To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of progress in respect of the litter problem under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

I am in no doubt that the litter provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which represent the most comprehensive package of measures ever introduced by any British Government to deal with the problem of litter, will lead to a visible improvement in the standard of cleanliness of our streets and open spaces. We will monitor the effectiveness of the legislation when it is all in place, which should be in about three months' time. I welcome the Tidy Britain Group's initiative to hold a national spring clean from 19 to 28 April.

I welcome warmly the initiative that my hon. Friend mentioned and I appreciate that money has been made available to the Tidy Britain Group to help the national spring clean week. May it go well. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that, despite the powers provided under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, we still have a profusion of supermarket trolleys littering residential areas, town centres and car parks? Will he knock some heads together among local authorities and supermarket operators so that we get sensible mechanisms for controlling this wretched nuisance?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the further commercial that he has given to national spring clean week. I am anxious that everyone should play a part in helping us not only to clean up the country, but to ensure that it is kept clean. On his second point, the wanderlust of shopping trolleys is a feature of British life which has concerned me for a long time. We had lengthy debates during the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill and I sought to have it included in the Act. Section 99 allows local authorities to collect, store and dispose of abandoned shopping trolleys. As a result of that initiative and now that the law is in place, I am comforted to see that more and more supermarkets are introducing new and ingenious technology to stop the trolleys wandering out of the perimeters of the land owned by the supermarket, although in recent months many of us have seen them end up in streams, waterways and motorways, though not in the fast lane. I am glad to say that the problem is slowly diminishing.

We welcome the Tidy Britain Group week and hope that it will be a success. Will the Government admit that their 23-page code of practice, which introduces 11 category zones with three different types of road category, is a bureaucractic nightmare, made much worse for local authorities by desperate underfunding of all the provisions? The Government allowed about £50 million, but the metropolitan authorities alone reckon that they need £60 million to carry out their duties. Is not this another case of the Government setting desirable objectives, but failing lamentably in administration and finance to carry them out?

No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman is obviously anxious to support the Tidy Britain Group's initiative of a national spring clean week and I welcome that. I remind him and the House that the code of practice, which has statutory backing, was put together not only by the Tidy Britain Group but by the local authority associations. Therefore, they had a hand in ensuring that the code was not a bureaucratic nightmare. The standards that I accept and for which I do not apologise are extremely high and can be met. On the hon. Gentleman's final point, it may be fairer for me to take the political sting out of the argument by comparing two Labour authorities in the north—Leeds, which is remarkably clean, and Manchester, whence I come, which is filthy. The question that the hon. Gentleman should address is how Leeds manages to keep its city clean while Manchester does not. As from next week, when the litter laws will bite, I can assure him that Manchester city will be more often in the dock than out.

May I ask for briefer answers as they seem to be taking a long time.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to consult the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors about the amount of public vacant and derelict land currently listed in the land registers.

I am considering the RICS response to my Department's recent consultation paper as part of the Government's review of policy relating to vacant public land.

My hon. Friend will be aware that much of the impetus in tackling difficult sites comes from a partnership between the private and public sectors. When he next consults the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors will he take a fresh look at the proliferation of Government regulations that are threatening to inhibit the setting up of such partnerships? On that occasion, will he stress the utility of derelict land grant for realising the potential of difficult sites, even in districts of high land value?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his two suggestions. Yes, we shall look at any bureaucratic problems that are in the way of the derelict land grant. The city action teams and task forces that operate in many of the districts involved are there precisely to overcome such problems. On my hon. Friend's second question, £88 million of derelict land grant will be available next year—a useful 20 per cent. increase on the amount available this year.

Just before Christmas the Land Registry opened its records to anyone who wants to inquire about ownership of land or property, subject to a small fee. Does not the Minister think, therefore, that it would be a good idea for his Department to encourage councils and provide the finance to assist them to approach the Land Registry to find out about derelict or unoccupied land or houses so that the hundreds, if not thousands, of houses in every town and city could be taken over by councils and used to ease the housing shortage?

As the private Member who introduced the Bill on opening up access to the Land Registry, I am grateful for the support that I had from the Opposition. Before the local authorities use the Land Registry for the purpose described by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), perhaps they should look at the empty properties already in their ownership. They should bring them back into use before persecuting people in the private sector.

As the economy is picking up, it is clear that more housing will be needed and will be built on land throughout Britain. Does my hon. Friend agree that as there are still 88,000 acres of vacant, derelict, dormant and underused land on the Land Registry, the Government should introduce some private sector involvement to get rid of that land? They should direct developers to develop on that derelict and vacant land before building on green-field sites, particularly in the south and south-east where there is great pressure to destroy more and more of our green and pleasant countryside.

It is precisely for that reason that I have asked my officials to look specifically at land on the Land Registry in London and the south-east that might be used for housing to see whether we can make faster progress in meeting some of the housing demand in the south-east without impinging on the green fields to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) rightly gave priority.

To ask the Secretary State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to abolish the community charge by April 1992; and if he will make a statement.

I announced on 21 March the Government's intention to replace the community charge by a new local tax with two essential elements—the number of adults in a household and the value of the property—and that we shall consult on the basis that the new tax could be in place in 1993–94.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have a Secretary of State who is dithering like the Prime Minister. I remember when he wrote on the back of that envelope about his objectives, but he has dithered and jithered and he has not got there. What I want to tell the Secretary of State is——

Order. Ask him a question, please.

Is the Secretary of State aware—I will tell him this—that if he does not achieve his objective we shall do it after the next election?

There is no need for the Opposition to wait that long—they can join us in consulting and help to take the matter forward now.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the labyrinthine proposals put forward by the Labour party in place of the community charge make his own look clear and simple, and that the Opposition's proposals would destroy the privacy and freedom of the individual with a mesh of state control?

My hon. Friend makes important points which I dare say will be amplified as the House moves to later business. However, she will be encouraged to know that the chairmen of the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils have today come out strongly in support of my announcement last week.

Is the Secretary of State aware that speculation is reaching fever pitch about some of the fundamental aspects of his two-tax proposal? For instance, is the poll tax element to be a flat rate tax, is the property element to be based on capital values, and what is the balance to be struck between the two? I know that in the current state of confusion and disarray it is difficult for the Secretary of State to offer answers to those simple questions, but may I offer him the possibility of giving us his best answer on any one of them of his own choice?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's curiosity. I shall have to ask him to wait for two weeks, but he has kept the country waiting for 10 years.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken with regard to councils which award contracts to their direct service organisations tendering significantly in excess of tenders from outside private contractors.

Under the Local Government Act 1988, the Secretary of State has sanction powers which he may use if he considers that an authority has failed to comply with the statutory requirements for competitive tendering, including the requirement to avoid anti-competitive behaviour. We have used those sanction powers in the case of 22 local authorities, including some which, in our opinion, have rejected lower-priced external tenders without sound reasons.

Is not it disgraceful that a Labour council such as Warrington should award its refuse contract to its direct services organisation despite the fact that its tender was £100,000 in excess of a private tender, and that a Labour council in Halton should award its refuse contract to its direct services organisation despite the fact that its tender was £175,000 above the outside tender? Is not that financial incompetence ripping off the poll tax payer?

Yes, it is. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the diligence that he has shown on behalf of his constituents. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Lady Blatch, has recently considered the case and agreed that the Department of the Environment should send an official letter to Warrington council saying that the Secretary of State considers that its decision was anti-competitive and that he is minded to use the sanction powers after 1 August 1991.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend to Knowsley borough council the same assistance as he has given to the London borough of Ealing to keep clown the level of increase of council house rents.

Any application from Knowsley borough council or from any other authority for a special determination of subsidy would be considered on its own merits.

Does the Minister agree that the housing subsidy system is ridiculously complex and in a mess, and that the Government's attempts to bring council rents into line with market values have failed dismally, so that in the case of a borough such as Knowsley, which has significantly high rents and a high take-up of housing benefit, the inclusion of the cost of benefits in the calculation for housing subsidy has the effect of increasing those rents?

On the contrary, the housing subsidy system is extraordinarily simple and any difficulties that arise in Knowsley have nothing to do with the Government and everything to do with the incompetence of Knowsley borough council, whose record of housing mismanagement is bad even by the appalling standards of Labour-controlled authorities. On 1 April last year, more than 5 per cent. of Knowsley's housing stock was empty—the seventh worst performance out of 366 housing authorities. Its record of collecting rents was not much better. Last year it was the 28th worst authority out of the 366. Filling those voids and collecting those rents would help its housing revenue account. Instead of criticising the Government, the hon. Gentleman should advise his constituents to vote for a Conservative council on 2 May so that it can start cleaning up the mess, just as the newly elected Ealing Conservative council did last May.

My hon. Friend has put his finger on the answer. Is not the way to keep down the level of rents to make a determined effort to collect them in the first place?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Following our introduction of a ring-fenced housing revenue account last April, there is an enormous incentive for authorities to be efficient. I am glad to say that the vast majority of Conservative councils are responding extremely well.

I think that the Minister should be aware that many of his successors in that job, of which there have indeed been many, met Knowsley workers and are well aware that, by agreement with the Department, the number of voids are high because they are being held for improvement. Without throwing any bricks at the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), if every authority in the country, irrespective of political control, had been subject to the same arrangements as the Conservative-controlled borough of Ealing, the level of increase in council house rents would have been far smaller throughout the country. The Minister cannot evade that fact. The Government are being highly selective about whom they help and whom they do not help. It will not buy them any votes—certainly not in Knowsley, or in Ealing.

I should explain to the House that my hon. Friend the Minister played no part in discussions held in the Department regarding Ealing borough council—discussions which, incidentally, led to our refusal of Ealing's request for additional subsidy. Ealing faced the problem of inheriting exceptionally difficult conditions from the Labour council in May last year—a projected housing revenue account deficit of £25 million. Even after we allowed the council to bring forward £5 million from 1992–93 into 1991–92—money which will have to be repaid in the following year—its rent increase exceeds the guideline rent increase by more than any other local authority in the country.

As a former Ealing councillor, may I ask whether my hon. Friend finds it strange that the Labour Front Bench wants the increase to be even greater?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. If it were not for how highly we value his services in this place, I dare say that he would still be doing a valuable job on Ealing borough council.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider bringing forward proposals to make irreversible development, carried out without planning consent, a criminal offence.

My right hon. Friend considers that the concept of irreversible development, carried out unlawfully, is an unsatisfactory basis for a criminal offence.

Surely the Minister accepts that this issue concerns both sides of the House, not least his hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)? Does he accept that in the case of opencast mining, where the effects are disastrous it should be regarded as a criminal offence?

Opencast mining is not irreversible. It is relatively easy to infill and make good an area after opencast mining. The hon. Member has not chosen a very good example. We debated the matter at length on an amendment in Standing Committee and at the end of the debate on the amendment, it was withdrawn without a Division.

Is it right that planning policy and the expediency of enforcing planning controls have hitherto been matters for local authorities and the Secretary of State, and not for the criminal courts? Do the Government wish to keep it that way?

My hon. and learned Friend puts the case very well. Those who are concerned with implementing planning legislation—the local government planning Bar and all the authorities concerned apart from district planning officers—agree with my hon. and learned Friend that criminalisation of planning matters is not the best way forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Building Societies Association to discuss the level of house repossessions.

I have already discussed with the Building Societies Association and the Council of Mortgage Lenders ways in which repossession can be avoided, and will be meeting the CML again tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will also be meeting the CML.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Building Societies Association, will he apologise to him and, more importantly, to the millions who are struggling to pay their mortgages as a result of his policy of high interest rates and mortgage misery? What does he intend to do to help the people whom he encouraged to buy their homes, and who are now struggling to pay their mortgages? How will he help those whose homes are being repossessed? What will he do to help those whom he set up and whom he has now knocked down?

I am sure that all the people to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred will welcome the fall in interest rates, which will reduce the pressure on budgets. We should keep the matter in perspective—98·7 per cent. of those with mortgages are not six months or more behind with their payments.

How would the Government react to building societies' participating in schemes to recycle repossessed properties into the private rented sector, making them available for letting to priority groups?

The Government would welcome any such initiative by building societies. I understand that one or two are considering taking such properties into their ownership and then putting them out to rent, perhaps to those in need.

I do not think that the Minister intended to mislead the House, but the drop in interest rates will make no difference to most mortgage payers, as the Halifax building society itself pointed out recently.

I think that most mortgage payers would take a slightly different view of the fall in interest rates from that advocated by the hon. Gentleman. His point about homelessness should also be seen in perspective: repossessions account for about 10 per cent. of homelessness—they are not a significant factor.

I have been a vice-president of the Building Societies Association for 10 years. When my hon. Friend meets the societies tomorrow, will he point out that some of them have been rather slow in bringing down their interest rates following the fall in wider interest rates? Is it not time that some of them responded rather more quickly to the needs of their mortgage payers?

I shall take a copy of today's Hansard to the meeting and show the societies my hon. Friend's question.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any new proposals to assist BISF home owners.

No.

I thank the Minister for that useful reply.

I am afraid that I shall not do that. It is clear to us from the information now available that no case exists for designating BISF houses under the housing defects legislation. Any owner of a BISF house—or, indeed, any other house that is in poor condition—can apply for a mandatory renovation grant to bring his property up to standard, which may cover 100 per cent. of the cost. I do not think that any further reaction from the Government is called for.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the Government's position on the poll tax.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget a new grant to reduce community charges by £140 in 1991–92. I announced on 21 March that the community charge would be replaced at the earliest opportunity by a new local tax.

Leaving aside last night's debate, is the Secretary of State at all disappointed that surveys and polls have shown that the public—including members of the Conservative party—are no more enthusiastic about his proposed two-tax scheme, incorporating "son of poll tax", than they are about the existing poll tax scheme" As there seem to be as many proposals from the Conservative Benches for replacing the poll tax as there are Tory Members, why does the Secretary of State not admit frankly that the Tory party is hopelessly split on the issue and does not have a clue how to proceed?

The one very clear message in the opinion polls is that the party to which I belong is eight points up on where it was three months ago. No wonder the Labour party is so worried.

When my right hon. Friend introduces the new tax, will he abandon the very expensive register that has been such a heavy cost on local authorities, ignore the protests of the Labour party and have the courage to use the electoral register, setting it against the number of adults in a house?

I must ask my hon. Friend to allow the consultation paper, which will cover these matters, to be published in the early part of April. Then we shall be able to examine both this and a number of other matters.

If and when the Secretary of State abolishes the poll tax and replaces it with his twin tax, what assurances will he be able to give to some of my constituents who live in a high-rated and high-value property in central London? The several adults who live in that property are either not earning or have minimal incomes. Will the new system be securely based on that household's ability to pay, not on other artificial criteria relating to property and the number of people, irrespective of income?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong not to remember that we have announced clearly that the community charge will end by 1993 and that we shall replace it not with two taxes but with one. On his specific question, he can be very sure that we shall have those matters in mind.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the final report from the Local Government Boundary Commission regarding the future of the county of Humberside.

I hope to receive the final report later this summer.

If, when my hon. Friend receives that report, it should confirm the draft proposals that were announced last November to abolish the county of Humberside and at least transfer my constituency into the county of Lincolnshire, what will he do? If it says that Humberside county council should be kept, what will he do about that recommendation? Can he assure my constituents that, whatever happens, as a result of the statement made last Thursday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the sentence of death has been pronounced on the county of Humberside?

My hon. Friend tempts me to say things that would be very premature. Moreover, he has asked a series of leading hypothetical questions. I should like the Local Government Boundary Commission to publish its final report as soon as possible so that I can consider it as soon as possible.

Does the Minister accept that what counts with many people in Humberside is the very high quality of the services provided by Humberside county council? Does he further accept that the original decision to review Humberside was political, since it was announced just before the Conservative local government conference? However, it gave them no political advantage, cost a great deal of money and caused much uncertainty. As there is now to be a national review, should not the local review be stopped so that an overall approach can be adopted? Surely that would be better than picking on one local authority.

Of course, I reject the idea that the origins of the inquiry were in any way political. It is perfectly clear to anyone who knows the area that the issue needs to be considered and that there have been strong expressions of public opinion on the matter. After all the work that has been done, it is important that the final report should be published so that my right hon. Friend and I can consider it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Humberside report of the Local Government Boundary Commission is just one of several reports that are outstanding covering the Yorkshire area and other parts of the country? Given the announcement a few weeks ago that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission is about to start its next project, will my hon. Friend ensure that these local government reports are brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible?

That is desirable as a general principle. I do not believe that anything that my right hon. Friend has announced should inhibit the Local Government Boundary Commission in proceeding with its work speedily.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department is giving to east European nations' efforts to improve their natural environment.

My Department has provided advice and assistance to the Polish and Czech Environment Ministers and to officials from these and other east European countries during recent visits to the United Kingdom; we have set up a new division with specific responsibility for environmental protection issues in Europe and have just completed a fact-finding mission to Poland; we are also working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a number of projects for Poland and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, funded by the know-how fund; and we are contributing to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's east European programme.

What has happened to the register of pollution which the previous Secretary of State promised to the House last May? What steps have the Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry taken to ensure that, in the natural desire for industrial investment, we are not exporting environmentally substandard technology to eastern Europe?

We could not do that and I certainly give the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman seeks on that point. I said in my substantive answer that we had had a number of official visits from some east European countries. I find it interesting and impressive that they choose to come to the United Kingdom to find out how we bring about environmental enhancement, principally through the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

In view of the forthcoming budget deficit, should not the Government consider carefully all overseas aid, however desirable?

What we are talking about on the substantive question is not necessarily supplying overseas aid to help with many projects, but ensuring that countries that need to enhance their environment are aware of the expertise that exists in western Europe. We have considerable expertise and we are happy to make it available to those countries when and if they need it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his policies to encourage local government to reduce the volume of waste deposited in landfill sites.

Our policies for encouraging waste minimalisation and recycling will help to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. In particular, the introduction of recycling credits under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will provide a market-based financial incentive to recycle domestic waste rather than send it for landfill.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he aware that if "This Common Inheritance", the huge tome published by a supposedly green Government, is to be little more than a waste of trees, he should be doing more to encourage capital expenditure on incineration and recycling plants which would materially reduce the amount of waste? If all waste were recycled, only 20 per cent. would go into landfill. If that were to happen, it would help the residents of areas like Johnstown in my constituency, who are threatened with a huge site next to their homes. It would also affect the Pen-y-Bont works proposal which threatens the Dee, a water course serving the Wirral and the rest of Clwyd. Residents would be far better off and would be better served by recycling plants than by the threat of dumping.

We are making available £40 million of supplementary credits over the next three years for exactly the sort of projects that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of potential landfill sites has been increased by quarries identified as a result of interim development orders designated between 1943 and 1948, even before sites of special scientific interest and other environmental designations existed? Will my hon. Friend bring forward the consultation paper on IDOs and ensure, as a result of the consultation, that environmental impact assessments are carried out on every IDO before development?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will have heard my hon. Friend's comments. I am sure that he will want to guarantee that the consultation process takes place efficiently and effectively and that the views of my hon. Friend are considered.

When does the Secretary of State intend to publish a full timetable for the implementation of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990? Does he agree that, although many local authorities and voluntary bodies are co-operating and tackling problems extremely well, we need a national strategy for waste and that the Government are not providing that leadership?

We do have a national strategy for waste. It is set out in the Environmental Protection Act. But of course the final decision on the most appropriate facility for any area must lie with the waste disposal authority. I am sure that the hon. Lady would be the first to carp if we in Whitehall sought to take decisions that she thought would be far more appropriately taken by local authorities.

Does the Minister accept that it is absolute nonsense for waste, including industrial waste, to be transported 200 or 300 miles to be dumped in old quarries, as is proposed in north Wales? It is unacceptable to local communities to have other people's waste dumped on them. It is also unacceptable environmentally and because of the transport costs of carrying waste enormous distances. Surely a better answer can be found.

The higher standards and the higher costs that landfill sites will be required to meet under the Environmental Protection Act will also increase the competitiveness of other methods of waste disposal such as recycling. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that and I commend to him the paper on recycling credits published yesterday which makes that clear.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to abolish the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

Yesterday we debated legislation to reduce by £140 the community charge in 1991£92.

If the basis of the poll tax element of the head-home hybrid is to be a three-person family, how will a two-person family claim a rebate and how will the additional money be collected from a four, five or six-person family?

I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman got the assumption with which he started his question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one aspect of the community charge that all sensible people like is the fact that it promotes accountability and comparability between authorities? Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that any replacement for the community charge will have a wide base of people paying it so that we continue to have sensible accountability and central comparability and so that we can show the inefficient Labour councils for what they are—disasters compared with the efficient Conservative councils?

It is certainly true that the present system has shown that to be the case. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the local tax that we are proposing contains two elements: the number of adults and the value of the property.

Does the Minister agree that one good reason for abolishing the poll tax is the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) yesterday when he said that the way in which other local electors could achieve the zero rate of poll tax now achieved in Wandsworth would be to vote Conservative? Is not that, by implication, saying to the voters of Wandsworth that the only way to retain a zero rate of poll tax or a 100 per cent. Government grant is by continuing to vote Tory? Is not that a warning to the electors of Wandsworth that they must continue to vote Tory or be bribed to vote otherwise? Is not that a most vile and corrupt expression from a Government Minister and should not he resign, along with his partners in crime?

As was explained to the House yesterday, Wandsworth gets less grant than do a number of Labour authorities. Unfortunately, several of those Labour authorities set very high community charges. Wandsworth manages with its grant alone under the new reduction and therefore does not need to set a community charge.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that under the new tax, which I welcome warmly, people will not be penalised for making internal improvements to their properties?

My hon. Friend will have to wait for the publication of the consultation document. He will have seen that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said that he is concerned to ensure that people are not penalised because of the area in which they live, which might disproportionately affect the value of their property.

Will the Minister consider a bargain? Since Scotland went first in the experiment last time, can England go first next time? Scotland will experiment with a local income tax, which would be much more administratively feasible.

My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Wales and for Scotland intend that the legislation should have effect in all three places at the same time.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what latest representations he has received about his review of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

Many people have welcomed our decision to reduce headline community charges by £140 in 1991–92 and to introduce a new local tax.

Is the Minister aware of representations made yesterday by a group of parents from Warwickshire—a Tory shire for almost an entire century—against the capping and underfunding of that Tory authority by a Tory Government? In the words of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), the authority risks serious reductions in education provision for under-fives, the closing of homes for the elderly and the closing of facilities for people with learning difficulties. How are the people in that Tory shire to deal with the Government's financial strictures? Who is to blame for this crisis and how will it be put right?

The criteria for capping will be applied equally to authorities of whatever colour. One thing that will affect the level of services in any place is the number of people who have been willing to pay the community charge, and the hon. Gentleman is on weak ground on that point.

