To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish a draft Bill on the replacement of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are currently consulting on the council tax. Our intention is to introduce legislation in good time to implement the new system for the financial year 1993–94.

Why do the Government intend to wait two years to introduce this new legislation when it is obvious that it could be introduced in the coming year? As the Government appear to have a light legislative programme for the coming year, why are they dithering and not getting on with getting rid of the poll tax? Let us kiss it goodbye once and for all.

I am delighted to have that welcome for the council tax. I wish that all Opposition Members had been so welcoming. Clearly the hon. Gentleman has been reading the Local Government Chronicle and he agrees with its conclusion that the council tax will do Manchester a lot of good. As for why we cannot legislate earlier, the hon. Gentleman will know, because the Opposition set it out in a document, that it is necessary to consult on the matter, to get it right and to give the House and another place time to consider it in detail.

My hon. Friend refers to the consultation paper, but his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he has no intention of altering the bands proposed in the document. Will he therefore take this opportunity to explain the basis of the valuation of properties to be put in the bands? I am sure that he will be aware of the concern in constituencies such as mine where it appears that, if the valuation is based on the price of properties as exhibited in the offices of local estate agents, people in quite modest properties will find themselves in the same band as those living in millionaires' row. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could explain the basis of valuation.

We thought carefully about the number of bands proposed and looked at a number of different options. We decided that seven bands was the right number to put forward as our firm proposal. The capital valuation will be based on capital values—that speaks for itself. A number of special factors may be involved in certain properties and that is one of the matters on which we are consulting.

If it will take two years to implement such legislation, have the Government considered introducing parallel legislation, which could come into effect much sooner, to prevent those who presently receive an 80 per cent. reduction from having to pay anything at all under the present poll tax system?

Of course, we have thought about it, but we do not propose to do that. People on income support who are expected to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge bill receive an addition to their benefit in respect of the average of those 20 per cent. bills. There has been no adjustment to the amount that they get to take account of the fact that the community charge has been reduced by £140, so a number are receiving more in their benefits than they are asked to pay in their 20 per cent. community charge. That is particularly the case in those local authorities where the charge is low.

Bearing in mind that the Labour party proposes to abolish capping and spending limits if it comes to power, will my hon. Friend invite his opposite number to explain to the House how his so-called "fair rates" figures could be kept down to the quoted levels if Labour abolishes capping and competitive tendering? Are not Labour's figures a complete sham?

Labour's figures are not worth the paper that they are written on—partly because the arithmetic is wrong but also because, as my hon. Friend said, Labour does not intend to limit in any way the amount that Labour authorities can spend. We know that those authorities spend through the roof, if they are given the opportunity to do so. We know also that Labour has opposed the transfer of part of the burden to value added tax. Again, Labour's figures are based on an entirely false assumption—on the lower burden being taken from local taxpayers. However, Labour has spoken out against the VAT increase that made that possible.

Will the Minister clear up at least part of the confusion that surrounds his proposals? Although he published figures purporting to show the council tax under a seven-band system, is it not the case that no work on such a system has been undertaken? Is it not the case also that district valuers were asked to provide estimates on the basis of a 14-band system and that the decision was then taken to lop off the top six bands? Why was that done? Does not that decision completely invalidate the Government's figures and show that the unfair and familiar principle underlying the poll tax has been retained? I refer to the principle that the rich should be protected from paying their full whack, while an unfair burden falls on the rest of us.

We got rid of the unfair principle underlying the old rating system, to which the hon. Gentleman wants to return, whereby the occupants of more expensive properties—even if they had modest incomes—were expected to pay limitless sums towards local government. The hon. Gentleman also wants sole occupants to pay as much as multiple-occupancy households. That was a major unfairness under the rates system, and we are not prepared to return to it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the consequences of the distribution of Government grant of the council tax proposals; and if there will be any significant alteration in so far as it relates to Southend-on-Sea.

