House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Jun 1995

Column 700

Dr. Ian Twinn (Edmonton): Contrary to the whingeing and negative response of Opposition Members, does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will be widely welcomed outside the House as well as on Conservative Benches? Does he further agree that the flowering of the housing association movement over the past 16 years has been a great credit to this Government, and that the introduction of the right to buy for new tenants will provide an element of fairness in housing allocation locally, as well as enabling housing associations to plan positively for the development of social housing in future?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. He may have noticed that the Labour party, instead of making sensible proposals for alternatives, has done nothing but barrack during these discussions. If there is any criticism of these discussions, it is that Labour does not want to hear the facts because it has no alternative.

Ms Jean Corston (Bristol, East): Is this not another case of the Government pursuing dogma in the face of the evidence? Is the Secretary of State aware of the scale of the housing crisis in Bristol, where 23,000 people are on the council waiting list? To afford the rent for a three- bedroomed housing association property, it would be necessary for the tenant to earn £300 a week. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his White Paper will encourage homeless people to be set against each other, provide in the rented sector only insecure tenancies and irresponsibly promote home ownership among people who evidently do not have the means to afford repairs and maintenance?

Mr. Gummer: If we are going to talk about dogma, that was the most dogmatic statement. Home ownership is unacceptable because some people find that they made the choice wrongly? People who are homeless are bound to fight among each other if it is decided which of them should be given housing on the basis of need? The only kind of housebuilding that there ought to be is local authority housebuilding? That is where the dogma lies. The hon. Lady does not make her case.

Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton): Is my right hon. Friend aware that his radical and comprehensive statement will be widely welcomed by housing professionals and people in housing need throughout the country? Is he particularly aware that his proposals for local housing companies--which I advocated in my maiden speech on 5 June 1992, which my right hon. Friend will remember--are particularly welcome because they will bring together the benefits of housing management skills in the private and public sectors for the benefit of tenants, for which Opposition Members have no thought?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. We should use every means in our power to help people have decent homes, and not stop a range of opportunities because we have the dogmatic predilections of the Labour party.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): Does the Secretary of State ever take time off to consider that he might be wrong in the solutions at which he has arrived? Has he ever pondered whether it was wrong in principle, many years ago under this Government, to channel money into housing through a housing benefit system that locked people into unemployment instead of funding bricks and

Column 701

mortar? Can he not be honest with the House for just one moment and consider whether there may have been an error of judgment in that area?

Mr. Gummer: The housing benefit system clearly does not lock people into unemployment, given that unemployment has been falling by 1,000 every working day for months. The hon. Gentleman's alternative is unacceptable. It would mean that, instead of channelling money to those who need it, it would be channelled into bricks and mortar. It was not only the Conservative party that thought that that was wrong. The Labour party saw also that there was a need to target. Targeting of taxpayers' money is essential.

I often ask myself, "Is there a better way of doing it?" The hon. Gentleman should recognise that any sensible person will ask himself, "Can we do it better?" That is why there is a range of new ideas in the White Paper. That is why every year we must find new ways of trying to extend opportunities for the people. It would not help much to put large amounts of subsidy into bricks and mortar, irrespective of the needs of those who live in those houses.

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham): May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his White Paper, which contains many constructive and practical ideas, in stark contrast to Opposition Members, who never have any constructive ideas and can only carp and criticise? Is my right hon. Friend aware that especially welcome in south-east England will be the part of the White Paper that relates to empty houses? At a time when there are 10 times as many empty houses and flats as there are homeless people, it makes no sense to cover our already scarce green spaces in urban and suburban areas with more and more housing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that if Labour Members had had their way during the past 16 years, there would have been no capital receipts to spend on new housing, because there would have been no sales of houses to the tenants of housing associations and local authorities?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. When the Labour party complains that not all capital receipts are spent on housing, it fails to mention that there would have been none under a Labour Government because they, Labour Members, were opposed to council house sales. My hon. Friend is also right to say that sustainable development demands that we build as much as we can on brown land, on land that has been used before. That will help us to reinvigorate our cities. It is an approach that fits in with the rest of our planning policies, which are designed to create vibrant towns and cities. My hon. Friend is right to say also that if we are to provide enough homes for the present population and if we take into account the fact that people live longer and families break up more often, we must use every opportunity and recognise that empty homes mean lost opportunities.

