| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
22 Jul 2004 : Column 484W—continued
Population Register
Harry Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library formal privacy impact assessments relating to the population register which is being compiled by the Registrar General. [185953]
Ruth Kelly: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the General Registrar for England and Wales, who has been asked to reply.
Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 22 July 2004:
As Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning privacy impact assessments relating to the population register. (185953)
Work on the Citizen Information Project is being taken forward by the General Register Office (GRO), part of the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The Project is concerned with establishing the potential of a population register for providing cost savings and improvements to the delivery of public services. It is currently in the project definition stage. A detailed business case has still to be developed and no decision has been taken yet as to whether or not the population register should proceed to implementation.
ONS is considering, its plans for public consultation. We would anticipate that a privacy impact assessment would form part of any formal consultation process. Any consultation document would be placed in the Library of the House of Commons, in line with standard procedure.
Spending Review (Job Reductions)
Mr. Letwin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the estimated reductions in work force planned in (a) local government, (b) the Scottish Executive and (c) the Welsh Assembly. [184705]
Adam Price: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the basis was for his estimate of 20,000 job reductions in the devolved Administration and in local government in England and Wales announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review; [184753]
(2) whether he (a) requested and (b) received estimates for the number of job reductions in the devolved Administrations and in local government announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review from (i) the National Assembly for Wales, (ii) the Scottish Executive, (iii) the Northern Ireland Executive and (iv) the Local Government Association. [184754]
Mr. Wiggin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what methodology was used to calculate the reduction by 20,000 of jobs in devolved Governments; [184561]
(2) with which National Assembly for Wales Government members he agreed the civil service jobs reductions in Wales; [184562]
(3) how many Civil Service jobs will be lost in Wales as a result of his announcement in the 2004 Spending Review; [184563]
(4) what consultations there will be with the National Assembly for Wales before the civil service jobs reductions he has announced take place. [184564]
Mr. Boateng [holding answer 16 July 2004]: The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland Ministers have announced that they are engaged in Spending Review efficiency and evaluation exercises as ambitious as those in England—with reductions also in back office and related areas; and with the 2.5 per cent. annual efficiency savings to which local government in England is committed, this would allow for a reduction of 20,000 posts across local government and the devolved Administrations.
The devolved Administrations will be making their own announcements in the context of their spending plans in the autumn and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and other Government Departments will work in partnership with the Local Government Association to help local government drive forward the efficiency agenda.
Mr. Letwin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amounts, by Department, which make up the total overlap of £5.650 million efficiencies across central and local government referred to in Table 2.1 of the 2004 Spending Review Report. [184707]
Mr. Boateng:
The local government proposed savings of £6,450 million includes a forecast of £5,650 million of savings including, in procurement, productive time, and public finance and regulation, which are included in the proposed savings for Department for Education and Skills, Department for Transport, Department for Health, Home Office, Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and
22 Jul 2004 : Column 486W
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer the hon. Member to chapter C of Sir Peter Gershon's report for further details of individual departmental efficiency programmes.
Sue Doughty: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many civil service jobs will be lost in the Guildford constituency as a result of the cuts announced in the July Spending Review; [186045]
(2) which (a) Departments and (b) agencies will make job cuts in the Guildford constituency as a result of the July Spending Review; [186046]
(3) what services in the Guildford constituency will be affected by the job cuts announced in the July Spending Review. [186047]
Mr. Boateng: There will be an overall gross reduction in posts of 84,150 by 2008 and Departments will pursue these reductions in line with business need. Departments continue to plan the implementation of their efficiency programmes.
Stamp Duty
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the cost to the Exchequer of providing stamp duty relief to residential properties under the value of £150,000 in deprived areas in each month since November 2001; [185711]
(2) how many property transactions have taken place paying stamp duty at 0 per cent. for (a) residential properties in deprived areas and (b) non-residential properties in deprived areas in the Havant constituency in each month since November 2001; [185712]
(3) what the total number is of property transactions which have taken place at the zero rate of stamp duty in deprived areas since it was introduced; how many have taken place in those areas bearing stamp duty; and how many property transactions bearing stamp duty have taken place in the UK in the same period; [185713]
(4) how many property transactions have taken place paying stamp duty at 0 per cent. for (a) residential properties in deprived areas and (b) non-residential properties in deprived areas (i) in each month since November 2001 and (ii) in total. [185714]
Ruth Kelly: The cost to the Exchequer of stamp duty relief on residential properties in the qualifying disadvantaged areas is given in the following table for each month since November 2001. The number of residential transactions in qualifying disadvantaged areas which received the relief is also shown in the table together with the number of non residential transactions receiving the relief in these areas. The information has been given for Great Britain as information for Northern Ireland is not readily available on a monthly basis for the whole period.
Information is not reliable enough to be given at the parliamentary constituency level for every month since inception.
Information is only available since inception of the relief for numbers of transactions in disadvantaged areas which would otherwise pay stamp duty but do not do so because of the relief. Counts of transactions in qualifying
22 Jul 2004 : Column 487W
disadvantaged areas since inception are not available for transactions below the liability threshold or above the threshold at which the relief ceases to apply.
There were 3.0 million transactions between inception of the relief and June 2004 in the UK whose value was above the appropriate stamp duty threshold and which did not benefit from Disadvantaged Areas Relief.
| Number of residential transactions receiving Disadvantaged Area Relief in Great Britain (thousand) l | Number of non residential transactions receiving Disadvantaged Area Relief in Great Britain (thousand) l | Cost to the Exchequer of providing Disadvantaged Area Relief in Great Britain (£ million) 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | |||
| November | 0.7 | <0.1 | 1 |
| December | 3.5 | <0.1 | 3 |
| 2002 | |||
| January | 3.0 | <0.1 | 3 |
| February | 3.1 | <0.1 | 3 |
| March | 4.4 | <0.1 | 4 |
| April | 4.2 | <0.1 | 4 |
| May | 5.8 | <0.1 | 5 |
| June | 5.0 | <0.1 | 5 |
| July | 5.7 | <0.1 | 5 |
| August | 5.7 | <0.1 | 5 |
| September | 5.2 | <0.1 | 5 |
| October | 5.5 | <0.1 | 5 |
| November | 6.4 | <0.1 | 6 |
| December | 5.8 | <0.1 | 5 |
| 2003 | |||
| January | 4.7 | <0.1 | 4 |
| February | 5.0 | 0.1 | 5 |
| March | 5.8 | 0.2 | 5 |
| April | 6.2 | 0.4 | 6 |
| May | 7.0 | 0.6 | 7 |
| June | 7.4 | 0.7 | 7 |
| July | 7.6 | 0.6 | 7 |
| August | 7.9 | 0.6 | 7 |
| September | 6.2 | 0.6 | 6 |
| October | 5.2 | 0.6 | 5 |
| November | 4.8 | 0.6 | 5 |
| December(43) | 2.5 | 0.1 | 2 |
| 2004 | |||
| January(43) | 8.0 | 0.6 | 7 |
| February(43) | 8.2 | 0.5 | 7 |
| March(43) | 8.5 | 0.5 | 7 |
| April(43) | 9.8 | 0.8 | 9 |
| May(43) | 10.3 | 0.7 | 9 |
| June(43) | 11.7 | 0.7 | 10 |
(42) Counts to the end of November 2003 are based on the date of completion of the transaction. Counts from 1 December 2003 are based on the date the transaction was received at the office set up for processing the transactions.
(43) Because of the change to the new data collection and processing system as a result of the introduction of Stamp Duty Land Tax, care should be taken in interpreting monthly movements since December.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |