To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the poll tax-capping rules announced on 31 October; and if he will make a statement.

As I told the House last week, my right hon. Friend sticks firmly by the intentions announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten).

I welcome the point made by the Minister. When considering a review of poll tax-capping, will he consider poll tax-capping high-spending Conservative councils which are levying a rate well beyond that levied by some Labour councils that have already been capped? Will he also consider the consequences of poll tax-capping on the police and fire services? I understand that if the capping system is upheld the number of police personnel in West Yorkshire will be reduced by 500 by 1992. Does the Minister appreciate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It may be too long, Mr. Speaker, but you will appreciate its importance.

West Yorkshire police authority made representations and had a meeting with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).

If the size of the charge is partly responsible for its unpopularity, why not set a low maximum cap of, say, £200, with a more generous settlement from the centre, so that we penalise councils that try banditry on their citizens and let more efficient authorities deliver even lower charges?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what his question implied: his support for the policy of capping authorities and ensuring that the benefits are passed on to community charge payers. The detail of his proposal takes us wider than Question 1—possibly into the territory of Question 2 with which my right hon. Friend will deal shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many suggestions he has received for alternatives to the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this question and Questions 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 together.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the review of the community charge.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to amend further the community charge.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from hon. Members to make changes to the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for changes to the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the number of suggestions made to him for alternatives to the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the review of the poll tax.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Secretary of State groups all these questions together, he distorts the pattern of interests represented on the Order Paper. That will mean that we have a much shorter time in which to deal with these questions than we would if proper supplementaries were asked in respect of each question. I ask you, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Order. How can I possibly hear when this shindig is going on?

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to prevail on the Secretary of State to group these questions in a more sensible manner—perhaps three or four in a group—so that we can properly debate each question on the Order Paper.

It is not for me to group questions; it is a matter for the Secretary of State. If he wants to group them in a certain way, that is up to him.

If it is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to reply to a point of order. However, I shall follow the thrust of what you said and tell the House that the questions are substantially the same and, therefore, my answers are unlikely to be different. In the space of the half hour or so that separates the questions I would be saying the same thing at the end of the half hour as at the beginning.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. This takes up a great deal of time. There is some help when questions are grouped because it enables us to get further down the Order Paper and gives more hon. Members a chance. It is a matter for the Secretary of State. It is not for me to say, of course, but he might perhaps consider grouping Questions 3, 6 and 10 and taking the others separately.

May I add one further point? There is another group of questions further down the Order Paper, all of which again repeat the point that is addressed in Question 2. I should like to answer the substance of the question by saying that I have started a careful and fundamental review of the community charge.

I am sorry that my question has caused so much disarray. I did not realise that it was so controversial. I should be grateful to the Secretary of State if he would inform the House whether he agrees with his right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) who suggests that the poll tax should be scrapped and replaced by a property tax, which is what the Labour party has been saying for the past three years.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has made a most interesting and constructive suggestion for the review that I am carrying out. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that at no stage during all the discussions on these matters have Conservative Members been able to provide 57 different suggestions about how to deal with this matter, which is the number provided by the Labour party.

If my right hon. Friend has had a chance to read the Labour party document on fair rates, he will know that it is not a fully worked-out scheme but a wishy-washy set of wishes which does not take us any further forward. Will he assure his hon. Friends that in his review he will make sure—as the Labour party does not make sure—that whatever system is devised bears down on local government profligacy and ensures additional Government funding for local authorities, which the Labour party does not call for in its review?

The whole House will feel that my hon. Friend has been characteristically generous in the way in which he describes the Labour party policy document. We have made it clear that in our review we rule nothing out and rule nothing in. The review will look at all the issues, including those raised by my hon. Friend.

In previous looks at alternatives to the poll tax, and specifically at local income tax, the Department has used its own version of what a local income tax might be and has never looked in detail at our proposals. It has certainly never published any response to them. Will the Secretary of State now ask his officials to look at our scheme of local income tax and let us know their conclusions? We should be happy to talk to the Secretary of State about that.

I appreciate the constructive approach of the Liberal Democrats. They obviously have sufficient confidence in their ideas to be prepared to discuss them with me, which is not exactly what one would say about the parliamentary Labour party, although I should add, in fairness, that the Labour party, as represented by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, has the courage to talk to me about its ideas. In that, it is at marked odds with the Labour party in the House. On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can tell him that I have received a letter on this matter and I have asked officials to give me advice on it. I am aware of the point made by the Liberal Democrats and I shall try to meet it.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I spent yesterday afternoon in Lincoln prison with Bryan Wright, a 20-year-old unemployed man, who last Friday became the Government's first poll tax prisoner? When the Secretary of State conducts the review will he consider that if Bryan had been born in Glasgow and not in Grantham he would not be in prison, because Scottish law abolished prison for debt 25 months ago? When Bryan is released on or, as is hoped, before Christmas eve, his spirits will be as high then as they were yesterday and, therefore, the vital element of fear which prison is supposed to engender among the 344,000 people who his Department told me on Monday have had liability orders served against them will diminish. Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, even if he is not prepared to talk about outright abolition, he will instruct——

Order. This is not a debate. This is Question Time and questions should be about reform of the poll tax not about one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who is in gaol.

Will the Secretary of State instruct local authorities, during the period of his review, not to take any court action that could send anyone to prison for something that is not a crime and may not even be an offence any longer?

I had not known that the hon. Gentleman spent yesterday afternoon in prison. I only hope that he does not know something that I do not know and that this does not anticipate events of which I can have no knowledge. What the hon. Gentleman chooses to do with his spare time has nothing to do with reform of the community charge.

Don't be so bloody stupid. That was a serious question about the review of the poll tax.

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that many things are said across the Floor of the Chamber with which hon. Gentlemen disagree, but he must not use words like that. That is not the way we carry on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The word was not unparliamentary. It was just offensive, like quite a lot of other things that are said here.

As the Secretary of State has not answered my question about the number of representations that have been made, because he lumped together several questions as being on the same subject—although they are not—I have to assume that he has had some representations about the poll tax from hon. Gentlemen. In view of that, will he make it public that the poll tax has been a shambles and has affected hundreds of thousands of our electors and that no amount of fiddling or meddling with it will make it anything better than a bureaucratic disaster? Therefore, will he make it public that a mistake has been made and that it is time that the Government axed the lot?

If the Labour party had listened to what I had to say last week, rather than shouting so much that nobody else could listen, it would have understood that I am conducting a fundamental review arid, even at this late stage, I hope that the Labour party will contribute to that review.

When conducting a review, those who suggest the review should present some ideas. I should like an answer to the question that I tabled, which is:

"what proposals he has for change to the community charge".

Order. We do not want a history lesson.

Before the hon. Gentleman places too much reliance on his interpretation of history, he should understand that we have a certain pride in having one of the oldest and most sophisticated parliamentary democracies, based on universal suffrage. His claim to be above and beyond the law is incompatible with that tradition.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I do not come from or represent Henley? I come from a constituency where they know what work is and they know how they are being dealt with by this wicked Government. Will he do something in his review about the poor beggars having to pay 20 per cent. who cannot afford it and who—unlike him—have to go without a hot meal on the table? When he makes his review, will he get rid of this rubbish and put in its place a system that is fair to all?

I can only say that if the hon. Gentleman wants to represent the good citizens of Henley, he must stand and I shall dismiss him as I dismissed the Labour candidate at the last election.

Is the Secretary of State aware that all-party consensus on local government finance can be achieved only on the basis of two fundamental principles? The first is that any tax must be related to the ability to pay and the second is that the poll tax must be abolished. The right hon. Gentleman must try to understand that, until he concedes those two principles in advance, all his talk of consensus will be exposed for exactly what it is—a cynical and calculating attempt to ensnare the minority parties and save the Tories' necks at the next election. It will not work.

I should be more impressed by that suggestion had not the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), anticipated, about five minutes before I proposed it, that such a constructive dialogue could take place.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of questions have been grouped together. Could not Question 18 also have been included, given that it deals with exactly the same subject?

