplified planning zone system is all to cock and on the whole not welcomed by local government? How well does it fit in with the present unitary development plan and the overall strategic plan? Has the Minister given thought to the planning problems that local authorities face and does he intend to help them by explaining how the scheme will fit in with unitary planning?

I am surprised that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman does not know the answer to that question. The answer is that the zones fit in perfectly. When local councils draw up their plans they will look at the specific areas where they need the opportunity to allow planning to go ahead without cumbersome procedures. They can identify those areas, propose simplified planning zones and institute them within the overall remit of their unitary development plans.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions his Department has had with Southwark council about the level of capital repair charges which it sets for tenants who have exercised their right to buy.

The Department has recently written to the London borough of Southwark following representations by my hon. Friend and others about pre-sale estimates of service charges for repairs and improvements.

My hon. Friend will be aware that those of us who take a close interest in the affairs of Southwark are convinced that Southwark council is using or misusing procedures under the right to buy to discourage people who are considering purchasing and, indeed, to demoralise those who have already purchased. Are the Government prepared to sit by and see their laws challenged in that way? More importantly, are the Government prepared to see the rightful aspirations of those who wish to purchase thwarted by those procedures?

No. Parliament has given tenants the right to buy their flats and the Government are determined to see that those tenants have the right to exercise that right. My hon. Friend is right in suspecting that the failure in performance of Southwark council is largely due to a lack of will. Southwark has sold only about 690 flats in a period when Wandsworth sold more than 10,000.

Is the Minister aware that, not only in Southwark but elsewhere, councils which did no repair work on property before it was sold then estimate the repairs required in the next five years, apparently plucking figures out of the air and charging enormous sums of money—sometimes thousands of pounds—per purchaser per year? What do the Government intend to do to clarify the law? More importantly, does the individual purchaser have a right of access to the information on which the council carried out the valuation? If not, the tenant has no possibility of challenging the figure and apparently no option other than to pay. Freedom of information as well as clarification of the law is needed.

This is, indeed, a complicated area of the law. It appears that Southwark council is trying to use that to its advantage. I have written to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). Certainly it seems to the Government that Southwark has wrongly interpreted the law in certain respects. I should be happy to explain to the hon. Gentleman the Government's concerns about that. The hon. Gentleman referred to the amount of resources that Southwark has and the amount that it spends. Southwark has masses of resources. It receives £33 million in its housing investment programme allocation and this year it is likely to receive about £94 million in housing revenue account subsidy.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce amending legislation for changes in the poll tax.

The Government have already announced that they intend to bring forward legislation to amend the law on the standard community charge as it relates to caravans.

Is the Minister for the poll tax disappointed that the tax remains as deeply unpopular as it was when it was first introduced? Will the recently appointed co-ordinator of Government lies—I am sorry, I mean "information"—have an input in any adjustments to the poll tax?

Since I took on the new responsibilities, it has become clear to me that the principle that everyone should contribute to the cost of local government is becoming more and more widely accepted. Indeed, I remember hearing the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) say yesterday that the most unpopular system for local taxation in Scotland was not the community charge but the roof tax proposed by the Labour party.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, although there is no real need to amend that legislation, if he is to make the community charge more understandable. and more accountable in the metropolitan areas, he should amend section 7 of the Local Government Act 1972 and enable the county councils to be elected on the basis of one third retiring annually so that local electors do not have to wait until 1993 to express their views about the high charges that have been levied by Labour county councils in the main?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. He may be thinking of that the fact that in his own county of Shropshire income has increased over the past year by 16·3 per cent., which had a major effect on the community charge in Shrewsbury which was set at £333. I well understand that point and urge county councils to be responsible when setting their income demands because under the new system such demands impact on the charge payer.

What extra resources will the Minister give the poll-tax-capped councils which have to send out extra bills for the administrative costs? In view of those capped councils, will the Minister explain the accountability argument?

It was with some regret that the Government felt that they had to embark on charge-capping, but unfortunately some councils exercised themselves in such a way that they overspent excessively. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore felt bound to offer some protection to the community charge payers. In proposing the caps, my right hon. Friend took into account the administrative costs of rebilling.

Will my hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to help prevent the disgraceful practice of the Labour-controlled Walsall council, now also being followed by Labour-controlled Bradford council, that people living in Conservative wards are to receive fewer services and have less money spent on them than those in a Labour ward? Given that tomorrow the Labour party will be making a further attempt to con the British people into believing that Labour is suitable for Government, does my hon. Friend agree that the practices of Labour in power are nearer the truth?

I have been so appalled by the allegations of that spiteful act that I am looking urgently into the matter. I have spoken today to Councillor Pickles in Bradford and am trying to establish what is going on. It would certainly be disgraceful if those practices were actually being carried out. I urge community charge payers in those areas to examine whether they have some recourse under the law as it now stands.

If the Minister is unable to tell us what changes he proposes to the poll tax, or whether legislation will be required, will he at least assure us that as soon as he has made up his mind he will make an immediate statement to the House? In the light of his earlier reply that all that he can say is "Abracadabra", will he assure the House that he is under no illusion that such an approach will suffice in the case of the poll tax?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has risen for a second time this afternoon and is leading with his chin once more. It is not the Government who are due to make an announcement—it is the Labour party, and we shall be looking closely at what the Labour party says. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are currently engaged in trying to establish what anomalies there might be in the operation of the present tax. If we conclude that any changes are needed—I have not yet reached any conclusions—we shall, of course, make an announcement to the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to improve the water quality off the north Devon coast; and if he will make a statement.

In October last year, the Government announced details of a £1·4 billion programme designed to bring United Kingdom bathing waters up to European quality standards within the next 10 years; £123 million of this was identified for improvement schemes on the north Devon coast. On 5 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that all significant discharges to coastal waters would be subjected to at least primary treatment, at an estimated cost of £1·5 billion. Discussions are now being held with the water industry and relevant regulatory bodies about the implementation of this investment programme.

I hope that my hon. Friend realises that the phrase "primary treatment" just means that the sewage is chopped up and does not improve the position. Is he aware that 118 licensed consents for disposal of sewage—either raw or partially treated—have been granted in the Bristol area, and that the sewage goes into the Bristol channel? I thank my hon. Friend for the good figures in the Finance Bill, but does he agree that our aim should be that eventually no sewage, partially treated or otherwise, is dumped in the sea? We must look to other alternatives such as landfill, incineration and controlled treatment on land, for sewage that is now sent into the sea. The sea should not be the open sewer that it is at present.

The Government's view is the same as that expressed in my hon. Friend's two last points. He is right to point out that, given that alternatives must now be examined as a result of the policy decision made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and announced at the North sea conference, the other main options are incineration and landfill, or perhaps the use of treated sewage sludge as agricultural fertiliser. The House and every local authority must come to terms with the fact that alternative methods of disposal must be examined. That means that local authorities in particular must accept responsibility, especially for planning. We cannot simply wave a magic wand to make the dreadful stuff disappear.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the percentage of homes that have been empty for more than six months for (a) private housing, (b) housing associations, (c) local authorities and (d) Government and other public sectors.

At April 1989, about 1 per cent. of local authority and 2 per cent. of housing association dwellings had been empty for more than six months. I do not have corresponding information for other ownership groups, but surveys in 1977 and 1980 suggested that at any time up to 3 per cent. of private sector dwellings had been vacant for more than six months.

In the light of that reply, does the Minister agree that it is clear that, in the main, local authorities are exercising their responsibilities for their share of the nation's housing stock in an efficient way? Will he and other Ministers kindly stop attacking local authorities at every turn, as the local authorities are clearly doing better than other sectors?

I do not regard a total of 100,000 empty local authority houses—which the housing authorities are responsible for providing—as acceptable. However, I accept that a large number of private sector dwellings—some 600,000—are also unoccupied. Why are they unoccupied? According to our surveys and research, the main reason for that is years of Socialist policies, such as rent control and controlled tenures and it has become somehow unacceptable to rent houses—that is something that we must put right. There has been legislation to deregulate and liberalise the private rented sector; we should now be putting self-confidence back into landlords so that they start to bring their houses back on to the market.

Is my hon. Friend aware that just five Labour authorities in London have more than 10,000 empty public sector houses? In addition, five Labour authorities in London have £83 million of rents uncollected. As two of those authorities are Lambeth and Southwark councils, does the Minister agree that if they put their house in order it would help the homeless in London?

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. That is why in recent months the Government have given £250 million to local authorities to renovate their housing stock—especially Labour authorities, because, as my hon. Friend said, they are far and away the worst culprits. That money will help to put those houses back into use, so that they can be used by the homeless people to whom my hon. Friend referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's monitoring of eutrophication in British waters.

The National Rivers Authority is responsible for monitoring eutrophication in England and Wales.

I am sure that if the authority is doing its job it will have recognised that there is a problem of eutrophication in many British waters. Given that phosphates in detergents are a significant component cause of the problem, will the Government consider taking measures, in common with many other countries, to limit the amount of phosphates in detergent products and to introduce phosphate-stripping mechanisms in sewerage plants? I am sure that the Minister agrees that this is an important problem. What action are the Government taking?

I am sorry, but I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman's initial statement. He said that many inland sites are affected by eutrophication, but that is not correct. In the United Kingdom there are only a few affected inland sites, such as Loch Neagh in Northern Ireland, certain parts of the Norfolk broads and Loch Leven in Scotland. Earlier this year the natural environment research council confirmed that the United Kingdom's nutrient imputs, including phosphates, did not contribute to the accumulation of nutrients even in the North sea and the eastern part of the North sea where problems of eutrophication have occurred. It is more accurate to say that there is a serious problem of eutrophication on the continent in the Waddenzee, the Danish coastal waters, the German bight and the Adriatic sea.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards increasing public awareness of environmental issues.

I am firmly committed to increasing public awareness of environmental issues. My Department has taken many initiatives in this area, including greater public access to information, explanatory leaflets on environmental issues and plans for eco-labelling of products.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the moment the public is suffering most from too much inaccurate information and ill-informed opinion on the environment? Anything that the Government can do to increase the amount of factual information available must be an improvement on the present position.

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is one reason why we have advocated the establishment of an environment agency, which we discussed earlier in Question Time. The more the public are aware of real and accurate information about comparative environmental statistics the more they will recognise that this country has a good record, but that we are not complacent about it and we want to do even better.