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe): Will the Secretary of State confirm that his approach to the thousands of people waiting for improvement grants--most of them in my constituency are owner-occupiers-- will not provide resources to enable them to improve their homes? They are now to be denied the right to a mandatory grant. That will remove the possibility of any effective area renewal.

Will the Secretary of State confirm also that his promise to housing associations that they can use total receipts from sales to build new homes is exactly the same

Column 702

promise that was given to local authorities in 1980? Why should we believe this promise any more than we should have believed the previous one?

Mr. Gummer: On mandatory grants, the hon. Gentleman has got it right the wrong way round. Local authorities, no doubt including the one that he used to run, want to have the proposed change because with the mandatory grant system as it stands, a local authority cannot say that it wants to channel that grant into a particular scheme in a particular area. That is precisely contrary to the hon. Gentleman's approach, and the local authority world knows that. Perhaps that explains why Sheffield was run so badly when he was in charge of the local authority.

The housing association movement builds houses in partnership with the Government, Government grant and the private sector. When a house is sold to the tenant in future, the full sum will be recycled so that that partnership may continue.

Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme): How many empty homes are owned by Government Ministries, and what has been the cost of keeping them boarded up and empty for many years? If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the homeless, why has he suddenly decided that it is time to do something about them when he has not done anything before?

Mr. Gummer: We did a great deal before and we have set targets that Departments have to meet. I am going further because there is a major opportunity, particularly with Ministry of Defence property, as a result of changes in the world situation. I know that the hon. Lady has recognised that those changes have meant a big alteration in our military establishment. Therefore, it is important that when those houses become vacant, we move them into the private sector as rapidly as possible. I have said that, in normal circumstances, if the houses have not been sold within six months, they will be put up to auction. That is a major change that Labour was unable to promise at any time when it was in power.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley): In his new zeal to protect green-field sites, will the Secretary of State consider, when windfall sites occur, deducting unit for unit from identified green-field housing sites?

Mr. Skinner: That was a good question.

Mr. Gummer: It is a very good question. I do not believe that the Government should follow policies that would restrict the opportunity for land to be made available. Therefore, it is right strongly to protect the green belt and to encourage people to produce land for housing within the plan. That is the mix that we want and that is how we shall achieve it. The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to seek to encourage the putting forward of land rather than discouraging it by his attack on windfall land.

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): Is the Secretary of State aware of the effect of his Government's policies over the past few years, of forcing people into dependency on benefits? People in housing association developments are unable to afford the rents without benefits and they fall into the poverty trap. Does he not understand that the long-term consequence of the sort of policies that he has again announced today is that social rented housing will

Column 703

become a ghetto that is inhabited by people who are elderly or unemployed and dependent on benefits? Is that the sort of future that he wants for social rented housing? Does he think that that is in the long-term interests of this country?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is wrong for two reasons, one of which is that we are taking rent levels into the arrangements for housing association grants. That will help to deal with one part of the problem. Secondly, we have announced the right to buy for tenants who move into new houses in housing associations. There will not be a ghetto, as the hon. Gentleman says. People who own and people who rent their homes will be living side by side, and that is precisely what I want.

Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich): What is in the Secretary of State's White Paper for the thousands of tenants of the private development company, Thamesmead Town Ltd.? In that case, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor transferred council tenancies to private tenancies at unaffordable market rents without giving the tenants the right to choose a landlord. Will he give Thamesmead Town tenants the right to choose a landlord or does he intend to replicate the disaster that is Thamesmead by privatising council housing in the rest of the country?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to read at least some of the versions of the White Paper, and will have seen that there is no question of privatising council estates. The only offer is that if the council tenants themselves want to choose a new landlord to ensure that they get the improvement in their homes that is necessary, they may do so. Such improvement often takes the form of something new, because the rent policies of previous Labour-controlled authorities did not permit it.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): Will the Secretary of State correct the impression given in his statement about disabled people and the adaptation of houses for their benefit? Such adaptations include extensions to houses-for-life into which people can move as they grow older and more infirm. That is not dealt with specifically in the White Paper, but page 39 refers to a future statement. Therefore, the Minister is making claims about the White Paper that have not yet been cashed in.

Mr. Gummer: No; the hon. Gentleman is perhaps mixing two different things. What I said in my statement referred to the fact that the improvement grants for present houses will remain mandatory in relation to changes for disabled people. The other part to which he refers is what will come about as a result of our considering arrangements under our disablement programme in general.

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North): Will the Secretary of State withdraw or change the constraints that have been placed on the power of housing associations to purchase from existing housing stock--to buy houses off the shelf and that sort of thing--enabling houses to be let to people as rented property? Does he not agree that that was a useful and flexible approach to providing housing, and enabled people who otherwise

Column 704

would not have been able to do so to obtain access to existing housing stock? Will he change those constraints now, because that development has been regressive?

Mr. Gummer: In principle, it is always better if extra accommodation is found or built by a housing association in addition to that which is available anyway, so I start with a prejudice in that the housing association should extend opportunities rather than merely take over one form of tenancy or ownership from another. The position that especially pertains in Wales was meant to meet a real need and problem that had arisen. I do not think that there is any evidence that it is having the deleterious effects that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will consider any point that the hon. Gentleman would like to raise with me.

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South): Is the Secretary of State aware of the gravity of the crisis in the funding of repairs and refurbishment of rundown and deprived estates in many of our cities, and that, in the London borough of Brent, which is Tory-controlled, so desperate is the crisis of the lack of investment that the council proposes to tear down desperately needed homes on the Chalkhill estate to build a supermarket, which is not needed, to fund a new development on that estate? Is that not nonsense? Will he agree to consider the environmental and commercial impact of that decision and tell us how his White Paper deals with the current crisis, rather than pursue the vendetta against council housing and the obsession with owner-occupancy that it displays?

Mr. Gummer: Obviously, I cannot comment on a particular planning application that may come to me for determination; that would be wrong, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I find his views odd, because one of the reasons why so much housing stock is not in the best of repair is that not enough has been spent on it, often by Labour councils that have failed to have a sensible rent policy, so that they have been unable to keep houses up. They have used rent as an electoral activity, which is a serious matter. We have tried, therefore, to find ways through and we have suggested--it would be possible to do this in a number of London boroughs, not least the hon. Gentleman's own--either going to local authority companies or considering LSVT. In that way, one could refurbish precisely the sort of blocks of housing of which he speaks and do it from the capital that is locked up in the region. I hope therefore that he will seek, with his local authority, with which I know he has extremely good relations, to work through that route, and I promise to help him.

Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State has confirmed that housing associations will be allowed--indeed they will be expected--to invest the takings from the sale of houses to sitting tenants in new housing. He has also said that the reason why that cannot apply to local authorities is that, in some cases, they have a large amount of capital receipts but no housing need, and, in other cases, they have few receipts but a lot of housing need. If that is the restraint, will he give a guarantee that, where councils have housing needs and capital receipts, he will allow them to start spending them?

Mr. Gummer: What we do is something even better than that: we provide the capital authorisations and the

Column 705

ability to spend money in connection with the need. The hon. Gentleman knows that, in his widely publicised demands and statements that the Labour party would allow local councils to spend their capital receipts, he never mentions that the only way that that could be done within the rules put forward by his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to remove the direct help for the poorest councils. That is what would happen. He means that he would allow capital receipts to be spent where they are not needed, but would not provide extra help where it is needed.

Column 707

Points of Order

4.39 pm

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would be helpful if you could clarify the comments you made, and, dare I say it, the impression you gave in reply to the point of order raised at the beginning of the statement by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). You told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that he had deviated from the script of his statement with which you had been provided, which presumably was also provided for the Opposition spokesman.

It has always been my understanding that an hon. Member has to clear a personal statement with you beforehand, and is not then permitted to deviate from it. However, I was unaware of anything in "Erskine May" which suggests that a Minister making a statement such as that made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon is allowed only to stick to the script, which, as a matter of courtesy, is distributed to the Opposition and to others.

It would be unfortunate if it became a convention, or if the impression was given, that a Minister must not deviate from the precise terms of a statement that has been circulated as a matter of courtesy. You know, Madam Speaker, having been in the House for about the same amount of time as me, that, when the House is in a somewhat excited frame of mind during a statement, many highly politicised comments fly backwards and forwards across the Chamber. Given that, it would be most unfortunate if a Minister was not permitted to respond off the cuff to rather excited comments thrown at him by the Opposition in the middle of a statement.

Madam Speaker: During a statement, Ministers must of course be allowed to respond off the cuff, but only very briefly, to comments from both sides of the House. However, I do expect such responses to be brief, and not to be a great diversion from the statement that a Minister is making. In that respect, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 297 of "Erskine May", which says:

"Explanations are made in the House by Ministers on behalf of the Government regarding their domestic and foreign policy . . . announcing the legislative proposals they intend to submit to Parliament; or the course they intend to adopt in the transaction and arrangement of public business."

I have already said that Ministers often make quick responses in the excitement of the moment and that is perfectly acceptable. Equally, the Minister is making a statement of Government policy--that is what the Minister is doing at the Dispatch Box. Ministers should not at any time attempt to transform that statement into a speech or an attack upon the Opposition, minority parties, or anyone else for that matter. I repeat, statements are the enunciation of Government policy from the Dispatch Box. I hope that that clears the matter up.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your advice on an

Column 708

important matter? At Prime Minister's Question Time last Tuesday, the Prime Minister made a specific reference to me which was not based on the truth, when he asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition whether he would

"publish the earlier, secret report held by the Labour party into Monklands council, which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has consistently refused to make public?"--[ Official Report , 20 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 149-50.]

I raised a point of order last Wednesday, pointing out that that was not true, and that the Prime Minister had written to me later that day indicating that it was not true. He wrote to me saying: "Although a report may have been published as a result of your party's internal inquiry".

The Prime Minister has not clarified that point in writing or orally, and he has not apologised to the House for it.

Given that, in that same Question Time, the Prime Minister said: "Ministers who deliberately mislead Parliament should resign".--[ Official Report , 20 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 149.],

I wonder if you can tell us what advice is contained in "Erskine May" for situations such as this, when a Prime Minister has said that I have not done something, when in fact the report to which he referred was published in March 1993; and, when he is asked on pain of his integrity if he will clarify the matter and apologise to the House, he still does nothing.

Surely there must be some protection for hon. Members, wherever they sit and whoever they are, from other right hon. or hon. Members making statements that are simply not true, and when that right hon. or hon. Member is unwilling to come back to the House, admit the truth and apologise.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman said, this is the second time that he has used a point of order to raise this matter. The hon. Gentleman may use the Order Paper and try to table questions about the matter. Also, I remind him that we have a local government debate later this week--I am sure that that has been noted by those on the Treasury Bench--and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to catch my eye during that debate, I shall do my best to call him so that he might obtain an answer from either the Prime Minister or a Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I recognise that one of your overriding concerns and wishes is always to protect the rights of Back Benchers. Given the fact that the Prime Minister was not available to answer questions today, I wonder whether you received an approach from the new Back Bencher, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), saying that, given the electoral contest within the Tory party, it might have been fair and more appropriate for him to answer questions at Prime Minister's Question Time.

