---

Finance Bill

If the hon. Gentleman is as committed to eradicating poverty as he claims, I would have hoped that he would acknowledge the steps that we took in the Budget to lift the families of a further 200,000 children above the poverty line. Our approach to the Finance Bill and the Budget has been carefully constructed precisely to enable us to make that progress in tackling child poverty, which his party was responsible for more than doubling when they were in power in the 1980s and 1990s. If we were to amend the criteria for tax credits, for example, to make more people eligible, we would also reduce their effectiveness in specifically targeting those at the greatest risk of poverty, such as low-income families with children. Again, those changes would also be expensive. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall) not only spoke on his own behalf, but drew attention to the Treasury Committee's report. I should like to quote something that he said in an interview:"““While tax simplification is a laudable aim, it seems strange that the abolition of the 10 pence starting rate of income tax disadvantages mainly low income households. As such, the Government must ensure that these people are identified, and appropriate help given to them to ensure they receive the benefits to which they are entitled.””" I welcome what he said earlier, as well as any contribution that he and his Committee might make to the process. I completely take his point about ensuring that we work harder to ensure that those who are entitled to, for example, the benefits of tax credits, and working tax credits in particular, receive the entitlements that they deserve. It may well be that many people who fear that they will lose as a result of the proposed change would not be in that position if they were claiming the working tax credits to which they are entitled. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and others said that we could not wait until the pre-Budget report, but nor can we unpick the tax package without unravelling its benefits. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) and others mentioned pensioners who have taken early retirement. I want to say a word about those in the 60 to 65 age group. About a third of the women in that age group who are affected will be in two-earner households. It is therefore not true to say—as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) did, in what I acknowledge was a powerful speech, from an opposition point of view—that 5.3 million of our poorest families will see their taxes double. That is how he and his colleagues characterise the situation, but it is not true. The make-up of those who will, overall, pay a relatively small increase in taxes is diverse, and that is why it is difficult to say exactly who they are, and why it is difficult to devise a set of measures to ameliorate the effect of the changes. Overall, this is a package that provides targeted support to the families and pensioners who need it most—[Interruption.] Hon. Members do not have to shout and bawl. I am under enormous time pressure.