Taxation (Hansard, 5 December 1988)

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what respect his latest proposals for separate taxation of husbands and wives differ in principle from those given in paragraph 3.4 of Cmnd. 9756; and what is the gain or loss to the Revenue from the change at current tax and allowance levels.

§ Mr. Norman Lamont
Information about the new system of independent taxation for husband and wife and its costs is given in the Financial Statement and Budget report 1988–89, pages 39 and 46.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the net gain or loss to the Revenue from(a) reducing the standard rate of income tax by 5p, (b) raising the ceiling for means-tested income support by 25 per cent. and (c) increasing the state pension by 10 per cent.

§ Mr. Norman Lamont
The direct revenue cost in a full year, at 1989–90 income levels of a 5p reduction in the basic rate of tax is about £7.5 billion. If introduced for 1989–90 the change would reduce tax receipts by about £7 billion in that year. A 10 per cent. increase in the basic state pension would lead to an increase of about £2 billion in the amount of pensions paid in 1989–90. An estimate of the cost of increasing the level of income support could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has come to a decision on the option in paragraph 4.16 of Cmnd. 9756 of restricting the additional personal income tax allowance to those in receipt of one-parent and other appropriate benefits; and if he will publish in theOfficial Report a table showing what the effect of such a change would be in terms of the number of allowances claimed and the savings to the Revenue;
54W
(2) if he has come to a decision on the option in paragraph 4.15 Cmnd. 9756 of converting the additional personal income tax allowance into increased social security provision; and if he will provide an estimate of (a) the amount of revenue which could be transferred to the social security budget in this way and (b) what increase in benefits would be required to ensure that nobody is worse off as a result of the change.

§ Mr. Norman Lamont
Section 30 of the Finance Act 1988 changed the rules for the additional personal allowance so that from April 1989 unmarried couples with children will be able to quality for only one additional personal allowance between them. No consequential changes in social security benefits were made and there are no plans for further changes in the allowance.

§ Mr. Anthony Coombs
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax reliefs are available towards the costs of company employees studying for vocational or professional qualifications in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on such allowances in France and West Germany.

§ Mr. Norman Lamont
[holding answer 29 ,November 1988]: There are tax reliefs for employees' job-related training which exempt from income tax training costs met by employers and by employees themselves provided certain conditions are satisfied. Last year we were able to introduce a new relief for employees whose employers pay for the cost of retraining in new skills and for self-employment.
Details of the tax reliefs for training available in France and Germany, together with those of a number of other major industrial countries, including the United Kingdom, are available in a report published last May by the PICKUP programme of the Department of Education and Science. I believe that my hon. Friend already has a copy.