What is the total number of inquiries to date on the telephone hotline for the working families tax credit; and what percentage of these has led to successful awards. [96990]

What steps he is taking to increase public awareness of the working families tax credit. [96997]

How many people have been identified to date as eligible for the working families tax credit who were not previously claiming family credit. [96998]

If he will make a statement on the working families tax credit. [97001]

What progress is being made towards the implementation of the working families tax credit. [97003]

Since the Prime Minister and I launched the publicity campaign, there have been 700,000 inquiries about the working families tax credit—the biggest ever response to a Government advertising campaign—and 250,000 new applications have been made. We believe that 800,000 children will be taken out of poverty as a result of that and other measures.

I congratulate the Chancellor, and I pay tribute to the Financial Secretary for her excellent work in publicising and increasing awareness of that excellent new benefit. It will give poorly paid families £10, £20 or £50 a week, and will be a great help in tackling child poverty.

The Inland Revenue will continue to publicise the new tax credits available to working families, but the best publicity for the benefit will be those working families who have been able to acquire it. Many of them are £50 a week better off as a result of what has happened. It is time for the Conservatives to tell us whether they will now drop their opposition to the working families tax credit and start supporting working families in this country.

I welcome the measures taken by the Government to date, which were enhanced by the Chancellor's statement yesterday. My constituents in Pendlebury, Swinton, Eccles, Irlam and Cadishead will, as they say in Salford, be well chuffed. The working families tax credit will allow families with a full-time worker to achieve a guaranteed income of £200 a week, and to earn up to £235 before income tax kicks in. Does the Chancellor agree that the Opposition are very sad—indeed, quite mad sometimes—in saying that they will scrap that tax credit? Does that not show that they are extremely unelectable?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He represents a constituency in the north-west, and I can tell him that 210,000 families in the north-west are benefiting from the new working families tax credit. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that if the Opposition abolished the working families tax credit, it would be a £24-a-week tax increase for some of our poorest working families. It is unfortunate that the Opposition has said that they will abolish it. Perhaps today the shadow Chancellor will answer the question—will he now drop his opposition to the working families tax credit?

Why has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor extended working families tax credit and the attendant child tax credit so far above family credit? Does he consider that over-generous?

In my hon. Friend's region, 110,000 people are benefiting from the working families tax credit. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that the working families tax credit is similar to the earned income tax credit in the United States. It was a policy that Ronald Reagan could support—even Milton Friedman supported it—but it is not supported by the Opposition.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that 1,200 families in my constituency will benefit from this boost to their income. However, many are still to apply. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging those people who have not yet applied to do so as quickly as possible, because that will mark their entitlement date for the credit?

We shall continue our campaign to advertise the benefits of the working families tax credit, which reduces the marginal tax rate for thousands of families in Britain and eliminates the poverty trap for many of them. Under the previous Government, there was sometimes a marginal tax rate of more than 100 per cent. for some of the lowest paid families in Britain. Working families throughout Britain will be sad to know that the Leader of the Opposition says that this is a tangible difference between Labour and Conservatives, and that a former Opposition social security spokesman says:

"We would cut the working families tax credit".—[Official Report, 19 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 951.]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, by contrast with the more than 1.5 million people in London who were unemployed at least once between 1992 and 1997, nearly 125,000 families in London will receive extra help from the working families tax credit? Since 1997, unemployment has fallen by 31 per cent. in my constituency of Ilford, North. The working families tax credit and the measures that my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday, including the enhanced new deal for lone parents, will be welcomed in my constituency, especially by those working families who need to get off benefit and make work pay.

I should have thought that all parties in the House would want to support measures that, first, give a guaranteed minimum family income of £200 a week; secondly, are backed up by a minimum wage which is available to 2 million workers; thirdly, at the same time give additional help for child care to millions of working parents in Britain now eligible for it; and fourthly, raise child benefit by 30 per cent., something that, unfortunately, the Conservative Government were unable to do—they froze it for two years. Again, the Conservative party must answer this question: will they help working families in Britain or hurt them by abolishing the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and child benefit tax increases?

Does the working families tax credit give help to families rearing their families at home? If there is a preference for institutionalised child care, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why?

The working families tax credit is a help for people bringing up children at home. If, for example, a mother wants to be off work with a child, whether for months or years, the household's income is protected by the working families tax credit. The Conservatives fail to understand that this is a benefit that helps lone parents get to work, and helps working families make decisions and gives them choices. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman, who has a reputation for being a bit more compassionate than today's Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, started to support the working families tax credit instead of opposing it.