Will my hon. Friend accept that true economy and proper accountability in local government will be achieved only where local authorities are made responsible for raising £l locally for every 100p that they spend? If that means transferring major functions away from local authorities, so be it.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. which is a powerful one. However, it is difficult to imagine that we could ever get away from a system that took account of the different needs of different areas as we make our grants to those areas. It is difficult to escape from a grant mechanism that takes account of needs.

Does the Minister intend to apologise to the House for bothching the figures that he gave during the debate on the poll tax the other day? Before the Budget statement last week, when the £4¼ billion was announced, were there discussions within his Department on the position of local authorities sending out bills that were subsequently to become invalid? Were there discussions and was the Department aware of what was happening?

Of course, and if the hon. Gentleman had read my speech, he would have seen that I explained why those decisions had to be announced in the Budget. When I gave the figure I said that if it was wrong, I would come to the House the next day with the right figure, and that I did.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the number of people who will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme compared to those who benefited from transitional relief.

The effect of our recent announcement is that all charge payers will benefit from a general reduction in their bills of £140. In addition, about 16 million charge payers in England will also benefit from further help from the community charge reduction scheme. This is about 9 million more than under transitional relief.

Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of the generous announcement made last week, not one of my constituents will have to pay a penny over £275? In addition, several thousand already stand to benefit from the community charge reduction scheme. Is not it important, so that people can budget, that they should know as soon as possible how much they will pay? Can my hon. Friend give me a general idea of when they can expect to receive their bills?

We have decided that the balance of funding of local authority services between central Government and local government should be changed. That must be welcome. The exact figures for any individual authority cannot be announced until we know what claims the authorities put into the Department of the Environment for the scheme.

For the record, will the Minister make it absolutely clear that the reduction will not be £140 for all poll tax payers? Those people on income support, who pay 20 per cent., will receive only £28 and after they have spent £1,100 on VAT-charged goods and services, they will be paying for that £28. For the record, too, will the Minister tell us when the poll tax flagship turned into a Tory millstone?

It must be remembered that the people saving £28 are asked to pay only 20 per cent. in the first place. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, our intention is that people should not find this tax too heavy a burden.

Does my hon. Friend agree that most people want a certain degree of stability and security for the future? The old rating system took no account of the anomaly of the single-person household, as distinct from a household accommodating several wage earners. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that, with the further change, we shall not need to retain anything like a poll tax register?

The first point that must be made absolutely clear is that we are going into consultation. My hon. Friend will have to wait a couple of weeks to discover exactly what is in our mind.

May we explore a little further the statement made on Monday by the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities in the debate on the money resolution relating to the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill? On that occasion, the Minister announced that 8 million people would benefit from the community charge reduction scheme. Less than 24 hours later, he was contradicted by the Secretary of State, who said that he was pleased to take the House a stage further by telling us that, as a result of the arrangements that the Government were making, 16 million, rather than 8 million, people would benefit. Was not he aware that, in January, it had been announced that 18 million people would benefit? Did not he know that the scheme that was approved overnight actually reduces the benefit that is available through the community charge reduction scheme, reduces the benefit that is available through the rebate scheme and transfers money from the poor to the rich through the VAT increase? People with second homes will receive £428, whereas those on supplementary benefit will get only £28. It is a disgrace that the rich get more and the poor get less.

The only disgrace is that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the arithmetic. The important point is that, whereas under the old scheme 8 million people were helped, the outturn figure is now 16 million. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be delighted with that. The net extra grant to local authorities will amount to about £4·3 billion and we plan to make savings of £1·3 billion on community charge benefit and other reliefs. That has allowed us to make a number of improvements. It is increasingly strange that, in recent days, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has been more interested in preserving the status quo and protecting the vested interest lobbies of local government than in helping the people of this country.

Now that the abolitionists are clearly in the ascendant, will the Government turn their attention to abolition of the county council in Avon, which is the most unnatural and unloved of counties? Is my hon. Friend aware that Avon county council, on which the socialists are the largest party, has consistently increased its community charge at a rate much higher than the rate of inflation?