Grant will be distributed so as to enable authorities to finance spending at a standard level, by levying standard taxable amounts determined by the Secretary of State. Authorities will be compensated for differences in their expenditure needs and for any variations in their taxable capacity. No major changes are proposed to the current system of standard spending assessments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there was public rejoicing in Southend-on-Sea this year, after years of battling to get rid of the terrible safety net, which forced the people of Southend-on-Sea to subsidise other councils? Is he further aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and I and all the people of Southend-on-Sea would be very unhappy if that wretched safety net were reintroduced? Is there any truth in the unique revelation appearing in The Scotsman that Jacques Delors could stop local government reforms by virtue of his latest directive?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to congratulate the electors of Southend-on-Sea on their sensible decision in last Thursday's council elections. Transitional help will continue to be available for households, and we have no proposals to reintroduce area protection grant. My hon. Friend may have been referring to the transfer of undertakings directives, which place a new employer into the shoes of the old employer in respect of dismissals and other aspects of an employee's terms and conditions of employment. If that is the case, those directives apply both to the private and public sector and would have no special effect on local authorities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposed council tax arrangements set out in recent consultative documents would mean that, in future, nine out of 10 households in Southend-on-Sea are likely to pay even less than they do now? It is already a low figure because Southend-on-Sea is a prudent local authority. Does my hon. Friend share my belief that that is why the Conservatives enjoyed such excellent results in the local elections and why the Liberals were routed?

I well recall my happy visit to Southend-on-Sea not long ago. My right hon. Friend is right to point out that, had the council tax been up and running this year, a couple living in a house of average value in Southend-on-Sea would have paid £276, as opposed to a community charge of £416.

rose——

Order. I will call the hon. Member, but I remind him that we are discussing Southend-on-Sea, not Linlithgow-on-Sea.

Up the road from Southend-on-Sea is Heveningham hall. Does the Minister know who owns it? As it is the subject of a grant—the word "grant" appears in the original question—can the Minister assure the House that it is not owned by the Iraqi Government?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been substantial correspondence on that issue. I shall look into the question and write to the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed council tax.

The Government's council tax proposal has been widely welcomed by hon. Members and by those involved in local government. I look forward to receiving detailed responses to the consultation exercise now under way.

Will my right hon. Friend forgive me if I gently chide him for that reply? The reason is that my right hon. Friend seems not to have included in the representations that he received the thousands of voters in Chelmsford who voted against the Liberal Democrats and voted a Conservative council into Chelmsford, overturning the Liberal Democrat council because they support and like the council tax that my right hon. Friend proposes.

Having given my hon. Friend's question due consideration, I certainly forgive him.

Would the Secretary of State like to make a further visit to Wigan to explain to electors why the rate of council tax to be levied there is double the rate that will be levied in the Conservative borough of Trafford? In Wigan we will have the highest rate levy of all 10 districts in Greater Manchester. When people in boroughs such as Wigan will have to pay twice as much in council tax as those in a borough such as Trafford, does not that show that something is seriously wrong with the calculations?

I do not think that I need to go to Wigan to explain the consequences of having a Labour authority in Wigan and a Conservative one in Trafford.

There is no doubt that in my constituency of high-valued properties, the overwhelming majority of constituents will most certainly pay far less under the new council tax than they were paying under the old rating system and that the tax is warmly welcomed in that regard. I suggest that there is one point on which I would invite my right hon. Friend to keep his options open—the question of an additional band at the bottom of the scale, at around £20,000, to take account in my constituency of those who live in mobile homes and other low-cost accommodation, who are often the least fortunate. I suggest that there should be an additional band at the top of the scale at about £250,000, because at present those who live in areas such as mine on the fringes of London frequently find that a value of £160,000 on their property does not mean that they are especially rich.

Of course, I understand my hon. Friend's point. It has been made by other people. One must consider the banding arrangements in the context of the sums of money that separate one band from another. It is the Government's view that, having considered the various permutations, the seven-band arrangement with which we have come forward is appropriate.

As the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities could not answer the question about the six missing bands, perhaps the Secretary of State could try to clear up another matter of confusion. What will be the basis of valuation? Will it be capital valuation, without any conditions—as the Secretary of State said—or will other factors be taken into account, as the Minister of State said on Radio 4, or does confusion continue to reign?

The only confusion is in the mind of the hon. Gentleman because every time that we answer the question he asks it all over again. The fact is that we have come forward with seven bands. We made it absolutely clear, both in advance of our announcement and subsequently, that we considered a number of other options, but we came to the view that the seven-band option was the most appropriate. That remains the position. As for the broad issue of the valuation process, we also explained that. Whereas the Opposition are in favour of capital values, rental values and building and repair costs as a basis for valuation—whatever that may mean—we believe in capital values, and we are consulting on that basis.

So the Minister of State is wrong.

My hon. Friend the Minister is not wrong. If people wish to suggest to us specific areas where capital values need modification, we shall consider them. Local government may well produce examples that need specific examination. As we are designing a tax for local authorities to administer and collect, the appropriate way forward is by consultation and not by imposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which councils have privatised the most services.

My Department does not collect this information. There has been a substantial shift of work to private contractors as a result of the compulsory competitive tendering legislation. In addition, a number of local authorities have gone further, on a voluntary basis, in using private contractors to provide services on their behalf.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was Conservative local authorities that led the way on competitive tendering? Westminster, Wandsworth and Southend-on-Sea have provided better services. Is not it true that those authorities had the lowest community charge? Was not it the Labour party that was dragged screaming into the 20th century when it refused to accept the privatisation of services? Lambeth is one example, with its high community charge and rotten services. Does my right hon. Friend intend to extend competitive tendering to other services?

My hon. Friend is correct. The journey to competitive tendering began in 1980 and continued throughout the 1980s. It is also true that the benefits to the local community—higher quality of service at a lower cost—are to be seen significantly in Wandsworth and Westminster. It is a matter of conjecture whether the Labour party has actually got to the 20th century, kicking and screaming or not.

Despite the hoo-ha about the privatisation of services, is the Secretary of State aware that last Thursday the electors of Britain spoke about that matter and all the other Tory policies? In Bolsover the last four Tories, and the last Liberal Democrat as well, were swept aside. Of the 92 clubs in the Football League, only three are in areas where the local authority is controlled by the Tories. The red flag is flying over Blackpool, Brighton, Plymouth and other seaside resorts.

The only overwhelming conclusion to be drawn from last Thursday's elections is that the Labour party would not have secured enough votes to form a Government if there had been a general election.

I shall revert, if sadly, to the original question. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's commitment to abolish compulsory tendering at the insistence of the National and Local Government Officers Association and the National Union of Public Employees is a bad deal for consumers and users all over the country and gives the lie to any suggestion that it has forgotten its bad old ways of union-controlled party policies?

My hon. Friend is right. That is just one more example of why, if the Labour party ever achieved power, it would give us worse services at a higher cost.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his intention to create additional parish or town councils outside London; and if he will make a statement.

Under current legislation we may consider whether to create additional parish and town councils outside London in the light of recommendations from the Local Government Boundary Commission. In the context

Has the Minister considered receiving direct representations from parishioners about parish councils? In Maltby, South Yorkshire, where I live, the district council consistently votes against our having a parish council, although many people in the parish believe that we should have one.

I believe that 90 per cent. of the hon. Gentleman's constituency has parishes. In our consultation paper, we specifically invite representations, and we shall be glad to receive them from his constituents.

While my hon. Friend listens to representations on parish councils, will he also listen to representations from my constituents about splitting the metropolitan authority of Kirklees, which provides lousy, inefficient and costly services?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say that it is clear that Labour-controlled authorities have a worse record than Conservative-controlled authorities. However, we do not now intend to alter the structure of the existing unitary authorities.

I am sure that the Minister will wish to join me and other hon. Members in congratulating all those victors in town and parish elections last Thursday, including the 17 in Polegate town council, in my constituency, all of whom are Liberal Democrats. Will he assure the House that the current consultations will not affect the delay which may occur in the transfer of responsibilities for community care to local authorities, which the Government's programme shows is aimed for April 1993? Will he further assure the House that the finance to enable local authorities to plan for that transfer will be re-examined?

I am glad to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the community care programme is proceeding on time However, I have to commiserate with him on his party's dismal performance in my constituency, where the independents are now the largest opposition, as opposed to the Liberal Democrats.

Is my hon. Friend aware that until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came to office there were rumours that parish councils and town councils might be abolished? What he has said today is very welcome indeed, because there is a general feeling throughout the country that town councils provide an essential element in local government in that they are local.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although it is true that parish and town councils have comparatively small environmental powers, we recognise that loyalty to parish and town councils is extremely strong and we wish to ensure that their voices are heard properly.

The Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) did not answer the question. Will the hon. Gentleman explain what the Government plan to do or what recommendations they will make to redress the mismatch between parish and town councils, particularly in the metropolitan districts? As the survey carried out by Aston university and the consultative documents do not address the real problem in metropolitan districts, will the Government take action to ensure that it will be resolved?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that before taking action we shall consult properly. That is precisely why we invited consultation. I was glad that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) agreed that that was a sensible way forward. Of course, there are difficulties with parish and town councils. In addition, only about 50 per cent. of the country is parished. There are problems and that is why we are consulting on them.

Will my hon. Friend assure us that he does not intend to create any unnecessary and expensive regional bodies which cut right across the public desire to have decisions taken locally, in contrast with Labour party's policy which would bring back those regional bodies? Does he share the concern of my constituents who last week voted Conservative in a 17 per cent. swing from Labour to Conservative and thus backed and supported the Government's policy to say no to unnecessary regional bodies?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have no plans to introduce regional government. Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of votes cast in the north-west show a remarkable improvement in support for the Conservative party.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the next annual report of the London Docklands development corporation.

I look forward to receiving the annual report from London Docklands in July.

Does the Minister agree that the last annual report of the LDDC shows much more concern for the needs of developers than for those of local people? Is he aware that most of the £1.8 billion allocated to rail transport has been used to benefit developers and that the LDDC is not supporting the London borough of Newham's petition for a proper interchange between three new railways at Canning Town? Would it not be a pity if the design defects of underground stations built in the west end at the beginning of the century were replicated in the east end at the end of the century?

I do not want to get drawn into the detail of the station, but the LDDC is a development corporation and it has not supplanted the local authorities, which retain their responsibilities. The LDDC has done a tremendous amount of work with local authorities and other bodies on projects which benefit the community. It has spent about £100 million over the past three years on community projects. It will spend about £87 million over the next three years on community projects and it has made agreements with boroughs such as the London borough of Newham on the construction of houses and a series of projects on education and training which will benefit local people. That is an extremely fine record.

The LDDC has a good record of making use of vacant derelict land. Does my hon. Friend agree that other authorities should follow the example set by the LDDC and use their vacant derelict land, thus reducing the pressure to develop green field sites?

Indeed. The London Docklands development corporation has already reclaimed 600 hectares of derelict land—that sounds like quite a lot to me—and has a remarkable record. I wish that other local authorities would follow the LDDC's lead. We set up that corporation precisely for the purpose of bringing about regeneration and it is succeeding extremely well.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the objectives listed in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance", have so far been achieved; and if he will make a statement.

In the seven months since the publication of "This Common Inheritance", we have made substantial progress on some 100 of the commitments and proposals that it contained. Many of these were set out in my announcement on 26 March this year. The Government remain committed to the integration of environmental concerns into the whole range of their activities, both in the United Kingdom and internationally. Colleagues in charge of Departments throughout Whitehall are working constructively to press home the White Paper initiatives and to keep up the impetus for progress in the future.

Will the Minister confirm that one of the main aims of the White Paper was to set statutory water quality objectives? Is he aware that that commitment was first made in 1987 when the National Rivers Authority was set up? It was repeated when the Water Bill was enacted and has now been restated in the White Paper. Despite that, statutory water quality objectives have yet to be set. As we discuss the matter this afternoon, raw sewage and industrial effluent are being discharged into our water courses and rivers. Is not it scandalous that it has taken the Government all this time to set out those objectives?

I totally reject all that the hon. Gentleman has said. His references to legislation omitted the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which also set out water quality objectives. Such objectives are set by the National Rivers Authority in compliance with European directives, which we must implement. As I have stated repeatedly on the Floor of the House, by 1997 we shall be the first member state of the European Community to achieve 100 per cent. compliance with the bathing water quality directives. That is incredible progress.

Was not one of the most important objectives of that excellent White Paper that those sectors of British industry involved in pollution abatement and control should expand as quickly as possible, particularly into the export market? What progress has been made in that direction with the encouragement of the Government?

Enormous progress is being made, particularly in water consultancy. As my hon. Friend suggests in his question, there is an enormous amount of business to be secured for British industry in work abroad, not least in central and eastern Europe. A new technology scheme has been introduced by my Department in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry and that is proving enormously successful. However, we still need more British companies to come forward to explain what they can do to share their expertise and technology with other countries who need it.

Is not the real problem that the White Paper lacks any real objective, timetable or overall strategy? If we are to tackle the environmental crisis that we are facing, is not it about time that the Government started to give a lead? Does the Minister realise that it is no use the Secretary of State making the kind of statement that he made yesterday about regulating for higher standards or telling industry to be more aware and concerned about the environment when the Government are putting the interests of electricity shareholders before the interests of the environment?

I should point out to the hon. Lady that, prior to the reversal in fortunes for the Conservative Government which we all know took place about a few months ago, there were two principal areas in which the Government led the Labour party. One was defence—not surprisingly—and the other was the environment. That should make the hon. Lady hang her head in shame. There is a stark contrast between this Government's record and that of the last Labour Government, who did next to nothing. We have introduced the Water Act 1989, which has been widely welcomed, and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to give us the toughest regulatory regime in Europe. We introduced a White Paper setting out our programme for the next 10 years. The Labour party is absolutely nowhere on that issue: we have taken the high ground.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in encouraging the recycling of waste materials.

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires all waste collection authorities to prepare recycling plans. We shall be issuing guidance tomorrow on how to draw up those plans for consultation. We shall also announce details of the distribution of £12 million of supplementary credit approvals to enable local authorities td invest in recycling. That will add significantly to measures already in place to encourage recycling.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, but will he have further discussions with local councils to set up schemes, in particular for the individual household waste collection of newspapers, glass bottles and tin cans, which would not only be good for the environment, but would help solve the growing litter problem? Will he join me in congratulating two schools in my constituency, Hexham middle school and Corbridge middle school, on the excellent work that they have done in increasing public awareness about the matter?

With regard to my hon. Friend's latter question, I am happy to congratulate the schools to which he referred and I hope that he will convey those congratulations to them at the earliest opportunity.

Since we are talking about waste material, how many tonnes of paper were used and how many trees were sacrificed through the scrapping of all the poll tax forms because of Government changes? As it looks as though there is still a great deal of confusion surrounding the council tax, will the Minister recommend to local authorities that they print the new council tax forms on recycled paper or, perhaps, rice paper so that it is more palatable for Ministers when they have to eat their own words?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the new council tax proposals will use less paper than the community charge proposals.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the comments of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), my hon. Friend's remarks show that the Government's recycling policy has clear objectives? Will he go further and ensure that recycling takes place in Government Departments other than his own and in the House of Commons?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say that all Government Departments should set an example and follow that given by the Department of the Environment. I understand that the Services Committee of the House has introduced an option whereby Members of Parliament can choose whether to use recycled paper, so I hope that the vast majority of, if not all, Members of Parliament will take the option of using recycled paper.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any new proposals to provide additional properties for rent in rural areas.

We have taken a variety of measures over the last three years to boost the supply of low-cost housing in rural areas. We have substantially increased public resources through the Housing Corporation for new investment by housing associations, raising the target for the development of new subsidised housing under their special rural programme to 2,250 a year by 1993–94. We recently announced an extra £50 million of credit approvals for rural local authorities for a new programme of low-cost housing and we have amended planning guidance to permit development of low-cost housing for local needs on small sites not otherwise designated for housing.

Is the Minister aware that his variety of reasons sounds like waffle? All that he can manage is the provision of 2,000 extra houses in rural areas, despite the fact that thousands have been sold to council tenants and councils have been prevented by him from replacing them. There is now a massive shortage of council rented tenancies for manual workers, particularly people who work in such places as farm factories or local garages. This is turning the countryside into dormitory suburbs for yuppies. Manual workers, including the lower working class, just cannot afford to pay the prices that houses are fetching. Previously, when tenants died, houses became available. When will the Minister ensure that large numbers of council houses are built in villages so that people may have decent places to live?

As we are within 14 months of a general election, it is most timely that the House has been reminded of the Labour party's underlying hostility to the Government's policy on the sale of council houses. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, it is clear that his mind is still set in the ways of the 1940s. He sees local authorities as the monopoly providers of accommodation for renting. We wholly reject that solution. We are determined to see a substantial increase in the private rented sector and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will persuade his colleagues to support us in that important objective. We are also providing the Housing Corporation with substantially increased resources—rising from just over £1 billion last year to well over £2 billion a year in three years' time—to expand very substantially the provision, through housing associations, of subsidised accommodation for renting. I am glad to be able to say, that, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency alone, the Housing Corporation is spending £1.3 million in the current year on the provision of another 40 units.

Although the additional £50 million in the current year is most welcome, I hope that my hon. Friend can assure the House that there will be similar provision in future years so that local authorities and others engaged in the provision of affordable housing in rural areas may have an ongoing programme. It is extremely difficult to generate programmes at very short notice.

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the need to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing in rural areas. We are pleased with the results so far of the £50 million credit approvals that we have provided for the current year. Obviously we shall keep an eye on the situation. We are determined to ensure that all rural areas will get a fair share, whether through local authority credit approvals or through the Housing Corporation. As I said, the corporation is building up its programme. Over the next three years, including the current year, housing associations will build more than 6,000 units in very small villages.

How will local authorities in rural areas that have no housing—all their houses having been sold off—fulfil their statutory obligation, under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, to house the homeless? How can that obligation possibly be fulfilled when there are no council houses?

A number of schemes are available to local authorities. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the end of my original answer, where I referred to the fact that local authorities may now introduce schemes in respect of land not otherwise designated for housing, in which case the land component in the total cost of a house is almost entirely eliminated. In many areas, Iandowners are coming forward with offers of land and it is up to the local authorities to respond.

Does my hon. Friend agree that houses for renting or for sale should not be constructed at the expense of the environment? In the light of yesterday's published estimates of future aggregate demand, will he look urgently at the possibility of encouraging substitutes? If what is going on is allowed to continue, constituencies like mine will look like a lawn after the moles have been at it.

I know of my hon. Friend's close interest in this subject and I am glad to be able to tell him that I entirely share his concern that the proportion of recycled and secondary aggregates that are used in all forms of construction should be substantially increased.

Bluster is not going to get the Minister anywhere. Can he confirm that the Association of District Councils, which is Conservative controlled, has consistently told the Government that selling council houses without replacing them—the Labour party's view is that they should be replaced—is leading to a catastrophic shortage of rented accommodation in rural and urban areas? Why does he think that Conservative councils in rural areas have got it so badly wrong and he has got it right?

The House must have listened carefully and in vain for any hint in the hon. Gentleman's question that he supports the policy of selling council houses. It is perfectly open to housing authorities in rural areas to meet needs in the ways that I have outlined; by co-operating with the housing association movement; by taking advantage of our off-site plan policy so that low-cost housing can be provided at prices that are affordable both for sale and for rent; and through the judicious granting of planning permissions to the private sector, which is also ready and willing to help meet the need.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the council tax would be reduced if Greenwich received the same amount per head for social services and for other services as (a) Wandsworth and (b) Lewisham.

Neither Lewisham's nor Wandsworth's standard spending assessment would be appropriate for Greenwich, as each has different social and demographic characteristics. Greenwich could reduce its bills under the council tax by reducing its spending, which exceeds standard spending assessment by a larger percentage than any other inner London borough.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is Greenwich council's fault that it lost £2 million on its direct labour organisation and that it is the only council in the country which has met the capping criteria every single year, but that it is not the council's fault that the expenditure needs assessment works against its interests? Will my hon. Friend or his officials meet officers from Greenwich, with me, to discuss some of the implications of what is outside Greenwich's control?

I do not believe that the standard spending assessment works against Greenwich's interest. I remind my hon. Friend that, for example, Greenwich receives much more for education than does either Wandsworth or Lewisham. However, I am willing to discuss with my hon. Friend and representatives of the council the standard spending assessment. If I receive an invitation from him or from the council I shall be happy to join them in a meeting.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to make farm shops liable to uniform business rate.

Farm shops are, and have always been, liable to non-domestic rates.

Even though my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) gave overwhelming support last week to the Government's new policies on local taxation, with an 8 per cent. swing to the Conservatives wiping out a long-standing majority for Labour on Basildon council, thus reducing it from the Arsenal to the Accrington Stanley——

Order. Could we relate this to farm shops?

—nevertheless the greengrocers of my constituency are concerned that while they pay the uniform business rate, farm shops do not. Unless my farmers, who are extremely versatile, have taken to growing bananas, pineapples, oranges and kiwi fruit, there is a case for an even playing field to be created for those who sell vegetables all over the country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to congratulate her electors on a sensible decision last Thursday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we wish to see the market operating on, perhaps, a level turnip field. Of course, farmers pay rates not only on farm shops but on agricultural buildings used for the storage of fruit and vegetables grown elsewhere, or for the storage of intervention board surplus grain or skimmed milk. Where produce is sold at the farm gate, the local Inland Revenue valuation officer may make an assessment for rates. A permanent stall situated at the entrance to a farm, used on a regular basis for the sale of farm produce, might be regarded as rateable.

Will the Minister confirm that under the proposals for the council tax there are no plans to exempt farm shops from paying some form of rates? Will he also acknowledge that in scores of small businesses families who live above the shop and at the moment pay the poll tax upstairs and the uniform business rate downstairs would be exceptionally angry if there was any hint of exemption for farm shops?

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there are no plans to alter the rating of agricultural premises. We looked at the non-domestic rating system in the first part of our review of local government structure and finance and decided to retain the principle of the uniform business rate. That does not mean that we are wedded to every detail of the existing business rating system. We are certainly prepared to listen to those who wish to suggest improvements, but we do not envisage any major changes.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the immense pressures on farm shops and on all village shops for a series of reasons? Is he further aware that often the people who depend most on those shops are the elderly and those without transport who cannot travel to supermarkets to get goods at cheaper prices? When looking at these matters, will he do all that he can to ensure that we do not pile any more burdens on small shops in rural areas?

Yes, of course, I shall be delighted to ensure that we give due consideration to important sources of community focus in rural areas. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that it was the revaluation process that many small businesses, and village shops in particular, found difficult rather than the tax itself. If the reform had not been introduced, the small business community would be carrying a burden in excess of £1 billion extra under the old rating system.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet his European Community counterparts to discuss proposals for the environmental assessment of policies, plans and programmes.

The European Commission has not yet formally adopted proposals to require environmental assessment of policies, plans and programmes, but it is a matter which I expect to discuss in due course with my counterparts from other member states.

Would not the draft proposals allow environmental considerations to be built in at every stage of the planning process and much more fully than they are at present? For that reason, will the Government put their weight behind the proposals and ensure that progress is made on them as quickly as possible?

I could not possibly put my weight behind the proposals as currently constituted by the Commission because they are, in truth, half-baked.

Too tough.

The hon. Lady intervenes to say "too tough". Rather than any commitment in any Labour party document, I can at least see one in the Government's White Paper in September which stated:

"The United Kingdom is committed to a more systematic approach within Government, to the appraisal of environmental costs and benefits before decisions are taken."

My hon. Friend has led a number of construction industry export drives. Before he joins European Ministers, will he talk to the Treasury about the export credits guarantee policy that it pursues and which has put our construction industry at a disadvantage compared with the European industry, to the point that it now seems that the British trade centre in Moscow will be built by the French and the British airport terminal in Moscow by the Italians?

I shall certainly be happy to raise the matter with my Treasury colleagues.

Given the Minister's commitment when answering question 7 and again in mouthing platitudes from his White Paper, why cannot he now say that he will endorse the principle of environmental assessment of planning and structure development at the local planning stage so that consideration of environmental matters is built into the system and so that we do not deal with them on an ad hoc basis and often far too late? The Minister should put his commitment where his words are supposed to be.

The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of such matters, as I discovered again in Committee this morning, shows an alarming gap; perhaps he suffers from delusions of adequacy. He has again revealed that he is unaware that the Government have already accepted the principle of environmental impact assessment. It is there in black and white in the White Paper. We intend to deliver and we are concerned about the detail which would have to come from the European Commission.

Although I welcome the Government's commitment to a cleaner environment and especially the White Paper, will the Minister confirm that he will do all that he can to ensure a level playing field in Europe? He will be aware of the 1 million mythical olive trees that the common agricultural policy set-aside scheme supports. Can he assure us that there will not be 1 million mythical rivers for which Europe gives clean water grants from money taken out of our pockets? We obey the rules, but Europe often does not.

