To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any assessment of spending needs of local authorities for the coming financial year 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made to the House on 19 July.

The Secretary of State will probably recall that on 25 April he said that he would reconsider the standard spending assessment calculations for next year in the light of local authority representations. He will also probably recall that his Minister of State said on 12 July that he would not reconsider the standard spending assessment system. Which of the two right hon. and hon. Members is right?

We have always made it entirely clear that we are prepared to consider fresh evidence on the methodology that underlies the new grant distribution formula. That has been, and remains, our position. We shall consider fresh evidence and make our proposals in due course.

When my right hon. Friend comes to consider spending needs for the coming year, will he ensure that councils that have not really bothered to try to collect the community charge do not receive any special recompense? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate Poole borough council, which has collected 97 per cent. of the community charge—the highest in the country?

The collection figures of the more competent local authorities are pretty good. I congratulate the elected members and officers in my hon. Friend's local authority on the record that they have set. Overall, the figures for collection of the community charge are about the same as those for domestic rates in their last year.

Does not the Secretary of State now agree that there is overwhelming evidence that many of the SSAs are wrong; and will he give an assurance that action will be taken to help county councils such as Lancashire, so that it receives a fair allocation of Government resources with which to meet the needs for essential services of the community that elected that council?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about SSAs, but I believe that several local authorities, including Lancashire county council, have not been providing value for money.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are taking to encourage uniform standards in the labelling of environmentally friendly goods.

A national advisory group has been appointed to help develop a workable scheme for awarding environmental labels to products so as to inform consumer choice. We hope that that will be part of a European Communitywide scheme which will facilitate trade.

I am grateful for that answer. Most people, given a choice, would want to purchase environmentally friendly goods. Will my hon. Friend ensure that goods are clearly labelled in future so that consumers can readily identify which of them are environmentally friendly?

Yes, we are aware that there are several less than satisfactory labelling schemes. The Department of Trade and Industry is looking into whether they should be banned under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. One of the advantages of having our own authoritative scheme is that it will clear the market of the less than satisfactory alternatives.

Will the Minister discuss with Ministers in the Department of Energy environmental labelling of power stations? Will he consider putting the same information in very big writing on power stations as he would like on other goods—that is, the environmental disadvantages and the cost of nuclear power—so that everyone can see what the real choices in energy consumption are and, in the light of today's Select Committee report, what a waste of money nuclear power is?

All methods of generating electricity show a balance of environmental advantages and disadvantages. As the hon. Gentleman knows, nuclear power produces no gaseous emissions and is therefore benign from the point of view of global warming. It may also have disadvantages, but the information is freely available and nuclear power does not require a separate labelling system.

Given that few products are wholly benign, and as my hon. Friend is looking at a cradle-to-grave concept, is he looking into a series of gradations in labelling so that consumers can have an idea of comparative benefit, rather than a system of absolute benefits or absolute disadvantages?

It is open to the advisory committee to come up with a number of alternatives such as my hon. Friend suggests, but I believe that simplicity is a virtue. We want to guide the consumer with a scheme that is readily understood, and that might work against making labels too complex.

Which soap powder is used in the Minister's household, and why is it environmentally friendly?

No doubt the advisory committee will be labelling soap powders, but which soap powders are used in the House of Commons is not my responsibility.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received on chipboard factory emissions; and if he will make a statement.

I have received several representations, including some from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), whom I met to discuss the issue early this week. I also met delegations from Cowie and Chirk at the same meeting.

Pursuant to the meeting between my hon. Friend and the delegation from Hexham on Monday, may I express the thanks of the people of Hexham to my hon. Friend for so promptly establishing a system of air pollution control to deal with emissions from the Egger factory, without in any way affecting the commercial viability or economic success of the factory? While asking him to look sympathetically at the few outstanding items of detail, may I urge him to accept that this has brought about a real improvement—at long last—for my constituents in the Hexham area? Is not this yet another example of how the Government listen and take prompt and effective action, compared with the Opposition, who promise everything and do nothing?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I congratulate him on his leadership of the three delegations that I saw early this week. I am delighted to tell him that I shall respond in detail to the outstanding matters that were discussed at our earlier meeting and I am confident that my letter will please him.

May I ask my hon. Friend also to bear it in mind that there are other chipboard factories throughout the country? There is a large one in South Molton, which has always co-operated fully with the local authority. This year it received a clean bill of health and intends to keep it that way. It is easy to seek to be especially awkward about anything that appears to be outside the norm of the wonderful green countryside.

I entirely accept my hon. Friend's latter point. The purpose of the delegation that came to see me was to try to establish the correct balance between the economic activity that is generated by these important companies and the environment in which they operate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has said, the environment in which chipboard companies operate has not been acceptable in recent times. As a result of our discussions and the improvements that have been catalogued in the Environmental Protection Bill, we think that we have the balance right.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of adults owned their own homes in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1989.

Some 54 per cent. of households in England were owner-occupiers in 1979, 59 per cent. in 1983 and 65 per cent. in 1987 and 1988. Survey results for 1989 are not yet available, but between 1979 and 1988 the number of owner-occupier households has increased by nearly 3 million.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the steady progress made by the Government over the past seven years in extending owner-occupation. Does he agree that the time is now right further to extend that, particularly by helping council flat tenants through bringing in the rents-to-morgage scheme as soon as possible?

We are looking at several ways of increasing home ownership among lower-income groups. The rents-to-mortgage scheme is one of the options that we are considering, but we are also looking at other schemes such as increasing shared ownership and part-mortgage schemes.

In pursuit of the right to buy, does the Minister intend to introduce rights for private tenants to buy their property or is the discrimination by the Tory party against private tenants and in favour of private landlords to continue? When will he consider those who cannot afford to buy, people who want decent homes at reasonable rents? The Minister must know that local authorities, which have traditionally provided such homes, are short of funds to build council housing, which remains the basic prerequisite for people who need housing.

Unlike the Labour party, we do not believe in the sequestration of private property. I hope that people will look at the Labour party's pronouncements and writings on that subject, because it avowedly believes in the sequestration of private property. The hon. Gentleman asked about reasonable rents. I totally agree that we want a more thriving rented sector, especially in the private rented sector. One of the ways to reduce rents in the private sector is to supply more properties.

Does my hon. Friend accept that those encouraging figures are very much due to the successful Government policy over the years of selling council houses? Is he aware that the Labour-controlled Norwich city council has never been keen on that policy and is still actively discouraging the sale of council houses? Does he agree that such a policy does nothing to increase the housing stock in Norwich or anywhere else?

Norwich has to comply with the law. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the right-to-buy policy has been a tremendous success. More than 1·2 million households have now exercised that right. The pressure from people to buy is increasing and we think that about 80,000 people will buy this year. My hon. Friend is right to press his council to comply with the law.

When will the Minister recognise that there is no virtue in either owning or renting a property, but that the real difficulty is that the housing finance system is more chaotic and useless than that of any other European country? When will he introduce proposals to increase people's choice of whether to rent or buy, and when will he reform the housing finance system? The real problem is that people do not have a choice.

I agree that we want a more thriving rented sector. However, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not agree when I say that we want that to be largely in the private and housing association sectors. Therefore, it is of great concern to us that the Labour party is preparing policies further to undermine and possibly to kill off the private rented sector, as that would kill the choice that the hon. Gentleman goes on about.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of unused land from the land register.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is considering to accelerate the removal of derelict land from the land register.

We are considering various possibilities. Any firm proposals would be the subject of public consultation.

Is not it a scandal that so much public land in our towns and cities is lying idle? Will my hon. Friend take urgent steps to ensure that that land is sold off to the private sector, which knows how to put it into good and productive use?

I listen carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say on the matter. He is right that a great amount of vacant land is held in the public sector. There are at least 80,000 acres on the register, and there are questions as to whether that accurately reflects the total amount of vacant land. We are looking urgently and seriously at that matter.

Given that plenty of land is still on the register, will my hon. Friend undertake to call in proposals to develop a substantial small new town with new housing on Acaster Malbis airfield near York, in my constituency, given that that development is unrelated to any present settlements and is in conflict with the local structure and the local plan?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on specific applications. When we have further information about the plans in his constituency, and in particular about the local planning authority's view, we shall be able to take a view about calling in.

