| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Jun 2008 : Column 346W—continued
The source of the information is the Annual Population Survey which collects information on around 350,000 people in a 12 month period. The historical estimates are currently in the process of being updated to reflect the latest estimates of the population.
As with any sample survey, estimates from the APS are subject to a margin of uncertainty.
Housing: Thermal Insulation
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) what cost/benefit analysis she has carried out into the effectiveness of cavity wall insulation, with particular reference to its effect on greenhouse gas emissions; [212603]
(2) what estimate she has made of the number of houses which are not suitable for cavity wall insulation. [212604]
Mr. Woolas: I have been asked to reply.
Prior to drawing up the policy, DEFRA and the Energy Saving Trust commissioned a series of research projects, including in situ measurement of the heat loss through insulated cavities, to measure and understand the effectiveness of cavity wall insulation. Measurements were taken in a variety of geographical locations. The work was summarised in a report by Glasgow Caledonian University and published in 2006 on the DEFRA website. The report on the final stage of the in situ monitoring project is to be published shortly.
Our final estimate of the annual carbon savings from insulating the cavity of a three bedroom semi-detached house is 634 kgC02 per year. The financial savings, based on BERR fuel prices for the domestic sector in June 2007, are estimated at £78 per year (after deducting increased comfort). Given that the cost of insulation to the householder (i.e. after the energy suppliers’ subsidy) is estimated to be around £200, cavity wall insulation remains a highly cost effective measure. In terms of carbon savings, it is the single most important measure in CERT.
The Explanatory Memorandum for CERT estimates that there are around 1.2 million homes in Great Britain for which the cavities are technically unfillable, or difficult to fill at present.
INTERREG Programme: Finance
Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what funding the POLYNET study into Mega-City Regions has received from (a) her Department or its predecessor and (b) the INTERREG programme. [213539]
Mr. Dhanda: In 2003 Communities and Local Government's predecessor department awarded the POLYNET project £151,450 in matchfunding to assist in developing their bid for North West Europe Interreg IIIB programme funding.
POLYNET, led by the UK's Institute of Community Studies (now the Young Foundation), subsequently received a €1,144,114 ERDF grant from the Interreg IIIB North West Europe programme.
Local Area Agreements
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if she will place in the Library a copy of the full text of each (a) round 2 and (b) round 3 local area agreement. [212738]
John Healey: The full text of round 2 and round 3 local area agreements were placed in the Library in April 2006 and April 2007 respectively. The agreements are also on the Improvement and Development Agency website at:
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many local authorities have signed a (a) round 1, (b) round 2 and (c) round 3 local area agreement with (i) her Department and (ii) the relevant Government Office for the region. [212743]
John Healey: Rounds 1, 2 and 3 local area agreements (LAAs) were signed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and her predecessors on behalf of Government. 21 LAAs were signed in round 1, 66 in round 2 and 62 in round 3.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many local authorities have signed a (a) first generation and (b) second generation local public service agreement with (i) her Department and (ii) the relevant Government Office for the region. [212744]
John Healey: First and second generation local public service agreements were signed on behalf of Government by a Minister of State at CLG (or its predecessors) and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. They were signed on behalf of the local authorities by the leader and chief executive. Round one local public service agreements were signed with 144 upper tier and unitary local authorities. Second generation local public service agreements have been signed with 57 areas.
Local Government Finance: Fixed Penalties
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on what activities local authorities may spend income accrued from fixed penalty notices; whether this is affected by each local authority's comprehensive performance assessment; and whether this system will change under the comprehensive area assessment procedure. [212653]
John Healey: The extent to which authorities may retain income from fixed penalty notices, and the purposes to which that income should be put, will depend on the statute and rules relevant to each fixed penalty notice (FPN). Income from FPNs must be returned to the Exchequer through the Consolidated Fund, unless legislation under which each FPN is issued makes provision for local authorities to retain that income. The introduction of the comprehensive area assessment will not change the rules under which fixed penalty notices operate.
Local Government Finance: Greater London
Mr. Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what central Government grant support was provided to each London borough per capita in each of the last 10 years. [212398]
John Healey:
The information requested on the central Government grant provided to each London borough
per capita in each of the last 10 years is listed in the following table. Aggregate information for England is published in editions of “Local Government Financial Statistics” and the information is drawn from the Communities and Local Government Revenue Outturn (RO) returns and Office for National Statistics' (ONS) mid-year population estimates.
| Central Government grant provided to each London borough per capita from 1997-98 to 2006-07 | ||||||||||
| £ per head | ||||||||||
| 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | 2006-07 | |
| Notes: 1. Central Government grant is defined here as the sum of Formula grant (Revenue Support Grant, Police grant, General GLA grant and redistributed non-domestic rates) and Specific grants inside Aggregate External Finance (AEF), i.e. revenue grants paid for council’s core services. In the past years, it also includes SSA Reduction Grant and Central Support Protection Grant. 2. Figures exclude grants outside AEF (i.e. where funding is not for authorities’ core services, but is passed to a third party, for example, rent allowances and rebates), capital grants, funding for the local authorities’ housing management responsibilities and those grant programmes (such as European funding) where authorities are simply one of the recipients of funding paid towards an area. 3. Per capita figures are based on Office for National Statistics' (ONS) Mid-Year Population estimates for respective years. Source: Communities and Local Government Revenue Outturn (RO) returns. | ||||||||||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |