You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Written Answers
Previous Section Index Home Page

Household Statistics

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of adults who live in households where there is at least one child aged under 16 years and also at least one higher rate taxpayer. [71195]

Dawn Primarolo [holding answer 22 February 1999]: It is estimated that there will be about 1 million households amongst couples and lone parents with at least one child under 16 and at least one higher rate taxpayer in 1999-2000.

Export Guarantees Committee

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the functions of the Export Guarantees Committee, indicating the departments and agencies represented, the chairmanship and the number of times the committee has met since 1 January 1998. [71961]

Mrs. Roche: The Export Guarantees Committee (EGC) is an inter-departmental committee that considers the political, economic, financial and commercial factors that relate to markets where the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) might provide support under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. The Committee is chaired by the Treasury; other members come from the ECGD, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority.

Since 1 January 1998 the EGC has met 4 times, and conducted other business by written procedure.

Minimum Wage

Dr. Kumar: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people who will benefit financially in the first year from the introduction of a national minimum wage in (a) the Northern Region, (b) Teesside area and (c) the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. [72174]

Ms Hewitt: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

25 Feb 1999 : Column: 421

Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Ashok Kumar, dated 25 February 1999:



    The precise information you requested is unavailable. However, estimates of the proportion of people who are currently earning below the proposed NMW for (a) North East Region and (b) Teesside TEC area and (c) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland Parliamentary Constituency are provided in the attached tables. It should be noted that the tables are based on the latest available information from the 1998 New Earnings Survey (NES) and the Labour Force Survey (LFS). It provides an historical position against 1998 values of the proposed NMW and makes no judgment on whether its introduction will have any effect on the number of jobs.


    The preferred method for assessing the coverage of the proposed NMW is to present adjusted NES and LFS data for the number of employees earning less than the proposed NMW rates. This method adjusts for the fact that the NES is based on a one per cent sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff earning below the tax threshold, in particular those who work part-time. It is not possible to use this method for small areas, and information solely from the NES, has therefore been provided for Teesside and Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.


    The extent of the bias in the NES data may be estimated for the North East by using the adjusted NES and LFS data for all employees. This suggests that the estimate of the overall proportion of full-time employees aged over 21 years earning below £3.50 could understate the true position by as much as 5 percentage points. However, it is unlikely that the occurrence of lower paid jobs is uniform across the region, and so it would be wise to treat this figure as broadly indicative rather than as a precise estimate. I am unable to provide the bias for employees aged 18 to 21 years because the sample size is too small for a reliable estimate to be produced.

Employees, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence
Hourly pay excluding overtime and shift pay (£)

Percentage aged 18 to 21 on all rates earning less than £2.90Percentage aged 22 and over on adult rates earning less than £3.50
Teesside TEC area9.47.5
Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland(22)--(22)--

(22) Denotes that a reliable estimate is not available

Source:

New Earnings Survey, April 1998


25 Feb 1999 : Column: 422

EMU

Mr. Maclean: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the ECOFIN agreed report on Information Requirements in Economic and Monetary Union; and if he will make a statement. [72286]

Ms Hewitt: A copy of this Report, which was endorsed at the 18 January ECOFIN, has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Child Benefit

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the additional cost in a full year to the Exchequer of raising both rates of child benefit by £1; and by how much the net cost to the Exchequer would be reduced if the marginal increase was taxed at 40 per cent. for (a) recipients of child benefit who are higher rate taxpayers and (b) recipients of child benefit who either live as husband or wife with a higher rate taxpayer or pay higher rate tax themselves. [71196]

Dawn Primarolo [holding answer 22 February 1999]: Estimates for the full year cost for 1999-2000 are given in the table:

£ million
Cost of raising both rates of child benefit by £1600
Yield from taxing all child benefit, including £1 increase, at 40 per cent. for
(a) child benefit recipients who are higher rate taxpayers40
(b) lone parents who are higher rate taxpayers or couples where there is a higher rate taxpayer450
Reduction in net cost by taxing £1 increase in child benefit at 40 per cent. for
(a) child benefit recipients who are higher rate taxpayersless than 5
(b) lone parents who are higher rate taxpayers or couples where there is a higher rate taxpayer35

British Rebate (EU)

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards the British rebate in the EU budget negotiations. [72908]

Ms Hewitt: Despite the abatement, the UK remains a significantly larger net contributor to the EC than a number of other member states whose capacity to pay is greater. In these circumstances weakening the abatement would be unfair. The UK has made clear in the current Agenda 2000 negotiations that it would not accept any such unfair outcome.

25 Feb 1999 : Column: 423

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Ms Lawrence: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the scope of regulated activities under the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill. [73881]

Ms Hewitt: The Financial Services and Markets Bill provides for the scope of regulated activities to be set out in secondary legislation. This will make it easier to respond to developments in the financial services industry.

The Treasury has today issued a consultation document with draft orders under the Bill. The deadline for initial comments is 30 April. We are consulting on this legislation well in advance so that we have the longest possible time to get it right.

Working Families Tax Credit

Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria will be used to determine the eligibility of grandparents for the working families tax credit child care subsidy. [63199]

Dawn Primarolo [holding answer 11 January 1999]: The child care tax credit within the Working Families Tax Credit will help with up to 70 per cent. of the parent's costs of eligible child care. The same criteria for eligibility will be applied to all child care providers. Eligible providers will include registered childminders, registered nurseries and after school clubs.

Next Section Index Home Page