|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
No information is available on short journeys which may have been made using other modes of public transport during the course of ministerial visits, neither are there any records of the actual distance covered in undertaking each ministerial journey or of the time taken.
Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ministerial journeys he has made using his ministerial car in each year since 1997; and how far he has travelled in his ministerial car in each year. 
Dr. Ladyman: The Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) is responsible for providing ministerial transport in line with the Ministerial Code and the Prime Ministers guidance Travel by Ministers.
Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents there were in each year since 1997 in which one of the drivers involved had (a) consumed an illegal volume of alcohol, (b) taken illegal drugs, (c) was driving above the speed limit and (d) was using a mobile phone; and how many of these accidents resulted in (i) a fatality, (ii) serious injury or (iii) slight injury. 
On the same date the Department also published an article on contributory factors to road accidents which identifies where exceeding the speed limit and driver using mobile phone were contributory factors to the accident. These data are only available from 2005.
Ed Balls: The Government have no plans to introduce legislation specifically aimed at changing the regulatory regime for the Alternative Investment Market. However, there are two main plans for legislation which will change the overall regulatory regime affecting recognised investment exchanges which will have an impact on the regulatory regime for the Alternative Investment Market.
First, as I announced on 13 September, the Government plan to legislate to give the FSA a power of veto over regulatory requirements imposed by recognised investment exchanges where these are disproportionate. This will include regulatory requirements imposed in relation to the Alternative Investment Market.
Secondly, the Government are required to make legislative changes to implement the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFIDDirective 2004/39/2004) by 31 January
2007. MiFID implementation will change the obligations on recognised investment exchanges in respect of the markets they run. Under the directive, it is likely that the Alternative Investment Market will be classified as a multilateral trading facility (MTF). The main obligations that an investment exchange running an MTF will have to comply with under MiFID are to be found in articles 14, 26, 29 and 30 of the directive. These are similar to existing UK regulatory obligations and will not fundamentally change the regulatory regime for the Alternative Investment Market.
Jo Swinson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of fraud have been recorded in which a parent has claimed and received child benefit for a child not habitually resident with them in each year since 2000 (a) in total and (b) in each region of the country. 
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many judgments Secretaries of State in the Department have made in the last five years over which parent, following a separation or divorce, was entitled to child benefit; what the outcome was in each judgment; and if he will make a statement; 
In these cases parents need to decide between themselves who is to receive child benefit. It is only where both parents have claimed for the same child and they cannot decide who should be entitled that an officer of the Board will decide the matter. Each decision is made on the basis of the information provided by both parents.
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received from child poverty groups on the apportioning of (a) child tax credits and (b) child benefits to non-resident parents; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) how many representations he has received from child poverty groups on the apportioning of (a) child tax credits and (b) child benefits to non-resident parents; and if he will make a statement; 
(3) what discussions he has had with fathers groups on the apportioning of (a) child tax credits and (b) child benefits to non-resident parents in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. 
Treasury Ministers receive representations on a number of issues relating to
financial support for children on a continuous basis, and in a variety of forms, such as reports, meetings, and letters.
Dawn Primarolo: Child benefit and child tax credit are awarded to the person with the main responsibility for a child. Parents may choose which of them will receive the payments, and if no agreement is reached, HM Revenue and Customs is responsible for determining entitlement, based on the facts in individual cases. There is no provision for splitting child benefit and child tax credit, although in families with two or more children, parents can agree to each claim in respect of different children.
The Government have an ambitious goal to eradicate child poverty by 2020, and a PSA target to halve child poverty by 2010. To meet this challenging target, it is necessary to focus financial support in a way which enables the parent with main caring responsibilities to provide for the childs needs. The Government will continue to listen to parents and representative groups regarding the best way to support families with children.
Justine Greening: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people received child benefit in each of the last five years; how much was paid in child benefit in each year; and how much was spent on the administration of the benefit in each year, broken down by (a) employee costs, (b) IS/IT costs and (c) other costs. 
