---

21 Jul 2004 : Column 320W—continued

Fire and Rescue Service Equipment (Purchasing)

14. Ann Winterton: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes his Department has implemented to the purchasing of fire and rescue service equipment. [185321]

Phil Hope: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been working with fire and rescue authorities and suppliers to develop a National Procurement Strategy that aims to deliver improved cost effectiveness, to maintain competition and stimulate innovation. In the meantime, fire service circulars issued in 2003 and 2004 gave advice on the arrangements to be used pending publication of the strategy.

Affordable Housing

Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many and what proportion of the affordable housing to be built in (a) Camden, (b) the City of London, (c) Hackney, (d) Hammersmith and Fulham, (e) Haringey, (f) Islington, (g) Kensington and Chelsea, (h) Lambeth, (i) Lewisham, (j) Newham, (k) Southwark, (l) Wandsworth and (m) Westminster in (i) 2004–05 and (ii) 2005–06 will be (A) social housing for rent, (B) low cost home ownership stock, (C) low cost home ownership stock for key workers and (D) intermediate rented housing for key workers. [185255]

Keith Hill: Allocations for funding by the Housing Corporation through its Approved Development Programme for schemes due to start in 2004–05 and 2005–06 in the London boroughs specified are set out in the following table. The data include the numbers of units for social rent, low cost home ownership for key workers and others and intermediate rent for key workers.
Allocations: 2004–05 and 2005–06

	Social rent		Low cost home ownership
	Units	Percentage of total	Units	Percentage of total
Camden	230	54.2	49	11.6
City of London	0	0	0	0
Hackney	458	37.1	287	23.2
Hammersmith and Fulham	325	48.5	136	20.3
Haringey	488	54.3	154	17.1
Islington	369	37.5	39	4.0
Kensington and Chelsea	170	66.9	0	0
Lambeth	635	62.4	193	19.0
Lewisham	301	62.6	129	26.8
Newham	525	46.1	205	18.0
Southwark	425	49.2	155	17.9
Wandsworth	41	12.3	132	39.8
Westminster	215	56.1	47	12.3
Total for London	9,877	51.8	3,510	18.4

 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 321W
 

	Key Workers Low Cost Home Ownership		Key workers intermediate rent
	Units	Percentage of total	Units	Percentage of total	Total units
Camden	67	15.8	78	18.4	424
City of London	0	0	0	0	0
Hackney	398	32.2	93	7.5	1,236
Hammersmith and Fulham	175	26.1	34	5.1	670
Haringey	203	22.6	54	6.0	899
Islington	275	27.9	302	30.7	985
Kensington and Chelsea	43	16.9	41	16.1	254
Lambeth	169	16.6	20	2.0	1,017
Lewisham	45	9.4	6	1.2	481
Newham	241	21.2	168	14.7	1,139
Southwark	226	26.2	58	6.7	864
Wandsworth	107	32.2	52	15.7	332
Westminster	45	11.7	76	19.8	383
Total for London	3,872	20.3	1,820	9.5	19,079

Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many units of affordable housing for (a) rent and (b) sale were built with funding generated by recycled capital grant in 2003–04, broken down by Government office region; [185256]

(2) what reports he has received of recycled capital grant being used for purposes other than investment in new affordable housing. [185259]

Keith Hill: Information is not currently available on the number of affordable housing units provided with recycled capital grant in 2003–04.

Provisional reports from the Housing Corporation indicate that for 2002–03, a total of 2,733 units were completed using recycled capital grant. Of this amount, 400 units were for social rent, 426 units were for shared ownership, while 1,907 units were re-improvements to existing stock.

English Partnerships

Sue Doughty: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what share of its budget for remediation costs English Partnerships has brought forward into the first three months of the 2004–05 financial year to allow works to be undertaken before the implementation of the next phase of the Landfill Directive. [184946]

Keith Hill: Less than 1 per cent. of English Partnerships' total projected remediation costs for 2004–05 were brought forward into the first three months of the financial year to allow works to be undertaken before implementation of the Landfill Directive.

Sue Doughty: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by what (a) amount and (b) percentage English Partnerships has increased the allowance for remediation costs in (i) the Thames Gateway and (ii) the coalfields in its 2004–05 budget to meet anticipated additional costs arising from the implementation of the ban on co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. [185090]

Keith Hill: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not had to provide any additional funding to English Partnerships in 2004–05 for increased remediation costs arising from the ending of the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. English Partnerships is committed to best practice and sustainability in regeneration and has always made
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 322W
 
allowances for remediation costs on the presumption of seeking the most economic waste treatment solution that minimises the removal of material to landfill. These efforts have been strengthened with the approach of the directive trigger date and English Partnerships has worked on a project level to mitigate cost effects on individual sites including examining feasibility for and effecting in-situ bio remediation.

Government Office of the East Midlands

Mr. Dorrell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many full-time equivalent employees of the Government Office of the East Midlands there have been since the establishment of its current structure. [185496]

Phil Hope: The table below sets out the number of full-time equivalent employees of the Government Office for East Midlands at annual intervals since May 2000:

Date	Number of full-time equivalent employees
May 2000	213.5
March 2001 (nearest available figures)	204.2
May 2002	209.6
May 2003	240.4
May 2004	298.7

Figures prior to 2000 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The increase in the number of full-time equivalent employees reflects the fact that since 2000, staff from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office have joined the Government Office. The increased numbers between 2003 and 2004 reflect, in particular, growth in the Community Cohesion, Crime Reduction and Sustainable Communities teams.

Home Ownership Task Force

Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 2 February, Official Report, column 739W, on the Home Ownership Task Force, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Department's discussions with the Housing Corporation on the Home
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 323W
 
Ownership Task Force's recommendation of greater transparency in the setting of rent and other charges for shared ownership housing. [185257]

Keith Hill: Greater transparency in rent setting and other charges continues to be discussed with the Housing Corporation as part of the implementation of the Government's response to the Home Ownership Task Force which was announced on 6 May 2004.

Housing (North-west)

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of current demographic trends in the north-west on the region's housing stock. [185284]

Keith Hill: This issue will be addressed in the forthcoming full review of regional planning guidance for the north-west.

Planning Applications (Wandsworth)

Tom Cox: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many planning applications approved by the London borough of Wandsworth have been opposed in each of the last three years. [185345]

Keith Hill: Assuming that the question is about call-in of planning applications by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for his own determination following a public inquiry, the answer is as follows:

2001—None;

2002—Three;

2003—None;

Call-ins take place when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State considers it necessary to call in the planning application to determine himself, instead of leaving the decision to the local planning authority. He will, in general only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. It would not be correct to regard call-in as an indication of his opposition to the proposals.

---