I was in Bristol quite recently and I sympathise with my hon. Friend. This will be a matter for the local government commission that my right hon. Friend hopes to set up.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to allow local authorities or housing associations to make use of underspending arising out of the failure to set up any of the planned housing action trusts.

No, Sir. Tenants are currently voting in Hull—on a proposal supported by the city council—and a ballot is due in a few months in Waltham Forest.

I am disappointed in that reply in view of the current deplorable position of no housing action trusts having yet been formed. Money has been put aside, but has not been used. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and use that money to allow local authorities to build or renovate houses for the people of their areas?

The moral of the story is that a housing action trust should come into existence and take advantage of the money that is available as quickly as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the conclusions of his review of the poll tax.

I have nothing to add at this stage to my statement to the House on 21 March.

Would the Secretary of State like to have a shot at making another statement about the replacement of the poll tax? He did not make everybody happy with the first one and his hon. Friends might have a happier Easter if they were given a clearer picture of what his new tax will involve and whether it will be strictly related to the ability to pay, as would be the case with a local income tax. Or will it remain an arbitrary tax?

The people who are unhappy about my statement are sitting on the Opposition Benches. They now realise that we have clear answers to our proposals while they have none.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who made representations to him about the review are delighted with his proposals and that the people who are unhappy are those who have been encouraging individuals not to pay? They now realise that we have proposed a scheme that will make it impossible for them to carry on with their campaign.

I much appreciate my hon. Friend's observation. Our new local tax will be consistent with one bill for each household. Collection will therefore be easier and more certain.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council homes have been built by Bradford metropolitan district council in each of the last three years.

Completions of new council dwellings reported by Bradford metropolitan district council were 42, 47 and nil in 1987, 1988 and 1989 respectively. Returns received for 1990 cover only the months up to August and these show no further completions of council housing.

Do not those miserable figures represent a massive indictment of the Government's failure to respond to the housing crisis that has gripped Bradford for the past 12 years? Does the Minister recognise that that crisis is now so acute that the council is considering formally closing its housing waiting list on which there are 9,000 applicants? When will the Government pump into Bradford the necessary funds to enable the council to build homes for the thousands of families who urgently and desperately need them?

In addition to the local authority council housing completions to which I referred, almost 400 housing association dwellings have been completed in the same period. Substantial estate action support totalling almost £10 million over the past three years has also been pumped into Bradford. The question that the hon. Gentleman should really be addressing is why Bradford council has kept empty 700 houses that could be used for housing the homeless, about whom the hon. Gentleman purports to be so concerned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the people who want low-cost houses to rent in Bradford would do better if their local authority were to copy Ryedale district council in transferring its housing stock to a housing association? My hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Madden) shows that housing associations are now the proper route for the provision of homes to rent. As the people of Bradford once had the good sense to vote in a Conservative council, does my hon. Friend agree that if the council in Bradford were to consult the people of Bradford, as Ryedale district council consulted in Ryedale, it would receive a strong and positive answer to any request to do that?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and take this opportunity of saying how much we welcome the transfer of Ryedale's council housing stock in its entirety to a housing association, which was approved only a week of two ago. The effect of that transfer is to bring in substantial funds from the private sector, some of which are available to Ryedale council for any other housing needs in its area. I commend the same process not only to Bradford, but to a great many other Labour-controlled authorities, because I have no doubt that the tenants in all those areas would benefit enormously if their councils were willing to follow the example that has been set by Ryedale.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he had any plans to relax the controls imposed on local authorities making use of capital receipts for housing purposes.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that more than 800 families on the urgent waiting lists in my constituency desperately need new housing? If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely concerned about those social problems, would not he allow local authorities to use money which is being legitimately raised, under his instruction, to build new houses for those desperately in need?

I understand the hon. Lady's concern. Every hon. Member has housing problems in his constituency, but relaxing the debt redemption rules would not mean that more resources were available for housing. It would mean that resources were available in the wrong places—where receipts arise rather than where new investment is needed.