|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
12. Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was allocated to the Big Lottery Fund and its predecessors from the National Lottery Distribution Fund in each of the last three years; and how much will be allocated in 2007-08. 
Mr. Caborn: The value of the Big's share of income to the National Lottery Distribution Fund in 2006-07 and 2007-08 will depend on variable factors, such as sales of Lottery products and returns on investments. The combined value of the New Opportunities Fund and Community Fund shares of income in the last three years was £681 million in 2003-04, £717 million in 2004-05 and £714 million in 2005-06. My Department's current projections for overall income to the NLDF, of which Big will receive a share, is that it may fall by about 8 per cent. in 2006-07 and 2.5 per cent. in 2007-08.
The National Lottery has transformed culture and sport in our country, raising over £19 billion for good causes and funding over 250,000
good cause projects. I am confident this success will continue. We have guaranteed to each good cause its share of non-Olympic Lottery proceeds until 2019.
Tessa Jowell [holding answer 22 January 2007]: The most recent discussions I have had with the Mayor of London which included references to the budget of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games were on 23 January. Prior to that we had met on 13 December 2006 at the Olympic board, which I jointly chair with the Mayor, and at which budget issues were discussed. We subsequently met again on 14 December and talked about the budget as part of a general discussion on Olympics and other issues.
Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what meetings (a) she and (b) her Ministerial colleagues have had with potential private funders of the Olympic Games. 
Two bodies have been created by the Government and Key Olympic Stakeholders, the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), to oversee the construction of the Olympic Park and to organise the staging of the Games, including investigating public private partnerships and raising the £2 billion in sponsorship this will require.
LOCOG has been working closely with companies in six sectors (banking, insurance, oil and gas, automobiles, telecommunications and utilities) to explore partnerships at the tier one level. LOCOG remains on target to announce its first major sponsor by the end of the financial year.
With regards to initiating public private partnerships and private finance initiatives, the ODA will be looking into the possibility of securing these as part of individual procurements, subject to the overarching priority to deliver the Games on time. As a result, the ODA will seek private sector investment in utilities and other assets which have long-term investment potential.
The Games will present many more opportunities for private funders to invest in a variety of projects stimulated by the creation of the Olympic Park in East
London. For example, the John Lewis Partnership has already announced plans to invest £50 million and create 800 jobs in the Stratford City retail project, adjacent to the Olympic Park. We are keen to encourage similar investments to accelerate the regeneration in this deprived part of London and in schemes throughout the country to ensure that the Games leave a lasting and sustainable legacy for the UK.
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place in the Library the memorandum of understanding with the Mayor of London relating to financial support to be provided to the 2012 London Olympics by London council tax payers. 
Tessa Jowell [holding answer 26 January 2007]: The memorandum of understanding between the Government and the Mayor of London on Olympic funding was published on 30 June 2003 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in Command Paper Cm 5867 entitled Government Response to A London Olympic Bid for 2012 (HC 268) Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Session 2002-03 and copies were placed in the Libraries of the House.
Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 23 January 2007, Official Report, columns 1621-22W, on the Olympic Games, if she will provide indicative figures of the amounts set aside to cover (a) construction inflation, (b) additional security costs, (c) public sector investment in the Olympic Village and (d) public sector investment in the broadcasting/media and press centre. 
Tessa Jowell [holding answer 26 January 2007]: The contribution to the Olympic Village and the broadcasting/media and press centre are subject to commercial negotiations with private developers. In view of that and to avoid speculation about the size of the public contribution I will be able to provide the information requested only when the commercial negotiations are complete.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether there were any differences between the cost estimates provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers in their Olympics Cost Review in 2004 and the cost estimates included in Londons 2012 Olympic bid; and if she will make a statement. 
The PricewaterhouseCoopers Report was used to inform the cost estimates. Between the delivery of their report, in July 2004, and the
submission of the Candidate File to the IOC, in October 2004, a number of cost savings were identified. The estimates included in the Candidate File reflected these savings.
Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport of 21 November 2006, if she will break down into main budget headings the £400 million of expenditure she announced for an Olympic delivery partner. 
Tessa Jowell [holding answer 16 January 2007]: As I explained to the Select Committee in my answer to their written questions of 28 November, the c.£400 million includes not only the costs of the delivery partner but also the costs of site mobilisation and the costs of additional staff required by the ODA itself.
Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport of 21 November, if she will break down into main budget headings the extra £900 million she announced. 
Tessa Jowell [holding answer 16 January 2007]: The new or additional elements of expenditure for the Olympic Park that make up the £900 million that I announced at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 21 November 2006 include provision for:
ODA delivery costs (£400 million): This reflects a detailed review of the ODA administration requirements for the programme including the estimated costs of the delivery partner. The delivery partner will provide the level and quantity of experience and skill needed to deliver the Olympic Park project and to undertake effective project and programme management and cost control. The additional costs cover this, accommodation and site mobilisation and ODA staff costs.
Construction inflation: A 1 per cent. point per annum increase in inflation costs is required in order to reflect post-bid increases in inflation;
Additional security costs: reflecting the need for increased investment in site security post 7 July 2005. This does not include general policing costs which fall outside the core costs of the Olympic Park;
Olympic Village and International Broadcasting Centre/Media and Press Centre: Some public investment will be necessary to underpin the private sector investment in these facilities but these are both subject to commercial negotiation about what the level of private sector investment will be.
These cost increases will be reflected in the ODAs budget which is due to be determined in the next few months. They do not include VAT or programme contingency, which as I told the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on 21 November, are a matter for discussion in Government.
15. Linda Gilroy: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on Government support for creative partnerships between schools and arts organisations. 
Mr. Lammy: Creative Partnerships is a real success story. Since 2002 the Government have provided over £100 million in funding for the programme. It has reached over 300,000 young people and 1,600 schools. The evaluation of the programme, particularly the recent Ofsted report, has shown that its having a real impact in the communities it serves.
16. Robert Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the regulatory levers available to ensure that Channel 4 fulfils its public service broadcasting obligations. 
Mr. Woodward: Channel 4s public service remit is set out in the Communications Act 2003. It is also bound by the terms of its Ofcom licence. Under the 2003 Act Ofcom has the power to impose appropriate sanctions should the channel breach the terms of its licence.
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether the scrutiny arrangements put in place for the recruitment of the current Chairman of the BBC Governors will be followed for the recruitment of the Chairman of the BBC Trust; and if she will make a statement. 
Tessa Jowell: I can confirm we will hold an open competition, and that the process will follow the Nolan principles and the Commissioners Code of Practice. After advertising in the national press, a selection panel will shortlist and interview candidates and make recommendations to Ministers. The appointment will be made by the Queen by Order in Council, on the recommendation of DCMS Ministers through the Prime Minister. We have discussed and agreed with OCPA there will be no additional exceptional scrutiny arrangements on this occasion.
Mr. Lammy: The legal framework governing public procurement is designed to ensure that it is fair, transparent and not used to discriminate by setting up barriers to free trade. This means that DCMS cannot restrict its purchases to specific locations or suppliers.
However, DCMS is working in partnership with our outsourced catering provider to increase tendering opportunities for small and local food producers. As a result, the proportion of food served in our buildings that was of British origin increased from 44 per cent. in 2005 to 52 per cent. in 2006.
Mr. Caborn: Coventry, Dudley and Solihull submitted formal proposals to be considered for the one regional casino permitted by the Gambling Act 2005, but were not shortlisted by the Casino Advisory Panel.
The criteria against which the independent Casino Advisory Panel is making its assessment were set out in the Governments national policy statement on casinos published on 16 December 2004. The primary consideration will be to ensure that locations provide the best possible test of social impact. Subject to this, the criteria will also be:
to include areas in need of regeneration (as measured by employment and other social deprivation data) and which are likely to benefit in these terms from a new casino;
to ensure that those areas selected are willing to license a new casino.
We will assess what the regeneration and other economic outcomes have been, alongside our wider assessment of the social impact of the new casinos, around three years after the issue of the first casino premises licence.
Mr. Hurd: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department spent in each of the Government office regions in the most recent year for which figures are available. 
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the Answer of 11 December 2006, Official Report, columns 811-2W, on departmental studies, what the cost to her Department was of commissioning each report. 
Measuring Elasticity of Tourism Demand;
Casino Impacts Scoping Study;
Sports Contribution to Achieving Wider Social Benefits;
Review of Evidence base for delivering SP2/PSA3;
Assess local authority delivery against national standards;
Creative industry promotionan international perspective;
International dimension of the Creative Economy;
Exploring Creative Industry Spillovers;
Public value research;
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|