|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Harry Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set rules for the appointment of the policyholder advocate which ensure that the person is appointed by someone independent of the company holding the orphan assets; what this advocate's role is; to whom he is responsible; who pays him his remuneration; on what basis the advocate can agree to a different division of the orphan assets on reattribution which is a higher percentage for the shareholders than that required on distribution; how the proportions upon reattribution get decided, and by whom, in cases where the independent policyholder advocate indicates dissent to that which is proposed; and if he will make a statement. 
Ed Balls: Supervision of reattribution of inherited estate is the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority (FSA). FSA rules require the appointment of a policyholder advocate either nominated or approved by the FSA. The purpose of the policyholder advocate is to ensure that there will be an independent figure representing policyholders' interests to the firm. The precise role of the policyholder advocate depends on the nature of the firm and its proposed reattribution, but the FSA expects the proposed policyholder advocate to be free from any conflicts of interest which may be detrimental to the interests of the policyholders they represent. Typically, the policyholder advocate will negotiate with the firm on behalf of the with-profits policyholders and advise policyholders on issues such as the allocation of benefits and eligibility. He will also prepare a report on these issues. The FSA expects shareholders to meet a reasonable proportion of the policyholder advocate's costs, for the arrangement to be fair, and for the policyholder advocate to confirm that he is satisfied with it. If no agreement on reattribution is reached, the FSA expects all costs to be met by the party which initiated the process (typically the shareholders). The precise basis on which assets are reattributed will depend on the nature of the firm and the proposed reattribution and is a matter for negotiation between the firm and the policyholder advocate. If the firm decides to make an offer to policyholders which does not have the support of the policyholder advocate, it must tell policyholders why it is doing so. Policyholders may then decide individually whether or not to accept the offer, taking into account the recommendation of the policyholder advocate.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will take steps to ensure (a) fairness to policyholders in the treatment of orphan assets and (b) that unreasonable dividends do not accrue to shareholders from orphan assets does not happen; and if he will make a statement; 
Ed Balls: A policyholder is liable to tax on any distribution of the inherited estate to him as a bonus in the same way as he is liable on any other gain from a life insurance policy. A shareholder is liable to tax on any distribution of the inherited estate in the same way as on any other dividend or distribution by the company to its shareholders.
Mr. Hands: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the regulations which govern the harbouring of assets such as those acquired by the members of the ruling elite of Kazakhstan; and if he will make a statement. 
According to the Kazakh constitution, the president is not permitted to hold any other paid positions nor to carry out entrepreneurial activities. The Kazakh Law "On Fighting Corruption" also requires each state executive to submit annual declarations of income received and property owned within and outside the Republic of Kazakhstan. Other members of the presidential family are entitled to perform entrepreneurial activities and own assets. However, the Law on Parliament stipulates that no deputy of Parliament may be employed in any other paid position and conduct entrepreneurial activity. We look to the Kazakh Government to apply these regulations effectively, but are not privy to the sort of information that would enable us to make an informed assessment.
The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions asking how many people under the age of 25 years committed suicide due to cannabis-induced psychosis in
2006 and how many deaths have been attributed to cannabis-induced psychosis in the last five years. I am replying in her absence. (131201, 131202)
The most recent year for which figures are available is 2005. In England and Wales there were no suicides(1) in that year where psychosis due to the use of cannabinoids(2) was mentioned on the death certificate.
In the period 2001-2005 there was one death with an underlying cause of psychotic disorder due to the use of cannabinoids.(2)
(1) In routine statistics, ONS defines suicides as deaths from both intentional self-harm and injury or poisoning of undetermined intent. It is likely that most of these latter deaths are cases where the harm is self-inflicted but there 'was insufficient evidence to prove that the deceased deliberately intended to kill themselves.
The cause of death for intentional self-harm was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes X60-X84, and the cause of death for injury or poisoning of undetermined intent was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes Y10-Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending.
(2) Selected using ICD-10 code F12.5.
Dr. Cable: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue impact of charging capital gains tax on residential property owned by non-domiciled and non-resident individuals; and if he will make a statement. 
Dawn Primarolo: Estimates of the numbers, disposal value and gains made on assets disposed of in financial year 2003-04 by type of asset, including residential property, are available in National Statistics table 14.4 on the HM Revenue and Customs website at:
Mr. Laws: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the additional cost beyond the standard uprating process of the policy announced on 21 March 2007 to increase child benefit for the eldest child to £20 per week from 6 April 2010; how many children he expects to be removed from poverty as a consequence of this change; and if he will make a statement. 
Ed Balls: The cost of increasing the eldest child rate of child benefit to £20 per week from 6 April 2010, beyond statutory uprating in line with RPI, is £95 million in 2010-11. The increase to £20 per week will provide support to all families in line with the principle of progressive universalism. It is estimated that it would reduce child poverty by up to 10,000 in 2010.
Mr. Hepburn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many temporary Construction Industry Scheme 4 cards were issued without the applicant holding a current national insurance number in (a) 2004, (b) 2005 and (c) 2006; 
John Healey: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 20 March 2007, Official Report, column 767W, for the number of temporary Construction Industry Scheme 4 cards issued in 2004-05 and 2005-06. The available data for 2006-07 now show that the number of temporary Construction Industry Scheme 4 cards issued in this year is 76.000(1).
Temporary cards are issued for 12 months where a validated national insurance number cannot be supplied immediately and automatically expire after 12 months. Of the temporary cards 2006-07, 75,000 are currently valid and eligible for use.
(1) Data for 2006-07 are incomplete.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many temporary employees were contracted to work for his Department in 2005-06; and what the total cost of such employees was in (a) 2005-06 and (b) 1997-98. 
Mr. Francois: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to the answers of 8 February 2007, Official Report, column 1134W and 1 February 2007, Official Report, column 412W, on the Smith Institute, how many events were held by the Smith Institute at number 11 Downing street in each year since 1997; 
Mrs. May: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 1 February 2007, Official Report, column 411W, on the Smith Institute, if he will list the events hosted by the Smith Institute at number 11 Downing street; and what costs were recovered from the institute in each case. 
John Healey [holding answer 26 February 2007]: Since 1997, 67 separate charities have used number 11 of which the Smith Institute is one. A list of these charities is included on the Treasury website.
The Smith Institute asked in 1997 to use the facility for seminars on a once a month basis and sometimes, when they are conducting a series of seminars, on a more regular basis. As previously reported, the Smith
Institute held 27 seminars in the last 12 months. Any charities who use or want to use 11 Downing street can apply for more extended access if this is their wish and subject to availability.
John Healey: The Treasurys expenditure in January 2007 on newspapers was £1,000 and expenditure on periodicals, including trade, accountancy and economics journals, was £5,000. The combined total represents a reduction of £2,000 or 25 per cent. on the cost of expenditure on newspapers and periodicals compared to the last monthly total published on 7 November 2006, Official Report, column 1022W.
Norman Baker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings took place between Ministers in his Department and outside interest groups between 1 January and 31 March; and what the date was of each such meeting. 
John Healey: Treasury Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development and delivery. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings.
Mr. Francois: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 27 March 2007, Official Report, columns 1441-2W, on departments: public expenditure, when his Department approved the Home Office's proposals to commit resources to (a) the identity cards scheme and (b) the construction of 8,000 extra prison places announced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in July 2006. 
The decision to introduce ID cards was taken by Cabinet in November 2003. The Home Office has delegated authority to commit resources up to certain defined limits. The total cost of the ID cards scheme will exceed these limits and so the delivery will
require Treasury approval. Approval will be sought at an appropriate stage in the project planning process.
The announcement by the Home Secretary of plans to increase prison capacity by 8,000 places was made with the prior agreement of HM Treasury. The individual projects that will deliver the new places will need to receive HM Treasury approval where they exceed the relevant limits. Approval is sought on a project-by-project basis at an appropriate stage in the project planning process.
Mrs. May: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions his wife has accompanied him on official business abroad at the expense of the public purse, and at what cost, in each year. 
Mr. Gordon Brown: My wife accompanies me on official visits overseas as appropriate. The costs of such visits are included in the total cost of Ministers visits overseas which is published on an annual basis. From 2006-07, the number of such visits will be included in the annual list. Copies of previous lists are available in the Library of the House.
Dr. Tony Wright: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to double the tax-free allowance for international travellers returning from trips outside the EU as described in the pre-Budget report in December 2006. 
John Healey: On 28 November 2006, European Finance Ministers agreed to raise the tax-free allowance for people returning from outside the EU by air and sea to €430 (£290). This doubles the current allowance for all UK travellers returning from third countries. The Government will lay the necessary order to bring the higher allowance into force at the earliest opportunity after parallel EU legislation to increase Customs Duty allowances is adopted. This is expected to be later this year.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|