| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
London Marathon
Mr. Pendry: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the total costs incurred by the Royal Parks in staging the 1996 London marathon. [18973]
Mr. Sproat: Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from David Welch to Mr. Tom Pendry, dated 19 March 1997:
I have been asked by Mr. Iain Sproat to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the costs incurred by the Royal Parks by the 1996 London Marathon because I am responsible for the management of the Royal Parks.
19 Mar 1997 : Column: 655
Sir Irvine Patnick:
To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what evaluation procedure was used to select the shortlist of applications for the British Academy of Sport. [18336]
Mr. Sproat:
The evaluation was carried out in an objective and non-political way by an experienced joint Department of National Heritage United Kingdom Sports Council evaluation panel. The evaluation panel was chaired by the chief executive of the UKSC and included two officers from the UKSC and two officials from DNH. In addition, the evaluation panel was advised by four outside consultants.
There was two stages to the evaluation process. At the first stage, all 26 bids were evaluated by the evaluation panel against pre-defined criteria drawn up to assess compliance with the bid prospectus. At that stage, a list of 13 bids which should proceed to a detailed technical evaluation in stage two was determined. At stage two, there was a detailed technical evaluation of each of the 13 bids by the evaluation panel and its outside advisers. Each bidder was also given an opportunity to present their bid at an interview with the evaluation panel and advisers.
Based on the advice of the evaluation panel, the Government and the UKSC announced on 25 February that the academy would be chosen from three contenders: the Central consortium, the Heyford Consortium and the Sheffield Consortium. These proposals are now being considered in more detail by the UKSC and DNH.
Mr. Robert Banks:
To ask the Secretary of State or National Heritage if she will make a statement on the current position regarding the establishment of the Academy of Sport and on the sites under consideration. [20682]
Mr. Sproat:
The United Kingdom Sports Council and the Department of National Heritage completed the second stage of the evaluation process on 25 February when it was announced that the British Academy of Sport will be chosen from three contenders: the Central Consortium, the Heyford Consortium and the Sheffield Consortium. These proposals are now being considered in greater detail with a view to identifying the preferred site. An announcement on the preferred site and organisation or organisations will not be made until after the general election.
Mr. Allason:
To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received regarding the future of Bletchley Park; and what action she proposes to take. [20673]
Mr. Sproat:
My Department has so far received around 120 letters on Bletchley Park. The Bletchley Park trust applied to the Heritage lottery fund in 1995 for funding towards the preservation of the park but was turned down. Decisions on applications to the Heritage lottery fund are made by the trustees of the National Heritage memorial fund and Ministers cannot intervene. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the chairman and chief executive of the Bletchley Park trust on 3 March to hear about their proposals for the site. She wished them well with any new application they chose to submit.
19 Mar 1997 : Column: 656
Mr. Faulds:
To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half-year ended 31 December 1996 of individual works of art and museum objects pre-eminent for national, scientific, historic or artistic interest which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax, together with information, where applicable, as to conditions or wishes expressed by testators or executors in the matter of allocations; and if she will list the works of art and museum objects which are still awaiting allocation, with the respective dates of their acceptance, in satisfaction of inheritance tax. [20109]
Mr. Sproat:
The information which the hon. Member requests is as follows:
The costs, which include the involvement of the Agency's staff in planning for the race, additional Royal Parks Constabulary manpower in the Parks on the day, supervision of the arrangements for the race, and employing contractors to clear up after the event, total £22,750.
(13) Wish as to allocation.
(14) Conditional offer.
(15) Unconditional offer.
(16) The Stoke Edith hangings were accepted in lieu of estate duty in 1961 and ownership passed to HM Government. Following their acceptance the hangings remained on loan for display at Montacute House (a National Trust property) until as mutually agreed between the Victoria and Albert museum and the National Trust, the hangings were moved to the V and A in parts (in 1980 and 1994). In 1996 the V and A asked the Secretary of State to arrange for ownership of the hangings to pass to them on a permanent basis and Lord Inglewood agreed, making a section 9 direction on 9 November 1996.
19 Mar 1997 : Column: 657
| Items awaiting allocation | Date of acceptance |
|---|---|
| Musical automation clock by Thomas Weekes | 21 February 1995 |
| Landscape with Lord Coventry on a Blue Roan Horse and Deer, Hounds and Attendants and Dead Stag (painting) by John Wootton | 13 March 1997 |
Exercise
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health regarding a campaign to encourage people to take up exercise. [17415]
Mr. Sproat [holding answer 26 February 1997]: Both our Departments were members of the Government's physical activity task force, whose recommendations led to the launch of the Active for Life Campaign, which encourages people to take up exercise. I am particularly keen to ensure good exercise habits are instilled from an early age, through our initiatives to promote sport in schools.
