To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

Between April 1979 and June 1991 almost 1·3 million tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure is a measure of the popularity of selling council houses? But should not more of the proceeds from such sales be devoted to building additional houses, particularly for the elderly and one-parent families?

I know of my hon. Friend's concern, which is shared by the Government. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Housing Corporation's spending is set to rise from £1·1 billion in 1990–91 to more than £2 billion in 1993–94. Many of the people to whom he referred will gain from that.

Why not take care to ensure that homes which have been sold off are replaced? Is not the Secretary of State concerned that nearly 7,000 families per month are losing their homes because they cannot keep up their mortgage repayments? Under the proposed scheme many such people will be unable to remain in their homes. Will the Secretary of State recognise at long last that there is an acute housing crisis in Britain? He talks about the number of dwellings that are sold off, but we want to ensure that people who are in such desperate plight can live in affordable rented accommodation.

The hon. Gentleman wants to keep people living in council houses, which they want to own, under Labour control for Labour party benefit. We were elected to pursue different policies and that is what we are doing.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will be visiting Norwich on 15 November? When he does so, will he take the opportunity to persuade Norwich city council to take a more imaginative approach not only to the sale of council houses but to provision for the homeless and to housing matters generally?

My hon. Friend is right that I shall be visiting Norwich and I confirm that it is part of a series of visits being paid by me and my ministerial colleagues responsible for housing so that we can talk face to face with local authorities about the housing that they provide. in the presence of representatives of their tenants' associations.

The Secretary of State will agree that a great achievement of the current Administration has been the sale of many public authority dwellings to their tenants. In the light of that, will he suggest to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that it would be a retrograde step for him to repeal the right-to-buy legislation in Northern Ireland, as he proposes?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman so admires our foresight in introducing the right-to-buy legislation in the early years of the present Administration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is a man of great wisdom and he will make the appropriate judgments with regard to Northern Ireland which I shall support.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the role of the European Commission in the planning process.

A number of Community measures affect the planning process, including in particular the directive on environmental assessment. The Commission has the duty to ensure that member states properly apply Community law and it is in this connection that they have recently initiated infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom on the environmental assessment directive. We will provide a full response to its complaint, but are confident that our implementation of the directive is fundamentally sound.

The A6, which runs through the middle of Stockport, causes untold misery to my constituents, who have been waiting for a bypass for many years. They are now told that the bypass is likely to be delayed by the Commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that, like the channel tunnel rail link, this is a nook and cranny into which the Commission should not poke?

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern. The Commission's role is clearly confined to ensuring that environmental procedures are properly followed. Decisions about the merits of any individual case remain a matter for the appropriate United Kingdom authority—and that is how we intend to keep it. I sympathise with my hon. Friend because the bypass to which he refers was first proposed in the 1970s. In my view, the lengthy delay reflects how careful we are in this country properly to examine any major planning scheme.

May we have less humbug from the Government about environmental impact assessment directives? Was not the project commended to a Committee by the present Secretary of State for Health, when he was a Minister of State in the Department of the Environment? Did not the European Commission alert the Government in January and then write to the Government on 24 March? Therefore, when the Prime Minister said in Harare, "We had no prior knowledge of it and the facts were not discussed with us," was not it simply untrue?

When it comes to humbug, we cannot compete with the hon. Gentleman and his party. No notice was given by the Commissioner of his strenuous efforts to obtain extensive publicity for his letter on 16 October. No warning was given at all. The fact that such strenuous efforts to obtain publicity were made by Commissioner Ripa di Meana suggests that he was more concerned with publicity and propaganda than with protecting the environment.

Did not the Commissioner behave irresponsibly in releasing his press release himself, rather than through the Commission's normal channels, after receiving the approval of the presidency and other Commissioners? Does not that situation illustrate the advantages of majority voting? There was a unanimous vote for the directive, including by the British Government, whereas if there had been proper majority voting, we could have organised a lobby of all member states to outvote it.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the manner in which Commissioner Ripa di Meana issued his press release. That was the subject of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Mr. Delors, who acknowledged in his reply the sensitivity of the issue. The British Government's record on the directive is outstandingly good. We were the third-fastest country to implement it and we have the fourth-best record of compliance with European legislation in the entire Community.

With regard to the notice given by the Commission of its action, has the Minister read Hansard for 12 July, when I and my hon. Friends raised the question with the Minister for the Environment and Countryside? We recognise and appreciate the Under-Secretary of State's comment that the Commissioner's powers are confined to ensuring that procedures are followed. Will he therefore dissociate himself from the Foreign Secretary's remark that the Commissioner is trying to dictate through which field a road should run?

The House knows full well that the Labour party has totally reversed its attitude to the Community on no fewer than five occasions over the past 30 years. On past form, we are due for another U-turn in the early 1990s. The hon. Lady's frantic attempts to suck up to Brussels on all occasions, regardless of how far the British people are pushed around, are unlikely to cut any ice with the Commission, but will certainly be noticed by the people who believe that British authorities should determine the merits of individual planning applications in this country.

Is not it intolerable that foreign officials should decide either on the procedure to be followed with or the merits of British planning applications?

It is no part of the British Government's policy to allow any foreign officials to decide the merits of planning cases in this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Government plans to assist local authorities that discover methane sites in their areas.

The Government have set aside £28 million in the current financial year for allocation as supplementary credit approvals to local authorities carrying out gas control projects at closed landfill sites.

I thank the Minister for the positive response of the Minister for the Environment and Countryside at a meeting at the Department yesterday afternoon, at which the Government gave Leicester city council permission to borrow £25,000 to survey the Appleton Park site in Rochney Mead. That will come as a comfort to local residents. Can the Minister give an assurance that the council will receive an equally favourable response next February, when it may ask for permission to borrow £400,000 to secure the site?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to include the banding of property values in assessing new methods of local government financing.

Our proposals for eight bands of property values are set out in the Local Government Finance Bill.

When making his assessments and calculations and increasing local government taxes, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that those who live in larger properties are not necessarily able to pay more than people who live in much more modest surroundings?

An integral part of our arrangements is, of course, limiting the tax ratio, so that people living in more expensive properties pay more than those in cheaper properties, but not too much more. The maximum that can be paid in the most expensive property in a given area will be three times the amount paid in the cheapest. That is in marked contrast to Labour's proposals: Labour wants to return to an "envy tax", forcing those living in more expensive properties to pay exorbitant amounts. That is what happened under the rates.

Can the Minister confirm that my calculations are correct? Under the banding proposals for the new council tax, is the Secretary of State for the Environment likely to pay about £270 for his central London accommodation? That is rather less than the amount likely to be paid by a young couple of first-time buyers in Aberdeen, who will probably pay £280 for a £35,000 house or flat.

People who live in local authorities that spend prudently will have lower council tax bills than those who live in authorities that spend less prudently. If my right hon. Friend has a residence in Westminster, he is likely to benefit from the low-spending policies of that excellent council, under the community charge, council tax or any other system.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the problems created for tenants, forestry workers, estate workers or clergymen who live in tied houses that are bigger than the houses that they would normally be able to afford and whose incomes are not reflected in their banding? This is a serious matter and I ask my hon. Friend to take note of it.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. I have a feeling that we shall have considerable discussion about such issues when we debate the Local Government Finance Bill in Committee. That is one reason why I am so keen for the time for discussion to be allocated sensibly, allowing all such serious matters to be discussed fully.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made towards achieving EC directives on cleaning up beaches by 1992.

The £2 billion programme of improvements for bathing waters identified under the directive is on target to bring virtually all bathing waters into compliance by 1995.

As the seaside holiday season is so short, does the Minister agree that, in view of the quality of many of our beaches, the work must be done quickly in time for the next holiday season? Is not it time that the Government took the lead? A vast amount of resources is required to clean up our beaches and much of the work is done by privatised water companies, local authorities and volunteers.

As I have made clear, a substantial sum is being invested by the water companies. About £2 billion is being spent on improvements to ensure that our beaches are brought into compliance with the directive as soon as is humanly possible.

Will my hon. Friend note that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, only last week the Anglian water authority launched a massive investment programme for the specific purpose of cleaning up the whole of Cleethorpes beach, thus ensuring that Cleethorpes can go forward as a tourist centre worthy of its name?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every water company with coastal waters is spending millions upon millions of pounds on ensuring that all our bathing waters comply with the directive as soon as is humanly possible.

The Minister knows that there are two compliance standards under the European Community directive: one, for total coliforms, is 10,000 per 100 ml of water; the other, for E Coli, is 2,000 per 100 ml of water. According to the latest information for summer 1990, the figure for the bathing beach at Aldingham near Barrow-in-Furness was, for the filthiest sample, over 1,600,000 E Coli per 100 ml of water and, for the same beach, over 1,800,000 total coliforms. Does the Minister bathe there often?

The method for testing bathing water here is exactly the same as the Commission uses to assess compliance in all member states. The method that we use to test water was fully supported in recent reports by the National Rivers Authority and the Select Committee on the Environment. We have the most comprehensive sampling regime in Europe and look at bathing water quality throughout the year.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the level of investment by the water industry, now that it has been privatised, is very much greater than when it was under public ownership? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of Opposition Members to call for more investment without saying how they would pay for it?

Yes, Sir. It is worth recalling that the Labour party so mismanaged the economy that at the behest of the International Monetary Fund it had to slash, overnight, investment in the water industry.

Will the Minister admit that the privatised water companies are diverting the funds that they have available into buying hotels and waste companies instead of speeding up the implementation of the directive? The construction industry is in such a bad shape that there are plenty of opportunities for speeding up the programme to clean our beaches. Is not it important to make sure that annex 5 of the international convention on the prevention of pollution from ships is properly policed—in British waters at least?

I am not confident that the Opposition understand the concept of £2 billion. Millions of pounds are being spent by the water companies. To take only a 40-mile section of the Yorkshire coastline, £30 million is being spent at Scarborough, £15 million at Filey, £9 million at Sandsend and £6 million at Robin Hood's bay. Millions of pounds are being spent to enhance and improve water quality and to ensure that our bathing waters comply with the European Community directive as soon as is humanly possible. The expenditure of a sum of money as large as £2 billion would not have been possible under a state-controlled nationalised industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to enable housing association tenants to own their own home.

Secure tenants of housing associations normally have the right to buy, unless their landlord is a charity or a fully mutual co-operative. Housing associations, including charities, can also give grants under the Housing Corporation's tenants incentive scheme to help tenants move out and buy a home of their own, thereby releasing vacancies for reletting to homeless families.

Although that is welcomed in most parts of the country, does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of property prices in London, it is difficult for people to move to other properties within the area? Palms would be laid before his feet if he came to Battersea in the near future with the keys of home ownership for housing association tenants under the right-to-buy scheme—something which they were promised in an earlier Parliament, but which was delayed by an unholy alliance in another place. Will my right hon. Friend look again at that possibility, particularly for London?

My hon. Friend realises that there was a formidable political dialogue about that issue and we have no plans to reopen it now. I am always pleased to receive invitations to visit Battersea and I think that I have always accepted them.

Following the Minister's comments in the House on 12 July about commonhold, will he say whether his right-to-buy policy will be extended to long leaseholders who, at present, are not covered by legislation?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have no further announcements to add to my statement on commonhold. I have clarified the position on housing association tenants in the terms of the consultation to which I referred today.

In addition to housing association tenants, will my right hon. Friend consider the position of tenants of Crown estates, many of whom have lived in their houses and taken great care of them for many years? Is not it only fair that they should have the same rights as tenants of council houses?

I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we will extend the rights to cover that area. I shall look at the matter again in view of my hon. Friend's interest, but I would not wish to give any further commitment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of those responding to the local government structure review favoured an increased number of unitary authorities.

Of those who commented directly on the principle of moving to a single tier of local council, the vast majority expressed support for it.

What representations has my hon. Friend received from Slough? Is he aware of the strong cross-party support in Slough for the abolition of Berkshire county council and its replacement by unitary authorities based on existing boroughs and districts?

We received a representation from Slough. As my hon. Friend says, it made the case for unitary authorities in general and for that solution to be applied in Slough. My hon. Friend will be pleased that we propose to set up a local government commission so that such views can be considered seriously in due course.

Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed support for unitary authorities and the term is now used frequently. Does the Minister realise that it causes a great deal of anxiety among members of parish, town and similar authorities? What is the Government's attitude to parish councils and so on, which have had to put up with a fair amount of inadequate concern from Her Majesty's Government in recent years?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State recently addressed a conference of town councils. The Government have not neglected them by any means and we think that parishes have an important role. The concept of unitary authorities is in no sense meant to detract from the good work that the parishes do.

My hon. Friend will understand the enthusiasm of my constituents for a return to a single-tier, all-purpose local authority based on the borough of Beverley. To do so, we have to get rid of Humberside county council. Will my hon. Friend clarify the statement that he made yesterday and tell the House whether Humberside will be the first local authority to be considered by the new local government commission, or whether it will be among the first? If it is the latter, what does that mean?

It means precisely that Humberside will be in the first batch of authorities that we will recommend for consideration by the local government commission. To clarify that a little more, it means that the local government commission will have a regional structure. It will be able to consider more than one place at a time and I believe that Humberside should be one of the areas in the first batch. It will be one of the first places to be considered. I hope that that makes the position clear to my hon. Friend.

Why have the Minister and the Secretary of State in their Local Government Bill passed up the chance of proceeding on the basis of consensus? The Opposition would support a local government commission and we support the idea of flexibility to meet local needs. Why, therefore, are the Government insisting on a process that is apparently piecemeal, long-drawn-out and manifestly open to political gerrymandering? Are they serious about putting local government through the further chaos of creeping restructuring, which can only add to the confusion already felt by so many in local government about who does what? Have not they already done enough damage to local government without this further turn of the screw?

As usual, the confusion is in the hon. Gentleman's mind. Our consultation document, which the hon. Gentleman welcomed when it was issued, was perfectly clear and the Bill that we have published is in line with it. I am unaware of any response from the hon. Gentleman, because he does not wish to consult the Government. His remarks are wholly inconsistent not only with what he said before but with what his colleagues in another place are saying.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, after their constructive meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), my constituents are optimistic that they will have Rutland back as a unitary authority under the re-elected Conservative Government?

After meetings with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary most people are pleased, because of his renowned courtesy. It was important that we set out that the guiding principle of the local government commission should be to establish the proper services to be provided to local people, in line with their sense of local community—the sort of community with which they wish to identify. That is a welcome concept and I believe that, despite what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, it will be greeted warmly throughout the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to come into effect.

Our consultation paper, "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services", which was published yesterday, proposes that compulsory competitive tendering should be extended to a range of local authority services, and should come into effect at different dates from late-1992 onwards.

Is the Minister aware that, for hundreds of thousands of women who work in local authorities, compulsory competitive tendering has meant that their pay has been cut, their hours lengthened and their terms and conditions considerably weakened? Given the Prime Minister's commitment to the cause of women's equality, will the Minister give an undertaking that compulsory competitive tendering will be cancelled as a gesture towards improving women's pay and conditions of work?

Compulsory competitive tendering is non-discriminatory and I have no intention of going down that path. I reassure the hon. Lady that the value for money that is emerging has nothing to do with sex.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), his independent review of the operation of CCT included statements from the chief executive of a Labour authority that compulsory competitive tendering had created a much more efficient and slimmer organisation and had highlighted inefficiencies that it had not previously seen? Is not the real answer that on this issue, as on so many others, the Labour party is in thrall to the public sector trade unions?

Yes, I could not have put it better myself.

The report published by the Department of the Environment, to which the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) referred, giving the findings of the Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham university on the first year of competitive tendering in local government only adds to the confusion that the Government have created about the role of local government in providing services to poll tax payers. There is no reference in the report to the quality of services to be provided under the competitive tendering procedure. Is not it time that the Government stopped messing about with the provision of local government services and delayed any further introduction of compulsory competitive tendering until the procedures and the quality of services have been resolved?

No. It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman insists on looking backwards whenever we have questions in the House. The report has informed the Government's policies and if he would be so kind as to read the consultation paper, which we issued only yesterday, he would find that a quality threshold is specifically included in the extension of CCT to services such as architecture.

