| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Working Families Tax Credit
10. Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon): What assessment he has made of the transfer of funds from women to men which will occur as a result of the implementation of the working families tax credit. [72422]
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government are clear that there is no compulsory transfer of funds from women to men because of implementation of the working families tax credit.
Mr. Webb: I am disappointed that, even with two weeks' notice, the hon. Lady could not answer my question. Does she accept that £900 million in family credit is paid to women in couples in which men are the principal breadwinner? Does she accept also that the Inland Revenue is assuming that two thirds of employees receiving the tax credit will receive it in their pay packet? Will she therefore confirm that, on that basis, several hundred million pounds will go from women to men as a direct result of Government policy? Does she think that that is in the interests of the children?
Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand the figures. The facts are that 50 per cent. of those who receive family credit, and who will
receive working families tax credit, are lone parents; that, in 23 per cent. of couples, women are the main or sole earner; and that a good proportion of the 300,000 people he mentioned already have their money paid into a joint account. As he well knows, we have made it clear that, when there is a dispute about to whom the working families tax credit should be paid, the Inland Revenue will pay directly to the parent with care. The proposition that he has put forward is not true.
Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): Does my hon. Friend agree that the combination of our employment relations legislation, which will give enormous rights to women who work part-time, and the working families tax credit is likely to bring about a significant shift in economic power from men to women?
Dawn Primarolo: I should like to add to that list the benefit to women from the substantial increase in child benefit that we have introduced. The Conservative party froze child benefit. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has not yet complimented us on that increase.
Married Couples Allowance
11. Mr. David Amess (Southend, West): What recent representations he has received about the future of the married couples allowance. [72423]
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Treasury Ministers have received many representations on that issue.
Mr. Amess: Given that there is no boom in the economy in Southend, West, but plenty of bust, that the public had to work 147 days last year just to pay their taxes and that the style of the Government is to leak policy outside the House before reporting it here, are we supposed to feel better when the married couples allowance is not abolished next week? How will the Government continue to deliver their election promises while supposedly not raising taxes?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine will welcome the fact that the Government have cut VAT on fuel, cut national insurance contributions for employers, cut corporation tax, cut small business tax rates and cut capital gains tax. We have also introduced the biggest-ever increase in child benefit. Is he telling us that the Conservative party would not only repeal the working families tax credit, but reverse the increase in child benefit?
Pensioners
12. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): What plans he has to review the taxation liabilities of pensioners. [72424]
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government have announced a £2.5 billion package of support for pensioners. That will include a minimum tax guarantee, so that no elderly person will pay income tax unless his or her income rises
above a specified level. As the pre-Budget report confirmed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might have more to say on that in next week's Budget.
Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and look forward to the Budget statement next week. Does she recognise that, although falling interest rates are excellent for manufacturing, mortgage payers and many others, they result in a drop in income for pensioners above the benefit level who depend partly on interest from their savings? Does she recognise the importance of what they have gained from the reductions in VAT on fuel and what they stand to gain from the free eye tests that will be introduced in April? Does she also accept that plans to enable that worthy group to benefit further from a Labour Government should be a priority?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the many measures that the Government have introduced to help elderly people. I am sure that she agrees that one of the greatest threats to the living standards of elderly people is inflation rates at the levels that we had during the boom and bust years of the Conservative Government. Low inflation is good for elderly people, but, to help them further with their savings, we are introducing the new individual savings accounts from April.
Small Businesses
13. Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): What recent consultations he has held with representatives of small businesses on the levels of business taxation. [72425]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Chancellor believes in the importance of consultation and has encouraged businesses to provide their views. He, his Ministers and his officials have met a great number of representatives of small businesses on a variety of occasions.
Mr. Boswell: As a former Minister with responsibility for small firms, the Financial Secretary will accept the importance of the small firms sector in encouraging entrepreneurialism and creating jobs--the stated objectives--as no doubt the Chancellor will as well. Will she concede that those small businesses are paying at least their fair share of the £5 billion a year extra tax burden imposed on British business, as estimated by the Confederation of British Industry? In addition, they are probably paying a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden of the additional requirements imposed by the Government. Will she take those factors properly into account when giving advice to her colleagues during the formulation of the Budget next week?
Mrs. Roche: Let me agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point--the importance of small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our economy. However, he is absolutely wrong. Small businesses have benefited enormously from the tax cuts introduced by the Government. That is why we have the best regime for businesses in Europe.
On deregulation, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives who, when in government, imposed regulation after regulation. It was interesting that the Government in which the hon. Gentleman was a Minister established a deregulation task force. That task force, on which the Shadow Chancellor sat when he was out of Parliament, contained more Tory ex-Members of Parliament than small businesses--quite contrary to ours.
Iraq
12.32 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on changes to the rules of engagement in relation to military action over Iraq.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Madam Speaker, our aircrew, carrying out the vital humanitarian task of enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, face almost daily attempts by Saddam Hussein to kill them. He is making every effort to shoot down UK and US aircraft--even offering bounties to air defence units.
Since the end of Operation Desert Fox, there have been more than 100 violations of the no-fly zones. Coalition aircraft have been fired on by Iraqi surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery, and have been otherwise threatened more than 50 times. Typically endangering the safety of his own people, Saddam is even using heavy surface-to-surface rockets as improvised anti-aircraft weapons.
Let us be clear that there is still a pressing need to maintain these patrols and the no-fly zones. Saddam's brutal repression of his people is well documented--including by the UN. That is, of course, why the no-fly zones were established in the north in April 1991 and in the south in August 1992. His internal security organisations continue to persecute all opponents of the regime on the ground. Without our continued presence, he would be free to do so in the air as well. We are not prepared to countenance that.
Saddam's latest campaign against coalition aircrew is sustained and direct, and leaves us with a stark choice: to give up, and let him do his worst to the Iraqi Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south, or to act to protect those flying these legitimate humanitarian patrols. We cannot simply ignore these attacks.
We have, therefore, tailored the rules of engagement to reflect the escalation by the Iraqis of their systematic attacks and threats to our aircraft. I hope that the House will understand that I am not prepared to go into detail, as neither we nor the US would wish to provide Iraq with information that could be used to increase the threat to our people.
I can assure the House that this adaptation of the rules of engagement in no way represents a change to either our policy towards maintaining the no-fly zones or the purpose of our long-standing patrols. The tailoring of the rules of engagement merely reinforces our position, which we have made clear all along--that we will take robust and appropriate defensive measures to prevent Saddam from endangering the lives of our brave aircrew.
Of course Saddam's propaganda machine is quick to exaggerate the effects of coalition action on the Iraqi people. I can assure the House that the only targets attacked are legitimate military ones. They include the communications facilities targeted by the United States over the weekend, which now appear also to have carried part of the Iraq-Turkey oil pipeline control network. Damage to the oil pipeline control system is regrettable, but the pipeline itself was not damaged and we understand that the oil flow resumed in less than three days.
Furthermore, there was no interruption to the export of oil because significant stocks are held at the Turkish end of the pipeline.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |