To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the local government review will include possible structures for London.

The consultation document published on 23 April said that the Government have no plans to change the general structure of local government in London and the metropolitan county areas.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the late and unlamented Greater London council, when Labour dominated, doubled the rates, doubled the fares for Londoners on London transport in 1984, and continually increased the rates by huge margins as well as giving grants to deviant groups and all sorts of unworthy causes? Does he agree that we must not return to anything like the GLC?

I think that my hon. Friend is right. The Government have no intention of recreating the GLC, which spent most of its time undermining the confidence and credibility of London as a great world city.

I must tell the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that he is now off the list for the first reception of the Greater London Authority.

Has the Secretary of State had a chance to study the report which I understand came out yesterday showing that mayors in British towns work longer hours and put in more effort than mayors around the rest of the world? We all acknowledge the work that they put in. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was very much in favour of the idea of a directly elected mayor for London. Does he still favour that proposal? If he does, would he be prepared to meet me to study my completely worked up proposal and scheme, which includes the odd name that I have in mind for the job?

The House will know that I spend a great deal of time thinking about the way in which we can improve and encourage the partnership between local and central government. It has been a source of some concern to me today to discover that three items on my desk consist of inquiries into corruption in Hackney, of Lambeth sending out bills including the £140 because it cannot collect the community charge, and of worries about internecine warfare in the Labour party in Liverpool—hardly an encouragement to those of us trying to advocate the cause of local government in this country.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the local government reorganisation of 1963–64 was deeply resented in many Conservative parts of London which want to return to the original boundaries and that there is no way in which the right hon. Member for Brent, North, being guided by his constituents, can support the Government on local government until we are given the right to return to a separate Wembley and Willesden? The same applies to other areas of London where we are putting at risk Conservative seats under Labour authorities.

rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for Neasden!"] I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) feels strongly about these matters. Having looked at the reorganisation on which we were already embarked in the non-metropolitan areas and outside London, however, the Government felt that the task that we had set ourselves was a large one which would lead to the prospect of a larger number of unitary authorities and we did not want to extend those proposals at this time.

I imagine that the Secretary of State is also concerned about the fraud squad inquiry into Conservative-controlled Bromley. May I press him a little harder on the question of London and give him a further opportunity to snub the people of London, who have shown by an overwhelming majority that they demand a London-wide voice for Londoners and their city? Will the right hon. Gentleman come to the Dispatch Box and explain why he insists on denying that to them?

The most graphic example of why I am so sceptical of anything that smacks of the GLC is that it fell to my responsibility and to that of the Government to cope with the 6,000 acres of dereliction in the east end of London which were a direct product of the fact that the land was owned by nationalised industries and suffocated by a combination of east end Labour boroughs and the GLC.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the London unitary authorities, the London boroughs, will be the model to be followed in the rest of the country, and that that will probably be the view of much of the country when he has completed his consultations? Does he also agree that the so-called lean and hungry super-tier authority suggested by some people would soon become a fat and useless body?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, as he has much experience of this matter. I have another concern, however. The Labour party believes that it would control that authority, but it would use it not to enhance London's reputation, but to undermine it. It would use it as a source of continued controversy between local authorities and central Government, and would exploit every considerable disadvantage that it could find to diminish the reputation of the capital city and not to enhance it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to meet the chief executive of Nirex to discuss the strategy for disposal of nuclear waste.

My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

May I suggest to the Minister that his right hon. Friend should make time available to see the managing director of Nirex, Mr. McInerney, especially in the light of the Secretary of State's recent statement that a decision will soon be made to use Sellafield for the disposal of intermediate and low-level waste? That being so, does the Minister agree that Nirex should wind up its operation at Dounreay, and end the blight that has been affecting the highlands and islands for so long? If the Minister is not prepared to do that, will he at least take this opportunity to knock on the head any suggestion that Dounreay is a potential site for high-level radioactive waste?

The hon. Gentleman's opinions are well known, and I have heard them expressed in the House on several occasions. I ask him to be a little more patient. Although he wishes to draw me on the issue, he knows that it is for Nirex to make proposals. No decision to abandon Dounreay in favour of a development at Sellafield can be taken until Nirex's reports are in the Government's hands and the results of the site investigations are obtained, which I understand will be at the end of this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the visitor centre at Sellafield, and the efforts of British Nuclear Fuels and Nirex to explain their policies on reprocessing and disposal, have gone a long way to dispel public anxiety? Does he also agree that much more should be done to explain the general proposals to the public so as to remove any fears in the future?

I have no difficulty at all in agreeing with my hon. Friend's second point. On his first point, I have visited the centre at Sellafield on three occasions and I, too, am impressed with the service that it provides.

Does the Minister agree that the atomic authorities are being forced to explore the possibility of an underground repository for spent fuel and nuclear waste in Sellafield because the Government find it politically embarrassing to allow those authorities to explore better geological sites for that purpose elsewhere in the country?

I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It was perfectly clear that the two sites on what may be described as the shortlist were Dounreay and Sellafield. Much time and effort went into the work of producing that shortlist and carrying out the investigations. Both sites are being considered, and the report on the investigations should be in our hands by December.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans are being made to enable council tenants to convert rents to mortgages.

Experimental schemes are now in operation for new town tenants in Basildon and Milton Keynes. Primary legislation is needed to extend the rents-to-mortgages scheme to council tenants. We will consider this in the light of the results of the pilot schemes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that allowing council tenants to buy their homes under the right-to-buy scheme was a very popular piece of legislation? We have given tenants what they want, but some tenants need further assistance. I welcome the experiment to date, and I hope that as soon as possible we shall extend the provision so that all tenants will have the opportunity to buy their homes.

Because of the Labour party's opposition to tenants, in often not wanting them to buy their homes, it has incorporated deplorable delaying tactics. Will the Minister ensure, if and when he introduces the legislation, that tenants can buy their homes immediately and that thousands of pounds of rent will not be wasted while the transaction is taking place?

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. I am sorry to say that, even today, in the boroughs of Lambeth and Hackney disgraceful obstacles are put in the way of tenants trying to exercise their right to buy.

I am glad to say that the rents-to-mortgages experiment is going extremely well. I expect the first completions to take place later this month. It is an important extension of tenants' rights. I shall be interested to see whether the Labour party overcomes its hostility to allowing council tenants to become home owners more quickly under the rents-to-mortgages scheme than under the right-to-buy scheme.

Given that one in nine homeless families are in that position as a result of mortgage repossession, would it not be more intelligent for the Government, having created the housing crisis and lost 1.5 million tenancies from the rented sector, to introduce a mortgage rescue scheme? That has been suggested not only by the Labour party but by many housing experts outside. In doing that, should not the Government reform housing finance to make it easier for tenants not only to step up to home ownership but to step down again to renting when they find themselves in difficulties? Why does the Minister not end his desperate search for a policy, adopt our policy and use it sensibly?

The hon. Gentleman's grasp of housing issues is tenuous at the best of times, but this time he has allowed his prejudices to submerge his intelligence to an even greater extent than usual. It has obviously not occurred to him that the whole purpose of the rents-to-mortgages scheme is to avoid the circumstances in which tenants are tempted to enter into commitments that they cannot afford. The scheme will allow a tenant to purchase a share of his property, without increasing his weekly outgoings, by substituting for his weekly rental payment a weekly mortgage payment.

Will my hon. Friend consider suggesting to all housing authorities that they publish an illustrative list of flats and houses, with the prices that people would expect to have to pay, given the buyer's age, the valuation of the house or flat and the length of time for which the buyer has been a tenant, as many people do not realise that they could buy their flats for less than £17,000 and save money by so doing?

My hon. Friend has made an interesting point, and I shall certainly follow up his suggestion. It is clear that a significant number of people are still trapped in the tyranny of tenancy and would like to escape from it. If they understood the favourable terms on which the Government have made it possible for them to do so, I am sure that they would take advantage of the opportunity.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when a system of green labelling approved by the Government will be operating in the United Kingdom.

An official eco-labelling scheme should become operational in 1992.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many people would like to buy products that are as environmentally friendly as possible, but find it difficult because of the wide range of supermarket claims that this or that product is environmentally friendly? Many people have been conned by some of those claims in recent years, and unless a national labelling system is introduced very soon their willingness to purchase such products will steadily decline.

The public at large are, I think, well aware that significant retailers and manufacturers have taken advantage of the public's appetite for green, environmentally friendly products and introduced their own green labelling systems. It is appropriate that a standard system should operate across the European Community, and that known quality tests should be applied. That is why the British Government are pressing so hard, and why we hope to achieve a European eco-labelling system this year. If we do not, our determination is such that we shall have to proceed with our own national scheme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a standard labelling system is needed to indicate not just the contents of a package but the manufacture of the package itself? Does he also agree that the standardised system should extend to the composition of the contents? There may be considerable differences, and it can be misleading for the consumer reading the label, who may not realise that there is a percentage difference as well as a weight difference.

My hon. Friend has made important but detailed points. They are precisely the sort of constructive suggestions that we shall wish to consider when preparing our proposals—or when implementing our determination to agree European proposals.

Will non-disposable plastic labels be used, or the more environmentally acceptable paper labels?

As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, eco-labelling is not just a matter of the composition of labels but a means of conveying to a wide public the contents of the products that those labels seek to describe, but it would, of course, be a major step forward if the labels were made of recyclable material.

Most people will be pleased to hear the Secretary of State today commit himself to introducing an eco-labelling scheme in 1992, but I remind him that many people will treat that with some scepticism, given that on 21 March 1990 in column 1114 of Hansard his predecessor promised that if an eco-labelling scheme was not in place on an EC basis or at least agreed by the end of that year we would go into action with one of our own. It is now June 1991 and we do not have an EC scheme or a national scheme. Will the Minister stress the fact that we shall indeed have a scheme at the end of the current year, or is that just a repeated bogus claim?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will discover that the original commitment was to introduce a scheme by the end of 1991, although he is absolutely right that we have not achieved that. The original commitment was for 1991, but the essence of the dilemma is simple—whether to proceed with a national scheme, with the risk that we shall have to change it all relatively quickly when a European scheme takes its place, or to use the good offices of the British Government to ensure that we get an eco-labelling scheme throughout Europe as quickly as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made on consultation with local authorities concerning reorganisation.

The Government's consultation paper on local government structure has been circulated widely and comments are being received. I expect a large number of responses as the deadline approaches.

Will the consultation with local authorities on the setting up of the commission mean that local authorities will be properly consulted for their views? Bearing in mind the mess that the Government have made of the local economy—[Interruption.] It is a real mess, a right cock-up. When will that commission be reporting so that we know exactly what is to happen?

The consultation paper has been circulated to all the principal local authorities. I have no complaints about that, and they are responding individually and through their associations, so there is no problem with consultation. The local government commission will be established by a Bill which the Government will introduce in the autumn.

As my hon. Friend is aware, London's Metropolitan police authority boundary extends beyond the Greater London area into counties such as Hertfordshire. Will he ensure that when the local government commission reviews the structure of local government it will also consider whether the Hertfordshire constabulary boundary should include the whole of the county and not merely part of it?

It is important that the local government commission should consider that sort of issue, and that Ministers should not jump to conclusions before the legislation to establish that commission has even been introduced. I know that when the commission is established my hon. Friend's important views on the matter will help to guide it as to the sort of questions that it ought to be considering.

The review of local government proposed by the Secretary of State will overlap with some of the proposals in the Widdicombe report, especially the role of the elected member. How does the Secretary of State intend to resolve that and, in doing so, will he note and act on the views, observations and concerns expressed by local authorities?

A large number of recommendations in the Widdicombe report have already been brought into effect or will be shortly. There will be some overlap, although I think that the most important areas of overlap will be not so much with the Green Paper that has been published as with the Green Paper that is yet to be published on questions of internal management. The Government will wish to take careful account of the representations made in support of what has been done under the Widdicombe proposals and, conversely, the views of people who think that the Widdicombe reforms go in the wrong direction and believe that we can do better in future.

In the discussions with local authorities, will the Minister say what rights of redress will be provided for the citizens of cities such as Liverpool, where in some areas bins have not been emptied for the past 13 weeks? What does he intend to do to assist community charge payers in places like Liverpool, who have been called to pay an additional £70·99 in poll tax for people who did not pay the poll tax last year? Does not that run contrary to any question of natural justice?

I am appalled by those local authorities that, through ineptness, inefficiency or lack of will, have failed to collect community charge and are now asking law-abiding citizens to bear that burden. Those citizens have every right to be angry with their local authorities and to express their feelings most strongly through the ballot box. We have tackled the question of the standards that we can expect from local authorities through the introduction of greater choice and competition for citizens within local authorities with the extension of compulsory competitive tendering. I agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question, that we need to go further to enfranchise more citizens so that they can have redress against local authorities which underperform. That is an important part of the consideration of the citizens' charter to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is giving a great deal of attention.

Will my hon. Friend hurry up and get on with the reorganisation, because those of us who live in Cleveland are fed up with a local authority in which the leader has thrown the chairman of the county council out of his civic suite to obtain greater aggrandisement, and in which today the council is trying to fiddle competitive tendering in order to charge an additional £2 million to the people of the county? The council has already wasted nearly £1 million—and it will continue to spend money —on a would-be light rapid-transport system. It has also gone out of its way to hurt a schoolboy's chances of playing football for his county.

To pick just one of the very justifiable complaints that my hon. Friend makes, the Government are extremely concerned about those local authorities that cheat on compulsory competitive tendering and try to deprive their residents of the benefits of competition and choice. One of the points on which we are strongly focused is ensuring that we provide a level playing field so that compulsory competitive tendering works effectively and brings the benefits of competition and choice to our citizens.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent consultations he has had with the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council concerning the designation of the Severn estuary mudflats as a special protection area under the European Community wild birds directive.

None. My right hon. Friend is considering the case for the designation of the Severn estuary as a special protection area.

Does the Minister agree that it is nothing short of a scandal that, as a result of the Government's dithering, the proposed special protection area for the Severn estuary mudflats, along with another 160 proposed special protection areas, has been sitting in the Minister's pending tray for more than a year at vast expense in Ministers' and civil servants' time and in time spent in consultation with landowners? Yet still the Minister will not take the decision to designate the mudflats under a directive which is now 10 years old. Does he agree that if he does not do something soon, the Government's name in Europe will be "mudflats"?

I totally reject all that the hon. Gentleman has suggested—it cannot be dithering or time wasting. The hon. Gentleman has, probably unintentionally, misled the House, because the papers for the designation were submitted to us by the NCC only a few months ago.

With regard to that designation, and to others from Europe, will my hon. Friend confirm that he and his colleagues in the European Community will be taking a good deal of interest in ensuring that it is understood that not every estuary in Britain is the same, and that great care and attention needs to be given on an individual basis and not just on a blanket one? Will he assure the House that he is using his best endeavours to ensure that the European departments involved are aware of those differences?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with every word that he said. In the past, I have had the opportunity to raise this very matter with other Ministers at the European Environment Council. It is a matter of record that I share my hon. Friend's views on this. No two estuaries are the same, and they cannot be treated in the same way for nature protection purposes.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern that the time it takes to make a designation that protects an estuary is so much longer than the time it takes for developers to work up an advanced plan that will ruin the estuary? Conservation interests do not appear to be properly upheld by the Government. Is it true that when Ministers met the representatives of wildlife organisations a few weeks ago, Ministers made it clear that they were not interested in a common estuaries policy, which was a great disappointment to those whom they met.

The hon. Gentleman's latter point is totally wrong. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I attended the meeting to which he referred. My right hon. Friend asked the non-governmental organisations to submit in finer detail precisely what they expect from Ministers in the Department of the Environment. At no time did the Secretary of State suggest that we were prepared to go for a full-blown review of coastal policy. The matter now lies in the hands of the NGOs, which I am sure will respond positively.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail the amount spent on the estate action programme in 1990–91 and the budget for 1991–92.

The budget for 1990–91 was £190 million. We shall not know how much of this has been spent until local authorities finalise their end-of-year accounts. The budget for 1991–92 is £268 million.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on figures which, at first sight, seem to show a 40 per cent. increase. Does he agree that some of the worst estates in the country, usually under the tender control of the Labour party, are being transformed by the expenditure? Some people in the worst possible housing conditions are having those conditions relieved. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a good example of a caring Government directing money to where it is needed?

The whole House recognises that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made a significant effort to improve the allocation of those resources to the most acutely stressful estates. I am sure that the House will also recognise our determination to deal with the serious problems of those deprived estates, not the least of which is that systematically, year after year, they have been used to concentrate the most difficult families and allowed to deteriorate in the most appalling circumstances under Labour authorities.

Is not the Secretary of State aware that such programmes distort the whole business of planning in local authorities? Out-of-city estates, which share inner-city problems, have been totally ignored not by local authorities, but by the Secretary of State. Does he agree that his latest wheeze of a Dutch auction for funds will exacerbate the problems?

The hon. Gentleman does not completely understand the issue. The basis on which most of the revival policy is set was the restoration of the Cantril Farm estate, which is now Stockbridge Village Trust. That estate has been transformed by the policies of the Government.

The hon. Gentleman took issue with the allocation of funds, but if any of the authorities eligible for our new city challenge wishes to submit a proposal for restoring an out-of-town, overspill estate it will be eligible for treatment, as it is already through the estate action programme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Littleborough and Saddleworth we have an estate called the Holts estate? Last year, it applied for some money through the estate action programme. It is desperately in need of help as it has been sorely neglected. It is within the metropolitan borough of Oldham. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when that application is resubmitted, he will give it serious consideration?

I should find it impossible to resist my

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his proposed total standard spending for local authorities for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend expects to make this announcement, as usual, in July.

What ceiling do the Government envisage for spending next year, bearing in mind the Government's commitment yesterday to placing the capped authorities and their alignment of money which the Government hope will match the council tax guesstimates for local community needs?

This year, total standard spending was £39 billion, which is an increase on 1990–91 of about 19 per cent. We are still considering the pressures that will fall on local authorities' spending in 1992–93. We have discussed the matter with local government representatives and we shall continue to do so.

When considering the standard spending assessment for 1992–93, will the Minister bear in mind the point that has repeatedly been made by me and Lancaster and Wyre borough councils—that the all-ages social index works very savagely against boroughs such as ours? Will he consider the composition of that index and the weighting within it?

Yes, I am delighted to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. We shall carefully consider that matter. We have already received representations from other councils and we shall listen carefully. If my hon. Friend has particular representations that she would like to make, I should be very glad to see her to discuss them.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) said, yesterday the capping rules were spelt out in such a way that the proposed council tax figures that were guessed at a couple of months ago are to be applied to spending limits. Will the Government spell out how they intend to do that with the figures that they are to use for next year? In particular, can the Government say whether they intend to take on board the Audit Commission's correct analysis—that, at the very minimum, £800 million of spending that could have been engaged in next year is to be withdrawn from the British public because of the need to retain the poll tax instead of adopting our alternative?

I was pleased to receive the Audit Commission's endorsement—[Laughter.] Oh, yes. It was incorrectly reported in The Times this morning. The hon. Gentleman will discover that Mr. Howard Davies has already written to The Times to repudiate that. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what I will do. I shall give him further details of our plans if he will give us details of the announcement made yesterday to the House by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who said that the Labour party has decided on a new way of distributing grant. That was the first that anyone had heard of it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received to change the present arrangements for distributing revenue support grant to local authorities.

I have received a number of representations about the present method of distributing revenue support grant.

When will my hon. Friend be able to respond to the various suggestions made by a delegation that went to see him recently—led by the borough of Beverley but representing the views of about 10 district councils—and in particular the suggestion that there should be a grant system for London on the one hand and for the rest of the country on the other? In so doing, will he accept the thanks of the members of that delegation for the constructive way in which he met and spoke to them?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. On 22 May I received an important delegation from Beverley, but also represented were Broadland, Harborough, Holderness, North Kesteven, Rutland, Ryedale, Selby, South Northamptonshire and South Ribble. The very serious representations that they made are being considered by me and my colleagues. They proposed that there should be separate formulae for London and the rest of the country that would produce a relatively small gain for a large number of average and below-average need districts and a fairly substantial loss for the metropolitan districts and a small number of urban shire districts. That is the problem, but we shall look at it very carefully.

Is the Minister aware that in its representations on the changing of local government finance which the Audit Commission published this morning, the commission—set up in 1983 by this Government—recommends the total abolition of the 20 per cent. payment of poll tax rule? Is he further aware that four of the five people who are currently in prison and at least 13 of the 27 who have been in prison for non-payment of the poll tax have no income, or depend entirely on state benefits? Instead of the platitudes of the past few minutes, when will this Government listen to a body that they set up, abolish the 20 per cent. poll tax rule and stop punishing people for their only crime—that of being poor?