While my hon. Friend is doing his best to persuade Labour councils of the virtues of competitive tendering will he point out to them that the provision of services to community charge payers is for the benefit of the entire local community and that it is not merely to provide a multiplicity of overblown, unproductive jobs in town halls?

Yes, that is entirely the point. One of the advantages that Ministers gain in visiting a large number of local authorities of all shades of political opinion across the country is to learn of the unanimity of opinion that compulsory competitive tendering is good for the charge payers and for the recipients of services and that it is also good for the career structures of many of the jobs that go with it. It would be retrograde to go back on that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit Halifax to discuss local government funding.

I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no such plans, but I am sure that Ministers will wish to visit Halifax in force over the coming months.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Labour-controlled Calderdale council, which was named recently in a report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy as the second most efficient metropolitan council? Does not he think that that is a remarkable achievement as its standard spending assessment has, for some reason, been set lower than the metropolitan or national average? Does the Minister think that that is a good way to repay an efficient council which, if the same criteria are used this year for the SSA, will face £7 million of cuts? Is it not time that he abolished poll tax capping and allowed councils to get on with the job?

I always find it puzzling, when the Government increase the standard spending assessments markedly year by year, to hear that that leads to cuts by local authorities. Calderdale's SSA increased by 18 per cent. last year. We do not yet have the figures for next year, but we know that the average increase in total standard spending will be 7·2 per cent. As the Government have increased the money ahead of inflation, I find such talk of cuts rather tiresome.

When my hon. Friend takes the opportunity to visit Halifax to discuss local government funding, will he consider the future of the joint committees in West Yorkshire which were established following the abolition of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council? Will he consider especially the police authority and the growing concern in West Yorkshire that there must be better ways to fund that important service?

My hon. Friend raises important matters. However, he will know that in the Local Government Finance Bill which we published yesterday we have bitten off a considerable amount of possible change with the establishment of the local government commission. I think that the matters that we have laid—or intend to lay—before the commission are already sufficient and I think that some of my hon. Friend's concerns may have to wait for another day.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the future of Northumberland council council.

Six principal local authorities and one other organisation from Northumberland responded to the consultation paper "The Structure of Local Government in England". Of these, four commented on the structure of local government in Northumberland, including the role of Northumberland county council. The other three responses were general comments on our proposals.

As all colleges and most schools will soon be free from local authority control, as more services will be put out to contract and as organisations such as Newcastle airport will be put into the private sector, where they properly belong, does my right hon. Friend agree—and I am sure that he will, because he is a reasonable man—that Northumberland needs a unitary authority, especially as Labour-controlled Northumberland county council constantly says that it does not have enough money to decorate schools but recently managed to find one third of a million pounds to give its senior officers a double figure salary increase and company cars?

I know that my hon. Friend will put those points with his customary eloquence to the local government commission that we are about to set up and that he will welcome the fact that we have set it up so that he is able to do so.

rose——

Order. Northumberland is a long way from Eastbourne, but let us see what the hon. Gentleman can do.

Will the Secretary of State assure us that new structures for local government in East Sussex and in Polegate and Willingdon in particular, will not be imposed on local communities against their wishes. Also, if local communities do not like the results of the local government commission, will he consider local referendums? If not, what will he propose?

The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the objectives of our local government commission is to consult local communities deeply and widely. It is designed to attract a structure of local government which is based on local loyalties and which reflects community interests. It is important that the House should have a chance to consider those matters, and the legislation that will come to us from another place will provide precisely that opportunity.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have now transferred their housing stock to housing associations; and what steps he is taking to encourage such transfers.

During the past two years, 16 local authorities have transferred their stock of more than 76,000 properties to housing associations, with the approval of their tenants. Two more proposed tranfers, at Bromley and at Tunbridge Wells, have been supported by tenant ballots and many more local authorities are known to be considering this option.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency the borough of Swale has transferred its whole housing stock to the Swale housing association, involving £55 million of assets? With all-party co-operation, the transfer is working extremely well and there is a high degree of tenant involvement. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look forward to the time, very soon, when all local authorities arrange such transfers and generally move out of direct housing management?

