Previous Section Index Home Page

25 Jun 2007 : Column 155W—continued


Departments: Pensions

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the current rate of employer contribution is to each public sector pension scheme for which her Department has responsibility; what the revenue impact would be of capping the employer contribution to each such scheme at 14 per cent. and if she will make a statement. [144296]

Mr. Woolas: Figures derived from the most recent statistical returns for the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) in England and Wales indicate that in
25 Jun 2007 : Column 156W
2005-06, the average employer contribution rate for the scheme was 15.2 per cent. of payroll. For the firefighters’ pension scheme, the current estimated employers’ cost is 26.5 per cent. of payroll and 14.2 per cent. for members of the new firefighters’ pension scheme.

Introducing a cap of 14 per cent. employers’ contributions to the LGPS would reduce scheme income by some £326 million per annum on current estimated figures. For the firefighters’ pension schemes, the equivalent estimate figure is some £120 million.

Departments: Public Participation

David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many public consultations her Department undertook in the last 12 months; and what the cost was of each consultation. [145270]

Angela E. Smith: Over the 12 months to end May 2007, the Department for Communities and Local Government launched 42 formal public consultations in order to inform the Department’s policy development. Information on the cost of each consultation and the total cost of all consultations could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Domestic Wastes: Waste Disposal

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what scientific research has been conducted by her Department and its agencies on alternate weekly collections of household rubbish. [143632]

Mr. Woolas: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 19 June 2007, Official Report, column 1659W.

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what research and statistical data gathering have been conducted by (a) her Department and (b) the Audit Commission on the proportion of household rubbish collected for recycling that is not recycled. [143633]

Mr. Bradshaw: I have been asked to reply.

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 and DEFRA to monitor the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme.

The agency has also carried out a survey on household waste materials reclamation facilities in England and Wales. They 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 5-25 per cent. with 10-15 per cent. being the average. Around 1 million tonnes of municipal waste were reported to WasteDataFlow as being processed by an MRF.


25 Jun 2007 : Column 157W

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 5-10 per cent. In 2005-06, a total of 6.87 million tonnes of waste from household sources was collected for recycling.

I am not aware of any research carried out by the Audit Commission in this area. However, the Audit Commission has published a number of guidance documents containing advice to local councils on how they can meet their statutory requirements with regards to waste by improving their waste management and adopting best practice. The Audit Commission also examines the performance of councils and the services they provide, including waste, through the Comprehensive Performance Assessment, and provides recommendations for improvement.

Electromagnetic Fields: Public Opinion

Mr. Flello: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what account she takes of public opinion in determining suitable precautionary measures on power frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMFs); what mechanism she plans to put in place to assess public opinion on the issues raised by the recently published Stakeholder Advisory Group on Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields report on precautionary approaches to power frequency EMFs; and if she will make a statement. [144689]

Caroline Flint: I have been asked to reply.

The recently published report from the Stakeholder Advisory Group on Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF), known as the SAGE report, is currently under consideration by the Health Protection Agency (HPA). The Government have asked HPA for advice concerning the report’s recommendations. The Government will consider the HPA’s advice and, should any further measures be considered as part of a precautionary approach, would consult stakeholders as part of the process. A copy of the SAGE Report has been placed in the Library.

European Regional Development Fund

Alistair Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate she has made of the cost to her Department of the decision by the European Commission to suspend European Regional Development Fund payments for England. [135780]

Yvette Cooper [holding answer 8 May 2007]: It is not possible to make an accurate estimate of any cost to the Department. Currently the EC has delayed reimbursing the Government for the claims it makes to cover the expenditure on particular ERDF projects. We are working with the Commission to ensure that any outstanding concerns will be addressed.

Alistair Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when she expects payments suspended by the European Commission of European Regional Development Fund to England to be resumed; and if she will make a statement. [135782]


25 Jun 2007 : Column 158W

Yvette Cooper [holding answer 8 May 2007]: The Government received formal notification on 11 April 2007 that the EC was holding reimbursement of payments in respect of ERDF 2000-06 programmes in five (out of nine) regions and the URBAN programme in Peterborough. Evidence is currently being provided for the EC on those regions and programmes so that payments can resume.

Alistair Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much is currently suspended by the European Commission in payments from the European Regional Development Fund to England. [135783]

Yvette Cooper [holding answer 8 May 2007]: The Commission’s decision to hold back the reimbursement of claims for expenditure on projects funded from the ERDF 2000-06 programmes pending further onsite checks took effect on 4 April 2007. No claims have been made since then. The Department however had outstanding claims of £269 million from earlier claims at the time of the Commission’s decision which the Commission has not yet paid. The Department is working to ensure that they are reimbursed as quickly as possible.

Fire Services: Hoaxes and False Alarms

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many malicious fire alarm calls were attended by the fire and rescue services in each London borough in each of the last five years. [145220]

Angela E. Smith: The information requested is shown in the following table:


25 Jun 2007 : Column 159W
Malicious false alarm calls attended by London brigade in each London borough, 2001-05
London borough 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

City of London

36

16

31

23

10

Barking and Dagenham

402

340

343

365

179

Barnet

318

300

186

233

185

Bexley

210

144

155

146

60

Brent

477

360

390

344

173

Bromley

240

192

229

195

137

Camden

414

352

335

313

320

Croydon

450

304

277

161

166

Ealing

405

279

298

301

103

Enfield

471

425

395

383

186

Greenwich

573

456

366

362

173

Hackney

642

526

438

409

156

Hammersmith and Fulham

216

182

156

139

75

Haringey

474

556

451

404

236

Harrow

165

136

204

251

111

Havering

144

154

147

119

87

Hillingdon

354

308

269

189

98

Hounslow

306

243

202

162

67

Islington

438

366

419

309

126

Kensington and Chelsea

234

146

163

145

80

Kingston upon Thames

108

82

64

65

60

Lambeth

480

435

354

411

181

Lewisham

462

333

582

431

136

Merton

168

127

154

69

46

Newham

975

770

681

511

180

Redbridge

240

214

219

139

103

Richmond upon Thames

84

60

62

43

28

Southwark

594

509

474

433

193

Sutton

144

111

124

91

40

Tower Hamlets

783

842

610

558

252

Waltham Forest

372

259

280

311

157

Wandsworth

312

244

250

216

122

Westminster

444

450

311

354

198

Greater London

12,135

10,221

9,619

8,585

4,424

Completeness rate (percentage)

96

96

99

100

100

Note: The completeness rate is the proportion of malicious false alarms for which we have an accurate geographic reference, and can therefore be matched to a London borough. The table excludes incidents that occurred during periods of industrial action in 2002 and 2003. Source: ONS Neighbourhood statistics database, "Fire and Rescue Service: All Incidents" dataset.

Next Section Index Home Page