You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Written Answers

7 Nov 1996 : Column: 593

Written Answers to Questions

Thursday 7 November 1996

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Open Government

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Government will respond to the outstanding recommendations contained in the second report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on open government, HC 84, Session 1995-96. [3055]

Mr. Freeman: The Government have submitted their response to the remaining recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and the Committee is arranging for the response to be published today.

The Government responded to the majority of the recommendations contained in the Select Committee's report on 28 June 1996. It welcomed many of the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, and in particular the Committee's endorsement of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" as having been an important and valuable contribution to more open government. The Government's response reaffirmed their commitment to greater openness.

The Government's initial response did not, however, cover seven of the Committee's recommendations which had implications for openness in government beyond the code of practice. The Government wished to await the report of the Public Service Committee on ministerial accountability and responsibility, believing that it would provide a valuable contribution to their consideration of the issues in this area. That report was published on 30 July and the Government's response to it is also being published today.

The Government are grateful to the Select Committee on the PCA for the constructive contribution that it has made to the debate on openness. I am pleased that we have been able to agree to many of the recommendations contained in its report and that much common ground has been established between the Committee and the Government on these important issues.

However, the Government do not accept the Committee's proposal for a Freedom of Information Act. It believes that the non-statutory code of practice has a proven record and should now be given an enhanced role as setting the clear, recognised minimum standard for providing information to Parliament, and in setting out the reasons for withholding information on those occasions when this is necessary. Given this increased importance for the provisions of the code, the Government do not believe that it would now be sensible to seek a fundamental change in its status.

The Government will soon be issuing a revised code of practice and guidance on its interpretation, to reflect the responses to the PCA and Public Service Committees and

7 Nov 1996 : Column: 594

in the light of the day-to-day operation of the code during the last two and a half years. The ability to amend the code to reflect experience in this way is, in the Government's view, a major advantage of their preferred non-statutory approach.

Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility

Mr. Radice: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the second report of the Select Committee on Public Service of Session 1995-96 on ministerial accountability and responsibility (HC313). [3501]

Mr. Freeman: The Government have submitted their response to the report from the Public Service Committee on ministerial accountability and responsibility, and the Committee is arranging for the response to be published today.

The Government are grateful to the Select Committee for undertaking this investigation which, as envisaged by the President of the Board of Trade in the debate on 26 February, Official Report, column 593, has provided a helpful basis for the Government's consideration of the recommendations on ministerial accountability made by Sir Richard Scott in his report.

The Government reaffirm their commitment to arrangements under which it will remain properly accountable to Parliament. The Government's response to the Committee's report is addressed to this shared democratic objective.

The Government note the Committee's decision to follow what it describes as a pragmatic approach in setting out a "working definition" of ministerial responsibility, reflected in a proposed resolution of the House. The Government agree with many of the principles underlying the working definition, and share the Committee's view that there could be value in the House making explicit how it expects Ministers to discharge their responsibilities to Parliament. The Government will initiative further discussion on a cross-party basis to this end with a view to bringing forward an appropriate motion in due course.

The Government believe that effective scrutiny and accountability are secured by the giving of a full account through a rigorous policy on openness. The Government agree with the Committee on the central importance of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" and it will now proceed, in accordance with the Committee's recommendations, to ensure that throughout Government the code is followed as the clear, recognised minimum standard for providing information to Parliament, and in setting out the reasons for withholding information, on those occasions when this is necessary.

ENVIRONMENT

Chemical Plants (Unauthorised Releases)

Mr. Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many unauthorised releases from chemical plants have taken place each year since 1970;

7 Nov 1996 : Column: 595

how many were classified as serious; how many led to prosecutions; and what was the fine or penalty in each case. [1009]

Mr. Clappison: Chemical processes have been subject to prior authorisation under the integrated pollution control regime since 1990. So far as air is concerned, details of unauthorised releases, prosecutions and other enforcement action taken between April 1991 and March 1996 are contained in the annual reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which was the IPC regulator between those dates. The annual reports are in the House Library.

HM inspectorate of pollution became a part of the Environment Agency on 1 April this year. I understand from the agency that since that date there have been 550 unauthorised releases to air from chemical processes. Few of these had serious implications. I further understand that the agency has to date carried out one prosecution in respect of those releases and that a further one is in hand. Prosecution is only one of a number of enforcement options available to the Environment Agency, which can also issue enforcement or prohibition notices.

Energy Advice Centres

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the need for continuing financial support from (a) the Government and (b) the Energy Savings Trust for local energy advice centres funded by the Energy Savings Trust over the last three years. [2254]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My Department has received approximately 30 representations about the funding of local energy advice centres over the last three years. Of these, 14 covered Government funding and five funding by the Energy Saving Trust. The remaining 11 were concerned with financial support in general.

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local energy advice centres which have been funded via the Energy Savings Trust in the last three years. [2220]

Mr. Jones: The local energy advice centres which have been funded by the Energy Saving Trust in the last three years are:



















7 Nov 1996 : Column: 596














Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local energy advice centres which his Department has assessed as currently lack sufficient funding to ensure their continuing operation. [2256]

Mr. Jones: The local energy advice centres are the responsibility of the Energy Saving Trust. I understand that only one local energy advice centre, which failed to meet its targets on 31 August 1996, has ceased to operate.

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of (a) the effectiveness of the local energy advice centres funded via the Energy Savings Trust in the last three years and (b) the need for the continuation of their services. [2255]

Mr. Jones: The Energy Saving Trust has now taken full responsibility for the further continuation and management of LEACs. On 12 July 1996, I approved grants totalling £4.1 million over three years to be paid to the Trust in support of this work.

Previously, market research showed that the LEACs provide an effective and value for money service. In 1994-95, about 57,000 clients visited LEAC offices and as a result of advice received, savings were made of 21,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions and £1.8 million over the same period.

Next Section Index Home Page