|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Reed: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to allow United Kingdom businesses to make dual currency VAT returns to Customs and Excise where they trade in sterling and euros. 
Mr. Reed: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total cost to United Kingdom businesses of additional administrative costs following the introduction of euro notes and coins. 
Ruth Kelly: It is not possible to estimate the administrative costs to United Kingdom businesses of the introduction of the euro in the euro area. This would depend on the approach taken by individual organisations.
Mr. Reed: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of his consultation document, "Promoting Sport in the Community", were printed; and how many responses he has received to the consultation. 
Mr. Boateng: 5,000 copies of the "Promoting Sport in the Community" consultation document were printed and it is also available on the Treasury public internet site. A number of responses to the consultation have been received and consultation continues.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons (a) the £162 million payment due on 1 October 2001 to Renewco was classified as public sector money and (b) the £1.2 billion loan to Railtrack administration was not classified as public sector money. 
Mr. Andrew Smith: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) determined that Renewco's activities would be classified to the public sector. The decision was based on the application of internationally agreed definitions for national accounts. This means borrowing by Renewco would be public sector borrowing and add to public sector net debt. The borrowed funds are therefore "public sector money". Payments by Government to Renewco would be transfers of public sector money within the public sector and so would have no impact on the consolidation public sector statistics.
21 Jan 2002 : Column 656W
government borrowing, and so is "public sector money". The lending is expected to be repaid before the end of March 2002 and so would have no impact on the fiscal balances and expenditure measures for the financial year as a whole.
Matthew Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the reasons underlying his statement in the pre-Budget report that the generosity of Gift Aid has been increased; and if he will make a statement. 
Ruth Kelly: In his pre-Budget report statement the Chancellor stated that Gift Aid was being more widely used. This is a result of reforms he introduced from April 2000 to improve incentives for giving to charity. A larger number of donors can now use Gift Aid following the abolition of the £250 million minimum limit on Gift Aid donations. This has brought into the scheme the large number of smaller donations, which were previously excluded.
Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2001, Official Report, column 891W, on child benefit, what the yield would be for 200203 of taxing child benefit payments to (a) recipients paying tax at the higher rate and (b) higher rate tax payers in a couple where one partner receives child benefit, with child benefit rates at £26.25 per week for the first child and £17.60 per week for subsequent children. 
Dawn Primarolo [holding answer 15 January 2002]: If child benefit were increased to £26.25 per week for the first child and £17.60 per week for subsequent children and made taxable for higher rate taxpayers, it is estimated that it would yield about £0.1 billion of income tax. If it were taxable at the higher rate for any family with a higher rate taxpayer (regardless of who received the benefit) it would yield around £1.0 billion of income tax.
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the results of the impact of the introduction of the climate change levy on the priority given to energy efficiency by United Kingdom energy managers; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Boateng [holding answer 18 January 2002]: The climate change levy is designed to promote greater energy efficiency. Part of the levy revenue is being recycled to provide enhanced advice on energy efficiency to business and to provide support for energy efficiency investments. As the levy package has only been operational since April 2001, it is too early for an assessment to be made of its impact.
21 Jan 2002 : Column 657W
requirements of confidentiality about individuals which will permit effective data to be made available through the 2001 Census; 
21 Jan 2002 : Column 658W
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 November 2001, Official Report, column 351W, on social services departments, if he will set out the amount of unallocated funds within the departmental expenditure limit (a) at the start of the financial year, (b) now and (c) the forecast outturn. 
|Personal social services||82,750||2,750|
(23) This is the forecast outturn that will be reported to Parliament shortly in the spring supplementary estimates.
(24) This is the total departmental unallocated provision for the national health service of which £90 million is for revenue expenditure and £260 million for capital expenditure. The planned departmental unallocated provision for PSS was for revenue expenditure only.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|