|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Michael Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the ratio was between the administration costs of the UK Film Council and the funds which it provided for film production in the last period for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. 
James Purnell: In 20045, UK Film Council operating costs were £9.05 million11 per cent. of UK Film Councils total expenditure of £79.48 millionof which, £7.7 million were attributed to lottery activities. In 200405, new lottery award commitments were made to the value of £50.66 millionof which, £27.25 million related to film production, and £23.41 million related to other schemes covering distribution, exhibition, training and regional awardsincluding those to delegated bodies.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what total sum has been received by her Department for the provision of information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in its first year of operation. 
The Freedom of Information Act allows for public authorities to determine when the cost of processing a request will exceed the appropriate limit, which for central Government is set at £600 and for the wider public sector £450. In this instance the public authority may decide to either approach the applicant to help them refine their request and where possible to bring it under the appropriate limit. Alternatively, public authorities may charge the applicant the cost of processing the request. There is, however, no obligation for Departments to provide information if the cost of processing the request exceeds the appropriate limit.
8 Feb 2006 : Column 1300W
Public authorities may also charge for disbursements when handling requests where it is deemed appropriate. Further information on the FOI fees regime can be found on the DCA website at http://www.foi.gov.uk/feesguide.htm
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of requirements on institutions for which she is responsible to maximise income on (a) appropriate and (b) sustainable use of their assets. 
Mr. Lammy: No overall assessment has been made, however the financial memoranda that apply to the Department's sponsored bodies stipulate that bodies should seek to optimise income from non-Exchequer sources in a way that does not conflict with their main functions.
It is free to generate and optimise income within the boundaries set out in its Royal Charter, and to use that income to further its historical, cultural and educational objectives. The Secretary of State has given no directions to Historic Royal Palaces to maximise the income and commercial activity outside of their Charter obligations.
The Public Accounts Committee, which considered the issue of income and commercial activities in its thirty-third report (Income generated by the museums and galleries), concluded that the Department's sponsored museums and galleries should set targets for income growth, with an assessment of the risks. The Department is currently finalising three-year funding agreements with the museums and galleries that will set targets for income generation consistent with delivery of their wider objectives.
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what data sets are being collected in the 10 scrutiny councils to monitor how the new licensing regime is being delivered. 
James Purnell: The main purpose of the Scrutiny Council initiative is to generate qualitative information about the interaction of the national policy framework with local licensing policy statements and objectives.
Officials from my department are working with council officers and through them with local police and other responsible authorities, residents' groups, businesses and other stakeholders, to gather information about how the new regime is working on the ground.
We will be gathering data from the 10 Councils about, for example, the number of hearings, appeals, reviews and closures and the spread of licensing hours. Of course, this quantitative data will not provide a representative sample, but will help to enrich the other case study material being gathered.
8 Feb 2006 : Column 1301W
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on changes to the limits on temporary events notices under the Licensing Act 2003; and from whom. 
James Purnell: In response to a consultation mounted last autumn, we have received over 100 representations about the limits on temporary events notices (TENs), particularly regarding the number of TENs which premises may submit in any one year, and the duration of events for which TENS are required. Submissions were received from a range of organisations including residents' associations, village halls and licensing authorities. We are currently considering the responses and will announce our conclusions, and publish the responses to the consultation, shortly.
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from Action with Communities in Rural England regarding the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 for village halls. 
James Purnell: Action for Communities in Rural England (ACRE) represent an important sector and, as members of my high level group of key stakeholders, I have met them on several occasions to discuss the impact of the licensing act on village and community halls. I have also met with them separately on two occasions. ACRE responded to the consultation on the temporary event notice (TEN) regulations in September. ACRE'S main concerns relate to the limits associated with the new TENs regime and the difficulty for some volunteer-run halls in meeting the requirements for a designated premises supervisor when a licence includes alcohol sales. ACRE are conducting research into how village halls have adapted to the new regime since it came into effect on 24 November 2005. Their views, and any evidence they provide, are being fed into both our review of the statutory guidance and the Independent Review of Licensing Fees.
Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will nominate a member of the British Sub-Aqua Club to sit on the Marine Historic Review Working Group; if she will meet representatives of the club to discuss the progress of the working group; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Lammy [holding answer 6 February 2006]: The British Sub-Aqua Club (BSAC) is a member of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (JNAPC), the umbrella group whose membership spans archaeological bodies, diving organisations and other bodies with responsibilities for underwater cultural heritage. The JNAPC is represented on the Marine Historic Environment Review Salvage and Reporting Working Group. At least three members of the working group are also members of the BSAC.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the role of the scheduling of ancient monuments in protecting the UK's archaeological resource. 
Mr. Lammy: Archaeological remains are scheduled to ensure that the case for preservation is fully considered given any proposals for development or other work which might damage the monument. Circa 19,800 are currently protected by scheduling.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many scheduled sites without up-to-date descriptions and for which there is no publicly available information remain to be reassessed; and whether there is a programme in place for this work. 
Mr. Lammy: There are now approximately 19,800 scheduled ancient monuments. Of the 12,500 older schedule entries, approximately 7,000 have been reviewed. Three-quarters of the present schedule thus has up-to-date documentation.
The English Heritage Monuments Protection Programme, which was a review of all recorded archaeological sites in England, was put on hold in 2003. English Heritage are now developing plans for a new strategic designation programme in light of the heritage protection review.
8 Feb 2006 : Column 1303W
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|