In so far as this building land is for housing, will the Minister bear it in mind that the majority of people who are in desperate housing need, and others who sympathise with them, believe that local authorities should once again be in a position to build? Is the Minister aware that a recent survey published by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux shows the failure, arising from the Housing Act 1988, of the private rented sector to provide accommodation for people with ordinary incomes? Does not that demonstrate that those who cannot afford a mortgage should be able to have decent accommodation without having to live with their families or their in-laws, or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation?

The problems of the private rented sector have nothing to do with the 1988 Act. That Act has started the process of putting them right. The problems have more to do with the denigration of private landlords, which has gone on, largely led by the Labour party, over many years. That is very much in contrast with what happens in most other industrialised countries.

The Minister will recognise that much of the derelict and unused land is contaminated. Do the Government intend to respond to the report on contaminated land by the Select Committee on the Environment, which said that that is a major problem in many of the older and industrial towns?

We are reviewing policy on contaminated land, but already £70 million of derelict land grant is available for contaminated as well as other vacant land.

I am sure that the House would like to know whether the Minister sleeps well at night knowing that there are 80,000 acres of derelict land on the register, another 80,000 acres of public vacant land that should be on the register, and three quarters of a million empty houses. Should not an embargo be placed on building houses on green-field sites until the derelict and vacant land in public ownership is used up and the empty houses all over the country are occupied?

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend wants an answer about my sleeping habits, but I do understand that green-field development is questionable when large sectors of public land are vacant. Under present plans, we would be urbanising—if that is the right word—about 140,000 acres up to the end of the century, whereas, if my hon. Friend's figures are right—and I have no reason to dispute them—the area of public vacant land exceeds that figure. My hon. Friend is right to point that out.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he has available on the cost to date of his proposals to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council and for the establishment of new posts to cover work previously undertaken by Nature Conservancy Council headquarters in Peterborough.

The Government have allocated £1·4 million in the current financial year to cover costs arising directly from the proposal to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council and the other conservation agencies. To date, just over £95,000 has been spent. Work on the staffing and organisational structures of the new bodies continues, and we hope to make an announcement shortly.

Is William Wilkinson's figure of £30 million correct or incorrect?

It is incorrect. Some rather wild estimates have been published in the national newspapers, but they have no basis in fact and are, at best, pure speculation. There is genuine confusion between what could be earmarked as reorganisation costs and the real costs of the new organisations that will be set up as a result of the green Bill currently going through Parliament. There is no basis for those estimates and I believe that the figure will be much more modest.

Does the Minister accept that the exaggerations expressed in those figures are of a piece with the chairman's propensity to exaggerate? Does he further accept that the reorganisation of the structure on which the Government have embarked is widely welcomed in Scotland because it will lead to a more sensitive handling of environmental issues there?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his latter comments, which I believe are realistic and present to the House a true and fair picture of precisely what will happen. The proposals in the Environmental Protection Bill will deliver improved conservation. There is no change in the Government's policy. We are simply changing the machinery.

But is not it the case that the slur that we have just heard cast on the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council can be removed only when the figure produced by independent consultants is released for public information? Is not that figure in the area of £30 million? If the Minister does not accept that figure, why not, and what is his estimate? Why will not he guarantee that any extra administrative costs, whether £30 million or something like that, that are the result of the Government's unnecessary reorganisation, will be met by new money, not from the existing Nature Conservancy Council budget? If he will not do that, will not his refusal further undermine the Government's already and justifiably fading green pretensions as well as the vital nature conservancy effort?

The hon. Gentleman will have taken note of the fact that I carefully did not join in the remonstration by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in the earlier part of his question, nor should I wish to. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) would not wish to be associated with that. I met Sir William Wilkinson last week and we discussed the figure that has just been mentioned. There was a clear conflict between his understanding and the understanding of Mr. Timothy Hornsby, who also attended the meeting. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a much more realistic figure was agreed between Mr. Timothy Hornsby and my officials at the Department of the Environment. I have never sought to deny in any way, shape or form that reorganisation will cost more money. If we are to deliver the policy to which I referred earlier, it will cost more money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are clear about the matter. We are under the microscope. We know that we have to deliver improved conservation. That we have already shown in the 11 years that we have been in office. During that period we have increased expenditure on nature conservation by 160 per cent. in real terms. The previous Labour Government cut it. Labour Members just talk about conservation; they do absolutely nothing about it.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I give notice that I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of employees of (a) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and (b) the National Rivers Authority.

The total number of staff in post in HMIP is 215. The National Rivers Authority employs a total of some 6,700 staff, of which some 750 are engaged in pollution control responsibilities.

Does the Minister accept that there are appalling double standards in that the NRA has 6,000 staff to deal with water pollution while HMIP has only 200 staff to deal with air pollution and toxic waste management? Does that not result in poor monitoring and poor regulation? Is it not time that the Department considered the possibility of the NRA taking over the functions of HMIP, especially as the latter appears to be a shambles?

I am delighted with the hon. Gentleman's well-merited commendation of the NRA, whose performance is a result of the Government's admirable legislation on water privatisation which has had a beneficial effect on the water environment.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the director of HMIP the strong exception taken by my constituents and by the people of Greater Manchester to the inspectorate's rubber stamping of a proposal for a chemical and clinical waste incinerator at Trafford Park? Does my hon. Friend agree that the centre of a conurbation of 3 million people is no fit place for chemical, clinical, and toxic waste incinerators and will he investigate the situation?

I will certainly do that. As I understand it, my hon. Friend has an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment tomorrow and I am sure that he will be satisfied with the Government's response.

Does the Secretary of State accept that many difficulties are being encountered by both the NRA and HMIP in trying to work out their new relationship? At times, the two bodies have to monitor the same pipe or outlet to different standards. Does not that emphasise the need for an independent, integrated environmental protection executive, and does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he was wrong in Committee to reject our proposals for such an executive? Does he accept that there will not be proper progress on protecting and cleaning up the environment until such an executive is established?

No, I do not agree with the hon. Lady's last point. It is a matter to which we have paid close attention, but I am far from convinced that the right way to ensure better monitoring and regulation of pollution is to have a further reorganisation of the inspectorates charged with those responsibilities.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to finalise the elements which will determine standard spending assessments for 1991–92.

My right hon. Friend will announce his proposals for standard spending assessments in the autumn.

Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of standard spending assessments for the current year, the London borough of Havering has suffered a complete standstill in Government funding and thus finds itself charging adults £60 more each than if the settlement had allowed for even the average increase in outer London? Can my hon. Friend give even a cautious early warning of good news for my constituents in regard to next year's settlement, so that they may hope for a better outcome?

I know of the Havering situation because my hon. Friend has led a number of delegations to Ministers in that regard. Havering's settlement was less than the average above its old grant-related expenditure assessment, but that does not suggest to me that it was unfair. I remind my hon. Friend that total standard spending for next year, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, will be up 19 per cent. The likelihood is that SSAs will, on average, increase considerably. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) will have heard my right hon. Friend's remark that we are, of course, willing to consider new evidence in respect of SSAs.

What are the Minister's preliminary views on fixing the SSA for Wandsworth? Does he think that it is right for Wandsworth to be considering cutting its services to the elderly, the disabled and the blind in advance of fixing its poll tax for 199 I? Is cutting services to those most in need what this flagship of Conservative local government is all about? Is not that approach quite squalid?

Wandsworth's standard spending assessment was set on exactly the same basis as that used for every other authority. The proof of that is that Wandsworth received considerably less under its standard spending assessment than did a number of other London boroughs, such as Lambeth. There is no question of unfairness. I shall consider any new evidence relating to Wandsworth, as I shall in respect of other boroughs, but the spending decisions taken by local authorities are for them. In Wandsworth's case, the council is setting such a low community charge that there is, I am pleased to say, no question of capping.

When a local authority has to raise money to pay for its spending, will my hon. Friend consider the implications if that money were raised by a rate system from which two thirds of those apparently liable are either exempt or receive a 100 per cent. rebate? Would not that represent a return to the rotten borough situation which applied to so many Labour local authorities, which bought votes at the expense of the few ratepayers who had to meet the bills?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The twin evils of the rating system were that only about half the population paid for local authority spending, which was grossly unfair—particularly given how that sample was selected—and that with such a small proportion of the population paying, some local authorities felt that because there were so many freeloaders in the system they could spend very high amounts of money. It is inconceivable that any political party would want to return to the unfairness of a property-based system.

When SSAs are determined, what account is taken of housing need, and in particular of the special needs of councils such as the city of Birmingham, which has put in a £52 million bid to deal with property designated under the Housing Defects Act 1984?

That matter is dealt with under the housing revenue accounts, which are now ring fenced. Within the SSA falls the range of services provided by the local authority, but even under the new, simplified system they are established on a basis which is somewhat complicated. I shall be happy to take the hon. Gentleman through that procedure at any time, if he is interested.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any intention of limiting the liability for paying directly towards the cost of local government to heads of households only.

The community charge is based on the principle that it is only fair that nearly every adult should be liable to contribute to the cost of local authority spending. I believe that that principle is increasingly widely accepted.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one way to ensure that everyone's liability is reduced is to encourage high-spending councils such as mine in Lancashire to cut their costs, and more specifically their overheads? Is my hon. Friend aware that my council has held back no less than 32 per cent. of the money granted from central Government for the administrative costs of education?

I have found it very disappointing that a number of local authorities have used the introduction of the community charge to boost their spending considerably. I am afraid that a large number of county councils that are not facing election this year have taken advantage of the transition to the new system and the confusion that there may have been in some voters' minds to boost their spending substantially, knowing that the district councils were sending out the bills. If my hon. Friend's constituents have suffered in that way, I regret it.

Is not there something absolutely grotesque in a system of taxation under which the Prime Minister and her husband in Dulwich will pay exactly the same poll tax as a couple round the corner living in a damp private flat? Is the Minister aware that during the summer, as councils struggle to collect the money from millions of people around the country who simply cannot afford to pay, there will be a great deal of social upheaval as bailiffs move in to try to seize people's property to pay a tax which those people know is unfair and which they cannot afford to pay?

The hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of local authorities. He should know that the community charge provides only a minority proportion of the total spending of local authorities. Because of that, a lot of the taxes that people pay are then recycled in the form of Government grant back to local authorities. The House will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announce that the external finance to local authorities next year is to increase by 12·8 per cent. That means, for example. that a barrister earning £100,000 is likely to make a contribution of about £7,300 to the cost of local authority services. That is a very substantial amount indeed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most grotesque thing would be for half the population to receive the services and have a vote in the election, but make no contribution to the cost of the services? Is not it even more grotesque that the Labour party, having promised to abolish the rates in 1987, is now prepared to stand on its head and support that unfair tax?

I believe that I saw it reported that the Leader of the Opposition had described the rates as a leap into the frying pan. I do not pretend entirely to understand what he meant by that, but I think that it must mean that at one time the Labour party thought that the rates were a very bad idea. There is a very good reason for thinking that. The rates are an unfair system. There is no relation between property ownership and income, and with only half the population paying, that is a fundamentally unfair system.

Will the Minister define those whom he described a moment ago as "freeloaders"? Are they the people who traditionally have made their own contributions towards household liability for the rates by virtue of arrangements made within the household—exactly the people whom we regard as valuable citizens and voters with full civil rights?

I think that I can give a couple of examples of freeloaders. My first example, under the old system of rates—I gather that this would also be true under the system to which the Labour party wishes to return—would be the large number of wage earners in one house who pay a single rate bill between them, in comparison with the widow next door who has to pay the same amount or possibly more. My second example of freeloaders is those Labour Members who at the moment are choosing not to pay the community charge.

No doubt my hon. Friend has studied carefully the Labour party's proposals to reintroduce the rates. If those proposals were adopted, what would happen to the family of five earners, to the widow and to the deserted wife who is struggling to go out to work instead of living off the state?

My hon. Friend flatters me in saying that I might have studied the proposals carefully. So far, I have not seen any detail worthy of study. I am afraid that my hon. Friend puts his finger on the point that returning to a property-based system such as the rates would recreate all the problems of those people clustered in households who may have high incomes but participate in only one rates bill. I know of no way in which the Labour party could get out of that problem. That is the basic unfairness of the rating system and I am amazed that after 11 years the Labour party wants to return to it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce the poll tax liability of people on low incomes whose poll tax bills have not been significantly reduced either by transitional relief or by rebates.

My right hon. Friend announced on 19 July that extra help would go next year to 7·5 million people receiving transitional relief and that 4 million more people would be brought into the transitional relief scheme.