Is the Chancellor aware that the Federation of Small Businesses has described the working families tax credit as yet another administrative burden on small business owners, and that the Institute of Directors has protested that it is not the job of business to run the welfare system for the Government? Why have the Government designed the welfare tax credit system in a bureaucratic way that creates such a burden for British business?

The working families tax credit rewards work and is a good measure for business. It is about time that Conservative Members recognised that they left millions of people in poverty in Britain. They now say that they would do absolutely nothing about it. They would abolish the measures that we have taken, even those supported by right and left in the United States and elsewhere. It is about time that the Conservative party woke up.

Without blaming the Conservative party, will the Chancellor say what the cost of the working families tax credit is to business?

The cost of the working families tax credit depends on the business and the numbers, but it is a general benefit to business. Businesses can now tell their employees the benefits for work and for childcare. It is about time that the Conservative party saw the benefits not only to families but to business.

I hardly dare hope that we get a straight answer to a straight question. Will the Chancellor confirm that the cost to business of the working families tax credit is about £100 million a year? Does he agree with Chantrey Vellacott that that is just a part of the £5.2 billion a year of extra cost on business? What will he say to Mr. Nigel Fielding, who says in today's Daily Mail:

"I don't mind doing civil servants' work for them if I'm paid for my time and effort. But no such luck"?

The answer is no. The working families tax credit is a benefit to business. I do not think that the Conservative party understands that if wages are higher, if there is a reward to work as a result of the credit and if child care is available for mothers and for companies where those mothers work, that will benefit employment and industry. I repeat: a measure that can be supported by Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman, but is too extreme for the Conservative party, says something about that party.

Is it true that someone who has four jobs does not qualify for the working families tax credit? If it is, there lies the answer to why the shadow Chancellor will not support it—he has four jobs.

I do not know why the shadow Chancellor does not have time to do the research for Question Time and for other matters, but I will leave that to further debates in the House.

What assessment he has made of the effect on his policy of Bank of England independence of entry to the eurozone. [96991]

What assessment he has made of the impact of his policy of independence of the Bank of England. [96996]

The new monetary policy framework is already yielding significant benefits: inflation is low and close to target. The Government's reforms have helped to create a sound and credible platform of economic stability.

I warmly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and, indeed, for trailing me to Treasury questions from Education and Employment questions, where we had so many enjoyable exchanges.

I thank the Chancellor and welcome the pre-Budget report that he announced to the House the day before yesterday. As a result of his economic competence, we have a sound and credible economic policy, economic stability and steady growth; during the 1980s, the Conservatives had a policy of bust and boom. Interest rates have peaked at 7.5 per cent., half the peak interest rate in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Chancellor is as incompetent today as his party was in government?

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As a result of the policies for stability to which he draws attention, this country has 700,000 more people in work now than when the lot opposite left office. Moreover, whereas the previous Government left us a deficit in the public finances of £28 billion and doubled the country's indebtedness, we have balanced the public finances while improving public services and helping pensioners and hard-working families. My hon. Friend is right: any return to the Conservative party's policies would be a return to the deprivation, division, unemployment and instability that disfigured this country in the past.

Would the Chief Secretary admit that achieving the economic tests that the Chancellor has set for entry into the euro will require careful management—they will not suddenly be achieved by magic? Is he aware of the criticism that the Chancellor's statements do not do enough to show how the fiscal balance could be managed so as to take pressure off interest rates and allow the Monetary Policy Committee to think in terms of setting interest rates that converge with the much lower interest rates on the continent, enabling us to have at least the prospect of joining the euro in the near future?

Fiscal and monetary policy sticks to the sensible rules that we have laid down to maintain stability and steady growth. I welcome a question from a Conservative Member who takes a more balanced view on these issues. Of course, the tests will have to be carefully measured. We have said what those tests are, and as we have said all along, we shall make that assessment early in the next Parliament.

Does it not seem that the differences within the Monetary Policy Committee are between the committee's external and internal members on interest rates? Might not the external members have a better understanding of the level of interest rates required, because they come from the competitive sector of our economy and therefore have a better understanding of that sector, which my right hon. Friend has done so much to stimulate?

I thank my right hon. Friend. One of the strong advantages of the Monetary Policy Committee is that a combination of voices with different experience makes that important judgment. Ultimately, however, we judge the Bank of England's operational independence and the Monetary Policy Committee's decisions on what they deliver. What they have delivered is low and stable inflation, which has hit the target that they have been set.

