|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the likely effects of the National Lottery Bill on the income of the Heritage Lottery Fund in Scotland. 
Estelle Morris: The provision in the National Lottery Bill which alters the basis on which investment earnings on the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) balance are shared between distributing bodies may have some effect on the Heritage Lottery Fund's (HLF's) income. Whether and to what extent this happens depends on what proportion of the overall NLDF balance is held on the HLF's behalf when this provision comes into effect. We cannot yet know what this proportion will be. The HLF will, however, continue to receive 16.66 per cent. of all the income generated for good causes after the provision takes effect.
The Heritage Lottery Fund is a UK-wide distributor and there is no discrete income stream for Scotland. The amount that is awarded by HLF to projects in Scotland is a matter for the HLF itself.
Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what provisions she has put in place to guarantee funding to Heritage Lottery Fund projects whose funding has already been agreed but which has not been drawn down following a change in funding arrangements. 
The management of grants made by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) to individual projects is a matter for HLF itself, not for the Government. However, the provisions in the National Lottery Bill to do with National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) balances do not represent a threat to existing HLF commitments. HLF's forward commitments currently exceed its NLDF balance by around £175 million.
16 Dec 2004 : Column 1260W
Income from the Lottery should, based on the Department's latest projections and taking into account the proposals in the Bill, comfortably exceed £200 million in each of the next four years. We will not exercise any new powers in a way which puts at risk any existing grant.
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how she has assessed the effectiveness of the investment made by the Government towards achieving Olympic medal success for the UK. 
Mr. Caborn: The investment to help our top athletes achieve Olympic medal success is primarily provided through the lottery funded World Class Performance Programme administered by UK Sport.
UK Sport has conducted a series of reviews following the Sydney and Athens Olympics/Paralympics on a sport by sport basis, in partnership with the British Olympic Association and the British Paralympic Association. The purpose of the reviews is to confirm priorities, provide lessons learned in the build up to, and at the Games so that appropriate revisions could be made to the World Class Performance Programme (WCPP) for the new Olympic cycle and to inform decisions on the funding to be provided to each of the sports over the next four years.
Details of the post-Sydney reviews were presented to and agreed by Ministers at the Sports Cabinet in February 2001, while the level of investment to be provided to assist our top athletes to achieve Olympic medal success, was agreed as part of UK Sport's Business Plan 200509, by the Sports Cabinet in April this year.
UK Sport also undertakes annual reviews of national governing bodies performance against targets and of the future funding need. In addition, UK Sport is required to report, annually to DCMS, as part of their Funding Agreement on its performance in meeting WCPP targets.
Finally, a number of external reviews have been conducted into the support provided to our elite athletes including the Elite Sports Funding Review published in 2002 and a report by the National Audit Office into support for elite athletes is due to be published early next year.
Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the costs of works required to (a) improve museums and galleries, (b) repair Grade I and Grade II buildings at risk and (c) restore historic parks. 
Mr. Caborn: Detailed information on the condition of England's historic environment is contained in Heritage Counts, published by English Heritage. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
On the specific points raised by the hon. Member:
(a) DCMSsponsored museums and galleries and the British Library estimate that improvements would cost approximately £90 million in each of 200607 and
16 Dec 2004 : Column 1261W
200708. The Spending Review allocations announced on 13 December will contribute some £60 million towards meeting this cost over these two years. No figures are available for museums and galleries not sponsored by DCMS.
(b) The cost to bring all the buildings on English Heritage's Building At Risk register into repair and, where applicable, use is approximately £400 million. Only Grade I and II* buildings are included on the register. No estimate is available for Grade II buildings.
(c) No estimate is available for the cost of restoring historic parks. However, it is estimated that on all parks there was a cumulative underspend of £1.3 billion between 1980 and 2000. Additionally, the Royal Parks Agency estimate they have a total maintenance backlog of £110 million, including spending on buildings, roads Department for Culture, Media and Sport Parliamentary Branch 24 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5DH www.culture.gov.uk and other facilities.
Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State, for Culture, Media and Sport, if she will investigate the BBC's acquisition of national radio rights to Premier League and FA Cup football matches to be broadcast on Five Live Sports Extra; whether this is in breach of the conditions laid down by the Secretary of State for the operation of the station; and whether the BBC requested that these rights be excluded from the packages of the rights that they acquired. 
Estelle Morris: Tim Gardam's independent review of the BBC's digital radio services, commissioned by the Secretary of State and published in October 2004 recommends a review of the BBC's strategy for, and approach to, radio sports rights negotiations. My right hon. Friend is considering, in the context of Charter Review, how best to take forward this recommendation.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons he has postponed the improvements scheduled to the A1 Dishforth to Barton section; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Jamieson: In light of the recent SR2004 spending settlement a thorough review of the Targeted Programme of Improvement (TPI) programme has been carried out. Subject to the completion of statutory procedures and availability of funding the Al Dishforth to Barton Improvement is scheduled to reach the start of construction in 2008.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when the public consultation into the major improvements to the A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge road will take place; 
16 Dec 2004 : Column 1262W
(2) whether he expects that the delay to the public consultation on the improvements to the A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge road will delay the completion of the building of the new road; 
(3) whether the Highways Agency made the decision to delay the consultation into the major improvements to the A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge road. 
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 15 December 2004]: Public consultation on proposals for the A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton Improvement is now expected to start in Spring 2005.
The delay in public consultation will put further pressure on the target date of 200809 for the start of the works envisaged when the scheme entered the Targeted Programme of Improvements last year. I have asked the Highways Agency to do what they can to reduce the time from announcement of the preferred route after consultation to the award of a Contract. I am hopeful that any slippage to the completion date will be slight, but is delivery will depend on the completion of the necessary statutory procedures and the availability of funds.
The public consultation has been put back to allow more time for the Highways Agency to consider an alternative proposal to the scheme recommended by the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi Modal Study (CHUMMS). The alternative has been put forward as a result of consultations with the various stakeholders in preparation for the public consultation.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|