| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Jun 2007 : Column 1652W—continued
Departments: Official Cars
Mr. Simon: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what make and model of car (a) he and (b) each Minister in his Department selected as their official ministerial car; and what criteria were used when making the decision in each case. [141994]
Barry Gardiner: Defra's official ministerial cars are all hybrid, with four Toyota Prius cars and one Honda Civic Hybrid.
The Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) is responsible for providing ministerial cars in line with the Ministerial Code and the Prime Minister's guidance “Travel by Ministers”.
GCDA advises the Prime Minister on the suitability of cars for inclusion in his guidance, taking into account a number of criteria when assessing suitable cars including their environmental impact, running and maintenance costs and overall suitability as a ministerial car.
Departments: Official Residences
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will list the official ministerial residences allocated to Ministers in his Department; and what the total annual cost is of running each. [141969]
Barry Gardiner: There are no official ministerial residencies allocated to Ministers in this Department.
Departments: Public Relations
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by his Department on public relations in each of the last five years. [139428]
Barry Gardiner: With regard to public relations expenditure incurred by Defra's Communications Directorate over the last five years, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on 6 March 2006, Official Report, columns 1074-75W.
Further to this, in the financial year 2006/07 public relations expenditure for activity conducted via the Department's central Communications Directorate's procurement arrangements was as follows:
| Agency | Project | Cost (£) |
Inclusion of non-centralised Defra spend, inclusive of agencies and NDPBs, would incur disproportionate cost.
Departments: Public Transport
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will list the occasions during 2007 when he has used (a) rail services, (b) the London underground, (c) tram or light railway services and (d) buses in connection with his ministerial duties. [142017]
Barry Gardiner: The details requested are set out below:
3 January
29 January
I February
8 February
20 February
26 February
5 March
9 March
15 March
19 March
30 March
25 April
11 May
15 May
18 May
24 May
1 June
4 June
6 February
3 May
12 May
17 May.
Departments: Publicity
Grant Shapps:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which (a) advertising agencies and (b) other organisations
supplied consultancy services for advertising campaigns for (i) his Department and (ii) its agencies in each of the last five years; and what the cost of these services was. [139433]
Barry Gardiner: From its inception in 2001 to 2003-04, the Department did not record separate advertising costs as part of its overall communications expenditure. The figures for key advertising campaigns from 2004-05 are as follows.
| £ | ||
The Department procures its advertising services from the Central Office of Information (COI). Advertising agencies are selected from the COI rosters and supply their services to the COI, not to Defra directly. Personal Food Imports advertising was conducted by Media Moguls and Avian Flu advertising was conducted by Barkers.
No other organisations have supplied advertising services to the Department.
For costs for Defra's delivery bodies, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) on 6 March 2007, Official Report, columns 1819-22W.
Domestic Wastes: Waste Disposal
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will publish the most recent figures from WasteDataFlow showing the net cost of household waste collection for each local waste collection authority in England in the most recent period for which figures are available. [143483]
Mr. Bradshaw: Data held on WasteDataFlow for 2005-06 on the cost of local authority waste collections in England are incomplete, due to low response rates for this particular question.
While 100 per cent. of authorities reported tonnage data required under the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme, not all authorities completed the voluntary financial questions. However, local authorities are required to provide annual spending and financing data to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), and their Revenue Outturn data include the cost of waste collection and disposal (RO5). The DCLG should therefore be able to provide complete data on the net costs incurred by local authorities for their waste collection services.
Further information is available on the Local Government Finance Statistics website at the following address:
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research and statistical data gathering has been conducted by his Department and its agencies into the proportion of household rubbish collected for recycling that is not recycled. [143484]
Mr. Bradshaw: Local authorities are required to report quarterly data on municipal waste (encompassing household waste) to WasteDataFlow. When reporting data, authorities should specify the amount of waste collected for recycling that is subsequently rejected, at the point of collection, at a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF), or at the gate of the reprocessor. The data reported to WasteDataFlow are used by the Environment Agency (EA) and Defra to monitor the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme.
The EA has also carried out a survey on Household Waste Materials Reclamation Facilities in England and Wales. The EA identified and visited about 80 candidate sites to ascertain recovery and reject levels at each site, verifying this information via a visual inspection of bale quality and the overall state of each facility. The overall typical spread of reject rates for MRFs was from 5 per cent. to 25 per cent., with 10 to 15 per cent. being an average. Around one million tonnes of municipal waste were reported to WasteDataFlow as being processed by an MRF.
Analysis by the Waste and Resources Action Programme, based on a range of data sources, suggests that a conservative estimate of the amount of household waste collected for recycling which is not recycled, is around 5 to 10 per cent. In 2005-06, a total of 6.87 million tonnes of waste from household sources was collected for recycling.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the appropriateness of alternate weekly collections of household rubbish for (a) urban, (b) rural and (c) suburban communities. [143485]
Mr. Bradshaw: No such assessment has been made by my Department.