Are we closer to, or further from, meeting the euro convergence conditions than when the policy was first announced?

As I said, we shall make the assessment early in the next Parliament. We are not giving a running commentary on this. The British economy is, beyond doubt, immeasurably stronger as a result of the measures that we have put in place for fiscal stability, investment and helping people into jobs.

One of the Government's earliest commitments was to a stable and competitive exchange rate. Does the Minister think that we currently have a competitive exchange rate? If not, what is the role of the Bank of England in securing one?

The role of the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee is clear: it is to hit the inflation target. It is by sustaining low inflation that we make the best contribution to economic success and stability for the future—including the effects on the exchange rate.

What further discussions he has had with employers over income increases to heads of companies. [96992]

At the recent Confederation of British Industry conference, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor warned of the danger that unacceptably high pay rises would lead to higher interest rates. In the case of company executives, it is the responsibility of shareholders and remuneration committees to ensure that pay is justified by performance.

Is it not a fact that many senior directors and executives—many of whom are already on large salaries—have recently given themselves very large pay increases, share options, bonuses and the rest that are very different from the level of salary increases given to the large majority of their employees? In view of that fact, and recognising what my hon. Friend said about the Chancellor's warning, has not the time come for Government action on the matter?

There is evidence of pay running at a high level for some senior positions in some of our firms, and responsibility in pay rises is of the greatest importance. Although pay responsibility is important in the public sector, it is just as important in the private sector. Such responsibility is important on the shop floor, but it is just as important in the boardroom. Responsible pay settlements are essential to achieve the high and stable growth and employment levels to which all of our economic policies are directed.

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is not only company heads who are paying the top tax rate, but hundreds of thousands of public sector workers are also paying at 40 per cent? Does he agree that 26,000 NHS workers, 9,000 policemen and 28,000 teachers pay at 40 per cent? What are the Government doing, not to have a go at those workers as fat cats, but to relieve their tax burden?

We have maintained all our commitments on tax rates. Now, however, the key issue is that, for the first time that most of us can remember, we have a real prospect of full employment in Britain. Most people thought that full employment was only for the history books, but the success of our policies in the past two and a half years has led to a new stability, so that full employment is now a realistic prospect. We have to be vigilant against anything that puts that prize at risk—which means guarding against, among other things, irresponsible pay rises.

Based on August figures, wage increases are running at 4.9 per cent. Is that level of earnings growth posing a threat to inflation?

The August figures are up 0.3 per cent. on the figure for three months earlier, but the figures are erratic. In the longer term, the figures are still relatively low. The last peak in earnings growth, in 1990—when unemployment was much greater, at 1.6 million—was 10 per cent. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right to say that there is no room for complacency: everyone needs to be responsible on pay.

What plans he has to include measures relating to the alleviation of poverty in his pre-Budget statement. [96993]

In the pre-Budget report, I set out the long-term ambition for the next decade to halve child poverty as a step on the way to abolishing it within a generation. Building on measures in the last two Budgets that will lift 800,000 children out of poverty, I also announced that we shall consult on a new children's fund to provide project grants for community action to tackle all aspects of child poverty.

I am very grateful to the Chancellor for that answer. However, has he had a chance yet to consider the results published in the British household below-average income study, which examined work that had been done, between 1991 and 1997, by the British household panel study? Does he agree that the panel's study showed that—for that entire seven-year period—9 per cent. of the sample of households studied stayed below 30 per cent. of income distribution? With a potential Department of Social Security underspend of £7 billion, and a current balance of £12 billion in the national insurance fund, does the Minister really believe that a 1.1 per cent. uprating of long-term social security benefits is adequate for families who really cannot find work?

The hon. Gentleman—who is Chairman of the Social Security Committee—is an expert on many of those matters, but he is painting an incomplete picture.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the excellence of his pre-Budget statement, in all the respects that we are discussing. In particular, I welcome his announcement of an important initiative enabling gifts of quoted shares and securities to be made to charitable bodies. During the consultation in which the regulations and legislation involved will be decided, will he make it clear to his colleagues—and, of course, to Inland Revenue officials—that they should bring to the negotiations the positive and flexible spirit that was embodied in his important pre-Budget statement?

I thank my hon. Friend. He is, in fact, saying that the House should unite in tackling child poverty. The children's fund that we have announced will allow voluntary, community and charitable groups to be involved in innovative projects tackling all its aspects. As part of that, we are changing the charity tax laws to make it easier for people—through either payroll giving or direct giving—to donate more to charities, voluntary organisations and other bodies. I would have expected support for those measures throughout the House, but is it not typical of the Conservatives that they cannot support action against child poverty?