Madam Speaker: A rather good try, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Column 709

Environmental Investment (Accelerated Depreciation)

4.46 pm

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the amount of depreciation allowable against tax for investments on certain innovative environmental technologies; to require the Secretary of State to compile a definitive list of such innovative environmental technologies; and for related purposes.

The Bill that I am seeking to introduce aims to accelerate the depreciation deductible from tax on investments in innovative environmental technologies. The Bill would ensure that 100 per cent. of the depreciation is allowable in the first year. The idea is to stimulate investment in environmental technologies.

Three groups of people would benefit if the Bill were passed. First, it would benefit the firms that make the environmental technology. Those are firms which produce goods and services capable of measuring, preventing, limiting or correcting environmental damage, such as pollution of water, air and soil as well as waste and noise-related problems, and which produce clean technologies where pollution and raw material use are minimised.

The Bill It would also benefit the firms that use the innovative environmental technology, since it makes it easier for them to compete in countries with strict environmental standards. When firms invest, it will initially increase the cost, but it will give them a competitive advantage in the long term. The Bill will benefit us as consumers of industry and citizens of a country that is already polluted. It means that we are likely to be healthier and have a higher quality of life if environmental improvements can be made. That is why I am introducing the Bill, and why it has all-party support.

This technology is big business. The 1994 meeting of experts at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agreed that the world market is currently around $250 billion. It is predicted to reach $600 billion by the year 2000. If we compare that with the aerospace industry, which is currently worth $180 billion, and the chemical industry, which is worth $500 billion worldwide, the scale becomes apparent.

Much environmental technology is in its infancy; that has been well illustrated by the Brent Spar saga. We should be more advanced and more civilised in dealing with our waste products than simply dumping them at sea. The technology to dispose of disused oil platforms needs to be developed as a matter of urgency in a way that will minimise environmental damage and create jobs. This Bill would encourage that technological development. As well as technology to deal with the handling of solid waste, the other growth areas are expected to be the treatment of water and waste water, and air quality pollution control.

It is important that we give British industry the boost it needs to get involved in these growing sectors. At present, Germany, the United States and Japan clearly dominate the environmental industry technologically, with shares of 29 per cent., 22 per cent. and 12 per cent. of the world's patents. That compares with the United Kingdom's 6 per cent. share, and shows that we need to do more.

Yet we have some of the best scientists in the world. What we need is incentives for those scientists to work on environmental technology. That would satisfy the

Column 710

criteria spelled out in the White Paper "Realising our Potential". That would create wealth and improve our quality of life, more so than many other areas.

Even the technology foresight steering group, which has recently reported, agreed. It felt that it was important to promote a cleaner world by concentrating our research on clean processing technology, on energy technology, on environmentally sustainable technology and on product and manufacturing life cycle analysis, so waste could be minimised at source.

The Bill is based on a scheme of accelerated depreciation on environmental investment which was introduced by the Government of the Netherlands in 1991. The scheme there is directed by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, in close co-operation with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

In the Netherlands, there is a very close link between Government-sponsored research and development and the accelerated depreciation scheme. About 60 per cent. of the technologies placed on the list were sponsored by the Dutch Government at an earlier phase of development, so it has proved a valuable link, ensuring that the early stages of research and development are truly effective in being converted to new manufacturing technology.

Several people have remarked to me that it is important that the decision makers are educated so that they appreciate what environmental technology is available. Firms report a surprising ignorance among the people who make the purchasing decisions. I hope that the publicity that surrounds the Bill, which has attracted a great deal of interest, will encourage the decision makers in industry, in local government and in central Government to be more aware of the innovation that is available and to take advantage of it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has produced a new economic strategy paper, "Rebuilding the Economy", which asserts that the Opposition's

"commitment to raising the quality of our environment is paralleled by our determination to ensure that Britain seizes the enormous market opportunities for environmental technologies." My hon. Friend has promised to pursue a three-point strategy to raise domestic output in environmental technologies as the base for our export drive. The Bill fits well with Opposition policy. Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Anne Campbell, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Nick Harvey and Mr. Paddy Tipping.

