---

24 July 2006 : Column 826W—continued

24 July 2006 : Column 827W

Multi-foil Insulation

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what research she has commissioned on the insulating qualities of multi-foil insulation products. [86744]

Angela E. Smith: The Department for Communities and Local Government commissioned the Building Research Establishment to provide ‘The thermal performance of multi-foil insulation’ a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what guidance her Department has issued to building control officers regarding the use of multi-foil insulation products. [86749]

Angela E. Smith: The Department for Communities and Local Government issued guidance to building control officers in England and Wales on 19 June, following its circular letter on 30 March in which we mentioned UKAS accreditation. We have since understood that UKAS accreditation was not possible since there was no adopted test method, so the Department wrote to LABC Services and the Association of Consultant Approved Inspectors on 19 June and referred them instead to the Approved Documents for Part L, Conservation of Fuel and Power, and Regulation 7 which sets out ways for assessing fitness for purpose for materials.

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how multi-foil insulation products are treated under Approved Document L of the Building Regulations. [86760]

Angela E. Smith: Part L of the Building Regulations and its associated Approved Documents do not refer to multi-foil insulation or any other type of insulation product. The Approved Documents indicate that the methods for calculating thermal performance and establishing the thermal properties of insulation materials must be as described in BR443 “Conventions for U-value calculations”.

National Land and Property Gazetteer

Mr. Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether the Audit Commission plans to undertake a formal audit of the probity and efficiency of public expenditure on the National Land and Property Gazetteer. [88083]

Mr. Woolas: This is an operational matter for the Audit Commission. The Chief Executive of the Audit Commission has written to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

National Land Information Service

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the National Land Information Service; and if she will make a statement. [85701]

24 July 2006 : Column 828W

Mr. Woolas: The National Land Information Service is a community interest company, and the Government do not therefore have any formal role in assessing its effectiveness.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what stock was transferred from the Government wine cellar to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2005-06. [85708]

Angela E. Smith: None.

Ordnance Survey

Mr. Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what payments the Valuation Office Agency makes to Ordnance Survey (OS) outside the pan-government OS agreement for access to the imagery and photographic data that OS holds. [87350]

Mr. Woolas: The Valuation Office Agency does not take any imagery or photographic data from Ordnance Survey and consequently makes no payment for such.

Pathways to Work

Mr. Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what measures exist in Pathways to Work to assist individuals who may be continuously in and out of work due to (a) multiple sclerosis and (b) other long-term and fluctuating medical conditions. [85292]

Mr. Jim Murphy: I have been asked to reply.

Our Welfare Reform Bill set out our plans to assess people based on the effects a condition has on a person's capacity to work. This is not done on the basis of a single “snapshot” assessment but over a reasonable period of time given the nature of the condition. In this way we will take account of the effects of fluctuating and long-term conditions. Personal advisers have the freedom to waive or defer a work-focused interview where a claimant is unable to participate for good reason.

We aim to have a system that can be flexible to an individual's changing condition. We will be sensitive to each person's situation and take serious consideration of any medical advice given, such as that provided by a GP. Our services are delivered by personal advisers whose key motivating factor is the help they are able to offer. These advisers receive specialist training to give them the skills, knowledge, techniques and confidence to deal with customers whose circumstances include having a health condition or disability. If someone cannot reasonably participate in back-to-work activity because of their current health condition, they will not be required to do so. It is about people meeting with an adviser to discuss their circumstances and look for ways to improve the quality of their day-to-day living and perhaps begin to chart a route back to work.

24 July 2006 : Column 829W

In Pathways to Work areas, our Condition Management Programmes have been effective in helping individuals with health conditions to return to work. The programmes, jointly delivered by Jobcentre Plus and NHS Primary Care Trusts, offer help to the very large proportion of people coming on to incapacity benefit who want and expect to work again but genuinely believe that they are too ill to do anything about it. The programmes are designed to assist individuals understand and manage their health conditions better, particularly in a workplace environment, and reflect current best clinical practice in the management of these conditions.

Planning (London)

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many
24 July 2006 : Column 830W
planning enforcement notices were issued in each London borough in each year since 1997. [87278]

Meg Munn: The number of planning enforcement notices issued in each London borough in each year since 1997 is presented in the following table:

Formal enforcement notices issued by London borough councils 1997 to 2005
Council name	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
City of London	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
Barking and Dagenham	9	5	1	5	14	15	20	12	16
Barnet	51	36	38	47	42	27	53	67	97
Bexley	24	1	15	5	10	4	6	9	15
Brent	71	64	119	103	85	104	101	117	157
Bromley	123	128	105	105	87	101	65	111	115
Camden	64	67	73	105	62	64	41	47	27
Croydon	23	19	32	11	25	30	13	14	42
Ealing	11	39	26	30	44	46	31	59	46
Enfield	46	40	42	29	27	14	18	64	88
Greenwich	19	14	54	47	38	28	34	22	41
Hackney	0	9	19	0 (3)	n/a (0)	9	24	16	0
Hammersmith and Fulham	30	25	65	48	54	45	39	52	31
Haringey	21	44	37	50	54	73	65	66	91
Harrow	43	21	27	9	13	22	13	8	10
Havering	17	14	13	8	8	11	16	22	20
Hillingdon	10	12	7 (2)	(0)	7 (3)	0	0	0	0 (3)
Hounslow	9	34	43	54	30	56	51	8	38
Islington	32	33	21	17	49	94	40	27	51
Kensington and Chelsea	58	53	53	45	34	53	66	84	38 (3)
Kingston upon Thames	13	9	10 (3)	12	20	17	23	36	13
Lambeth	12	41	18	21	32	19	31	26	43
Lewisham	7	6	2 (1)	7 (3)	3	7	18	26	28
Merton	5 (3)	5	0	8	7	7	22	20	16
Newham(1)	53	25	24	9	1	25	18	14	73
Redbridge	35	24	55	26	21	19	0	1	10
Richmond upon Thames	14	31	10	22	21	33	39	17	58
Southwark(1)	12	15	5	6	4	7	9	26	9
Sutton	13	2 (3)	14	11	9	10	20	11	19
Tower Hamlets(1)	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Waltham Forest	28	28	39	0	27	31	4	36	45
Wandsworth	8	7	1	5	10	8	19	40	15
City of Westminster	75	37	67	102	84	104	104	164	156
Total	938	889	1,036	947	922	1,083	1,004	1,222	1,408
n/a = Not available. (1) These councils included areas within London Dockland Development Corporation, however the statistics exclude enforcement within the LDDC. The LDDC served no enforcement notice during 1997 or 1998 when the LDDC was wound up. Note: The number in parenthesis indicates how many quarters were reported. Source: DCLG General Development Control Return, PS1.

---