Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date Mike Burt (a) ceased to be the head of procurement practice and development at HM Treasury and (b) became Chief Executive of Cityjobs.com plc. [130054]
Ms Beverley Hughes: I have been asked to reply.
Mike Burt was an employee of my Department on loan to HM Treasury at the time of his resignation. I understand
20 Jul 2000 : Column: 312W
that he ceased to be the head of procurement practice and development at HM Treasury on 26 May 2000 and became Chief Executive of Cityjobs.com plc on 5 June 2000.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the cross-departmental initiatives that his Department leads; and if he will make a statement. [130266]
Mr. Andrew Smith [holding answer 12 July 2000]: The Treasury is involved in a wide range of cross- departmental initiatives. Fifteen cross-departmental reviews were conducted as part of Spending Review 2000 and are listed on page 101 of the Spending Review 2000 White Paper. Each review was conducted by an interdepartmental team, including Treasury officials.
I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Spending Review 2000 on Tuesday 18 July.
Mr. Swayne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent on consultants in respect of private finance initiative projects in each of the last five years. [130504]
Mr. Andrew Smith [holding answer 17 July 2000]: The information sought is not held centrally.
Technical Note No. 3, "How to Appoint and Manage Advisers", issued by the former Treasury taskforce, sets out best practice in this area. It suggests that accounting officers may wish to take the guidance into account in accordance with their responsibilities on value for money.
Procurement Guidance No. 3, "Appointment of Consultants and Contractors", issued by the former procurement group of HM Treasury, provides advice on how to achieve value for money in the appointment of consultants and contractors.
Both publications are now the responsibility of the Office of Government Commerce.
I am today placing copies of both publications in the Library.
Mr. Salmond: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the small business community in Scotland regarding the additional responsibilities placed on small businesses through Government fiscal policy, with special reference to the Working Families Tax Credit. [130547]
Dawn Primarolo [holding answer 17 July 2000]: The Inland Revenue has been consulting employer representatives, including those from the small business community, since May 1998 with the aim of minimising any additional costs to employers who pay tax credits through the payroll. This consultation process is ongoing.
The regulations relating to employer's involvement in Working Families Tax Credit reflect many of the comments received from the representative bodies and others during the consultation period.
20 Jul 2000 : Column: 313W
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who work full-time (a) in the UK, (b) in Teesside Region and (c) in the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. [131011]
Miss Melanie Johnson [holding answer 17 July 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Ashok Kumar, dated 17 July 2000:
Mr. Love: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the timetable for implementation of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [131530]
20 Jul 2000 : Column: 314W
Miss Melanie Johnson: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 18 July 2000, Official Report, column 109W.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2000, Official Report, column 508W, concerning targets for answering parliamentary questions, if he will list the performance of his Department in financial year 1999-2000 against each of the targets; and if he will make a statement. [131642]
Mr. Timms: The Treasury's targets for answering parliamentary questions relate to parliamentary sessions not financial years. We are on track to meet our targets in the 1999-2000 session: 62 per cent. of named day questions have been answered on time; 75 per cent. of ordinary written questions; and 93 per cent. of House of Lords written questions.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 July 2000, Official Report, column 689W, what estimate he has made of the correlation coefficient of the UK against the growth rates of (a) the USA, (b) France and (c) Germany; and if he will make a statement. [131618]
Dawn Primarolo: I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Economic Secretary gave him on 3 February 2000, Official Report, column 685W.
Mr. Russell Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about Table 2.4 in the Economic and Financial Strategy report of March 2000. [132236]
Mr. Andrew Smith: There were some minor errors in this table affecting the decomposition of changes between projects. A corrected version is printed as follows:
20 Jul 2000 : Column: 313W
Outturn(1) | Estimate | Projections | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | 2003-04 | 2004-05 | |
Surplus on current budget (1), (1) | |||||||
Budget 99 | 4.1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 11 | -- |
Effect of revision/forecasting changes | 3.1 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 1 | -- |
Effect of policy measures | -- | -- | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -- |
PBR 99 | 7.2 | 9.5 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 11 |
Effect of revision/forecasting changes | 0.3 | 7.5 | 6 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 9 |
Effect of policy measures | -- | -- | -3 | -9 | -10 | -12 | -12 |
Net borrowing(1), (1) | |||||||
Budget 99 | -1.0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | -- |
Effect of revision/forecasting changes | -1.5 | -6 | -7 | -5 | -3 | 0 | -- |
Effect of policy measures | -- | -- | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -- |
PBR 99 | -2.5 | -3.5 | -3 | -3 | 1 | 4 | 6 |
Effect of revision/forecasting changes | -0.3 | -8.4 | -6 | -13 | -10 | -8 | -9 |
Effect of policy measures | -- | -- | 4 | 12 | 13 | 16 | 16 |
Budget 2000 | -2.8 | -11.9 | -6 | -5 | 3 | 1113 |
(1) Excluding windfall tax receipts and associated spending
(1) The 1998-99 figures were estimates in Budget 99
(1) Figures may not sum due to rounding
20 Jul 2000 : Column: 315W
Next Section | Index | Home Page |