|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
What are the "loopholes in the legislation protecting playing fields" referred to in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport annual report 2004; and what steps are being taken to close the loopholes. [HL3002]
(2) Time-frame: Sport England consults on planning applications for any land used as a playing field in the preceding five years; whereas the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 applies to those used in the past 10 years.
(3) Size: Sport England consults on any planning applications for playing pitches of 0.4 hectares or more in size, whereas the Department for Education and Skills defines a pitch as being 0.2 hectares or more.
The Government are currently looking at the issue relating to the size of playing fields but would like to see further evidence before considering any changes in regard to the scope or time-frame of consultations.
In which departments administrative savings to the value of £12 million a year have been made through the modernisation of Sport England, as reported in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport autumn performance report in January; and [HL3004]
What is the reason for the difference in administrative savings reported at Sport England in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport autumn performance report in January and the Department's annual report 2004. [HL3005]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The original estimate that £12 million of savings would accrue from reductions in staffing and back office costs, which appeared in the department's autumn performance report, was revised to £40 million of savings over the next five years in the department's annual report 2004 as a result of a new estimate of staffing and back office savings provided to the department by Sport England in February this year.
Why they have not reached their target, as recommended by Game Plan, of simplifying by summer 2003 which sports receive high performance funding at a devolved level; and which at a United Kingdom level. [HL3019]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The target was not achieved as it is being taken forward as part of a wider review of UK sport as set out at Recommendation 5.3(a) of the recently published First Game Plan Delivery Report: April 2004.
Which British postholders in positions of influence within international sports federations are financially supported by UK Sport; what each postholder receives; and which governing body each postholder represents. [HL3020]
The international representatives' grant aid programme (IRGAP), operated by UK Sport, was set up to assist international postholders with the travel and subsistence costs they incur while attending scheduled meetings of their international federations. Standard estimates for the costs of travel to, and subsistence within, a country are the basis of grant calculations for the grant that postholders receive. Senior postholders will receive between 75-100 per cent of the estimated costs of any particular trip as a grant, depending on the priority. A grant (G) is calculated according to the following formula: G = P ["T + D + (S x N)" - "C + K"], where travel costs are (T), the distance rate (From £0£100) depending on which part of the UK the journey starts (D), the daily subsistence rate (S), the number of days a meeting lasts (N), cash subsidies provided by the international federation (C), accommodation or in-kind assistance provided by the host (K), the grant allocation percentage determined by UK Sport (P).
It should be noted that a significant number of international representatives do not receive grants because their international federations and/or meeting hosts subsidise all the travel and subsistence costs either in cash or in kind. In those instances, the individual is not eligible for IRGAP grants.
UK contributions to Iraq reconstruction, totalling £544 million over three years from April 2003, are being funded through reprioritisation of existing budgets. The UK's commitment to increase aid to the world's poorest countries is not affected.
What proportion of their annual resources for 200203 and 200304 were expended by the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission in supporting individual complainants in cases before the employment tribunals; and how much was spent by each body; and [HL2765]
What amounts of money have been earmarked in 200405 by the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission to provide representation for individual complainants in cases before the employment tribunals. [HL2766]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): The actual expenditure by the three commissions (including staff costs) in supporting individual complainants in cases before employment tribunals were:
|200203||£685,882represents 3.4 per cent of annual grant-in-aid||£333,000represents 4.7 per cent of annual grant-in-aid||£794,370 1 covers all discrimination cases as defined in the Disability Discrimination Actrepresents 6 per cent of annual grant-in-aid|
|200304||£461,492represents 2.3 per cent of annual grant-in-aid||£373,000represents 4.5 per cent of annual grant-in-aid||£837,647 1 covers all discrimination cases as defined in the Disability Discrimination Actrepresents 5.7 per cent of annual grant-in-aid.|
|200405||£400,000represents 2 per cent of annual grant-in-aid||£260,000represents 3.1 per cent of overall grant-in-aid||£850,000 1 covers all discrimination cases as defined in the Disability Discrimination Actrepresents 5.5 per cent of annual grant-in-aid|
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|