Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We need to get away from the idea of Government—or, indeed, local government—operating in silos with different budgets and different departments not working together. My hon. Friend represents a Swindon constituency, and I know that Swindon borough council has taken huge steps in bringing the various agencies together, particularly in the area of problem families, and I commend them for the work they do.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Q11. Whatever announcements the Chancellor makes on pension tax relief shortly, is it not a fact that when this Government came to power, they made changes to pension tax relief that gave a tax cut of £1.6 billion to people earning more than £150,000? [Interruption.] I see that the Chancellor has to give the Prime Minister his crib sheet.

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong. We inherited a plan to raise £4 billion in taxes from the wealthiest people, and we raised that further. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make some further announcements in a moment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I pay tribute to Peter Lawrence and his support for the Missing People campaign. The Justice Committee has produced an important report on this issue. We acknowledge that the current law is complicated. I recognise all the emotional and practical difficulties faced by those whose loved ones are missing. We are going to consider the recommendations very carefully, and perhaps I will write to my hon. Friend when we come up with the answer.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Q13. If the Prime Minister manages to persuade his Chancellor to remove some of the anomalies in his child benefit policy to help people earning over £43,000 a year, will he then take action to help the couples on the minimum wage who are set to lose £3,000 from April?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that we dealt with that earlier. Quite apart from the point about the unfairness of a single person having to work 16 hours, we are making a long-term reform with universal credit, which will mean that everyone is always better off in work, no matter how many hours they work. Labour had 13 years to put that in place; we will have it done in 18 months.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that renewable energy is one of the great industries of the future, and we are doing everything we can to support those areas that want to exploit the opportunities. We have committed £1.4 billion to a regional growth fund, and we are establishing a green investment bank with the explicit aim of creating further investment opportunities in green infrastructure in areas where private sector investment is currently constrained. I am delighted to hear about the way in which councils, businesses and the not-for-profit sector in Norfolk are working so effectively together.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In answer to a question that I asked last week, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning indicated that the major reason for his proposals on fees was to change the way in which higher education was funded, and to shift the burden from the state to the student. How does the Deputy Prime Minister square that with his party’s view that the proposals are a deficit reduction measure only, and that they could be changed in the future?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, I think every Member agrees that the funding for universities should be a mixture of direct support from the state and contributions made by—[Interruption.] As soon as we came into government, we looked exhaustively at the option of a graduate tax, which was proposed by some Labour Members and by the National Union of Students, but we discovered that that would be much more unfair and would allow particularly high earners to opt out of the system altogether, compared to the progressive system of graduate contributions that we are proposing now.