With any luck, we shall reach Question 18.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the review that he has announced will be widely welcomed by the British people? Is he aware, however, that levels of community charge depend on levels of Government funding, which in turn depend on the formula surrounding standard spending assessments? Is he further aware that Warwickshire has been substantially disadvantaged over a number of years by the way in which the SSA system works? Will he undertake to examine the formula used for Warwickshire and provide assistance to that county?

I know that my hon. Friend has had a dialogue with the Minister responsible and, of course, we shall bear in mind all the points that he has put to us. It is worth adding that, following the announcement of our review, we have managed to secure a substantial victory in a local county by-election in Warwickshire.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for free state school education to be a directly funded by the state via the grant-maintained schools formula? As a believer in supply-side economics, does he agree that the additional revenue for that should come not out of income tax but from VAT?

I assure my hon. Friend that his suggestions today, and any further suggestions that he wishes to put to us, will be carefully taken into account in our review.

Will my right hon. Friend keep constantly in mind in his review the principle that seems to be widely accepted that every adult over the age of 18 should pay some share of the cost of local government? That seems to be one of the best guarantees of true accountability in local councils.

I understand the importance that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends attach to that principle. We have made it clear that in our review we shall look into all these matters. That is implicit in our initial stance and in the comprehensive nature of the review.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the fundamental criterion for any new or amended system is ability to pay?

My hon. Friend will understand that that is one of the arguments that will have to stand alongside the point put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). All those issues will be on the table.

I call Mr. Adley. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not another one."] Order. If hon. Members look at the Order Paper, they will see that I am being absolutely even-handed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a matter of principle, the more that is spent on raising local taxes and administering them, the less there is to spend at the sharp end? As many erstwhile functions of local government, such as education, the police and the fire service, are heavily overladen with national implications, will my right hon. Friend, during his review, present to the House the actual costs of increases in VAT, income tax or whatever if all the costs of local government were to be funded out of national taxation?

I am considering how best I can involve the House at large in our review. Certainly, we shall have to have in front of us the calculations to which my hon. Friend referred.

My right hon. Friend made a sensible and generous offer to the Opposition parties to join in discussions with him about the nature, organisation and financing of local government. To date, the Labour party appears to have had some difficulty in responding to his offer. Does he have any helpful suggestions for ways in which the Labour party could involve itself in such an important debate and discussion?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The Labour party's position is not as depressing as its behaviour in the House suggests. Senior figures in the Labour party in local government have already welcomed and accepted my offer.

What has just happened is an abuse of the House. It should be a matter of regret to the whole House that the Secretary of State should have distorted the pattern of questions on the Order Paper and cut short a debate on a subject which is clearly of great interest to all hon. Members and to many millions of people outside the House.

The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that, when I sought last week to explain our views at great length, his party tried to shout down my speech. That was the most flagrant abuse of the House that I can remember for a significant period. Labour Members did that because they are not prepared to enter into the sort of constructive dialogue that I offered. In that respect, it is not that the country is concerned; it is that the Labour party is isolated.

I call Mr. Strang.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Paper, he will realise that he is disadvantaging a number of his hon. Friends.

Usually, Mr. Speaker, you call two supplementary questions for each question tabled by a Back Bencher. If the Opposition Front-Bench were included, 24 supplementary questions would have been asked on Question 2. In fact, there were seven supplementaries, so we are owed 17. Can we please have them on this important matter?

Order. The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic may be at fault. I am trying to reach the questions tabled by his hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and other hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper. We shall not achieve that at this rate.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made since the 1990 Montreal protocol review conference in implementing the agreement; and if he will make a statement.

The Government have been arguing strongly for tighter controls on ozone-depleting substances within the Community than those agreed at the London meeting. We expect to agree a European regulation next week which will achieve that.

Is the Minister satisfied with the progress that is being made in Britain? As some of the alternatives that are being promoted are themselves damaging greenhouse gases, may I ask whether the Government have ruled out a levy on CFCs? Some of that money could be used to finance research and development into alternatives.

I am very satisfied with the progress that is being made in Britain, and shortly after the London ozone conference on the Montreal protocol the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was kind and generous enough to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) on the week's achievements. At that time we, with all other countries that attended that conference, had committed ourselves to a removal of CFCs by the year 2000. I am now saying that the British Government believe that that pace can be accelerated. I will be representing the Government in Brussels next week. We have the foremost position and the most ambitious targets and I shall be looking for support from all the other member states at that meeting. I think that we shall get it.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it was only after the Government announced that we were beating the targets of the Montreal protocol that they were criticised by various green parties as being inadequate?

A number of what I call dark green lobby groups act irresponsibly, preparing their press notices before looking at any statements from Ministers or even before the introduction of a White Paper.

Name one.

Greenpeace is a superb example. It is not the first time that I have made that comment and I am happy to repeat it on any occasion.

Does the Minister accept that the importance that environmental issues should have will never be accorded them by the British Government as long as his Department is distracted by subjects such as local government finance, as we have seen today, and housing, both of which are entirely unrelated to environmental policy and should be the responsibility of a separate Department? Is not the reality that we would do far better on subjects such as the ozone layer and reducing CFCs if his Department concentrated on environmental issues instead of regularly distracting Secretaries of State with other matters?

Ministers in the Department of the Environment afford to the environment, internationally and nationally, the attention that that important subject deserves. No fewer than three Ministers are concentrating on the issues—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, myself and an Under-Secretary of State. There is a close link between the subjects that come under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. In fact, I heard the hon. Gentleman refer to that himself in a recent speech.

Will my hon. Friend ensure not only that CFCs and other ozone-depleting subjects are not used in Britain or throughout the European Community, but that they are not manufactured in Britain for use elsewhere in the world?

Those are the terms and conditions of the agreement to which we are signatories. That is the commitment that I shall be seeking to honour and develop at the European Council of Environment Ministers in Brussels next week. We want the end of their manufacture by 1997. The signatories of the third world or developing countries to the Montreal protocol have already agreed to such phasing out by the year 2010 because of technology transfer and also because of overseas aid, to which we are prepared to contribute.

Does the Minister agree that the original Montreal agreement, and the improvements made to it in London, were based on excellent scientific research that had no obvious marketplace benefit? As Britain spends less than a third of what is spent by, for instance, Germany on environmental research, what is the Department doing to encourage the expansion of such research, which clearly has major implications and potential benefits for the planet?

The Department's record on expenditure for research is excellent and far outweighs the amount spent by Labour when it was in office. Last year, the Department's research budget was increased by 20 per cent.—a real-terms increase whose significance the hon. Gentleman should be kind enough to acknowledge.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of Telford development corporation to discuss assistance that the corporation is giving towards the planned Telford city technology college.

I have no such plans.

Will the Minister make it his business to find out the precise details of the red-carpet treatment that Telford development coporation, which he appoints, is giving to this totally unwanted and unnecessary city technology college? Will he find out the precise cost of all the preparatory work done by the corporation, the cost of all the access and infrastructure, the knockdown price at which the corporation has sold the land to the college and the price that the land would have fetched on the open market? When he has found out all those details—if he does not already know them—will he make them available to the House and then send them to the corporation's auditors for their inspection?

The hon. Gentleman has already tried to block the establishment of Telford city technology college by objecting to the relevant planning applications. I am interested to note that he now wishes to advertise still further his hostility to our policy of giving his constituents more educational opportunities and choice.

rose——

Order. This question is about Telford.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the role of a development corporation is to redevelop rundown inner-city centres and to create new opportunities and lifestyles in them? Is not that role fully compatible with that of CTCs, and should not Telford development corporation do all that it can to assit the city technology college, as our development corporation in Teesside is doing?

My hon. Friend is right. The development corporation should have regard to the interests of everyone living in the area and I am entirely satisfied that that is what Telford development corporation has done in this case.

In view of the Minister's absymal reply to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) and the fact that he is not prepared to meet the chairman of Telford development corporation, will he prevail on the Secretary of State to introduce some democracy into the corporation? Let us see some of the money that the Secretary of State is pushing on to the poll tax being spent on development corporations.

We are entirely satisfied that Telford development corporation has done an excellent job and I have already had an opportunity of meeting the chairman.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to take any new initiatives to increase the provision of affordable housing in rural areas.

Yes. Since 1988, the Government have introduced a number of initiatives to increase the supply of low-cost housing in those rural areas where it is needed. Most recently, we have decided that £50 million of the total of nearly £2 billion of local authority credit approvals in 1991–92 should be set aside for a new programme for low-cost rural housing, mainly through local authority sponsorship of housing association schemes. I have now decided that these resources should be allocated as supplementary credit approvals, to ensure that they are targeted on authorities where they will have the greatest impact, and we shall shortly be inviting eligible authorities to make bids for a share of them.

I accept that this may be at least a small step in the right direction. Do not the Government recognise, however, that "Faith in the Countryside" identified a strong feeling that the Government had failed to appreciate that councils provide a major source of housing to meet the needs of the less well-off who want to rent property in rural areas? Does the Minister now intend to make it possible for local authorities to provide the extra housing that is needed, at affordable rents?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's small tribute at the beginning of his question. This initiative is the responsibility of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), to whose work on housing I pay tribute. As for the hon. Gentleman's substantive question, we have made it clear that we see housing associations rather than local authorities as the main providers of affordable accommodation. Within the Housing Corporation's growing budget, a greater percentage of its resources will go to rural areas.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his welcome return to the Dispatch Box. Is he aware that there is considerable concern in South Herefordshire district council that it is being frustrated in discharging its responsibilities as the facilitator and enabler of low-cost housing for its people? Is he also aware that last year about 97 per cent. of the Housing Corporation's resources for the west midlands area went into the west midlands conurbation, leaving only a small amount for rural areas? Will he tackle the Housing Corporation? We feel very strongly about the matter.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. In a number of villages there is resentment towards second home owners or long-distance commuters who buy up homes, to the disadvantage of those who live locally. I am in touch with the Housing Corporation. It has a special rural programme targeted on the smallest villages, such as the ones referred to by my hon. Friend. By 1992–93 we hope that that programme will rise to 1,850 approvals. Housing associations in rural areas will be able to bid for resources and I hope that my hon. Friend's local authority will be successful.

Does the Minister agree that the drift to the cities and the pressure on existing houses in city areas is partly because of the lack of housing for rent in rural areas?

Since when has the hon. Gentleman represented a rural area?

Order.

Does the Minister therefore agree that yesterday's statement by the bishops of England and Wales about homelessness in Britain could not have come at a more timely moment? What further action does he intend to take to tackle the problem of homelessness?

A separate question about homelessness appears later on the Order Paper. This question is mainly about rural areas. I have already explained that the Housing Corporation will devote increased resources to the provision of affordable homes in rural areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council and new town commission homes have been sold to sitting tenants since 1 January 1980.

It is estimated that between January 1980 and September 1990 almost 1·2 million council and new town commission homes have been sold to sitting tenants in England.

First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. As Conservative Members believe in giving village people a stake in society through the extension of home ownership, will he confirm as soon as possible when he intends to introduce legislation to extend the rents-to-mortgages scheme throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. His question demonstrates that he, like my other hon. Friends, has the interests and aspirations of tenants at heart. We intend to monitor carefully the progress of the rents-to-mortgages pilot scheme in Basildon which, during the short time that it has been available, has aroused considerable interest. My hon. Friend's encouragement to us will be an important factor to be taken into account when we decide whether to extend the experiment, although, as he acknowledged, to extend it to all local authority tenants would require primary legislation.

Is the Minister aware that his reply demonstrates that, despite recent events, nothing has changed and that we are being subjected to the same old claptrap from the Dispatch Box? Is he further aware that, contrary to the recently expressed opinions of the Minister for Housing and Planning, local authorities' ability to use the receipts from council house sales to provide additional council housing has been severely restricted, which has led to a complete standstill in the provision of council housing, in Newcastle and Gateshead in particular and in other local authority areas? What will the Government do about the growing army of homeless and inadequately housed people that they have created?

When it comes to claptrap, the Labour party has a monopoly. The new system that we have introduced this year for dealing with capital receipts is designed to ensure that they are recycled so that they can be used in the areas of greatest housing need. There is no particular reason why those areas should be the same ones as where the receipts arise.

Now that the Labour party has changed its policy in favour of the right to buy, will my hon. Friend, whom I very much welcome to the Dispatch Box, make it his first priority to ensure that more council houses are sold? Will he have a word with Bolton council —which, in 10 years, has succeeded in reducing its stock of houses only from some 26,000 to some 24,000?

We know that hostility to the right to buy is never far below the surface in any Labour local authority. If my hon. Friend knows of any cases of difficulty in his constituency involving people being obstructed in their right to buy, I shall be happy to look into them.

In welcoming both new Housing Ministers to their posts, may I first remind them that the average life expectancy of a Housing Minister is only six months, so perhaps they should first negotiate a secure tenancy? Having done that, will they give some hope to the people of this country and recognise that since 1980, 1·5 million homes have been lost from the rented sector, half because of the right to buy and the other half because of the collapse in the private rented sector? Will the Minister now give people some hope by allowing local authorities to replace the homes that are sold, because a right to buy without a duty to replace equals cardboard city? That is the problem.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome to me and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. I remind him that local authority lettings to new tenants, which are running at 228,000 in the latest year, are very close to the average for the past decade. There is no clear evidence that the effect of council house sales is to reduce the availability of accommodation to tenants. The fastest and the cheapest way for the hon. Gentleman to increase the supply of public sector housing would be to ensure that some of the 100,000 properties in local authority control which are currently empty are put back into use.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to improve the opportunities for home ownership enjoyed by the tenants of charitable housing associations.

The Housing Corporation introduced in the summer the tenants' incentive scheme, under which registered housing associations, including charities, may give grants to help their tenants move out and buy homes of their own.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome him back to the Dispatch Box to answer what I believe is exactly the same question as I asked him that last time he was answering on this subject. Is he aware that the tenants' incentive scheme will not provide a single opportunity for tenants in my constituency to purchase their homes this year? Is that satisfactory? Would not it be much better to go back to basics and to give the right to buy to those tenants?

My hon. Friend will remember that in a previous incarnation I tried to do exactly that. We tabled amendments to the Housing and Building Control Bill in 1983 to extend the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations, but were unable to persuade the other place to include those provisions in the Bill and the proposals were abandoned. In their place, we came up with the scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations. The Housing Corporation plans to spend over £40 million on grants, which gives it the potential to assist 2,500 tenants. I very much hope that some of my hon. Friend's constituents will be among those who succeed.

Will the Minister change the scheme so that tenants can opt into it? Currently, the scheme runs only if a housing association becomes part of the scheme. Is the Minister aware that the disadvantages of council house sales, which my colleagues identified in the previous question, do not apply to this scheme under which people are paid a certain sum to leave a tenancy and the tenancy can then be re-let to other people? Will he now change the nature of the scheme and allow tenants to opt in, rather than allow the housing associations to be the gamekeepers, who are preventing the scheme from working?

I have no evidence that charitable housing associations are not willing to operate the scheme. it is a substantial benefit to them in that they get a re-let which they can let to someone on their list—something which they would not have done without the scheme. The housing associations are fully compensated for their management costs and there is no disadvantage to them in operating the scheme. I have no evidence that they are unhelpful in administering it.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when considering extensions to the right-to-buy scheme, he will not permit any new commonhold scheme to be extended to include leaseholders, on the basis that it would be no part of any Government's remit to extend to one group of private citizens the right compulsorily to acquire the property of another?

The Lord Chancellor recently issued a consultative document on commonhold and the Government are awaiting views on the proposals to introduce it. I shall make sure that my hon. Friend's suggestions are brought to my noble and learned Friend's attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are currently listed as being homeless.

Accommodation was found for 37,460 households accepted as homeless by local authorities in England in the third quarter of this year.

Is the Minister aware that, under the Government, the number of homeless people has more than doubled and is well on the way to being trebled, that nearly 3 million people have suffered the tragedy of homelessness and that this can be attributed to factors that are directly influenced by the Government's policies, such as the decline in the number of units in the public and private sectors, the inadequate number of new builds for purchase in the private sector and a tragic increase in mortgage defaults which, at 120,000, have nearly quintupled under the Government and are accelerating?