What does the Minister intend to do about those elderly people who have struggled to pay their own way and who are in sheltered housing schemes where they previously paid their rates to the housing association and therefore did not get transitional relief? They now find that they are paying much more than they paid in rates but their income from limited capital puts them over the rebate limit.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, transitional relief is available to those in sheltered accommodation on the same basis as to other former ratepayers. The only defensible basis for a transitional relief scheme is an actual rates bill. In a large housing scheme, just as in a large house, there will be the difficulty that the rates bill is too large and divided between too few people. However, the calculation for those people is carried out on the same basis and, of course, if they are in need those charge payers will qualify for community charge rebate.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the people to whom the question refers, namely those on low or moderate incomes, would pay considerably more if they had to pay a local income tax, which is the plan proposed by the Liberal party?

Yes, indeed. On previous occasions we have carried out exemplifications of that scheme, and the SLD party did not like the results. Of course, people on low incomes were treated worse under the old rating system because now, for every pound of income that a person on a low income may have, a 15p deduction is made from their benefit, whereas under the old rating system a 20p per pound deduction was made.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to withdraw and apologise for his description a few moments ago of pensioners, the disabled, those on low wages and others in receipt of rebates under the rating system? If he does not do so, his description of such people as freeloaders will go down as one of the worst slurs by any Minister on the most vulnerable people in our society.

We are very fortunate that our words are recorded in Hansard. The official record will bear me out;I was asked by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to define whom I meant, and I spoke of those income earners who were clustered together paying only one rates bill. The second group of people was those Labour Members of Parliament refusing to pay the community charge. I endorse both those definitions which arise from Labour party policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to introduce controls on the ownership of second homes.

We have no plans to do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy of the Labour party to give councils the right to decide whether people should have second homes in their areas is the ultimate example of the Labour party's determination to give power to the bureaucrats over the freedom of the individual?

My hon. Friend has it exactly. Although the Labour party does its best to disguise the true effect of most of its policies, on this occasion it has helpfully been made perfectly clear. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is on record as saying:

"The way it would work is if you wanted to sell to someone who wanted to use the house as a second home, you couldn't".

Does my hon. Friend accept that there are many modest second homes owned by people on low incomes, limited pensions and even income support? Will he consider extending transitional relief or rebates to those people?

My hon. Friend certainly makes an interesting point. People who own second homes do not always fit the rich profile that one may have in mind. The Labour party's policy would bite against everyone, particularly the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who has a country home in the Cotswolds.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to change the joint and several liability rule included in the community charge legislation; and if he will make a statement.

It is important that every adult should receive a community charge bill of his or her own. Any couple on low income will have their need for benefit assessed as a couple, but where one partner is not earning, joint and several liability provides an important protection which I do not propose to remove.

Why has the Minister chosen during the review period not to take into account strong representations about the present suffering, particularly of non-working wives and non-working mothers? Surely there is a good argument for giving those people special consideration, but for some reason the Minister has ignored it. Is it because he is blinded by the policy or does he regard those people, too, as freeloaders?

I reject what the hon. Gentleman says about suffering. The needs of people on low income are assessed to see whether they qualify for community charge benefit. A couple's needs are assessed together. Obviously, the system takes into account that a couple has higher needs than a single person and that if it is a pensioner couple, if one of the couple is disabled or if the couple has children, the needs are higher again. The needs of a couple are fully assessed within the system. The provision of joint and several liability is there to ensure that where one of the partners is not earning, the debt can be recovered from the earning partner, who has liability for the couple as a whole.

Will my hon. Friend assure the community charge payers of Ealing that, with all of us, he will strenuously resist the reintroduction of rates, remembering that in 1987 the Labour-controlled Ealing council introduced a rates rise of 65 per cent? Some pensioners nearly starved as a result, but Labour Members do not care.

It was remarkable that throughout our recent two-day debate on charge capping, not one Labour Member once talked about the hardship for community charge payers of the high community charge bills being put out by Labour-controlled authorities. My hon. Friend has that concern for his constituents. I only wish that it was shared on the other side of the House.

Is the Minister aware, or may I remind him, that millions of women stay at home to look after a family consisting of children or elderly relatives and thus do not earn any money or have any income or their own? Those women did not pay rates under the previous system, as the Minister pointed out. Is there any valid reason why they should not receive transitional relief, as they qualify in every way for it? Can the Minister explain why they do not qualify? When will he do away with the unfair and iniquitous provision of joint and several liability?