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the enormous benefits that accrue from such large-scale voluntary transfers. There are benefits to the tenants in the form of improved stock condition, better repair services and guarantees on rents. The research that we have carried out on the early transfers shows that tenants feel that their landlords are taking a closer interest in them. If only the Labour party was not so slavish in its attachment to the out-of-date idea of councils as monopoly landlords, tenants in Labour-controlled local authorities might also be able to enjoy those benefits.

Does the Minister agree that the transfer of council houses to housing associations will not solve the housing crisis? My district council, Durham City, has sold 3,000 houses under the right-to-buy scheme and we have 4,000 people on the waiting list. When will the Government lose their dogmatic policy and allow councils to build new houses so that people from those lists can be housed? So many people want rented accommodation provided by local authorities.

It is clear that it is the Labour party which has dogmatic policies, as it sees the local authority as the only answer to housing provision and it refuses to learn the lesson of Southwark, of Lambeth and of Hackney, where tenants are suffering from exactly that policy. The whole purpose of getting local authorities to sell houses is not only to allow the tenants the chance to enjoy the security of owner-occupation, but to be able to reuse the capital receipts in areas in which they are most needed. We redirect the borrowing power to those areas in which the housing need is greatest. The Labour party's proposals would not produce any more cash, because, as fast as the Front-Bench spokesmen go round the country whispering to any pressure group that is willing to listen that Labour will spend a bit more cash, their colleague, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), rushes down to the City to say that that is exactly what Labour will not do.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that of the £162 million available to councils as a proportion of the receipts from the sale of houses to housing associations, less than half has been reapplied to housing? Would not it be a good thing for more of that money to be directed towards housing, especially towards the upgrading of existing housing stock, which would give a much-needed boost to the building industry?

My hon. Friend is right to say that £75 million out of the available £160 million received from the large-scale voluntary transfers has been directed towards housing. It is entirely for the local authorities to decide how they will use the capital receipts. I should be reluctant to take even greater centralising powers to direct or force them to spend the money on housing stock. However, I have no doubt that in the areas in which housing need is considerable, my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends will talk to local authorities and try to influence the way in which they spend the money, in accordance with local need.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will ensure that an environmental study is carried out in the area around Bolsover Coalite; and if he will make a statement.

Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has investigated emissions from the chemical incinerator at the Coalite works. Extensive studies are continuing. HMIP's investigations have shown that dioxins are present in the stack gases from the Coalite incinerator. Concentrations measured in the current emissions would probably account for only a part of the dioxins that have been found in the milk on the affected farms. The company is not in breach of the law in the manner in which it has operated the incinerator. The company is undertaking an urgent review of the incinerator design and will incorporate substantial modifications so as to meet the latest stringent standards. The modified incinerator will be capable of operation with minimal emissions of dioxins. The management has agreed that in order to commence the programme of engineering work, the incinerator will be shut down at the end of November. I shall write to the hon. Member once decisions on further work have been taken.

Now that the Minister has half admitted that there is a direct correlation between Bolsover Coalite, dioxin and the contaminated milk, does he accept that it has taken six months' probing to get someone at the Dispatch Box to contribute even that little bit to the argument? Will he now consult the Secretary of State, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and all the other relevant Departments to ensure that there is a proper environmental assessment and a public inquiry into the link between Coalite and the dioxin-contaminated milk? If there is to be any more waffle about the citizens charter, it is high time that the Government did something about this issue in Bolsover.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to seek to draw those inferences from the information that I have given. His comments are also less than fair; extensive studies, including environmental studies, have been carried out. Those involve the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has been carrying out work at the affected farms, the National Rivers Authority, which has measured dioxin levels in fresh-water sediments from the area, and HMIP, which has investigated the emissions from the chemical incinerator at the Coalite works. Many agencies have sought to obtain as much information as possible, but it will be some time before the full results of the investigations at the farms are available. However, results will be published in the normal way, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will be made public.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has acquired on the impact of the extension of compulsory competitive tendering on the quality of local authority services.

We have published our proposals for extending compulsory competitive tendering to professional and other services in our consultation paper, "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services". Our consideration of policy has been informed by research into the effects of the Local Government Act 1988 carried out by the Institute of Local Government Studies, and by a study of relevant local authority experience carried out by PA Consulting Group.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is evidence of deterioration in the quality of services? Will he confirm that some schools have had to close because of a lack of cleanliness, and that some contractors who bid low in order to defeat local authority tenders have had to pull out half way through the contract and let the local authority pick up the mess?

Obviously, we are concerned to ensure that any infringements of safety standards or standards of health affected in such matters are carefully considered. If the hon. Gentleman would give me specific examples, of course I should treat them seriously.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House truthfully whether, if his house needed painting, he would rather have the local council direct labour force or a private contractor paint it? We all know the answer. Why should the Opposition wish to inflict second best on their council tenants?

I am a Tory; how could I tell I lie? If I wanted to have my house painted—every so often, like everybody else, I do—I should get competitive prices. I know that in doing so I should get the work well done and at the lowest possible price. If Labour authorities would understand that, we should get better value for money out of local government.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received for funds for local authorities to allay costs associated with the poll tax.

We have received a number of representations from local authorities.

Has the Minister looked up the statement made by the Secretary of State on 21 March? According to column 403 of the Hansard report, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would pay grants to local authorities which had lost income in collecting the poll tax, and would

"cover authorities' additional administrative expenses".

The hon. Gentleman misquotes from the column in question. What my right hon. Friend said was that we would

"pay grant for the administrative expenses arising as a consequence of the Bill"—[Official Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 403.]

The Government wrote off debts in excess of £15 billion when the public utilities were privatised. Is not it a bit odd, therefore, that, according to them, an amnesty cannot be granted to those who clearly cannot afford to pay this tax, which benefits the rich at the expense of the poor? If the Prime Minister can go to the third world—and the Minister must always remember that we have a third world in this country—and talk about writing off its overall debts, which I applaud, surely the debts of those in this country who are suffering unnecessarily because of a tax imposed upon them against their will can also be written off.

The hon. Gentleman should have declared an interest in calling for an amnesty, as I believe that he is one of those who refuse to pay community charge. I welcome this opportunity to say that there will be no amnesty for those who have not paid their community charge—even though some of them have been so badly misled by those whom they elected to the House.

Is not it clear that the greatest burden on local councils in respect of the poll tax is the 20 per cent. contribution rule—a point made forcefully, as the Minister will know, by the Audit Commission and by virtually the whole of local government? The Government have recognised that that rule was a mistake, as they have demonstrated by doing away with it for the council tax. Why will they not act on the same principle for the poll tax? Why do they insist that, by virtue of that rule, local authorities spend money that they have no hope of recouping and issue more than 7·5 million summonses in what is rapidly becoming the biggest debt collection exercise in the history of the world?

When we introduce a new system of taxation—which we hope to do with the co-operation of the Labour party, although we are not sure about that—we shall introduce a new system of rebates, but as long as we have the community charge, and as long as social security benefits are uprated by sums appreciably above the average amount of the 20 per cent. that people have to pay, it is right that those people should pay and that local authorities should take enforcement action. The hon. Gentleman would have done better in his question to condemn his colleagues who have been urging nonpayment and to make it clear where the Labour party stands on that issue.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the standard community charge for repossessed homes in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

We received a number of representations following the introduction of the community charge and, as a result, we created an additional statutory class of property so that no standard charge could be levied on a repossessed home. This took effect from last April.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on making what was obviously the correct decision. But may I draw to his attention the problems facing those whose houses were unfortunately repossessed in the financial year prior to April 1991, many of whom now face community charge bills amounting to twice the personal community charge? As local authorities cannot now change that, will my hon. Friend's Department examine the problem and help people who would have been exempt had their houses been repossessed this year rather than last and who would thus not have faced a financial burden on top of the misery of repossession?

We have looked at the matter carefully, and I am sorry to say that I cannot give my hon. Friend much hope, although I pay tribute to him for the assiduous way in which he has looked after his constituents' interests. We have had copious correspondence about Mr. and Mrs. Pegrum in his constituency. We have now changed the arrangements. Of course, until last year, Chelmsford was a Liberal-controlled authority. I am glad that the Liberals are no longer in control. We trusted local authorities to be serious and sensible, but they were not. That must have been one of the things that caused the electors in my hon. Friend's constituency to chuck them out.

Is the Minister aware that there could be 100,000 repossessions of houses this year? Is he aware of the suffering and misery that that means for many people, which, in many respects, is caused by the Government's economic policies? What monitoring is the Department of the Environment carrying out in respect of repossessions? What additional resources are being made available to local authorities which have to rehouse people whose houses have been repossessed by the building societies? What discussions are taking place between Government Departments, the banks and building societies to see what can be done to alleviate the suffering?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State has had detailed discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and recently announced his new initiative with the council with regard to repossessed properties being passed to housing associations for temporary letting to homeless families nominated by the local authorities. That brings empty properties back into use and provides homes for families. It also restores confidence in the market. Incidentally, it also means that the balance of rental income after the administrative costs to the housing association goes back to the lender and that helps to keep the defaulter's debt down as well.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the computer industry concerning the implementation of the proposed new council tax.

The Department has had preliminary discussions with major suppliers and has commissioned a study of the feasibility and desirability of a national software specification. Now that the Local Government Finance Bill has been published, we will be discussing the computing aspects in detail with all interested parties.

As the computer industry, council finance officers and many other non-partisan critics are sending the same messages to the Minister and to the Government that the new tax is ill-prepared, the timetable for its introduction is too tight, it will require a poll tax-type register and will be even more risky and difficult to introduce than the poll tax, why do not the Government for once follow a sensible course and scrap the poll tax, abandon their proposals for the new tax and leave it to the next Parliament and a Labour Government to introduce a fairer rates system?

The hon. Gentleman is not only scaremongering, he is wrong. Sadly, not all those involved are unanimous in their approach. Some organisations, including the local authority associations, do not want a national specification and that does not make it easy. However, I can offer some reassurance to the House, because we hope that we will have some of the regulations in draft by Christmas. We will discuss the regulations and the Bill with the local authority associations tomorrow.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it his intention to continue to take firm measures next year to protect local taxpayers from overspending by local authorities.

Yes. We intend shortly to announce for 1992–93 provisional capping criteria which will be in a similar format to the criteria adopted for 1991–92.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, is he aware that when a finance system is changed, it results not simply in the headline-grabbing activities of a few local authorities, but in excessive spending by many local authorities? Therefore, if he wants to ensure that the people of this country receive value for money for their local authority contributions, those controls should apply throughout the country and not just to the extremes.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. When the community charge was introduced, many local authorities took the opportunity in the upheaval to increase their spending. I am determined that, when we change the system again, no such opportunity will be provided.

Will the Minister end the rhetoric about local government and begin to address the real problems in our towns and cities which, since the Government came to power, have experienced a reduction in spending to a point at which they are now compelled to sell off the heritage of the people of those cities and towns? When will the Government realise that they are presiding over the downfall of our towns and cities?

The future of Liverpool—if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to—is now in rather better hands after some of his friends from the Labour party lost control of Liverpool city council. The prospects for Liverpool have been vastly increased by the City Challenge announced by my right hon. Friend which, I am pleased to say, Liverpool has embraced with enthusiasm.

What protection will my hon. Friend offer to local taxpayers of councils such as Warrington and Halton which award themselves contracts far in excess of private sector tenders?

The measures that we announced yesterday in the Local Government Bill and in the consultation document that we issued at the same time show our determination to extend compulsory competitive tendering and to make sure that there is a more level playing field so that there will be fair play between direct service organisations and outside contractors bidding for local authority work. I hope that that is reassuring to my hon. Friend.

Given that the year-on-year increase in central funding for local authorities next year is only 4·7 per cent., and given that the Chancellor is going to announce nothing this afternoon for the education of children in schools or the care of the elderly, children or the disabled in social services, does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State's comment on Radio 4 on 20 October that there are no cuts in local authority services and will be no cuts next year? Does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State knows perfectly well that there are cuts and will be cuts and therefore is a knave, or is he simply a fool in making such a statement when people's lives are being affected day in and day out by the cuts in education and social services which the Government have inflicted on them?

Despite the hon. Gentleman's colourful language, the figures and the arithmetic are against him. We are increasing total spending next year by 7·2 per cent., and the grant that is being made available by central Government is also increasing by 7·2 per cent. The Government are able to increase funding by more than the rate of inflation, and that is made possible only by the economic policies being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.