If I could drag the hon. Gentleman into the 20th century and, indeed, into this year, I would point out to him that we have listened. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made a number of announcements this year about proposals to introduce a council tax to replace the community charge. The point about the community charge relief systems that are in operation is that they are designed to help precisely those people of whom the hon. Gentleman pretends to be a champion. One point that he should continually stress is the need for everyone to pay their community charge so that we do not have this scandal of the honest majority continuing to pay for those who will not pay.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his initiative for dealing with people sleeping rough in London.

The initiative has made an encouraging start. My Department has made £96 million available over three years for permanent housing, direct access hostels and support for rough sleepers. So far, some 1,000 places have been provided in a mix of houses, flats and hostels and these are already occupied by people who would otherwise be sleeping out. This number should double within the next six months and reach a total of over 3,000 by the end of next year.

The initiative has begun to have a significant effect on the numbers sleeping rough in central London and I hope that progress will continue as more accommodation becomes available.

I pay tribute to the voluntary groups, the housing associations and the London boroughs for the part that they have played in ensuring the successful start of the initiative in central London.

Is my hon. Friend aware that people working in that sector recognise the enormous progress that has been made since he became the Minister responsible for housing? Is he further aware that, as he suggested, as a result of the initiatives, substantial inroads have been made into the number of people sleeping rough in London?

Does my hon. Friend share my view that the much smaller number of people now sleeping rough on the streets of London have multiple problems and are a hard core of people for whom accommodation will not necessarily provide the whole answer and who may therefore remain on the streets? Can he make progress in collaboration with other Departments to make available to such people the complicated care and help that they need?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. The resources were put in place by a far-sighted predecessor. My hon. Friend is right that the numbers are down. The people whom it has been easiest to help are those most ready to abandon rough sleeping. The more progress one makes the more one reaches a different client group, for which rough sleeping is more of a culture. That group needs more help and support if it is to be persuaded to abandon that culture.

In response to my hon. Friend's final question, 1 am happy to say that the Department of Health now plays a significant part in the initiative. It is providing hostels with high care, which can cope with some of the people who are mentally ill or have drink or drug problems. The first of those hostels was opened in April. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health announced a further £2·7 million of revenue funding over three years, to provide further psychiatric support for people who sleep rough.

Is not it an appalling commentary on Government policies that, just a few yards from here, so many people are still sleeping out in alleyways and stations? It is almost impossible not to find such people on one's way home in the evening. Does not the Minister realise that, whatever provisions the Government are making, at long last, what is really required—and not in London alone—is that local authorities should once again be able to build accommodation? There are many people who may not necessarily be sleeping rough, but whom—this includes many of our constituents—are desperate for accommodation. Their problems will be resolved only when council house building begins again.

The hon. Gentleman gives no credit to the many voluntary organisations that have worked hard over the past six months to make a real impact on the problem and reduce the numbers. The initiative relates not only to hostel spaces. For every hostel space there are two spaces in permanent move-on accommodation. This is not a short-term temporary solution but a long-term solution for people who have been sleeping rough for many years.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met Serplan—the South-East Regional Planning Committee—to discuss county structure plans; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment met the chairman of Serplan on 1 August last year and I met the chairman on 14 February this year. On both occasions the discussion covered a range of topics, which included county structure plans. In addition, both my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State and I addressed a Serplan conference on 6 March this year.

Has my hon. Friend seen the press release from Serplan, which says that the committee questions the demand forecast for aggregates and suggests that his Department's estimates are considerably exaggerated? If so, will he confirm to the House that Berkshire county council's draft mineral plan—it will considerably affect my constituency as there would be huge mineral developments in Crowthorne woods, which would be quite unacceptable to local people—can and should be thrown out? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no need to treat the Department's suggestions as absolute guidelines and that they will not affect future appeals?

My hon. Friend is right that the two matters should be regarded separately and that the first should not have a bearing on the second. I make it clear, however, that the forecasts of 7 May are not Government forecasts but independent forecasts put out for consultation and that the Government have emphasised that they would like to hear the views of the House and of local authorities about whether those forecasts are correct. We are also concerned about their potential environmental implications and are urgently considering other ways of getting the aggregates that the country needs.

What will happen to the county structure plans when the counties are abolished? Is not this the time for the Government to consider that matter and—bearing in mind the very valuable role of Serplan—to look towards a regional tier of government so that these valuable matters can be properly addressed?

The Government have no plans at all to introduce another tier of regional government. On the hon. Gentleman's first question, any reorganisation is some years away. In the meantime, it is important to put the existing structure and local plans in place. If there is a need to adjust the planning machinery in the future, that will be the time to introduce legislation.

When my hon. Friend met representatives of Serplan to discuss structure plans, did he give them any indication that his Department was reconsidering its policy of requiring district authorities to earmark a five-year supply of building land? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if that policy is continued, it will inevitably mean overdevelopment in home counties such as Berkshire?

I am well aware of the strong feeling of many Berkshire Members about the regional guidance housing figures. I emphasise that they are guidance figures. They are not inflexible and they remain to be tested in the process of the structure plan reviews. I think that I am right in saying that Berkshire is in the process of reviewing its structure plan. No doubt when we receive its revised plan later this year we shall have an opportunity to look at it—in particular in the light of fresh figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys which are due out shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many school-age children are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

This information is not available centrally, but it is estimated that about 65 per cent. of households accepted as homeless last year and found other permanent or temporary accommodation contained dependent children. The Government's homelessness initiative is intended to help local authorities in London and the south-east to secure more permanent housing as an alternative to using bed-and-breakfast and other temporary accommodation for homeless families.

If the Minister is saying that the Government do not collect the statistics nationally, it is about time that they did. Research undertaken by Kim Greener at Brunel university has shown that 140,000 school-age children are now in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Is the Minister aware that those children suffer nutritionally because there are no proper cooking facilities in the accommodation and that that affects their educational attainment, because a hungry or malnourished child cannot learn properly? It is about time that the Government reversed their housing policy, because the selling of council houses has meant that all the council houses that could house large families have gone. Many of the families concerned have been in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for 18 months and their children are suffering to a degree that should not be permitted.

I am astonished at the hon. Lady's question. Our figures show that there are about 11,000 or 12,000 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Unless each family has 12 children, the figure of 140,000 clearly bears no relation to reality. I was also interested to hear the hon. Lady say that the Labour party would abandon the policy of selling council houses.

We have never suggested that bed-and-breakfast accommodation was a satisfactory form of housing, even on a temporary basis. I am glad to say that the figures show that the sharp increase in the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation some years ago has now come to an end and that today the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accomodation represents only a tiny fraction of the number of empty properties held by local authorities. The vast majority of such authorities are under Labour control and the price of the disastrous and incompetent management of the housing stock by Labour-controlled local authorities is paid every day by homeless families and their children.

Why are there so many thousands of children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation when there is so much underused accommodation available? Was not the market supposed to bring supply and demand into balance? As the Secretary of State is so well supplied in this respect and has several large houses, should not the Minister speak to the right hon. Gentleman and invite him to make a personal contribution to the solution of this grave problem?

That was yet another questioner who shows the Labour party's deep underlying hostility to home ownership. Not only could every homeless family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation be accommodated in a tiny fraction of the empty local authority properties, but every single family in the country currently in temporary housing could be accommodated as well, and there would still be 40,000 properties left over.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory provisions covering the terms under which an employee of one local authority may serve as a councillor on another; and if he will make a statement.

Sections 1 to 3 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 set out the circumstances in which an employee of one local authority is disqualified from being a councillor in another, thus reinforcing the long-standing convention about the political impartiality of senior local government staff.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he comment on a situation that has arisen in my constituency where the chairman of Thurrock Labour party, which is the ruling party on Thurrock council, also works as the NALGO convener on the council at a salary package of £25,000? He has just negotiated a car leasing deal for senior officers which will cost ratepayers £500,000 a year, at a time when the council has sent notices to people in the rural area saying that it does not have the money to clear sewage. If there is not a bad smell behind that, I should like to know where there is one.

The important question is not what the officer is paid, but what are his duties. If they involve regularly advising councillors on speaking to the media, the political restrictions must apply. If that is not included in his duties he is entitled to stand for another council. If my hon. Friend has reason to think that an officer whose duties regularly include these politically sensitive matters has not been subjected to the restrictions, she should draw the case to the attention of the independent adjudicator who has power, if the statutory conditions are met, to direct that the officer's post be added to the list of those that are politically restricted.

Will my hon. Friend consider extending the statutory provisions to candidates? In my constituency the Labour candidate, who works for Leicester county council, appears to be electioneering on about four days out of five. That is a total scandal at the ratepayers' expense.

My hon. Friend, with his excellent record of representing his constituents, should have nothing to fear from such a candidate.

Have not the Tories a cheek to talk about two jobs when 250 Tory Members have moonlighting jobs? Some of them have as many as six, but after the next election Tebbit will be running an agency for all the defeated Tory Members because they will be out of jobs here. The Minister should direct his attention to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) who, when elected to the House, was an officer of an authority and he kept both jobs.

I understood that the hon. Gentleman was a professional mushroom picker.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to reform the law relating to leasehold property; and if he will make a statement.

The commonhold proposals will have implications for the law in respect of leasehold flats, but we have no present plans for changes in respect of leasehold houses.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents face appalling treatment from a company called Munny Ltd. in the Prestwich part of my constituency? They recently formed themselves into a residents' association, but the law needs to be strengthened. We need to move forward urgently on the commonhold front and I ask my hon. Friend to consider including it in the Queen's Speech later this year.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and join him in condemning the antics of certain bad freeholders in his constituency. My hon. Friend's constituents are extremely fortunate to have such a vigorous champion of their interests in the House. The ultimate protection in such cases is to be found in the right of all leaseholders of houses to purchase their freehold, subject, of course, to the value of the property. Through the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 we have greatly strengthened the rights of leaseholders in houses.

I draw the Minister's attention to the case of some of my constituents, whose leasehold was sold by one company for £800 and then offered by another for £3,500, three months later. They had no help from the law. Is not it time that leasehold, which has been the scourge of south Wales housing for 150 years, was done away with, because it serves no useful purpose, except to allow speculators to make money out of people's homes?

As I said, the ultimate sanction lies in the right of leaseholders to purchase the freeholds of their houses if they fall within the right limits. Nothing in law prevents the freeholder from selling the freehold to another purchaser if he so wishes. That right is exercised by a large number of people under satisfactory circumstances and we have no plans to change the law.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has had from the south-west on his consultation on the proposed future structure and functions of local government.