How many new pensioner couples will be hit by the abolition of the married couples allowance by the end of this Parliament? Did the Chancellor fail to tell the Prime Minister about that yesterday, or did he simply forget? Why did he not mention it in his pre-Budget statement?

It is this Government who, for pensioners—

Answer the question.

The hon. Gentleman asks me to answer the question, and then does not give me a chance to do so. Is that not typical of the Conservatives? They have learned nothing in two and a half years of opposition. Do they not understand that they lost the election because they never listen to the country?

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he took office, there were 4.4 million children in poverty in Britain? His promise to take 800,000 children out of poverty will still meet only a fifth of the huge challenge that we were elected to meet. He has already committed £1,080 each to the poorest families, but can he assure me that his change to children's tax credit will ensure that women—the main carers for children—will have the necessary resources in their purses, so that the money can benefit children directly?

That is exactly the proposal that we are presenting for consultation. I hope that many people will become involved in the pre-Budget discussions about how we can make progress in providing benefits for all children.

The Chancellor will understand that the next comprehensive spending review will be crucial for those interested in tackling poverty. Will he clarify a question that I asked when he gave his pre-Budget statement? Does the fact that the new review has been brought forward a year mean that the current 2001–02 spending plans may be changed, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) hopes, or is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury right to say that those plans are set in stone?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question again. We have not changed our position on the comprehensive spending review. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it has been brought forward. It will be at the time that we said and will be happening over the next few months. The Liberals must wake up to the situation in this country. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot keep saying that they are going to be tough on public spending and yet demand more money at every turn. Let me remind the House what a Liberal spokesman said last week:

"There are a lot of things our party wants to promise, but we have to be realistic about what we can deliver if we want to be seen as fit for government. For example, it would be great to abolish television licence fees for pensioners, but it would cost hundreds of millions and voters would not like it."

What steps he is taking to ensure that all sections of society share in increasing economic prosperity. [96994]

The Government is committed to a fair and inclusive society in which everyone can contribute to and benefit from economic prosperity. The Chancellor set out the Government's strategy in the pre-Budget report, published on Tuesday. We want to create employment opportunity for everyone of working age, ensure that children have the best possible start in life and deliver a better deal for pensioners.

Have not 18 years of Conservative failure made pensioners some of the poorest in society? Is my hon. Friend aware that pensioners' poverty takes its toll particularly in the colder winter months, and has done for far too long? Will she take this opportunity to make it crystal clear that the welcome new £100 winter allowance is not a computer error, a mistake or even a one-off, but a bonus delivered only by a Labour Government?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Of course, there is no computer error on the £100 winter allowance. We are delighted to be able to say that it will go to more than 7 million eligible pensioner households this year and—as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on Tuesday—every year hereafter. Under this Government, pensioner households are on average £300 a year better off. In addition to the free television licence, from which more than 3 million pensioner households will benefit, another 1.5 million pensioner households will benefit from the extension of the 10p rate to savings income, which was also announced on Tuesday.

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. Why does the Government persist in their nasty and mean-spirited attack on pensioners who happen to have saved all their lives? Those who have a few hundred pounds of investment income can no longer reclaim the tax on their dividends. Is she proud to be punishing savers in that way?

We are helping pensioner households across the board. We are also helping those who are paying tax. Pensioners were already paying less tax under this Labour Government than ever before, even without Tuesday's announcement on the lop savings rate, which will be of particular help to many pensioner households. The hon. Gentleman seems to fail to recognise that two thirds of pensioner households pay no tax.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the work of the Northamptonshire Association of Asian, African and Caribbean Businesses and welcome the many measures in the pre-Budget statement that promote enterprise and encourage people to set up small businesses? Will she ensure that steps are taken to encourage organisations that support businesses in ethnic minority communities so that they too can benefit from economic prosperity?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and her detailed knowledge of the work being done in her constituency to support enterprise. The Government supports such work throughout the country. We want to achieve our economic ambitions for the next decade. They include closing the productivity gap and ensuring that enterprise is open to all. As part of that, we are providing a new £30 million package to promote enterprise in disadvantaged communities, providing better access to finance, better advice and mentoring and demonstrating that our commitment is borne out by practical steps.

