|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Justine Greening: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many people in her Department and its predecessor who participated in (a) involuntary and (b) voluntary staff exit schemes in each year since 1997-98 were paid between (i) £0 to £25,000, (ii) £25,001 to £50,000, (iii) £50,001 to £75,000, (iv) £75,001 to £100,000 and (v) over £100,000; and if she will make a statement. 
(b) Information about redundancy costs for staff who left between 1997 and 2005 is not held centrally since departures were managed and funded locally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information is available for the voluntary early departure schemes that were undertaken during 2006 to contribute towards the Departments Gershon efficiency target. This information is set out in the following table. These costs relate to the cost to the department which are higher than the payments individuals leaving on early retirement terms receive, as the department is liable for the cost of enhancement to pension and the cost of early payment of the lump sum.
|April 2006-March 2007|
|Early Retirement||Early Severance|
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many functions have taken place at a cost to the public purse in the Lord Chancellor's official residence since the Lord Chancellor took up residence; and what the occasion was of each function which incurred a cost to the public purse. 
Tessa Jowell: I refer my hon. Friend to my statement of 15 March 2007 where I set out that up to £6.0 billion (including £2.7 billion of programme contingency funding) was being provided from the Exchequer to support the Olympic park, infrastructure and regeneration. This includes around £840 million to meet the Olympic Delivery Authority's liability for value added tax.
Mr. Andy Reed: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the effect of the additional funding for elite athletes for the Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012 since it was announced in the 2006 Budget. 
Mr. Caborn: The additional funding for elite sport, which was made available from 1 April last year, has enabled UK Sport to increase significantly the level of support for all Olympic and Paralympic sports (except football and tennis). In particular, it has allowed UK Sport to support those Olympic and Paralympic sports which had not previously received any high performance investment, including hockey, volleyball and handball.
While it is too soon to link the additional investment to recent successes, it is clear that this enhanced level of support is beginning to bear fruit. For example, since the additional investment was made available:
11 out of 12 sports with performance medal targets for their major championship either met or exceeded their medal count, agreed with UK Sport.
In the 11 sports which competed at world championship level in 2006, 23 medals were won in Olympic disciplines, including six world champions.
Particular successes include the British Paralympic swimming team, which came first in the medal table in the 2006 IPC World Swimming Championships in South Africa, and the British cycling squad who finished top of the medal table at the recent UCI World Track Cycling Championships in Mallorca, winning a total of 11 medals, seven of which were gold. Team GB also came first in the medal table at the 29th European
Indoor Athletics Championships in Birmingham with a haul of 10 medals, including four golds.
UK Sport's investment strategy is also having a major impact on the professionalism and governance of British Olympic and Paralympic sports. At the time of the Budget announcement, UK Sport introduced a series of Funding Triggers aimed at ensuring that the National Governing Bodies are all fit for purpose to receive public funding and that the sport is able to deliver its agreed targets.
Mr. Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the account taken of the impact of new development on television reception in the planning system. 
Guidance to local planning authorities on this issue can be found in Planning Policy Guidance 8 (PPG 8): Telecommunications and is available from the Department for Communities and Local Government. This is supplemented by guidance available from the BBC, Ofcom and the transmission operators.
|Army UK regular forces outflow( 1) from trained strength to civil life by rank and financial year|
|2001 - 02||2002 - 03||2003 - 04||2004 - 05||2005 - 06|
|Number||Rate( 2)||Number||Rate( 2)||Number||Rate( 2)||Number||Rate( 2)||Number||Rate( 2)|
|1 Figures show all outflow from Army UK Regular Forces including recalled reservists on release and outflow to the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. Figures do not include promotion from ranks to officer or crossflows into Royal Navy or Royal Air Force.|
2 Annual rates are calculated by taking the number of exits as a percentage of the average trained strength (defined as a 13-month rolling average of the trained strength in the individual months) of each rank (or totals thereof).
Due to the founding methods used, totals may not always equal the sum of the parts. When founding to the nearest 10, numbers ending in five have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to prevent systematic bias. Percentages are calculated from unrounded figures.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|