Environmental Investment (Accelerated Depreciation)

Mrs. Anne Campbell accordingly presented a Bill to increase the amount of depreciation allowable against tax for investments on certain innovative environmental technologies; to require the Secretary of State to compile a definitive list of such innovative environmental technologies; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

Column 711

Orders of the Day

Environment Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 20

Power of SEPA to obtain information about land

`.--(1) Where, with a view to performing a function conferred on it by any enactment, SEPA considers that it ought to have information connected with any land, it may serve on one or more of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below a notice--

(a) specifying the land, the function and the enactment; and (b) requiring the recipient of the notice to furnish to SEPA, within such period of not less than 14 days from the date of service of the notice as is specified in the notice--

(i) the nature of his interest in the land; and

(ii) the name and address of each person whom he believes is, as respects the land, a person mentioned in subsection (2) below. (2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) above are-- (a) the occupier of the land;

(b) any person--

(i) who has an interest in the land as owner, creditor in a heritable security or lessee; or

(ii) who directly or indirectly receives rent for the land; and (c) any person who, in pursuance of an agreement between himself and a person interested in the land, is authorised to manage the land or to arrange for the letting of it.

(3) A person who--

(a) fails to comply with the requirements of a notice served on him in pursuance of subsection (1) above; or

(b) in furnishing any information in compliance with such a notice makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.-- [Mr. Atkins.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 22

Disclosure of information

`.--(1) Notwithstanding any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment or rule of law, information of any description may be disclosed--

(a) by a new Agency to a Minister of the Crown, the other new Agency or a local enforcing authority,

(b) by a Minister of the Crown to a new Agency, another Minister of the Crown or a local enforcing authority, or

for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by either of the new Agencies of any of its functions, by any such Minister of any of his environmental functions or by any local enforcing authority of any of its relevant functions; and no person shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in consequence of any disclosure made by virtue of this subsection.

(2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the disclosure to a local enforcing authority by a new Agency or another local enforcing authority of information--

(a) disclosure of which would, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, be contrary to the interests of national security; or (b) which was obtained under or by virtue of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 and which was disclosed to a new Agency or any of its officers by the Secretary of State.

Column 712

(3) No information disclosed to any person under or by virtue of this section shall be disclosed by that person to any other person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this section, or any provision of any other enactment which authorises or requires the disclosure, if that information is information--

(a) which relates to a trade secret of any person or which otherwise is or might be commercially confidential in relation to any person; or

(b) whose disclosure otherwise than under or by virtue of this section would, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, be contrary to the interests of national security.

(4) Any authorisation by or under this section of the disclosure of information by or to any person shall also be taken to authorise the disclosure of that information by or, as the case may be, to any officer of his who is authorised by him to make the disclosure or, as the case may be, to receive the information.

(5) In this section--

"new Agency" means the Agency or SEPA;

"the environment" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

"environmental functions", in relation to a Minister of the Crown, means any function of that Minister, whether conferred or imposed under or by virtue of any enactment or otherwise, relating to the environment; and

"local enforcing authority" means--

(a) any local authority within the meaning of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority are its functions under or by virtue of that Part;

(b) any local authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority are its functions under or by virtue of that Part;

(c) in relation to England, any county council for an area for which there are district councils, and the "relevant functions" of such a county council are its functions under or by virtue of Part IV of this Act; or

(d) in relation to England and Wales, any local enforcing authority within the meaning of section 1(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority are its functions under or by virtue of Part I of that Act.'.-- [Mr. Atkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.45 pm

Next Section

Home Page