National Lottery
Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 15 November 1996, Official Report, column 365, on feasibility studies funded by the national lottery, when the information on feasibility studies will be available. [17650]
Mr. Sproat
[holding answer March 1997]: I apologise for the delay in providing the hon. Member with this information. To date, the national lottery distributing bodies have announced 320 awards for feasibility studies representing an investment of £30.4 million. So far, 79 of these studies have produced full applications and of these, six have resulted in lottery awards. Many studies have yet to be completed, while others have resulted in full applications which are being considered by the distributing bodies in the normal way. Awards to feasibility studies represent less than 1 per cent. of the total value of awards announced to the end of February 1997.
19 Mar 1997 : Column: 658
Mr. Spellar:
To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 26 February, Official Report, column 272, if she will list the total amount of national lottery grants for each borough of (a) London and (b) the West Midland county expressed as an amount per head of population. [19595]
Mr. Sproat:
National lottery awards announced up to the end of February 1997 for London and the west midlands are as follows:
| Borough | Population(17) | Amount (£) | Amount per head (£) |
|---|---|---|---|
| London | |||
| Barking and Dagenham | 143,681 | 1,071,055 | 7.45 |
| Barnet | 293,564 | 2,461,559 | 8.39 |
| Bexley | 215,615 | 956,958 | 4.44 |
| Brent | 243,025 | 1,832,794 | 7.54 |
| Bromley | 290,609 | 7,476,404 | 25.73 |
| Camden | 170,444 | 86,335,870 | 506.54 |
| City of London | 4,142 | 11,841,599 | 2,858.91 |
| Croydon | 313,510 | 3,366,060 | 10.74 |
| Ealing | 275,257 | 2,986,024 | 10.85 |
| Enfield | 257,417 | 1,541,826 | 5.99 |
| Greenwich | 207,650 | 16,564,058 | 79.77 |
| Hackney | 181,248 | 17,753,247 | 97.95 |
| Hammersmith and Fulham | 148,502 | 6,703,809 | 45.14 |
| Haringey | 202,204 | 6,381,305 | 31.56 |
| Harrow | 200,100 | 3,590,502 | 17.94 |
| Havering | 229,492 | 589,690 | 2.57 |
| Hillingdon | 231,602 | 892,617 | 3.85 |
| Hounslow | 204,397 | 5,473,625 | 26.78 |
| Islington | 164,686 | 44,965,514 | 273.04 |
| Kensington and Chelsea | 138,394 | 63,524,583 | 459.01 |
| Kingston upon Thames | 132,996 | 3,758,458 | 28.26 |
| Lambeth | 244,834 | 44,198,769 | 180.53 |
| Lewisham | 230,983 | 5,704,069 | 24.69 |
| Merton | 168,470 | 2,713,004 | 16.10 |
| Newham | 212,170 | 27,820,385 | 131.12 |
| Redbridge | 226,218 | 2,215,329 | 9.79 |
| Richmond upon Thames | 160,732 | 34,168,089 | 212.58 |
| Southwark | 218,541 | 34,152,431 | 156.27 |
| Sutton | 168,880 | 996,636 | 5.90 |
| Tower Hamlets | 161,064 | 27,783,515 | 172.50 |
| Waltham Forest | 212,033 | 5,775,850 | 27.24 |
| Wandsworth | 252,425 | 5,224,201 | 20.70 |
| Westminster, City of | 174,814 | 267,633,730 | 1,530.96 |
| Grand total | 6,679,699 | 748,453,565 | 112.05 |
| West Midlands | |||
| Birmingham | 961,041 | 110,414,076 | 114.89 |
| Coventry | 294,387 | 7,929,987 | 26.94 |
| Dudley | 304,615 | 7,153,841 | 23.48 |
| Sandwell | 290,091 | 10,734,464 | 37.00 |
| Solihull | 199,859 | 1,118,716 | 5.60 |
| Walsall | 259,488 | 17,838,162 | 68.74 |
| Wolverhampton | 242,190 | 7,573,169 | 31.27 |
| Grand total | 2,551,671 | 162,762,415 | 63.79 |
(17) Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys 1993.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |