You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Written Answers
Previous Section Index Home Page

24 Feb 2003 : Column 180W—continued

Money Laundering

Harry Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received the French parliamentary report The City of London, Gibraltar and the Crown Dependencies: offshore centres, sanctuaries for dirty money; and if he will make a statement. [97081]

Mr. Boateng: The 'Montebourg Report' of October 1991 made a number of unfounded allegations without supporting evidence about terrorist money laundering in the City of London, Gibraltar and the Crown Dependencies. These claims were refuted at the time of publication by the UK Government and by the authorities of Gibraltar and the Crown Dependencies. The UK has stringent laws to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 further enhances controls and the Financial Services Authority takes vigorous action to enforce

24 Feb 2003 : Column 181W

these controls. It is also the policy of Gibraltar and the Crown Dependencies to take the firmest measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

Online Trading

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what (a) products, (b) goods and (c) services were (i) bought and (ii) sold online by his Department in each of the last five years. [97469]

Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows:




24 Feb 2003 : Column 182W

Partnerships UK

Norman Lamb: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the nature is of the employment arrangements of John Yard and John Gray in respect of their work for PUK; whether John Yard and John Gray remain employed by the Inland Revenue; what work John Yard and John Gray are undertaking within PUK; and what the financial arrangements are between PUK and the Inland Revenue with regard to the work of John Yard and John Gray. [95088]

Dawn Primarolo [holding answer 3 February 2003]: John Yard and John Gray are both employees of the Inland Revenue. John Yard is Director of Business Services. He has never worked for Partnerships UK. John Gray is on secondment to Partnerships UK until April 2004.

In accordance with the normal Civil Service rules governing such secondments, Partnerships UK reimburses the Inland Revenue for the full cost of John Gray's salary, NIC and superannuation costs. Under these arrangements, secondees remain contractually subject both to the Official Secrets Act, and the special obligation imposed on officers of the Inland Revenue to safeguard the confidentiality of information. Section 6 Taxes Management Act 1970, and Section 182 Finance Act 1989.

Statistics

Ms Buck: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the official statistics published in the past five years by the Office for National Statistics which have been amended, stating the reasons in each case. [97197]

Ruth Kelly: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

Letter from Len Cook to Ms Karen Buck dated 18 February 2003:




Student Fees

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount it would be necessary to increase the

24 Feb 2003 : Column 183W

standard rate of income tax (a) if student fees were paid out of general taxation and (b) if all fees and maintenance were paid out of general taxation. [94013]

Dawn Primarolo: Estimates of student and public contributions to fees in the financial year 2002–03 can be found on the HEFCE website at: www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2003/paper. DFES expect to pay £2.3 billion to the Student Loans Company to support student loans and hardship loans. Estimates of the effects of illustrative changes in taxation, including income tax, can be found in table 4 of the "Tax ready reckoner and tax reliefs", published in November 2002, which is available in the Library.

Terrorism

Mr. Prisk: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been (a) seized and (b) frozen under anti-terrorist legislation since 11 September 2001. [96423]

Ruth Kelly: Assets seized under anti-terrorist legislation are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Following 11 September 2001, £10,230,810 was frozen under Orders applying United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1333 which froze accounts to prevent use by, inter alia, the then Taliban Government of Afghanistan. Subsequently, the Al-Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002 implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution 1390 and, as well as allowing for the release of funds belonging to the legitimate Afghan Government, provided for the continued freezing of accounts belonging to Al-Qaeda.

Amounts totalling £346,382 remain frozen under the Orders implementing United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1373 and 1390.

Unpaid Tax

Mr. Laws: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2003, Official Report, column 422W, on unpaid tax, if he will estimate the total unpaid tax, broken down by each major category, for 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [94615]

Dawn Primarolo [holding answer 3 February 2003]: The Inland Revenue's accounting year for tax runs to the end of October each year. Over the last eight years,

24 Feb 2003 : Column 184W

the amounts of tax unpaid at that date have approximately halved as a proportion of the tax collected during the year.

The figures for October 2001 were:

Inland Revenue£ million
Income Tax other than PAYE2,348.7
Corporation Tax(46)566.6
Other (Capital Gains Tax and Petroleum Revenue Tax)33.6
Total2,948.9

(46) This figure includes an estimate for the amount of unpaid self assessed corporation tax

These figures for uncollected tax represent net tax charged but not paid as at the accounting date, and are a snapshot of the position at the date of the account. Most of the tax uncollected at the balance of each account is subsequently collected, and most of the amount outstanding attracts an interest charge.

Working Families Tax Credit

Caroline Flint: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to allow parents to claim under working families tax credit for extra costs to child care when the extra costs run for less than four consecutive weeks. [95864]

Dawn Primarolo: The child care tax credit within the working families tax credit provides support to families for the costs of registered or approved child care. Once an award of working families tax credit is made, it cannot be adjusted to reflect changes in the claimant's child care costs. However, from April 2003, working families tax credit is replaced by the new child tax credit and working tax credit. The working tax credit includes a child care element which provides more flexible support for the costs of child care. In particular, the child care element of working tax credit can be adjusted to reflect significant changes in average weekly child care costs.

In response to concerns raised with me by parents paying child care costs weekly, who may have short increases in child care costs during the school holidays, we will shortly bring forward regulations making a minor change to the system to allow parents to take account of changes in costs lasting less than four weeks. This will allow parents with fluctuating child care costs to have their tax credit based on their average child care costs, including any short-term fluctuations. It is our intention to produce this addition to the rules in good time for the start of the new tax credits system in April 2003. The Inland Revenue will issue clear guidance for parents and child care providers on how the system will work from April 2003.

24 Feb 2003 : Column 185W

Next Section Index Home Page