House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 25 Mar 1999 (pt 18)

Sports Council (Recognised Sports)

Mr. Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from organisations which have been refused recognition by the Sports Council; and if he will list the activities involved. [77880]

Mr. Banks: I have received a number of representations from organisations and activities which have not been recognised by the Sports Councils. In the last two years, two activities have been rejected for recognition by the Sports Councils. These were Greyhound Racing and Darts. However, the Sports Councils keep their recognition criteria under review and I am currently doing all I can to keep this issue near the top of the Councils' agendas. I will continue to pursue the recognition issue as a matter of priority.

Mr. Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the sports recognised by the Sports Council. [77879]

Mr. Banks: The following activities have been recognised:

Aikido

American Football

Angling

Archery

Arm Wrestling

Association Football

Athletics

Australian Rules Football

Badminton

Ballooning

Baseball

Basketball

Baton Twirling

Bicycle Polo

Billiards and Snooker

Bobsleigh

Boccia

Bowls

Boxing

Camogie

Canoeing

Caving

Chinese Martial Arts

Cricket

Croquet

Crossbow

Curling

Cycling

Disability Sports

Dragon Boat Racing

Equestrian

Exercise and Fitness

Fencing

Fives

Flying

Gaelic Football

Gliding

Golf

25 Mar 1999 : Column: 401

Gymnastics

Handball

Hang-Gliding and Paragliding

25 Mar 1999 : Column: 402

Millennium Compliance

Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason no external assessment has been made of the plans of his Department for millennium compliance. [78465]

Mr. Chris Smith [holding answer 24 March 1999]: The DCMS Year 2000 compliance programme has been audited by the Department's Internal Audit team as part of its oversight duties for the Department's processes and procedures. Internal Audit revisit the compliance work on a regular basis and review the regular returns which the Department provides to the centre. Internal Audit provides a robust and independent review of the Department's compliance programme and I do not feel that, in this case, an external assessment would add value to the process. It would also be costly.

Information on the Department's compliance programme is provided to the centre on a regular basis and is then placed in the public domain, most recently as of the publication of departmental returns and tables summarising department's progress on 16 March.

WALES

Eye Checks

Mr. Opik: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of (a) the annual cost of abolishing all charges for eye checks and (b) the annual number of people who currently make some payment for such checks. [78530]

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: 477,000 NHS sight tests were undertaken in 1997-98 at a cost to the NHS of some £6.7 million.

Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

Dental Checks

Mr. Opik: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of (a) the annual cost of abolishing all charges for dental checks and (b) the annual number of people who currently make some payment for such checks. [78529]

25 Mar 1999 : Column: 403

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: All children are entitled to free dental examinations and in Wales around 30 per cent. of adults are either entitled to free NHS dental care or receive partial help with its cost.

In 1997-98, 1.1million NHS dental examinations were carried out for adults in Wales. On the assumption that 70 per cent. of those were for patients who had to pay full NHS charges, around 770,000 of those examinations would have contributed some £3.5m in NHS patient charges.

Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

Legal Services

Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list (a) the London barristers' chambers and (b) the London solicitors' firms that have performed services for his Department (i) since 1 May 1997 and (ii) in the equivalent period preceding that date, indicating the remuneration paid in each particular case. [70039]

Mr. Hain [pursuant to the reply, 23 February 1999, c. 255]: I regret that there were a number of inaccuracies in the reply.

The following barristers' chambers have also been instructed directly by the Welsh Office or via Treasury Solicitor's Office:

(i) Atkin Chambers, Gray's Inn,

4-5 Grays Inn Square,

3 Serjeants Inn.

(ii) In the list of barristers' chambers "Monkton Court" should have read "Monckton Chambers".

In addition the statement that no London solicitors firms had been instructed was incorrect. Instructions have been given in both periods to the firms Wilde Sapte, and Bird and Bird.Please accept my apologies for these inaccuracies.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Law Society's Accounts Rules

Mr. Love: To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to amend Part II of the Solicitors Act 1974 to include amongst those Law Society rule changes which require his consent, the Law Society's Accounts Rules; and if he will make a statement. [78120]

Mr. Hoon [holding answer 24 March 1999]: The Lord Chancellor has no plans to alter the current arrangements for approving changes to the Law Society's Accounts Rules. Such changes are already subject to approval by the Master of the Rolls.

Kent Magistrates' Court Committee

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 1999, Official Report, columns 479-80, on Kent Magistrates' Court Committee, if he will set out the circumstances of the one potential incident; and if he will list (a) the official or officials involved, (b) the nature of the fraud or mismanagement and (c) what advice or recommendations have been made by his Department. [78309]

25 Mar 1999 : Column: 404

Mr. Hoon: The potential incident report in respect of the Kent MCC has not yet been resolved. The Magistrates' Courts Committee and the Kent County Council are taking further legal advice. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to release details at this stage.

Serious Fraud Office

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what was the cost to the Legal Aid Budget of cases brought by the Serious Fraud Office in each year since 1995-96; [78219]

Mr. Hoon: The name of the prosecuting agency is not recorded on the Department's Legal Aid Management Information database. It is not possible therefore to provide the information requested. However, for fraud and fraud related trials of 25 days and over in duration, which will mainly comprise cases brought by the Serious Fraud Office, expenditure in each year was as follows:

£

Year Expenditure

1995-96 15,106,215

1996-97 17,297,813

1997-98 20,662,712

	£
Year	Expenditure
1995-96	15,106,215
1996-97	17,297,813
1997-98	20,662,712

This expenditure is in respect of closed cases; that is where the case has been disposed of and all bills determined and will include expenditure incurred in previous years. It will not include interim payments made in respect of cases still current. It is not possible to estimate expenditure on guilty pleas and cases prepared for trial but which did not proceed to trial.

Next Section

Index

Home Page