We have so far received eight responses from the south-west to the consultative document on local government structure.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for his approach to this matter, which avoids a top down "Whitehall knows best" approach? Is he also aware that all parties in Taunton Deane, my local authority, want that authority to preserve its natural identity and do not want it extended to either Minehead or Bridgwater? Is he further aware that there may be a role for a slimmed-down county council covering planning, education and social services but that, above all, we do not want regional government?

I can help my hon. Friend. We are under no illusions about the reluctance to adopt regional government, and we have no plans so to do. I hear clearly his views about his specific interest on the local structure of his authority. Doubtless, these matters will be put with equal eloquence to the local government commission when we set it up.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations seeking recreation of the GLC.

I have not received any representations seeking recreation of the GLC.

I speak for the people of Dartford and north-west Kent when I tell the Minister that we are opposed to any move to recreate the GLC and to extend its boundaries to the M25, as is the policy of the Labour party. Is my hon. Friend aware that that would mean the end of Dartford as an independent borough in the county of Kent?

The extraordinary thing is that even the Labour party is so embarrassed about the record of the GLC that it has to say that it will not recreate it. We know that if a Labour Government were elected, they would try to recreate something similar, but with greater powers and more bureaucracy. They would like to give it powers over the police. I cannot imagine anything worse than the body that indulged in undermining the police being given such powers.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the review of local authorities' members' allowances will be included in the Government's review of local government; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to carry out consultations with local authority organisations on the councillors' allowances scheme; and if he will make a statement.

My Department has worked closely with the local authority associations in drawing up the new system of members' allowances which took effect from 1 April this year. The new system will be reviewed after a year's operation in consultation with the associations.

Is it the Government's intention to introduce allowances and full payments for councillors in line with the Secretary of State's proposals for new city-paid mayors? Is that the Government's policy, or do we have to wait for review after review?

The consultation paper on internal management will be published when we have given due consideration to the issue and the role of councillors will be examined in that context.

Does the Minister realise that the dithering and delay that have been such features of this Government have extended even to the latest proposals for the compensation that is paid to councillors for attending council meetings? The present system, only recently introduced, is still unsatisfactory. There are many hundreds of councillors throughout the country who are giving their time—in many instances at their own expense—yet are being subjected to scorn and abuse, much of it being poured on them by Conservative Members and Ministers. Does the Minister recognise the work that councillors do for this country?

I have no hesitation in praising councillors for the work that they do. The best councillors work extremely hard in the interests of their constituents. The regulations, which we discussed in Committee some while ago, were agreed by hon. Members of all parties without a Division. I am sure that the regulations represent the best way forward.

I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'a' and insert 'an individual'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 27, in page 2, line 48, leave out 'of all the domestic properties' and insert

'comprising the values of each domestic property'.

No. 28, in page 2, line 49, leave out from 'area' to end.

New clause 12—Valuation—

'There shall be maintained for each levying authority area in Scotland a valuation list showing the value of each property. This list shall be prepared and from time to time updated in accordance with arrangements to be prescribed.'.

In moving the amendment it is appropriate for me to ask a number of questions. First, who, in June 1979, referring to the scrapping of the then valuation system, said, "Tear them up"? Who was it who started the shambles which has culminated in the proposed introduction of the council tax? Who, by delaying that valuation, ensured that the rating system became difficult to operate? Who cut the grants to local authorities in the early 1980s who ensured that that happened?

The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).

No, it was not my right hon. Friend who made that remark; it was the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), now the Secretary of State for the Environment. He said "Tear them up" and the tearing-up process resulted in the infliction of the poll tax on the British people because it helped to discredit the rating system and, with the cuts in grant, made it very difficult for councils to operate in the environment in which the Secretary of State for the Environment had placed local authorities. The Bill is therefore the direct result of the first set of actions taken by the present Secretary of State.

It must also be said that Conservative Members, and especially Conservative Back Benchers, are in great danger of being conned. Today decisions will be taken by the House on the nature of the valuation system and on the commitment to a banding process. As the media may not be aware of it any more than are many Back Benchers, it behoves us to state that, once this allegedly small Bill is on the statute book, many of the decisions about what the council tax will entail will have been decided.

What stands between the Back Benchers and a second round of public wrath and acrimony similar to that caused by the poll tax is a statutory instrument or negative order which is unamendable, unchangeable and eminently whippable. In other words, after tonight Conservative Members will have been conned. They will not be able to say that they did not know because this afternoon we are giving them the opportunity to change their minds. They might feel that it is a good idea to start the valuation system now, from the passage of the Bill, because that will give them a breathing space in which to tell people that the system is under way. However, they will not realise that they will get the banding system whether or not they like it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will outline later. They will be denied a return to the rates and art immediate abolition of the poll tax, which again my hon. Friend will shortly spell out.

Conservative Members will be faced with the delay that the Audit Commission rightly mentioned in its submission today for the consultation exercise that finishes this Friday. It said that the cost—a minimum of £800 million a year—will have to be borne by the British people. We estimate that it will be considerably more than that. That money could be spent on saving essential services. It would clearly prevent any arguments in favour of capping; it would ensure that teachers had the books and equipment to do their job; it would mean that social services throughout the country would have the cash to ensure that home helps could be provided; and it would also ensure the maintenance of leisure facilities, libraries, the environment in general and decent transport, all of which are currently under threat. Such provisions could be continued with that money which, instead, will be used to continue the poll tax.

It is even worse that today's debate is taking place just two days before the consultation period is due to finish. In other words, it is a farce that bodies such as the Audit Commission, the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, local authority associations and many others are submitting their evidence as part of the so-called consultation, which is to be completed by Friday, only to find that the horse has bolted before the stable door has even been opened. That adds insult to injury for all those who took seriously the Secretary of State's words earlier this year when he said that he believed in consultation.

As my hon. Friends will remember, the Secretary of State chided us and said, "Come and see us. Consultation is a serious matter." He had the Liberals come to see him and told them that he would take them seriously. They presented their evidence for an alternative that would have abolished valuation, but what did the Secretary of State do? He added up their figures, and then used them against them. It did not do the Conservatives much good in local elections.

The valuation process starts today, and it must involve an assessment of what sample properties mean. It is no good the Secretary of State saying, "We have a valuation system called banding." We need a system for assessing the actual value of the property. That value will then determine the bands into which similar properties will be placed. We need to know on what basis that will be done. Will it be capital value rating?

The Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation has rightly raised clear questions about what the system will entail. It submitted evidence under the consultation process, and the Secretary of State should be made aware of it because time is running out. Proceedings on this Bill will be finished late tonight, so further consultation will be irrelevant. In its evidence, the institute said:

"There is no precedent, as far as the Institute is aware, for the grouping of properties into different tax bands for the purpose of a property tax. It is generally assumed, particularly in a capital value based system, that an exact valuation can be arrived at and defended in relation to other neighbouring values through an appeals system."

That is important to the way in which people will perceive what they are charged, and also to their rights as individuals to challenge the valuation, and therefore the placing of their properties in particular bands. It will materially affect what they will pay, and on the margin that could be quite substantial. It could be 20 per cent. under the proposed banding system.

The institute continued:

"It is hard to imagine that properties can be placed in bands without the valuer going through at least the mental exercise of determining an exact or 'spot ' valuation."

The system cannot operate unless there is an exercise such as that referred to by the institute. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham will later spell out the mental exercise carried out earlier this year when the Government invented the banding system. To move forward today, there must be some guess about the valuation system. What will it be?

The House should be clear that the hon. Gentleman is referring to an entirely English practice. There is a new clause grouped with the amendment that refers to Scotland, although I do not propose to speak to it. I must make it clear that the Scottish Assessors Association has distinctly different views from those being expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

We are discussing a clause that relates only to England and Wales, and I had presumed that the House would understand that. Our amendment relates to the valuation system in England. Other amendments will be discussed later that refer specifically to Scotland. We are talking about the way in which we want individual valuations to be undertaken.

The problem is that nobody really knows what the system will be or what the professionals will be expected to do. The general secretary of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Mr. Michael Pattison, is quoted in today's Evening Standard as describing the system as likely to be a shambles. He said:

"banding allocations will become unrealistic and unfair. This is the fast route to a discredited tax."

It will be the fast route to the demise of Tory Members. Unless they take seriously what is being said, they will run into exactly the same problems that they experienced with the poll tax. A quick solution with easy answers ended up as one of the most complicated and difficult fiascos in the history of British politics.

The Confederation of British Industry's rating and property manager, Mr. Sharman, who chairs its valuation committee, said:

"From a professional point of view I don't like the banding system, it seems to go against the principles of valuation."

It cannot do anything else, unless this afternoon we hear spelt out what that sampling or mental exercise system will be based on. From today, valuers will be asked to go out and do the job—to sample properties and select beacon properties which show how properties will fit into whatever number of bands we eventually end up with.

We have been asking whether there will be regular revaluations and Ministers have been responding. We understand not. On 24 May, in an interview with the Municipal Journal, the Minister of State said:

"Once a property has gone into a band, we think it will stay in that band virtually in perpetuity."

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out at the end of the Second Reading debate, one cannot get more determined than "in perpetuity". That means that a property will stay where it is "virtually" for ever. Without constant revaluation and with the Secretary of State's words of June 1979, "Tear them up", ringing in everybody's ears, we shall run into exactly the same problems as we have had in recent years.

People must be told of their rights of appeal. They must be given those rights. Again, I should be grateful for the Minister's clarification. I understand from the conclusion of the Second Reading debate that rights of appeal will exist. Will he confirm that they will exist not simply in Scotland, which was being referred to at the time, but in England and Wales? If rights of appeal do not exist, the British people had better know from today.

People can make a judgment when the surveyor, estate agent or estate agent's agent, son or daughter has been sent round to do a spot check on their street. We have no guarantees of the professionalism of those doing that job. People will demand the right to know, first, what it is that their property is being valued on, and, secondly, whether they have a right to challenge the valuation. Unless there are individual valuations, the right of appeal will inevitably lead to mayhem. People will demand to know on what basis their property is assessed and how they can judge whether it is fair. The difficulty of dealing with appeals will become a nightmare.

There are 23,000 outstanding valuations under the national business rate in west Yorkshire alone. As 1,000 valuations are made a year, they will be just about completed by the year 2015. It is an absolute farce. At least with individual valuations, one stands a chance of making a judgment, but without them, what is being argued about? It must be whether one has the same sort of house in the same street or same neighbourhood and what factors affect its value.

One must be absolutely clear that the valuation must be on sale price, and sale price relates to capital values. That is what was described, when the Scottish Labour party first mooted it, as the roof tax. That is what Tory Members called it. The then chairman of the Conservative party and present Home Secretary described it in glowing terms as

"the hammer of capital value rates".

He said that it would

"hit tenants as well as home owners. Instead of people benefiting from an increase in the value of their properties, they would be heavily penalised."

My source for this information is the well known and reliable newspaper, the Daily Mail, in its edition of 19 September 1989—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) says that he will buy the paper—

I merely said that I was back.

The hon. Gentleman always lets me know when he is back. I should like him to buy the newspaper: when it gets off its propaganda, its articles are quite informative and extremely well written. I do not fall into the trap into which the Secretary of State for Education and Science falls. He attacks any newspaper that does not agree with his point of view.

Be that as it may, Ministers appear to have changed their minds and to have decided that capital values—or sale price—are acceptable for the sampling process. After all, the Minister of State, a well-known opponent of property valuation and of a property tax, said as much himself:

"property values are no proxy for wealth or income and any system based on property will repeat the injustice of the domestic rates."—[Official Report, 22 May 1990; Vol. 173. c. 186.]

So it is on record that the Conservatives do not believe in property valuation or in capital values—sale price—but they intend to have a system which will in the end result in properties being placed in bands.

Consultation exercise No. 2.21 says that

"straightforward rental and capital values both have substantial disadvantages as a basis for local taxation".

By way of an excuse for that, consultation exercise No. 2.22 states:

"The Government believe that these problems can be overcome by a new approach: by adopting a banded system".

A system of banding merely places properties relative to each other once a valuation has taken place, but the valuation has to take place first before the allocation to a band can happen. That is why we tabled this important amendment, and, in the months to come, many Conservative Members will greatly regret not voting for it.

On the day when the Secretary of State made his announcement in the House, 23 April, I described this as the chip shop factor. Unfortunately, he misunderstood what I meant. He thought that I was having a go at chip shop owners, and he predicted that they would come down in force to put their point of view as part of the consultation process which ends this Friday. I did not mean what he thought. I meant that a person who lives next door to a chip shop and next door to a disco on the other side—[Interruption.]

It has been suggested that some hon. Members do not understand what happens in Sheffield. Those who live in large houses worth £800,000 in Westminster and who will pay only £227 under the proposed council tax, and those who live in mansions in Oxfordshire, do not live next door to chip shops—and I am pleased for them. I do not want people to have to live next door to chip shops. It is bad for their cholesterol levels apart from anything else. It is also bad for the price of their house—and not because chip shops are bad or because their owners are malevolent. It is just that they bring down the price of a property, so people in similar property, with a garden of the same size, just down the road expect to pay more than the property next door to the chip shop.

That was the rough and ready justice of the old rating system. The person whose house overlooks the local park at the end of the street, and has a wonderful environment in which to enjoy his garden and the quiet pleasure of his home, is in a completely different position from the person who lives next door to a small workshop where someone drills cars all day. Not to understand that is to misunderstand the wrath of thousands of people who will be put into the wrong band because the sampling process has placed their houses together with properties of the same type, but with higher sale value.

The system will be damned unfair and everyone knows it. As we shall spell out later, it will be unfair between families and individuals, and between different parts of the country and different parts of the same street. It will be no good expecting to keep it quiet, because people will talk to each other. They will all understand which band their property is in, and the circumstances in which they live.

What method will be used? If the sale price is used, it will be capital values. If not, we need to know what the basis will be. Ministers may spill the beans this afternoon. They may like to withdraw the Bill, even at this late stage, think again and talk to their Back Benchers about how to proceed. It may help Ministers if they do not have to stand on their heads and wave their legs in the air for the second time in 12 months. The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities—who is a very able politician—may even be able to hold down his job with some integrity if he does not have to contradict himself so regularly. Who knows, between now and the general election, there may be a change of Prime Minister and a different system may again be introduced. If so, the Minister will probably come back and say the opposite. I hope that he will tell us how he feels about that prospect.

One thing is absolutely clear: the professionals do not think that the council tax is a good idea. The Audit Commission has considerable doubts about it. The public know that the delay that they are incurring is at their expense, and that the mess that we are in is of the Government's making. Perhaps the best way of getting the message across to the public is to ask them a little conundrum: when is a value not a value? When it is the value of someone else's property just down the road. That is what we are faced with. However, it will not happen.

Valuations will be carried out during the summer. Expenditure will be incurred. If the general election is delayed until next spring, £250 million of our money will be spent on this system. Night after night throughout the winter, we will discuss the council tax in the unhealthy environment of the Committee Rooms; no one will be listening and no one will be watching. It will all catch up on the Government in the end, just as the poll tax did. In Committee, people laughed and sneered until 2 am. Some hon. Members joked when the Church of England Synod announced that it was against the poll tax. The poll tax and its aftermath will deal the Government a severe and irrevocable political blow.

The council tax, like the poll tax, is ill thought out and is being introduced far too rapidly. We will replace it by amending whatever is on the statute book to make it fairer, more understandable and more acceptable to the British people.

I must come to the defence of chip shop owners. As a Lancastrian—I lived there for 35 years before I came to London—I mention every night in my prayers an aunt who had a chip shop. She remembered me in her will and I remember her in my prayers. I do not know what occupation she has in the afterlife, but no doubt it will be done as efficiently as her Lancashire chip shop.

I would not necessarily wish to live next to a Lancashire chip shop, or certainly not in London because the gap between us must be very wide. However, there is no doubt that the chip shop is part of the culture of Lancashire. There is no doubt that in the first and second world wars the Lancashire Fusiliers were part of the strength of our country, with a basis of those potato chips, which were mostly grown in Lancashire, and of the ordinary working-class life there.

However, I do not speak in defence of Lancashire now but on behalf of London, which I represent. The banding system is better than individual rating. If one returns to a system in which everyone's house is looked at every year there will be more valuers and bureaucrats than people living in this country—certainly more than the number of chip shops. There will be valuers everywhere. When one puts in central heating the charge will go up, and we do riot want to return to that system.

I welcome the Government's original idea of three bands, a band for Scotland—it is not my job to look after Scotland—and a brass band for England. Despite having a wife from Wales I am not very well up on that—

A pipe band for Scotland.

Yes, we agree. I am glad that I am taking the Committee with me; a pipe band for Scotland, a brass band, from "Bess's in the Barn" or elsewhere, for England and for Wales—

A male voice choir.

I am assisted by the Minister, and I am grateful for his shrewd intervention. I agree—a male voice choir for Wales.

However, I must disagree to a certain extent as we need a fourth band. After all, there are four points to the compass and I think that things must be in fours if they are to work properly. One can factorise fours, although one cannot factorise threes. Therefore, if there is going to be a banding system, we need a separate band for London and the south-east, because property prices here are so different from those in the rest of the country.

Presumably the three bands were set up because of the differences between prices in Scotland and Wales, so that the same would be charged for a three-bedroomed semi whether in Scotland with the pipe band, in Wales with the male voice choir or in Lancashire with the brass band. We have to do something like "The Lambeth Walk" for London. We have to do something for London, because prices are so much higher here than elsewhere.

That is important because the amount of Government money coming in will obviously be related to the amount raised locally. My people in Brent, North and people in numerous other seats in London will look at this system and say, "Hang on, we weren't happy about the previous system and we wanted to be fair to the Ribble Valley, but the last thing we want is a reverse Ribble Valley factor whereby we lose out in the south of England."

It is evident from studying the figures that 47 per cent. of houses in Barnet are in the top band of the seven. In my constituency, an overwhelming number are similarly in the top bands. However, only 1 per cent. are in the top band in the north-west of England, so they are not comparable. Presumably, the idea behind the bands was that people in a three-bedroomed semi would pay the same in Wales, Scotland and England and also in London, which is in England.

If the right hon. Gentleman reads amendment No. 29, which stands in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, he will realise that we are referring to regional banding, which is the very case that he is making now. When he refers to banding, would he not merely consider an appropriate band for the south-east? We should consider the position throughout the country on a regional basis.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am concerned to get a fair deal for my constituents, and I am sure that that wish is shared by all hon. Members.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

The Minister is seeking to intervene; he will solve all our problems.

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend might be in danger of being too fair to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). He will be perfectly aware that the Labour party's policy is not to have regional bands, but to go back to the rating system. Under the rating system, the unfairness of those in more expensive properties paying much more—almost unlimited amounts more—than those living in less valuable properties would be manifest. There would be no improvement on the system that we abolished two years ago. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish the hon. Member for Normanton to get away with his comments.

I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. I have no doubt that his oratory will be such in his reply that the Labour party's proposal for a rating system will die some time between his speech and the Division.

I appreciate the opportunity to repeat my point. I did not say that amendment No. 29 represents Labour party policy, but that it amends the Bill. It states that there are inequalities among the regions. I want to ensure that the record is correct because I am positive that the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) will support the amendment when we come to it.

Order. The hon. Member is quite correct. We have not come to that amendment yet, so let us leave it for the moment.

I wait with interest to see whether my views influence the Minister's reply. I believe in the salvation of all men and the salvation of souls on the way. If that means that there may be two or three other bands elsewhere in the country that will satisfy people and lead to dancing in the streets this evening, I would not say no to that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman thinking of Rawtenstall?

Rawtenstall is near where I was born. It is nice of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to guess the place of my birth from my accent.

I have obtained figures from the London Boroughs Association, which is by no means a Labour but a Conservative organisation, on the seven bands in the three areas. Of the 33 Greater London boroughs, 18 will be worse off—most of them are Conservative-controlled—than under the community charge system. The residents will not like that, which is putting it gently. Most people look to a new system to make them at least the same, if not better off than before.

The last thing I want—I have already referred to it—is a reverse Ribble Valley factor. To an extent, the system was changed because of what happened at the Ribble Valley by-election. I do not want the policy to go the other way because we would then have to r edeem the situation again by introducing an alternative policy.

The people of London and the south-east have as much concern for paying their bills as people elsewhere. I do not think that one part of our society is any better or worse than another. They are the same. Because of the high price of mortgages in London, people are already paying a high price for living there. Most of them were born in that city and they want to continue to live there. They know that city and it is where their friends are. In contrast to the previous recession, this one is hitting the London area and people in London are seriously concerned. The proposal for a band to cover London to ensure that we are not depleted financially or treated unfairly is, to my mind, an important one for my constituents and those in the rest of London.

The London Boroughs Association was right to work out an alternative system so that a three-bedroomed house in London should be charged the same, as far as possible, as those elsewhere in the country. That is how the decision should be made.

Much as I love and adore the right hon. Gentleman and his speeches, will he clarify how it would be possible to treat three-bedroomed houses the same throughout the country if capital valuation is based on arm's-length deals? Presumably the right hon. Gentleman believes in the free market—I know he does—so how can one use arm's-length deals to arrive at the capital value?

I recognise the force of that intervention, but this is a fallen world, even in Scotland. There is no perfect system. All that we can achieve is a reasonable system. The hon. Gentleman will see that I am in one of my most reasonable moods. We should move nearer the kindgom of heaven if we had four bands instead of three. We should hear the hallelujah chorus not only in Rawtenstall but in London if the Minister were to announce that there is to be a fourth band.

I should have preferred the community charge to remain in place, but that is now history. My concern is that the new system will sadly disadvantage one area of the country, in just the same way as the community charge led to low-rated properties in the north being disadvantaged. Unless there is a fourth band for London, it will become a disadvantaged area. We are not prepared to accept that. Unless banding is fair, the people of London will wreak their vengeance in the ballot boxes.

The amendment relates to banding and that is what we are really discussing. I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but I must tell him that between how and the introduction of banding he should provide at least four bands. If not, there will be a Ribble Valley backlash in the south of England if it finds that it is put at a disadvantage compared with the north. A fourth band would ensure that chip shops in London did not have to pay more than chip shops in the north. People in the south would then be able to pay the same for their chips as people in the north.

The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) has made an interesting case for another bank for both chip shops and Brent, North. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) would provide for the valuation of each domestic property, chip shops or otherwise. Ultimately, the bands that apply to each individual householder must be seen to be fair, otherwise people will compare what they have to pay with what is paid by other people in the neighbourhood. If they do not like the comparison, they will be very dissatisfied.

We have put forward various proposals since 1980. At that time I saw the then Secretary of State for the Environment, who is now back in that job, and put to him proposals for a local form of income tax, based on ability to pay. It is not a regressive form of taxation. It is fair and is based on individual banding. One day, the House will have to return to that question.

Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 deal specifically with the compiling of a register of the values of all domestic property. If they accept the amendment the Government would be able to take action about empty housing. When revaluation takes place they would have the opportunity, in line with Shelter's proposals, to draw up a national register of empty properties. The Government argue against requiring every local authority in the country to draw up a list of all empty properties in the area. They say that it would be a cumbersome, bureaucratic and costly exercise.

With 700,000 vacant properties, an exercise along those lines is long overdue, but the Government have set their face against it and say that they do not have the resources and that they do not wish to impose that responsibility on local government. The amendments and new clause would give us the chance, as we carry out a detailed valuation and at no extra cost, to establish the number and location of empty properties in the country today. I notified the Minister's office earlier today that I intended to raise this issue.

Many people regard local authorities as the worst offenders in keeping properties empty for unnecessarily long periods. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a helpful start in establishing the register that he suggests if local authority figures were published, as the information is immediately available to all local authorities?

That is a seductive argument, but unfortunately the facts do not bear out the hon. Gentleman's view. In my own city, for example, 5,289 properties owned by the local authority—8·8 per cent. of the housing stock—are vacant. That is scandalous when many people are without a home, but 6 per cent. of private properties in Liverpool—7,064—are vacant too, as are 931—4 per cent.—of those owned by housing associations.

The situation is indeed horrifying. It is true that local authorities have empty properties—92,000 in all throughout the United Kingdom—which represent 2·5 per cent. of the entire housing stock. Housing associations have 19,700 3·5 per cent. of total housing stock. In the other part of the public sector—the Government's own properties— some 31,000 properties are empty. But in the private sector there are a staggering 586,000 empty properties. That comes to a total of more than 700,000.

There is a clear case for drawing up a register of such properties when the valuation is undertaken. Local authorities would then not have to make it a separate exercise, and we could see the scale of the problem and start to match that major asset of more than 700,000 empty properties with the 2 million people that Shelter estimates are in need of housing.

I follow the logic of the argument about registering empty properties, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also necessary to outline why the properties are empty? Would it not be a cruel deception to tell the homeless, as Conservative Members often do, that properties are standing empty waiting for someone to move in? We know that the majority of empty properties, especially those in local authority hands, are empty for good reasons. They are being refurbished or repaired, or perhaps waiting to be re-let. There are reasons why property stands empty, and it is not always available for people simply to move into.

That is true, but one answer could be provided by the sweat equity schemes, whereby people put their own efforts and resources into renovating and doing up property currently out of the market. I would like all property which has lain empty for six months, whether it be in the public or private sector, to be submitted to the district valuer for a valuation, placed on the market and made available for families.

I agree that properties are often vacant because resources have not been made available to do them up. Rather than wait for ever for the necessary resources, it would be a better recognition of reality simply to make the properties available for families to get on with the job of improving them.

The situation is pretty grim in a number of cities. In Newcastle, as the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) will know, there are 6,790 empty properties; in Sheffield there are 8,810, in Birmingham 10,900 and in Manchester 10,760.

I advise the hon. Gentleman to use such statistics cautiously. Statistics are often produced using figures incorporating houses under improvement, houses that have just been demolished and houses that are being held for other purposes. In Sheffield, for example, properties are being held for the world student games.

I know that, and it is fair enough to put it on the record, but I know of properties in my own constituency which have now been earmarked by the local authority for demolition when during the previous two years they have been massively improved, at great expense.

In March, Liverpool city council admitted that its outstanding debt on property demolished in the previous year was £1,255,000, and that was purely on the repayment of loan charges. For a city whose current debt is a staggering £800 million, that is a crazy way to proceed.

4.30 pm

We should not spend all our time simply attacking local authorities or the private sector. I recently wrote to a private landlord in Birmingham and in his reply he admitted that he did not know that he owned a property that had been vacant for some years. Having had this pointed out to him, he has now agreed to take out a restoration and improvement grant for the property. We should not entirely blame the Government either, although, as I have said, there are more than 30,000 Government-owned empty properties.

A general valuation will enable us to prepare a public register that will cost nothing because it will be done as part of the valuation already taking place. I hope that the Government will seriously consider my plea to carry out such a survey and to publish the figures.

Empty houses not only represent a loss of a resource, but are often tinder boxes and a breeding ground for vermin. Like a cancer, decay spreads throughout a terrace or a neighbourhood. Hon. Members are well aware of the curse that an empty property can become. Many families would like to make use of such properties and could turn them into homes.

As part of the same valuation there should be an assessment of properties, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Brightside, which are listed as likely to be demolished. In the Bull Ring in St. Andrew's gardens in my constituency, several hundred properties are empty, and many of them would make prefectly good homes. I do not accept the logic of demolition for such properties. Close to that tenement is a similar one which used to be called Myrtle gardens but is now known as Minster court. It was taken over and improved by a private company, Barratts, and every flat was sold. There are creative ways to proceed, and we should not resort to demolition.

There are other ways in which the register could be positively used. For instance, when arriving at valuations for individual householders, we should bear in mind the services that they receive. That is another reason for supporting the amendment. When I look at the museum of horrifying examples, in my city and at the failure to provide services, I can think of good reasons for people to receive substantial rebates and a reduced assessment.

For 13 weeks, some of my constituents have not had their bins emptied. Those areas are festering and piled high with rubbish. I wrote to a junior Minister, who suggested that I should contact the Keep Britain Tidy group asking it to run a local campaign. Many parts of Liverpool are now a public health hazard. There are rats as big as cats; a stench from noxious refuse; and even children's playgrounds piled high with rubbish. I am sure that the Minister will agree that people are entitled to better than that.

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 contains powers enabling the Government to bring contractors into areas in which people are not receiving services. If Horse Guards parade, the streets around Buckingham palace or even Marsham street itself were piled high with refuse, those powers would undoubtedly be used to remove it. Ministers should think seriously about intervening and not leave community charge payers to stew in their own juice.

The valuation should take account of demography and social structure. Whole communities should not be penalised because of the attitudes of a minority. I hope that this time next year my constituents will not be sent bills for £70·99 in lieu of charges that should have been levied against people who did not pay last year. That is contrary to every principle of natural justice. People who paid their full bill last year should not have to find almost £71 this year to pay for other people's services. If the local gas board arrived at my home and asked me to pay for gas that I had not consumed and threatened to cut me off if I did not pay, I would feel extremely aggrieved.

Labour's non-payment campaign has led to a great deal of hardship for many ordinary honest people in the city of Liverpool. They have been caught up like world war one soldiers in the trenches, while the generals fire across their heads. No doubt this is also true of many other cities. That is why I am anxious that, before we proceed any further with the Bill, the Minister gives us a categorical undertaking that there will be a right of redress for citizens. In future, residents should not be forced to pay double bills to make up for those who refused to pay in the previous year. That includes Members of Parliament, who have not paid but are perfectly able to meet their bills. I am not talking about people who are unable to pay but about those who, for political reasons, refused to pay and who have left a legacy of accumulated debts that have to be made good by those who have paid.

A valuation that does not take those factors into account will be as worthless as the unfair system that it will replace. The amendment now before the Committee would require information on the estimated value of each property. The unamended clause would only give us a list of all properties, with minimal details of the band in which they appear. That would not be enough information. The rating system advocated by the hon. Member for Brightside is not one that I would advocate, but his amendment comes closer to what I should like to see happen than would the unamended clause. Therefore, I commend it to the Committee.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) I speak primarily with London in mind. He has quite rightly drawn the attention of the Committee to the wide disparities that may occur if one simple valuation is conducted across the whole of England, particularly when Scotland and Wales are to be treated differently. I speak for my right hon. Friend as well in paying tribute to the London Boroughs Association for the hard work that it has done in pointing out the many questions that need to be answered by my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment before this goes ahead. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give the House a number of detailed answers.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has already covered a lot of ground in a tour d'horizon. He quoted a number of the briefs that he has been sent not only by local government associations but by the likes of the Confederation of British Industry. Clearly, valuation and how it is to be conducted are at the core of the policy for local government finance that the Government are proposing.

When this alternative to the community charge was suggested by the Government, I felt that a valuation that would work, and would even out many of the regional differentials, would be one based on rebuild costs. One of the big problems in London, which causes disparity in values, is high land value. The properties do not cost that much more to build or rebuild. We all know that insurance companies are happy that valuation for properties is done by the occupiers. We are sent a chart of costs carefully worked out by expert surveyors and valuers from which we calculate, according to the number of rooms, or the size of the rooms, how much it would cost to rebuild our homes. Last time that I renewed my house insurance, my insurance company asked me to employ that method.

If we followed that form of valuation, it would be possible for the public to be much involved in the process. They would feel, given the questions that they were asked, that they were producing a fair valuation. If necessary, the valuers appointed by the commissioners would be able to check specific valuations to ascertain whether people were giving incorrect information. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities will be able to hint whether that is an avenue down which we might be going.

I ask my hon. Friend to tell the Committee what the thinking is within the Department of the Environment about the current prospect of regional disparities. The London Boroughs Association has produced charts—I know that copies have been sent to the Department in the consultation process—that show that in greater London 0·9 per cent. of properties would be in band A, whereas 15·7 per cent. would be in Band G. There is no especially good and acceptable distribution across the bands. As has been said by the association and reported to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, in the north 46·6 per cent. of properties would be in band A and only 1·8 per cent. in band G. The most stark example of the extraordinary banding in London is provided by the borough of Barnet, where 47 per cent. of houses would fall into band G. That cannot be acceptable to London Members for various reasons which I shall spell out.

The only region where there is an acceptable spread across the bands which does not change under the calculations made by the LBA is the south-west. In band A there would be 8·9 per cent. of properties. There would be 16·1 per cent. in band B, 24·4 per cent. in band C, 20·8 per cent. in band D, 15·2 per cent. in band E, 7·9 per cent. in band F and 6·7 per cent. in band G. The south-west is the LBA's model because in its new plan for regional banding the percentages remain the same.

The result of the LBA's new plan is that 6·8 per cent. of properties in greater London would be in band A. There would be a spread of properties across the bands, with 7·8 per cent. coming into band G. With regional banding, it is possible to come close to having 7 per cent. of properties in band G and 7 to 8 per cent. in band F without the enormous disparity that currently occurs when we come to band A.

It is important to those of us who represent London constituencies and who speak for the London boroughs to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us at least that the Government are not ruling out the possibility of regional banding. There should not be only one English band. There should not be a London band and then a band for the rest, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North was suggesting. There is an argument for perhaps five or six bands for the English regions.

The amount of Government grant that local authorities will receive under the new finance system that is introduced by the council tax will depend on the moneys that they are able to raise locally. In areas such as London, where house prices are high, more money will be raised through the new tax under the suggested banding system, and I assume that the boroughs will receive less in grant. As a result, London taxpayers will be subsidising the services that are enjoyed by their counterparts further north.

4.45 pm

The LBA's argument should be accepted by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). The borough within his constituency is one of the sensible Labour-controlled authorities. Barking and Dagenham are still fully participating members of the LBA, as are the boroughs that are controlled by the Liberal Democrats in London.

The suggestions that have been made by the L BA during the consultation process should be taken seriously by the Government, who should respond to them. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister shedding more light on the direction in which the Government will be heading to correct what are clearly possible disparities.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities will be visiting Southampton on Friday and I wish to suggest one or two points that could be made when, I hope, he radiates to the public. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) talked about the extra charges that are the result of non-payment of the community charge. In Southampton, that charge is £50·95 per person. Part of that sum reflects the interest charges on the moneys that had to be borrowed to enable the authority to make its budget. My hon. Friend can make great play of that.

It is clear that amendment No. 27 is a wrecking amendment. If every individual house and outbuilding and every individual piece of land has to be valued, the task will not be completed before it is necessary to start again. Simplicity will be the answer. I even think that a seven-band system will have one band too many. In a city such as Southampton there could be duplication of styles, so that entire council estates could be valued simply by obtaining plans from the local authority and making a valuation on that basis instead of setting out with tape and measure. If valuations are not carried out on that basis, we shall be faced with overwhelming costs and we shall not be ready for 1993.

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), I am astonished when he tells me that the Southampton local authority has had to levy a £50 non-collection charge. I understood that that authority liked to posture as a model of modern Labour Kinnockite government. For that local authority to be so inefficient and inept at collecting the community charge says much about its administration.

If I were a citizen of Southampton I should be angry at having to pay £50 to compensate for the fact that other people had not paid, which must be largely attributable to the failure of the city council.

Does the Minister of State recall the Prime Minister describing the poll tax as uncollectable? Is not the fault implicit in the poll tax and nothing to do with efficient, hard-working local authorities struggling with an unworkable system?

No, it is not implicit in the community charge. The collection figures for last year have already reached 86 per cent. and will rise further. Some local authorities, including inner-city and even Labour-controlled authorities, have managed to make a fair fist of collecting the community charge, while others, including Southampton, have failed dismally to collect it.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State was recently in the city of Nottingham. To illustrate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), may I point out that the city of Nottingham is charging every resident £44·70 because of the iniquitous slip-up of not collecting last year, whereas the Conservative-controlled neighbouring authority of Gedling is charging only £3·40? Neighbouring Rushcliffe council was to charge £9 as a result of non-collection and other financial clauses, but made savings of £9, so that the residents of Rushcliffe have not a penny more to pay. That is the difference between Labour-controlled Nottingham city council and two neighbouring Tory-controlled councils.

Order. Perhaps we can now return to the amendments before us.

The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South are, none the less, revealing. The most remarkable example is Lambeth, where the charge for non-collection is £140, compared with Wandsworth, where the total charge is £36.

Before the Minister leaves that point, he should think more carefully about what he is saying about local government. The Secretary of State quoted my local authority as one of the best collectors of the community charge. It is charging £19·77 for non-collection, of which £14·80 is interest charges for money that it had to borrow simply because the community charge was so much more difficult to collect than the rates.

It is apparent from local authorities throughout the country that the charge is being made not because people have not paid—they have paid—but because they have paid at the end of the year, whereas they used to pay rates every month. That is the main cause of the problem. People have been taken off the register because they have died or left the district and the local authority's calculations have been unable to take that into account. The fault lies not with the local authority or the collectors, but with the silly system under which they have had to work.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he makes my point for me. In Southampton, the full year—

Order. I have been very tolerant, but I shall not allow a debate that does not relate to the amendments before us.

In that case, Madam Deputy Chairman, the point will have to remain for another day.

Although the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who opened this debate, made a clever speech, by his own high standards it was not outstandingly honest. He made a series of claims which, on reflection, he might regret. For example, he said that, as from today, valuers would value property on the basis of the Bill. He knows that that is not true and that the Bill must make progress to another place and receive royal assent, which will all take time. He also knows that valuers will not be able to make valuations before they know many of the important details to which he referred.

The hon. Gentleman tried to make the House believe that there was some inconsistency between the Bill's introduction and a consultation period on the exact details of the council tax. There is no inconsistency between those two points. We have always said that we want to introduce the council tax by 1 April 1993. To make that possible, we need Parliament's authority to spend money to start the valuation process. Clearly, all the details of that valuation have not yet been worked out.

I say that perfectly straightforwardly—moreover. I make a virtue of it, because we are in a consultation period. We have made firm proposals for the outlines of the tax, but have never claimed that all the details of the tax were already in place or should be in place, because we have always recognised that the tax will be run by local authorities to collect their own revenue. We must have the opinions of local authorities and experts.

The hon. Member for Brightside seemed to imply that the Audit Commission opposed the council tax. In an interview on the "Today" programme this morning, Mr. Peter Hobday asked Mr. Howard Davies whether he was suggesting that the tax was unworkable, and he said that he was not. Mr. Howard Davies has now written to The Times and said:

"You reported that the Audit Commission believes 'the Government's new council tax is unworkable in its proposed form'. This is not so."

That could not be a clearer denial of the points that the hon. Gentleman sought to attribute to the Audit Commission.

I, too, heard Howard Davies on the "Today" programme. He said that the system proposed by the Government could not be worse than the poll tax.

The way in which I quoted Howard Davies was perfectly accurate.

The hon. Member for Brightside then seemed to imply that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors was against the new tax. I had a private lunch with members of the RICS yesterday and am not at liberty to divulge exactly what was said. They have not yet put in their representation but will do so by the end of this week. Without betraying a confidence, I can reveal that they were supportive of the council tax, in particular the principle of a tax that allocates properties to bands, as they could see the immense administrative advantages in such a system. As professionals in that area, they had no difficulty with the concept that large swathes of property could be readily allocated to bands, which appealed to them as administratively simple and straightforward. Naturally, they will have detailed comments to make on the council tax and I shall welcome those. 1 am anxious that my officials should develop a close working relationship with professional bodies like the RICS, because I am determined that we should get the details of the Bill right.

The speech of the hon. Member for Brightside was not outstandingly honest because he tabled an amendment that sought to bring about a return to the rating system and then chose not to speak to it. He made a great speech about the council tax, but his amendment was about returning to the rating system. I am not surprised that he chose not to talk about that. If he intends to do so under the next amendment, I shall give my riposte then—or one of my hon. Friends will do so if they have the good fortune to wield the mallet.

Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that the council tax will be based on a banding system of values. For that reason, it will not be susceptible to the treatment that he should like to give it. It will not necessitate detailed knowledge of every property but will be much more broad-brush that the old rating system. Many properties will not have to be inspected because they will clearly fall into one band or another. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's idea of having a register of empty properties, although ingenious with merits in its own right, does not flow well from the Bill.

As the hon. Gentleman comes from Liverpool, I understand that he should want to raise that important issue. One is outraged not only by the non-payment—to which I shall not allude further—that has occurred in Liverpool but by the empty properties there. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said that there may be reasons for empty properties, there are tremendous disparities between local authorities. Liverpool's performance on empty properties has been lamentable.

Some of the ideas of a citizens' charter which the Conservative party is developing seemed to run through the hon. Gentleman's speech. Yes, people have a right to better service from local authorities and the indicator of empty properties is important. It is a scandal that local authorities are keeping properties empty when there are people in temporary accommodation. We shall want to pursue directly some of those issues in our proposals for a citizens' charter. I rather doubt whether the Government would be in favour of a national register of such properties, but I shall refer that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his consideration. However, we need to look carefully at requiring local authorities to deliver decent standards of service against objective criteria.

I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to refer that matter to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he makes progress on it. He will recall that I also asked him about the right of redress where there are discrepancies in services provided in different banded authorities, so that, for instance, in areas where bins have not been emptied for 13 weeks citizens would have the right of redress. Will the Minister ensure that something is done to put some teeth into the legislation and that it is enforced? I referred to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which has not been enforced with regard to councils in Liverpool.

The Environmental Protection Act gives the citizen the right to take action against a local authority. Citizens may not yet have availed themselves of those rights, perhaps because they are not aware of them, but the rights are there. The citizen is already enfranchised, but we may wish to look further at other ways in which to enfranchise the citizen.

Where I might to some extent part company with the hon. Gentleman is that I would put more emphasis than he would on the desirability of arming the citizen with choice and competition, whereas he might put more emphasis on—if I might describe them as such—bureaucratic solutions to such problems. However, we are on the same ground in saying that the citizen needs to be enfranchised, needs to have defence and needs to have redress against local authorities which fail to deliver the services to which people are entitled.

I come with pleasure to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). He and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) raised difficult issues to which the Government have given serious thought. My right hon. Friend was right to describe this as a fallen world and cautioned us against looking for perfection in these matters.

One is faced with two possibilities. If we went for regional bands, someone in the north-east of England might ask why he, living in a £50,000 house, should pay as much in council tax, which has a property element within it, as someone living in the south-east in a £150,000 house. I think that my right hon. Friend would agree that that question would cause considerable difficulty. My right hon. Friend raised the other point, which is why a person in the south-east living in a three-bedroomed house should pay more than someone living in a similar house in the north-east.

We have given considerable thought to those matters. We have put forward the firm proposal that we should base our council tax on a national banding system and, furthermore, that there should be seven bands, and we have suggested what the values of those bands should be. We are in a consultation period and we have made a firm proposal. I anticipate that the Government will continue to find that attractive. But it would be absurd to go through a consultation period without listening carefully to all the representations made, not least from someone who speaks with the authority and experience of my right hon. Friend. Therefore, we shall have to consider carefully what he said. But I am bound to say that we gave much thought to the matter before introducing the proposals.

rose—

After I have given way to my right hon. Friend, I will put some other points to him that I should like him to consider.

I am grateful to hear that the Minister is still in the consultation period, and I shall be interested to see how much today's debate influences the outcome. I remind my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said that, if we adopted rebuilding values rather than capital values, the great discrepancies which the price of land gives rise to in London compared with elsewhere would be largely minimised.

My right hon. Friend is right in that respect, but then another problem arises. My right hon. Friend should remember how, under the rating system, one of the great problems was the obscurity of the rateable value. People could not relate to a rateable value. They would never be in the business of renting their properties, on which the rateable value was based. There was scarcely any market in rented housing, so people were left with entirely synthetic spurious values. The same problem arises with rebuilding costs or anything like that. Those are synthetic, spurious values which the average person would not recognise. Under the council tax that we propose, they will be able to see clearly the relationship between the value on which they are paying the tax and the value of the house as they recognise it—as, for example, it might appear in an estate agent's window.

In the light of the comments that the Minister has just made, I remind him of some comments that he made on 19 October last year, the day after my election to the House. I am informed that he said:

"Taxes on people's homes are unfair. Property values bear little relation to people's ability to pay."

Have you done a U-turn, are you standing on your head or do you have some other information to give us?

I am sure that you, Miss Boothroyd, to whom those questions were addressed, are doing none of those things, and it is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should suggest it.

I have frequently expressed my disappointment that we were unable to convince people of the fairness of the community charge. However, I am deeply satisfied that we are now proposing a council tax which has two elements—a property and a personal element. What makes me unhappy about the Labour party's proposal is that it still makes no distinction between households with one person and those with a larger number of people. One of the strengths of the council tax is that different rates of tax will be applied depending on the number of people in the household and that rate will vary according to what the local authority is spending.

Let me bring my hon. Friend back to the question of valuation based on capital values as opposed to rebuilding costs. I cannot accept that a rebuild cost valuation is spurious in the way that the old rateable value based on some theoretical rent was. He is right to say that nobody could recognise that theoretical rent, but people could certainly recognise the rebuild cost. The insurance companies recognise those rebuild costs and if an owner is unfortunate enough to have his house burnt out or severely damaged, the insurance company rebuilds it on those values. Therefore, it is relevant and recognisable by the people.

My hon. Friend and I may not entirely agree on that point. I think that there is a real problem in telling people that they will be taxed on a value which is not the value that they think of as the value of their house—the value for which they can sell it if they so choose. Rebuilding costs have many problems. For example, pre-1920 houses have different rebuilding costs from houses built after that date. One just introduces another area of dispute when one goes for something such as rebuilding costs. One then ends up with the problem that within, for example, the borough of Westminster, the rebuilding cost of a small penthouse in the most salubrious part of Kensington is rather low because it is only a small property, whereas the rebuilding cost of a five-bedroomed dilapidated house in north Kensington, perhaps under the flyover, is much higher. It would be difficult to convince people that that was a fair system.

I return to the defence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, who said that it was difficult to achieve perfection in these areas, but I am concerned to protect the taxpayers in my right hon. Friend's constituency and in my own. Let us face it, that is why we have done a number of important things. For example, we have suggested that, within the council tax, the maximum variation in the tax that households of equal size should pay would be that those at the top end should pay about two thirds more than the average and those in the least valuable properties should pay about two thirds of the average. That provides protection, and it is a great improvement on the rating system.

We have taken £140 off the community charge and put it on value added tax. In doing so, we have massively altered the balance between what is raised locally and what is raised nationally. The proportion of nationally and locally raised taxation will continue under the new system, which will provide a great deal of protection for my right hon. Friend's constituents. I should not be surprised—indeed, I would lay odds on it—if many of his constituents were not better off under the council tax than they were last year under the community charge or under the rating system the previous year.

Although people will compare the difference between what they were paying in the last year of the community charge and the first year of the council tax, it is a robust defence to say that we have made an important change in what we seek to take from local people. That will be continued under the new council tax, and we shall seek to raise from people sums of money that we believe are sustainable and fair.

For all those reasons, the Committee would be right to give Parliament the authority outlined in the clause to provide the funds so that we can begin the valuation process. As the Audit Commission said, it would he desirable to introduce the new tax by 1 April 1993. The Labour party has claimed that it would like the community charge to go as fast as possible, but it now seems unwilling to co-operate in ensuring the means to replace it by 1993.

The consultation period on the council tax has not ended. We shall take seriously the points made by my right hon. Friends, by the professional bodies and by local authorities. The fact that we are today seeking authority to begin the process of financing the valuation process in no way touches the consultation period, nor does it seek to prejudge it. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that it is right that we should settle the details as quickly as possible and be able to start the valuation process. Despite the important doubts that my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed today, I hope that they will accept the clause and reject the amendments.

I should like to make it clear to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that those of us who have worked hard and long to establish the idea of a citizens' charter, of quality and of the individual's right to redress are committed to ensuring that people's bins are emptied regularly and that houses are let so that people on the housing waiting list or who are homeless have a roof over their heads. We are also committed to ensuring that that is done in a participatory way which enhances the working of local democracy. It is certain that no citizens' charter from any political party will prevent in an industrial dispute problems such as those that have arisen in Liverpool. A financial penalty on a local authority would mean merely that it would be in the authority's interests to settle at whatever rate was demanded by those taking action against it, whatever the circumstances and whatever the long-term cost to the community. That would be farcical and untenable.

Surely the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that, in a city where every local authority employee's redundancy notice from the political masters was delivered in a fleet of private hire cars on one occasion, and in a city which is currently awash with refuse and rubbish because of the local authority's failure, there must be not merely a right of redress but direct intervention—if necessary by the use of private companies—to remove the refuse. That would ensure that people did not become the victims, which is what is happening in Liverpool at the moment.

Some of us are in the business of trying to settle rather than exacerbate disputes, and of finding solutions for the people of Liverpool rather than scoring petty political points. We shall continue to try to do that. I put it on record that everyone in the country expects local Government to ensure that houses are let and that people on the waiting list who are in desperate need of decent accommodation get it. We shall do our best to ensure that that happens through the quality commission.

I shall deal briefly with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). Although they dealt with the wrong amendments, we share their worries and feelings. I shall encourage them to vote with us on this and a later amendment.

With reference to the comments made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), one cart hardly blame a local authority that is taking people to court because of the cost of interest rates incurred last year. Those interest rates were occasioned by the Government. Local authorities have had to recoup last year's losses, to predict this year's and face another two years of continuing losses because of the poll tax. Everyone has accepted that, not least the Audit Commission, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will no doubt state in a moment.

I was entertained by the idea that people would be happy with a system that took a couple of sample properties and applied its findings to the whole of a housing estate. I do not think that people would be too pleased about that if it were carried out in practice. They may have one or two things to say about it in the run-up to the general election.

First, several well-known Labour supporters still have not paid their community charge in Southampton. Secondly, I did not suggest that there would be two valuations for the whole of the city. I said that seven bands were sufficient and that for many properties—certainly those used for council accommodation—blueprints in the civic centre could be used for valuation without even a site visit. That is common practice in an overall valuation, which is not detailed.

I respect the fact that estate agents—I know that the hon. Gentleman knows all about this—will be able to make a spot guess at a sale price in a given area. I ask the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to ponder whether individuals who are charged on that basis will be happy that someone is sitting behind a desk taking a spot guess at the market price of a property. That is no way either to value a property or to impose a tax which will be based on the value of the property in a particular band.

I am grateful for the Minister's compliments, and I shall meet head on his charge of dishonesty. I accept that valuers will not go out next week—they went out last week and in April. They were instructed to make valuations from the desk top from 22 February to I March, and they were then asked to do a quick spot check in April but without letting anyone know. It was only when we revealed that fact that the system changed—following our revelation on 26 April, the valuation process that had just begun was stopped. The valuers were working and will work as soon as the House of Lords has given its approval—presumably next week—and as soon as the royal assent has been gained. I accept that the dishonesty will not take place tomorrow, but in a fortnight's time. The difference is so spurious that it shows how the Minister has had to scrape the barrel to accuse me of dishonesty.

On 26 April and again on 29 April, the Secretary of State vehemently denied that there would be a move away from the seven bands. In fact, he repeated 10 days later that there was no question, whatever the consultation produced, of moving away from them. Therefore, for the Minister to tell his Back Benchers tonight that the consultation between now and Friday is serious is extremely misleading and, to use his word and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham, dishonest. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors can speak for itself, but if that is dishonest, it will be surprised to hear what the Minister said, because placing properties in bands for a rolling continuing valuation is different from using bands as a method of valuation in the first place.

The Minister's other charge of dishonesty was that I should have been arguing for a return to the rates. I rest my case by saying that the next group of amendments deal precisely with that issue. The case that we have made this afternoon is unanswerable, and if Conservative Members do not vote for the amendment, they will live to regret it.