My hon. Friend has a very good point, but I should put it in a very different way. On environmental matters covering Europe, we play cricket, but I am pretty sure that others play rugby. Experience teaches me that the position will improve and that there will be a more level playing field after the introduction of the European Environmental Agency. Then we can make fair comparisons, carefully analyse the statistics put to the agency and compare like with like. At the moment, I am not satisfied that we are doing so.

In the light of the incident off the north Norfolk coast last Friday, will the Minister put on the agenda at the next Council meeting the environmental assessment of the transport by sea of hazardous chemicals? Is he aware that the loss overboard of the ethyl acrylate containers revealed two major defects? First, there is a lack of security in the transport of potentially lethal cargoes which could have a damaging effect on the marine environment. Secondly, once overboard, there was no labelling on the containers, which added to the risk to both marine life and the people trying to find the containers in the difficult waters off that coast.

One point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned worries me—that the containers were not labelled. However, my understanding of the incident is somewhat at odds with what the hon. Gentleman has expressed to the press and in a letter to the Department of the Environment. Immediate action was taken last Friday. It was confirmed at 3.40 pm that the araldite hardener was no danger to the marine environment and that the other chemicals were only marginally toxic. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I wishes to mislead the House or indulge in any form of scaremongering which could put the fear of God into many people when it is not necessary. The chemicals were properly stowed in a well-found ship, but the tanks broke adrift in had weather. That can happen and it has happened. So far, according to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the matter has been dealt with satisfactorily. I shall look into the precise point that the hon. Gentleman makes about labelling and write to him.

As a north-west Member, my hon. Friénd may have read in the local press that the Department of Transport has been reported to the European Commission for failing to obtain an environmental assessment of the impact of the A6 bypass. He will certainly have had experience of driving up and down that miserable road and the traffic conditions on it. When he meets his counterparts in Europe will he tell them that the people of Stockport are well capable of assessing the environmental impact of the bypass and that the European Commission should mind its own bloody business?

I shall have a careful look at that, but my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not use such colourful language.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses for sale he expects will be completed during 1991–92.

The Government do not make forecasts of completions by private housebuilders.

Is the Minister aware that Blyth Valley borough council in my constituency has accrued £23 million over 10 years through the sale of council houses? Is he further aware that with that money it could have built at least 1,000 houses, but it has built only 290 houses during the whole period? When will the Government start building council houses for the needy and homeless?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that is £23 million which his local council would not have had if he had listened to Opposition Members. There would have been no right-to-buy receipts to have a debate about. Thanks to the sale of council houses, we have sustained a far higher level of capital expenditure on public sector housing than would have been the case. For the future we look to housing associations, not local authorities, to build affordable homes for rent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in the number of people in Britain who own their homes is one of the greatest achievements of the Government in the past 10 years? Does he further agree that the key to ensuring an adequate supply of new homes in future which people will want to buy and want to rent is to continue the policy of requiring local authorities to put in place statutory local plans which define where the houses shall be built? The release of adequate land is central to the supply of new houses.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our planning policies are designed to ensure that there is a five-year supply of land to meet housing needs throughout the country. Through regional guidance and monitoring of the structure of the district plans, it is our aim to ensure that land is available to meet the housing needs of local people.

In view of the obvious gaps in the information that is being fed to the Minister about the number of starts in homes for sale, I shall help him. I do not know whether he is aware that, earlier this week, the Building Employers Confederation conducted a state-of-trade inquiry into that subject. Its conclusion was—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am coming to the question. Its conclusion was this:

"We are pleased to see the very slight improvement in the private house building sector. Any real recovery in the housing market still seems to be a very long way off and will depend crucially on further cuts in interest rates and mortgages"—

Order. Paraphrase, please. Do not quote.

There is no increase. What is the Minister going to do about that?

With house prices stable, with earnings rising between 5 and 10 per cent., and with interest rates falling, the prospects for house buyers and house builders are excellent.

What is the point in building more and more council houses when, at the moment, half a million council houses stand empty? We were talking earlier about recycling. If local government recycled council houses more quickly when they stand empty for weeks and sometimes months, there would be no problem with the homeless in this country.

I am sure that my hon. Friend's words will have been heard throughout the country. The 10 worst local authorities for voids are either Labour or Liberal Democrat controlled.