For total administration costs of the benefit I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 30 March 2006, Official Report, column 1111W. A breakdown of the administration cost is not separately available.
|Average number of claimants (Thousand)||Expenditure (£ Million)|
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals there have been over decisions made by HM Revenue and Customs pertaining to which parent, following a separation or divorce, was entitled to (a) child benefit and (b) child tax credit in each of the last five years; what the outcome was in each appeal; and if he will make a statement. 
Dawn Primarolo: A comprehensive strategy to halve child poverty by 2010-11, on the way to eradication by 2020, was set out in the Child Poverty Review, published in July 2004. This strategy has helped lift 700,000 children out of poverty between 1998-99 and 2004-05. Research by the Institute of Fiscal Studies(1) estimates that nearly 400,000 were in families in which at least one parent was in work.
The Government will continue to pursue the strategy set out in the Child Poverty Review, including continuing to ensure that work pays for families on low incomes. This month, following the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, the adult rate of the National Minimum Wage has increased from £5.05 to £5.35. The working tax credit (WTC) provides financial support in additional to earnings for households with low incomes. By April 2006, over 2.2 million working families were benefiting from WTC.
Child tax credit (CTC) and child benefit also support families both in and out of work, smoothing the transition to employment. In Budget 2006 the Chancellor announced that the child element of CTC would continue to be uprated at least in line with earnings until the end of this Parliament.
(1) Poverty and Inequality in Britain, 2006.
John Healey: The Business Commission on Race Equality in the Workplace is chaired by Gordon Pell of the Royal Bank of Scotland and is comprised of senior business leaders from different industries and cities. The Commission has been asked by the Chancellor to advise on policies and practical measures to increase the recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minorities in the private sector. The Commission met for the first time on the 21 September and will submit its recommendations to the Chancellor in time for Budget 2007. The Commission is expected to conclude upon publishing its final report in June 2007.
Mr. David Anderson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much corporation tax was paid in each of the last five years by (a) Bank of Scotland Corporate, (b) Barclays Private Equity Ltd. (c) Innisfree Ltd. (d) Equion and (e) HSBC plc. 
Adam Price: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether patients are able to get reimbursement for part of their national insurance payment to the value of the payment they have to make for joining a private dental practice where (a) access to NHS dentistry is unavailable and (b) a person is removed from a list when a dentist goes into private practice. 
Dawn Primarolo: No refund of national insurance contributions is payable. Primary Care Trusts in England and Local Health Boards in Wales will, if necessary, help patients find a new NHS dentist. If that is not possible, they will temporarily help them get other access to NHS dental services (for example in England an NHS dental access centre).
Joan Ruddock: To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what departmental procedures are in place to encourage staff to apply for secondments to the (a) United Nations and (b) World Bank; and how many (i) applicants and (ii) successful applicants have been women in the last three years. 
John Healey: All Treasury staff are informed of the availability of interchange with other organisations as part of career development. There are no special arrangements for publicising secondments to the United Nations or the World Bank and no central record is kept of applications to these organisations by Treasury staff.
However, Chapter 5 of The First Report of the Pension Commission, published in 2004, examined the role of non-pension saving and housing wealth and the part that they might play in meeting pensioner needs.
Ed Balls: The effect of the VAT regime on the financial service and insurance industries is a key consideration in the UKs approach to the current EU review of the VAT regime in these sectors. The Government are playing an active role in this review to ensure that, as global economic integration intensifies competition, the VAT regime is modernised to facilitate the continued success of the industry.
Mr. Francois: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the European Commissions proposals to reform the VAT framework for financial services and insurance; and if he will make a statement. 
Ed Balls: The UK is playing a full part in the EU review of the VAT treatment of financial services and we welcome it as an opportunity to modernise the VAT regime. The UKs objectives are rooted in facilitating economic growth, competitiveness, and fairness. At the same time we will need to consider the effect of any proposal for change on the public finances, and ensure the financial services industry continues to pay its fair share of taxes.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|