|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the end location of money underspent within the EU budget since 1997; what the sum was in each year; and whether any overspend was returned to the Exchequer. 
Kitty Ussher: Any budget surplus from one years EC Budget is entered as revenue in the following years Budget by means of an amending Budget for that year. Since 1997 the surpluses which have been returned in the following year have been as follows:
The return of these surpluses in the following year serve to reduce member states contributions in that year by a reduction in their respective GNI-based contributions. The UK would therefore have seen a reduction in its contribution in line with its GNI share in each instance.
Kitty Ussher: The Government will publish the Financial Capability Action Plan, jointly with the Financial Services Authority, in July. The Action Plan will include further detail on the Money Guidance Pathfinder.
Adam Price: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the public purse has been of support to London and Continental Railways by means of (a) public expenditure and (b) the granting of Government guarantees. 
Yvette Cooper: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) announced in February 2006 that London and Continental Railways (LCR) would be classified as a public sector corporation. This was backdated to 1999. As such LCRs net financial position is treated as public expenditure, and scores against the Department for Transports departmental expenditure limit. To date, expenditure by the company has scored as £5,828 million within capital budgets and £2,022 million within current budgets. The departmental expenditure limit has not been increased to accommodate LCR costs.
Much of the cash flow for LCRs expenditure is funded through external borrowing, of which some has been backed by government guarantees. These guarantees have been reported to Parliament as contingent liabilities and recorded in the Resource Accounts of the Department for Transport on the same basis as UKGAAP.
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green of 20 June 2008, Official Report, column 1202W, on the minimum wage, how many people were found to be paid below the minimum wage in each of the last five years, broken down by local authority. 
Mr. Harper: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what circumstances potential bidders for Office of Government Commerce contracts are required to pre-qualify for the award of any such contracts. 
Angela Eagle: The Public Contracts Regulations regulates the procurement procedures to be followed by the Office of Government Commerce and OGCbuying.Solutions where the value of the requirement exceeds certain thresholds, starting at £90,319. These regulations include a selection stage that sets out certain pre-qualification information which purchasing authorities may seek from prospective tenderers, such as the candidate companys legal status, their financial standing and technical capacity and capability to undertake the contract.
Most public procurements will follow a two-stage process whereby purchasers will assess the pre-qualification information provided by companies in order to determine those suitable to proceed to the tender stage of the procurement.
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct HM Revenue and Customs to postpone the closure of Chorley HM Revenue and Customs to allow for the formulation of a business case for remaining open. 
Jane Kennedy: My answer to my hon. Friend of 13 June 2008, Official Report, column 615W, explained that the decision to close the Chorley office was taken, following an eight week consultation exercise which allowed staff, unions and key external stakeholders ample opportunity to comment on the proposals. HMRC do not have a business reason to retain the office and therefore have no plans to postpone the closure. The inquiry centre will be maintained either in the current building or nearby.
Jane Kennedy: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have too much office space and are engaged in a review programme to decide which offices should be retained as best suiting its future business needs. The two HMRC offices in Truro have been grouped in a cluster for review purposes with those in Falmouth, Redruth and St. Austell, and proposals were published on 11 June 2008. Both Truro offices have been proposed for vacation, but final decisions are not expected until later this year. Detailed feasibility work on how much HMRC might expect to save by the proposals is still at an early stage, but potential estate cost savings alone are estimated to be in the region of £180,000 per year.
David Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will establish a page on his Department's website to chart HM Revenue and Customs' progress in implementing the recommendations of the Poynter Review of information security. 
Jane Kennedy: The accommodation running costs for HMRCs estate in Cornwall as a whole were £1,612,601 in 2007-08. This is comprised of building rent, business rates, service and utility costs for its seven properties in the county, namely, Penhaligon House, St. Austell, Piran House, Redruth, Penlowarth, Penzance, Lysnoweth and Pydar House, Truro, Madford House, Launceston and Custom House, Falmouth.
Jane Kennedy: Expenditure details prior to April 2005 and the creation of HM Revenue and Customs are not available other than at disproportionate cost. HM Revenue and Customs' fixed accommodation cash running costs on its office buildings in Scotland for the last three years was:
|Cash cost (net of VAT) (£)|
These costs are made up of the PFI unitary charge for the provision of the serviced accommodation in PFI properties, rent and landlord service charge for non-PFI properties, facilities management costs (the provision of soft services, e.g. security and cleaning), business rates and utilities. These figures are gross of the cost of other Government Departments' minor occupation of HMRC's office buildings in Scotland.
Mr. Hunt: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent on (a) commissioning and (b) funding the production of television programmes (i) in each of the last three years and (ii) in 2008-09 to date; what programmes these were; and which companies made them. 
(2) how much timber and timber products were procured by his Department originating from independently verified legal and sustainable sources or from a licensed FLEGT partner in each of the last five years; and at what cost. 
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many penalty notices for disorder in relation to the sale of alcohol to a person under 18 years of age were issued in (a) England and Wales and (b) each police force area in each year since 2004; how many of these resulted in an unpaid fine in each area, and what the average fine levied was. 
Mr. Coaker: The number of persons issued with a penalty notice for disorder (PND) for the offence of selling alcohol to a person under 18 years of age in each year since 2004 in (a) England and Wales and (b) by police force area can be viewed in the following table. The table also includes the number of PNDs not paid by the end of statutory enforcement period, which were registered as fines (a) in England and Wales and (b) by police force area.
|Number of penalty notices for disorder issued to all persons aged 16 and over, for the offence of selling, alcohol to a person aged under 18 by police force area and outcome, England and Wales, 2004 to 2006( 1, 2, 3, 4)|
|Police force area||Number issued||Total unpaid||Number issued||Total unpaid||Number issued||Total unpaid|
|(1) Offence added to the PND scheme on 1 November 2004, therefore PND information for this year is for November and December only.|
(2) Includes the following statutes and corresponding offence descriptions:
Sell alcohol to a person under 18
S.169A Licensing Act 1964
Sale of alcohol anywhere to a person under 18
s.146(1) of the Licensing Act 2003
The latter statute replaced the former in November 2005.
(3) The British Transport Police began issuing PNDs in 2006. However, none were issued by them for this offence.
(4) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
Penalty notice for disorder (PND) database held by CJEA (Criminal Justice, Evidence and Analysis)
Office for Criminal Justice Reform
Ministry of Justice
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|