---

15 Jun 2005 : Column 395W—continued

Offshore Facilities

Mr. MacNeil: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequerwhat his policy is on UK publicly-funded companies moving services offshore to avoid tax or national insurance payments; and if he will make a statement. [3340]

 
15 Jun 2005 : Column 396W
 

Dawn Primarolo: It is Government policy that Departments and non-departmental public bodies should not seek to minimise tax liabilities through transactions or activities for which there is no genuine justification in economic terms, and should apply restrictions on the use of offshore jurisdictions by successful bidders to procurement contracts, where such restrictions are justified in terms of the objectives of the project and consistent with international obligations and stated objectives on tax transparency and openness. This is made clear in the Dear Accounting Officer" letter sent by HM Treasury to Departments on 22 May 2003 (DAO Gen/03). Public corporations follow the same rules for managing tax liabilities as private companies.

Private/Public Finance Initiative

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which circumstances would (a) qualify private finance initiative to be considered for and (b) exclude it from being considered for public borrowing requirements; [3665]

(2) how much public finance initiative funding has been written off since its inception. [3666]

John Healey: The Government follow rules based upon internationally agreed standards of commercial accounting practice, policed by the independent accounting watchdog, the FRAB (Financial Reporting Advisory Board), when accounting for PFI transactions.

All PFI deals are subject to audit by the NAO or another UK audit body. Where they judge that assets in PFI deals should be on a public authority's balance sheet the value of those assets is scored as public sector net borrowing.

Approximately half of all signed PFI deals are judged under this process to be 'off-balance sheet'.

Stamp Duty

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 26 May 2005, Official Report, column 201W, on stamp duty, what the forecast revenues from stamp duty on (a) residential properties and (b) commercial properties are in (i) 2004–05 and (ii) 2005–06. [4217]

 
15 Jun 2005 : Column 397W
 

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Estimated and projected revenues for total stamp taxes in 2004–05 and 2005–06 are published in Table C8 of the Budget 2005 report. The Stamp Duty Land Tax component of these figures is estimated at £6.3 billion in 2004–05 and £6.7 billion in 2005–06.

Separate estimates for Stamp Duty Land Tax receipts for 2004–05 from both residential and commercial property will be published later this year.
 
15 Jun 2005 : Column 398W
 

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average stamp duty paid for a residential property purchase in (a) each Government Office region, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland has been in each year since 1997. [4278]

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Estimates of average stamp duty on land and property by Country and Region are given in the following table. Reliable estimates are only readily available for Scotland for 2003–04.
Averages : £

	1997–98	1998–99	1999–2000	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04
North East	320	300	410	450	730	790	1,060
North West	350	430	540	580	730	970	1,310
Yorkshire and the Humber	370	370	510	490	570	950	1,300
East Midlands	330	450	590	700	770	1,150	1,780
West Midlands	470	560	700	830	1,110	1,400	1,830
East of England	750	940	1,090	1,480	1,970	2,260	2,990
London	1,890	2,040	2,800	3,730	4,490	4,760	5,340
South East	1,080	1,450	1,780	2,150	2,760	3,110	3,770
South West	680	790	1,030	1,330	1,570	1,990	2,560
Wales	330	380	470	540	590	1,030	1,420
Scotland	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	1,210
Northern Ireland	240	320	470	730	1,000	800	1,080

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total amount raised in stamp duty on (a) residential property and (b) commercial property in (i) each Government Office region, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Northern Ireland has been in each year since 1997. [4279]

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Estimates of the amount of stamp duty raised on residential land and property transactions are available at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/stamp_duty/table15_2_october04.pdf

Estimates for stamp duty raised on commercial transactions are given in the same format in the following table:
Yield : £ million

	1997–98	1998–99	1999–2000	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04
United Kingdom	665	1,075	1,360	1,540	1,445	1,485	1,190
England and Wales	615	995	1,255	1,405	1,285	1,350	960
North East	20	25	30	25	25	35	25
North West	50	70	95	105	100	145	100
Yorkshire and the Humber	35	50	75	85	75	85	80
East Midlands	31	130	70	60	65	80	50
West Midlands	45	85	90	90	110	120	85
East of England	55	80	110	115	155	135	90
London	210	290	440	500	390	350	245
South East	110	170	225	290	250	215	175
South West	45	65	90	100	95	135	85
Wales	15	30	30	35	30	45	30
Scotland and Northern Ireland	50	80	105	135	160	135	230

Tax Credit

Mr. Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made to the HM Revenue and Customs prosecution policy against fraudulent tax credit claims. [4376]

Dawn Primarolo: There have been no changes to criminal sanctions policy for tax credit offences caused by the creation of HM Revenue and Customs. The same policy operates as used by the former Inland Revenue.

Mr. Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the administrative cost of dealing with all aspects of tax credit overpayments made since April 2003. [1166]

Dawn Primarolo: I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to him and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) of 6 June 2005, Official Report, column 298W.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 6 June 2005, Official Report, column 293W, on Inland Revenue, for what reasons information on the number of complaints on tax credit received is not collected; if he will take steps to ensure the number of complaints is (a) recorded and (b) published; and if he will make a statement. [2873]

Dawn Primarolo [holding answer 9 June 2005]: My hon. Friend's original question asked how many complaints have been made (a) directly and (b) through hon. Members in the last 12 months on how the Inland Revenue office in Preston deals with tax
 
15 Jun 2005 : Column 399W
 
credit queries. The Department does not keep records of the number of complaints made specifically about the way the Tax Credit Office deal with queries, so it was not possible to provide a figure.

For the numbers of complaints for 2003–04, I refer my hon. Friend to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General published with the Annual Report and Accounts of the Inland Revenue for the year 2003–04. For 2003–04, the Inland Revenue counted the number of complaints rather than the number of people who complained. For 2004–05, to be consistent with the rest of the Department, the Tax Credits Office counted the number of people who made written complaints.

In 2004–05, complaints were received in around 42,000 cases directly from claimants. Around 9,000 complaints were also made through Members of the House of Commons.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out a review of the tax credit office in Preston and to make recommendations for improvement. [4187]

Dawn Primarolo [holding answer 14 June 2005]: The Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office have their own programme of work. They will report on the separate 2004–05 accounts of the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise in the autumn. The report on the Inland Revenue will include consideration of tax credits.

---