I have read the report produced yesterday by the Catholic bishops. They recognise that the problems of homelessness date from some time before the Conservative party came to Government. They pay tribute to a number of initiatives that the Government have introduced to tackle homelessness. Of course, they recognise, as I do, that more needs to be done.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one tragedy for the homeless is that there are more empty units of accommodation than there are people seeking homes? There are more than 10,000 empty council houses in five Labour London boroughs and there is much empty property in the private sector. Some empty property—not a great deal—is owned by the Government. Will my hon. Friend look at this problem sector by sector so that we can bring these valuable units of accommodation back into use?

My hon. Friend makes some constructive suggestions. The Audit Commission published a study showing that three quarters of authorities using bed-and-breakfast accommodation could end its use altogether simply by using better alternatives locally and by having better management of their housing stock. About 600,000 units in the private sector are empty and it would be helpful if there was a consensus on the recently introduced regime for assured tenancies so that private landlords had confidence that the rules would not be changed in the short term. The Treasury has issued fresh instructions to all Government Departments to reduce to a minimum the volume of empty stock. Much of that stock is owned by the Ministry of Defence and, when our troops return from the middle east, they may need the accommodation.

I, too, welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities. Has he had the opportunity today, and if not, will he take it, to read the front and inside pages of the Daily Mirror? The headline is,

"Shame on the Tories' Doorstep"

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. In addition to recycling disused material, my Department is now recycling Ministers. The hon. Gentleman described the housing situation in emotive terms, but I draw his attention to the report by Professor Maclennan to Rowntree. It states:

"Britain is a well housed country and it is misleading to suggest that there is a general housing crisis in Britain."

Is not one of the causes of homelessness the tying-up of housing resources to the tune of £75 million in uncollected rents by five Labour London boroughs?

If local authorities could collect more in rents, they would have more resources to apply to the maintenance and management of their estate and to bring back into use some of the properties that are unlettable.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a specific question——

Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Did he wish to do that?

Yes.

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

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier today.

During his review will the Secretary of State acknowledge the disgraceful circumstances in which the poorest members of society who cannot afford to pay the poll tax are daily facing the intimidation of the bosses' court and now gaol? Is not it ironic that a former Prime Minister, presumably as a reward for impoverishing the poor, should be given the Order of Merit and her husband a baronetcy?

Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we never discuss the honours list in the Chamber.

Is not it ironic that a former Prime Minister should be rewarded for impoverishing the poor while old-age pensioners are selling their war medals to prevent their receiving the draconian and immoral treatment of the courts? When will the Secretary of State live up to his leadership election pledge and scrap the poll tax?

The only irony is that the hon. Gentleman, who can well afford to pay the poll tax, is content to see the very poor people on behalf of whom he speaks forced to pay the bills that he will not pay.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever changes to local government finance are made by whichever Government, they are still likely to have lo face the fundamental problem of profligate, wasteful county councils, such as Derbyshire, which prefers to keep in with its National Union of Public Employees paymasters than to offer value for money and which recently rejected a low-cost tender because it was in the wrong-coloured envelope?

My hon. Friend is right to draw those matters to our attention and I wish that the problems were restricted only to county councils.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most important measures that he could take in the short term to relieve the pain of the poll tax would be to increase central Government funding for local authorities next year? Given that on 10 May he called for a more realistic settlement based, as he said, on realistic economic assumptions, is he prepared to increase by 50 per cent. the settlement announced on 31 October, thus bringing it to the real level of inflation, and also to increase the revenue support grant element above the 1·9 per cent. announced on that date? Does he further agree that he should bring that forward immediately to allow people to understand that the Government are serious when they say that they are intent on doing something about the poll tax?

May I say how much I welcome the changed stance of the Labour party? A week ago the Opposition were saying that the only thing to do was to get rid of the poll tax at once, but now they are making suggestions on how we could modify its effect. In view of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot understand why he will not come and talk to me constructively about what we can do.