We believe in treating couples as couples. A couple may decide that one of the partners will not earn and that the partner who earns will bear the responsibilities of the entire family. That decision is made by couples. If the amount that the partner who is earning receives is so little that the couple qualifies for relief, they will be assessed as a couple and their needs taken into account. As I have explained, if a couple has children, is elderly or disabled, the assessment of their needs will be higher. That is appropriate. The provision of joint and several liability exists to protect the non-earning partner.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining the position so clearly in reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to bring home to the public the fact that the onus for paying the community charge within a couple where one partner has no income must rest on the partner with income?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have joint and several liability to emphasise the fact that, although under the benefit system we treat couples as couples, we recognise that two people who each receive a personal community charge bill, when one is earning but the other is not, should have joint and several liability so that liability can he recovered from the earning partner if required.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has carried out any assessment of the costs to those local authorities which have been charge-capped and have had to issue new community charge bills to each charge payer; and if he will make a statement.

As I made clear in my statement on 3 April 1990 about community charge in England, we estimate that the costs will be about £200,000 per charging authority. I took account of that when I decided the authorities' caps.

Is not it a fact that the Secretary of State, in whatever statements he has made, has never confessed that the Government are in total chaos about the poll tax and wish to God that they had never thought of it? Is not that the reality? If vast numbers of people are facing the bailiffs, and so on, and the chaos that that will produce, why on earth should local authorities now be having to raise an immense extra amount of money with no help from the Government and wondering what in God's name they are going to do? Is not it time that the Government withdrew the poll tax?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first, second and fourth questions is no. The answer to the third question is that local authorities should take some account of the consequences of excessive spending, not least for their community charge payers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are incensed that the local authority is refusing to remit to them the whole of the charge cap?

I recognise what my hon. Friend has said. It is astonishing, first, that some Labour local authorities are wriggling and squirming to avoid passing on budget reductions to their community charge payers and, secondly, that they have used so much of the community charge payers' money to try to ensure that community charge payers have to pay more. That is what the Labour party means by fiscal responsibility.

Surely it is understood that the community charge—[interruption]—that the poll tax is clearly unacceptable to people both north and south of the border. If they refuse to pay, is not it a clear indication of people voting with their feet and with their pockets? Does the Secretary of State agree that if hon. Members say that they are not paying, as I do, they are leading by example? That is certainly important in the coming period.

Those Labour Members of Parliament and councillors who say that they will not pay the community charge are loading extra costs on to their own constituents. That is the worst sort of freeloading, and it should be deprecated by every hon. Member. I am sure that it is deprecated by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received the report on pollution issued by the Institution of Civil Engineers; and if he will make a statement.

The institution sent me a copy of its report, entitled "Pollution and its Containment", which it published on 19 July. I welcome the report as a valuable contribution to continuing studies of environmental issues.

While fully considering the fuel needs of poorer households, will my hon. Friend consider the need for a tax on carbon fuels, as recommended by the Institution of Civil Engineers?

Taxation is entirely for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the recommendations in the document to which my hon. Friend referred, particularly in terms of the stabilisation of carbon dioxide levels at present levels by the year 2005, we shall address that matter in the forthcoming White Paper.

Will my hon. Friend read the report carefully before he passes comment, unlike the reporter of The Observer newspaper who last Sunday was able to write about the Environment Select Committee's report on beaches before having seen it, allegedly on the basis of a leaked document? Five days later the reporter asked the Clerk to the Committee for a free copy so that she could rewrite what she had written the previous Sunday completely inaccurately.

I share the disgust of my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on the Environment, about the article that appeared in the Sunday newspapers. It was far from the truth. I welcome the Select Committee's report and the nice things that it said, particularly about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Will the Minister concede, either now or later, that the Government's best intentions to do environmentally good things in the White Paper have been shot through by the Treasury refusing to accept any fiscal penalty or advantage? There are to be no green taxes. Does not that undermine the pollution policy that the Government intended to introduce?

The speculation in which the hon. Gentleman indulges is about as wide of the mark as The Observer article on bathing beaches to which my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) referred. Were I to convey to the hon. Gentleman the import of the White Paper, there would be no point in having the document.