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on all waste collection authorities to arrange for the collection of household waste, but it does not stipulate how often collections should occur.
Decisions on the best way to collect waste are rightly a matter for local authorities, not central Government. Local authorities are therefore free to choose how they fulfil their waste collection duties, including the frequency, priority, degree of effort and resources required. In practice, local authorities considering alternate weekly collection of household waste are expected to take into account factors such as the type of housing stock in the local area, as well as processing facilities available.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how much the Waste and Resources Action Programme has paid to the Eunomia consultancy; and for what purpose; [143487]
(2) what the procurement process was by which the Eunomia consultancy was selected to undertake research into charging for the collection of household rubbish; [143488]
(3) how much the Eunomia consultancy was paid for its research into new waste charges for the collection of household rubbish. [143489]
Mr. Bradshaw: Since its inception in 2001, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has awarded work to a total value of £349,000 (including VAT) to Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd. This has covered a number of projects as follows:
i) ‘Managing Biowastes from Households in the UK: Cost Benefit Analysis’ (June 2007), and the related study, ‘Dealing with Food Waste in the UK’ (March 2007).
ii) Technical support to two local authority partners under WRAP's Food Waste Collections Trials project.
iii) Technical support to local authorities under the WRAP ROTATE programme—seven projects in total.
iv) Technical report: ‘Resources from waste in the UK: A Forward Look’ (2005).
v) Technical report: ‘Development of Recycling and Material Markets in the UK’ (2002).
vi) Technical report: ‘The Size of the UK Recycling and Re-use Industry’ (2002).
Eunomia Consultancy was selected following a competitive tendering exercise under the call-off contract established as part of Defra's Waste Implementation Programme. The purpose of the call-off contract is to provide consultancy support for projects requiring specialist input over a short working programme timescale. Three contractors available under the call-off contract submitted tenders for the work. These were analysed using Defra's standard tender appraisal procedure.
The total cost of work undertaken by Eunomia Consulting on the project ‘Modelling the Impact of Household Charging’, was £41,615.00, excluding VAT.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what records (a) his Department and (b) the Waste and Resources Action Programme holds of the number of local authorities which have introduced alternate weekly collection of household rubbish and then switched back to weekly collections. [143490]
Mr. Bradshaw: No records are held, either by this Department or by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), specifically on local authorities (LAs) which have introduced alternate weekly collection of household waste and subsequently reverted to weekly collections.
WRAP is aware of a number of LAs providing alternate weekly collection (AWC) of household waste and provides support and guidance to these LAs on best practice in operating such a service.
WRAP's records represent our best understanding of LAs operating or implementing AWC schemes. However, due to the often rapid changes in this area, they are unlikely to be completely up to date.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance (a) his Department and (b) its agencies have given to local authorities in relation to their powers to inspect the contents of household rubbish bins. [143499]
Mr. Bradshaw:
No specific guidance has been issued either by my Department or its agencies on inspecting the contents of household rubbish bins. Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act (ERA) empowers local authorities to specify the conditions of their waste
collection service and places a duty on them to inform householders of those conditions. This usually takes the form of a section 46 notice. Under these powers, local authorities can specify the number, size, construction and maintenance of receptacles, what can be placed in each, and where and when they are to be placed for collection. Authorities can also require household waste to be treated prior to placing it in a receptacle.
Any person found in breach of the conditions set in a section 46 notice can be prosecuted and, if convicted, is liable to a fine of up to £1,000. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 also gives local authorities the power to issue fixed penalty notices to those breaching a section 46 notice, as an alternative to prosecution under section 46(6) of the EPA.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what scientific research has been conducted by (a) his Department and (b) its agencies into alternate weekly collections of household rubbish. [143500]
Mr. Bradshaw: An independent, DEFRA-funded research study was carried out by Enviros Consulting and Cranfield university in 2006 to assess the health impacts of alternate weekly collection (AWC).
The final report, “Health Impact assessment of alternate week waste collections of biodegradable waste”, identified no evidence of adverse health impacts resulting from AWC of household waste.
No scientific research has been conducted by DEFRA’s agencies on AWC. However, the Waste and Resources Action Programme is currently updating its guidance to local authorities on the design and implementation of AWC services and will be drawing on the experiences of authorities that have already implemented such schemes.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of fly-tipping incidents recorded on the Flycapture database in the last year for which figures are available were for (a) householders putting out their rubbish on the wrong day and (b) householders breaching a no side collection policy. [143538]
Mr. Bradshaw: The data requested are not available. Flycapture does not record incidents of householders putting their waste out on the wrong day (in breach of notices issued under section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) separately from other incidents of fly-tipping.
Flycapture does not record details of householders breaching a no side waste collection policy.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |