|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the proportion of staff of (a) his Department and (b) its agency managed out in the last five years who remain working in the public sector. 
Mr. Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent on (a) administration and (b) staffing costs of the English Heritage free educational visits scheme in each year since its inception. 
Margaret Hodge [holding answer 21 January 2010]: English Heritage introduced free entry for educational groups to its sites as one of its first actions on its creation in 1984. This is a core activity, embedded within English Heritage's total education spend, and as such does not have a separate budget allocation. The figures in the table are therefore for the total spent on education in each year. English Heritage advises that figures are only available for the years since 1996-97.
|Total expenditure on education||Of which : payroll|
The most significant increases in the overall budget reflect efforts in 2003-04 to address the fall in free educational visits which resulted from the widespread closure of sites due to the foot and mouth epidemic; and in 2006-07 when its education volunteers and discovery visits programmes were introduced.
The increase in payroll as a proportion of education spend reflects English Heritage's strategy to have more staff-approximately 20 across nine regions-liaising directly with teachers and providing expert advice and
resources for other initiatives, for example, working with the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment on Engaging Places and contributing to major development projects such as that planned for Stonehenge.
Margaret Hodge [holding answer 21 January 2010]: English Heritage advises that the number of free educational visits to its properties in each year since 1997 is as set out in the table. This includes visits to properties managed through Local Management Agreements.
|Free educational visits to English Heritage properties|
|(1) Any discrepancy between these figures and those previously published is the result of English Heritage's decision to change to using actual figures for educational visits to LMA sites rather than continuing to use an estimated figure of 50,000 a year.|
The decline in educational visits is disappointing, and English Heritage has been asked to address this issue. In response English Heritage has been developing a programme of more interactive experiences, Discovery Visits, which require greater staff involvement and are now in place at 62 sites. English Heritage has also invested in new forms of educational engagement, including through online technology. In total more than 840,000 learners were engaged last year.
The free museums included are: British Museum, Geffrye Museum, Horniman Museum, Imperial War Museum, Museum of London, Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, National Gallery, National Maritime Museum, National Museums Liverpool, National Museum of Science and Industry, National Portrait Gallery, Natural History Museum, Royal Armouries, Sir John Soane's Museum, Tate, Tyne and Wear Museums Service, Victoria and Albert Museum and Wallace Collection.
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the detailed assumptions and calculations are behind the total key monetised (a) costs and (b) benefits cited in his Department's impact assessment of the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2010. 
(a) The Royal Parks (TRP) intends to spend £2.7 million on essential repairs to the parking facilities and £200,000 on traffic calming measures. The costs of enforcement plus the installation of ticket machines and signs, falls to the contractor. As such, any calculations and assumptions will have been made by them.
(b) The estimated annual revenue of £430,000 was calculated by TRP's parking contractor based on the effects of the proposed rate over seven day periods. Income raised from parking charges will be reinvested in the parks.
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much and what proportion of Sport England's (a) grant-in-aid and (b) lottery funding has been spent on operating costs in each of the last three years. 
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much and what proportion of UK Sport's (a) grant-in-aid and (b) lottery funding has been allocated to sports governing bodies in each of the last three years. 
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much and what proportion of Sport England's (a) grant-in-aid and (b) lottery funding has been allocated to sports governing bodies in each of the last three years. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: British Waterways implemented an organisational restructure in 2009 which, together with other efficiencies, will divert up to £10 million a year to front line waterways maintenance. British Waterways is proposing that over the long term it also moves to third sector/mutual status. British Waterways believes such a move will help close the current funding gap and lead to a more sustainable future by growing income from other sources, volunteering growth, better local community engagement and delivering greater efficiencies.
In 2008, the Environment Agency published "2020 Vision for Funding our Waterways". This strategy document set out the resources required to maintain and operate its waterways and offer a specified level of service to those using the waterways. It concluded that there was a deficit between what was needed and its level of expenditure at that time. The document also identified how the Agency could reduce this deficit by developing and growing new income streams, reducing costs and rebalancing its navigation expenditure to invest more on maintaining waterways and less on service operations. In the light of changed economic circumstances the Agency is now updating the strategy so that it can continue to reduce and manage its budget deficit while providing safe waterways for the public to enjoy.
Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance his Department provides to local authorities on options to dispose of waste that cannot be recycled. 
It is Government policy to manage waste as far up the waste hierarchy as possible. For residual waste treatment some form of energy recovery offers carbon and resource efficiency benefits over landfill. The choice of technology must reflect local circumstances, which will vary and local authorities need to be free to
adopt such technologies as part of an integrated solution if they deem it appropriate. It is important that any plans for waste to energy facilities emerge out of local waste strategies, so that all options for re-use, recycling and composting can be explored first. The Government do not interfere with local authority planning decisions.
The Government believe local authorities should be as well informed as possible when making decisions. This is why they have produced guidance on the legislation, and established the Recycling and Organics Technical Advisory Team (ROTATE) through the Waste and Resources Action programme (WRAP). ROTATE's role is to spread best practice and advise local authorities on the multitude of waste collection and treatment options available to them.
The Government funded WRAP to undertake research (the 2007-09 food waste trials with local authorities) and advise local authorities on the best ways to collect and treat food waste. Both DEFRA and WRAP continue to fund and manage research feeding into the body of knowledge that underpins the advice WRAP give via ROTATE. In terms of effective food waste treatment the Government have been actively promoting and providing support for greater uptake of anaerobic digestion, a proven renewable energy technology, as the best option for unavoidable food waste that would otherwise go to landfill. The NNFCC (National Non Food Crops Centre), supported by. DEFRA and DECC, launched a new web-based portal on 16 September 2009; this provides a first point of contact for information about anaerobic digestion for local authorities, businesses, farmers and the public. The portal can be found at:
The Government also established the Waste Infrastructure Delivery programme (WIDP) in 2006 to accelerate building the infrastructure needed to treat residual waste without compromising efforts to minimise waste and support increasing recycling levels. WIDP provides technical and commercial support and guidance to local authorities irrespective as to whether they are applying for PFI funding.
In addition to this, WIDP has published a range of waste sector specific guidance, to help all waste infrastructure projects. This guidance is building into a comprehensive procurement pack, one module of which is on options appraisal.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|