I welcome the Economic Secretary to her new post and wish her well in it. I remind her that before the Government share out economic prosperity, they must ensure that it continues to increase. Does she agree that

"Productivity is a fundamental yardstick of economic performance…poor productivity condemns a nation to be held back"?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my new post. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor certainly did not make that admission. We are taking steps to address exactly the issues that the right hon. Gentleman is raising. The two worst recessions since 1945 occurred when the Conservatives were in government. They doubled the national debt and presided over interest rates of 15 per cent. In addition, there were 22 Tory tax rises. None of that did very much for productivity, growth or enterprise.

The hon. Lady may not have had a chance to read it, but the admission is in a document published by the Chancellor on Tuesday. It shows productivity and growth falling—she should take a look at it.

"had no plans to increase tax at all"?

"bureaucracy…is stifling business competitiveness"?

"give back are trivial by comparison"?

We inherited a deficit of £28 billion in public finances. We inherited a boom and bust economy with no possibility for businesses or individuals to plan ahead because of its instability. We have turned that around; we now have stability. The right hon. Gentleman will not even tell us whether he supports one of the key measures to ensure that we have that stability in the British economy—the independence of the Bank of England.

What estimate he has made of the number of families in the north-west region who will be eligible for working families tax credit. [96995]

It is estimated that 250,000 families could receive the working families tax credit in the Government north-west administrative region.

Contrary to the rant of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), something must be right because, since this Government have been in power, unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 34 per cent. It is important that we bring together all agencies that can help promote the working families tax credit and make it work. I commend to my hon. Friend an exercise that I conducted in co-operation with the private sector—Warner cinemas and THI Developments especially—local authorities, the Benefits Agency, and so on, to help to promote the creation of jobs under the new deal and, indeed, outside it. Perhaps similar exercises in co-operation may help to create more jobs.

I agree with my hon. Friend that co-ordination is necessary to ensure that people understand that the working families tax credit tackles the traps of unemployment and poverty, and, most importantly, helps parents with children who want to work with their child care expenses. The shadow Chancellor must explain to, for instance, the young woman whom I met last week, who will be £109 a week better off as a result of the working families tax credit—1.5 million families will benefit—why he would take that money away from her and put up her taxes.

I hope that the Minister agrees that one way of helping those on the working families tax credit in the north-west is to ensure a strong export performance in industries such as aerospace in my constituency? To that end, I seek her assurance that the Treasury has no plans to change the present way in which it supports and funds the operation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department—

Order. That does not relate to the question on the Order Paper. The right hon. Member is a long-standing member of the House, and should not try to do things like that.

Is not the working families tax credit, together with the national minimum wage, a tremendous help in areas such as Burnley, in the north-west, where we have traditionally suffered low pay and deprivation? Is not it important help not only to the families affected but to the entire economy in such areas?

My hon. Friend is right to draw together the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit as underpinning employment. They are good for both the employee, whose wages make work worthwhile, and employers, in ensuring retention and recruitment of the work force, and especially assisting them, through the provision of child care tax credits, to retain the skills of women who would otherwise be forced out of the labour market for a long period when they have young children.

What assessment his Department has made of the impact on chemical industries of the proposed climate change levy. [96999]

We have studied the impact very carefully. Together with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for the Environment, I recently met representatives of all the energy-intensive industries including the Chemical Industries Association Ltd. Last week, I had a useful discussion with members of the all-party parliamentary chemical industry group.

I welcome the fact that the climate change levy will not be as punitive, as announced in Tuesday's statement, although it should be noted that there will be an annual increase of £1 billion a year, starting next year. What other measures do Treasury Ministers envisage taking to assist the competitiveness of the chemical industry as the UK's top manufacturing export earner?

All the £1 billion will be refunded through the reduction in employer national insurance contributions.

I welcome the exemption of renewables from the climate change levy announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget statement. What appraisal has my hon. Friend made of the effect on growth and competitiveness of the United Kingdom renewables industry that the exemption will produce?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The renewable energy industry is important and the UK has considerable strength there already. The combined heat and power industry is also important and we have some leading technologies in that area, too. Both industries will benefit from the exemptions that my right hon. Friend announced this week, so that is good for British business and technology.

Will the Minister confirm that despite the Government's climb-down on the energy tax on Tuesday, major sectors of industry will continue to pay in net amounts of tens of millions of pounds which their overseas competitors will be exempt from? Has he seen that, as well as the chemical industry, the Steel Association said yesterday that the tax

"will still result in more steel being produced overseas, often by producers using less environmentally friendly plant than those in the United Kingdom"?

No, the energy tax will certainly not do that. First, there is no climb-down because the new package will have substantially greater environmental benefits than the package that was outlined earlier in the year. We said in the Budget that the levy would save 1.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year by 2010. Under the new proposals that figure will rise to at least 2 million tonnes, and the negotiated agreements could easily provide the same amount again. The steel industry is a big winner from this week's announcements. It will benefit from the 80 per cent. discount for sectors that reach energy efficient agreements with the Government. There is one being dealt with in the steel sector. It will also benefit from the exemptions for feedstocks—fuel used as feedstock.

Is not the climate change levy to be welcomed, saving 2 million tonnes of carbon each year? Has my hon. Friend heard anything from the other side of the House that would meet these commitments to the environment and be just as warmly welcomed by environmental groups as my hon. Friend's proposal is today?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The climate change levy is a big winner for Britain in terms of the environment and our industry. We have always said that protecting the environment goes hand in hand with building the economy. It must be good to tackle pollution—to work to reduce emissions. Surely even Conservative Members support that aim. We are delivering it.

What estimate he has made of the net financial gain to Government Departments as a result of the introduction of the climate change levy. [97000]

Education, health and other public services will gain, along with the majority of firms, from a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions that will exceed their payments under the climate change levy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his statement on Tuesday, however, that the net gain to public services will be wholly offset by the additional support he has announced for energy efficiency measures in the private sector. There will therefore be no net financial gain to the public finances from the introduction of the levy.

The people who will lose, of course, are the unemployed in the north-east of England, because it is estimated that foreign inward investors will be put off by that billion pound energy tax. What assessment has the Financial Secretary made of the damage that will be caused to inward investment by the imposition of that new tax?

We have protected the competitiveness of UK firms and we have made big progress with the announcements that have been made this week. We want to provide additional incentives at the margin in every sector to reduce emissions, because everybody has a role to play in meeting our legally binding targets, which also have to be met by other countries in the same way. That is the right thing to do, because we all want to cut down on pollution and that is the effect that the levy will have.

With last year's pre-Budget report, Lord Marshall's report, the Customs and Excise consultation and the wide consultation meetings held by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, does he agree that vast consultation has taken place about the design of the levy before it was introduced? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor promised when he was appointed that our financial affairs would be managed with openness, good practice and transparency, and does my hon. Friend agree that the levy is a good example of his promise being kept?

My hon. Friend is right and the process that we have followed is a model for how such things should be done. We had Lord Marshall's report, the initial announcements in March, the following consultation, and the announcements this week. Of course, the levy itself will only be introduced a year from next April. That is in contrast to the imposition of VAT on fuel under the previous Government.

What is the gain to this country of closing large sectors of the horticultural industry and flying in cut flowers on jumbo jets that do not pay duty on fuel?

The horticultural industry will also gain from what has been announced this week. It is a big user of combined heat and power plants and it will therefore benefit substantially from what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced.

What representations he has made concerning the composition of the board of the IMF. [97002]

The Government have not made any representations concerning the composition of the board of the IMF.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome her to her new post. Is she aware that in September the IMF replaced its much maligned enhanced structural adjustment facility, which one non-governmental organisation described as treatment by asphyxiation, with its new poverty reduction and growth programme? Will she and her ministerial colleagues do all that they can to ensure that that is not only a name change, but that poverty reduction is central in future IMF interventions in developing countries?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work in that area as a member of the Select Committee on International Development. I know how seriously she takes those issues and that she will appreciate how seriously my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury team take them, too. The poverty reduction and growth facility replacement programmes for the IMF enhanced structural adjustment facility will bring about a big improvement in the work that can be done and will ensure that the IMF and the World Bank work together more closely. It will also emphasise country ownership and focus much more strongly on poverty, with the aim of achieving poverty eradication goals that are set in the international development targets. I know that that will be most welcome.

Will the Economic Secretary try to get the Chancellor to explain how it came about that, within hours of his election as chairman of its key committee, the IMF announced that it would after all not be selling any of its gold through the market?

I do not know what led the hon. Gentleman to come to that remarkable conclusion. I am disappointed, in that he ought to be congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the key role that he will be playing in those arenas as a result of taking over the committee. He ought also to be complimenting the Government on the relationship between the sale of gold and our ability to deal with poverty-stricken countries and the highly indebted poor countries issue. We have made massive progress, and the gold sales have contributed to that. Congratulations are due when real achievements are made by the Government in key areas.