Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I seem to be fated—this is the second time in two weeks—to be the last Back Bencher to contribute to a debate. Tempted though I am to continue to speak until as close to 10 pm as allowed by the need for wind-up speeches, I shall resist temptation—I can see my colleagues’ looks of horror. For those of us who are far from home and whose potential valentine is 400 miles away, we have nothing better to do than speak in this debate.

More seriously, it will be useful to have independent forecasts; indeed, it already has proved useful. In the short life of the Office for Budget Responsibility we have seen some figures that even this Government, who have professed a desire to be transparent, might not have been too happy about. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to figures such as the forecasts for unemployment and for economic growth. Had it not been for those reports, the Chancellor and other members of the Government might have been tempted to be a little more optimistic and gung-ho. We saw a little of that even last year when some Ministers talked about economic growth in the second and third quarters. We might have thought that everything was now motoring forward, but the OBR was able to tell us that that was not quite the case. The OBR’s forecasts may not always be palatable, even to the Government who have set it up.

I appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you have not wanted people to discuss the economy generally, but it was clear from the context in which this debate was put by the Economic Secretary that we cannot entirely avoid doing so. She made it clear that the OBR’s remit is determined by the Government’s view of the economy and what needs to be done to deal with it. She said that deficit reduction was the priority and the context for the OBR, but the question of how to do that remains. How do we reduce the deficit, how fast, and what are the implications of reducing it too fast? The Opposition believe that the actions that have been taken in order to fit the framework set for the reduction of the deficit in this Parliament may be counter-productive. The deficit may in fact rise, because if unemployment rises, demand falls and the economy does not grow, tax revenues will fall even further—and that was part of the reason for our current position. If that happens, we will see the deficit grow.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

As the hon. Lady has said, the OBR will indeed stop a Chancellor saying, “Growth is going to be this amount, and therefore I will borrow this amount,” while knowing full well that growth might not be so high and he might not be able to repay it. Surely that was the problem in recent years, and it is hoped that the OBR will stop such mistakes from being made again.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Our views of when it is appropriate to borrow and what the Government should do about the economy are clearly different. Emotive words have been used in this debate, including the term “mountain of debt”. Coalition Members are fond of saying that interest payments on borrowing are wasted. They are also fond of domestic analogies, and we hear a lot about the national credit card being maxed out, but there is another domestic analogy that we might use. When we pay our mortgage payments, we do not say that that is money wasted—it is money being invested for the purpose of acquiring a home.

When I was the convenor of housing for Edinburgh city council, 40p in the pound of tenants’ rents went on debt repayment. Sometimes the local newspaper and council opposition members would say, “This is terrible mismanagement”, but it was not mismanagement—it was an investment in building homes over many years and improving homes with such luxuries as central heating and double glazing.

[Stephen Williams]

The hon. Lady is talking about debt being run up for investment. Of course the previous Government put most of that debt off the balance sheet of the Treasury completely and into private finance initiative schemes. They ran up debts to fund current expenditure on public services, and that is why we ended up in a crisis.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Up to the point of the recession, most of the borrowing was for investment in schools, homes, roads and transport projects. Yes, there were some PFI schemes, and I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) castigate such schemes, because it is my recollection that PFI was a favourite mechanism of the previous Conservative Government, who introduced it. Many of my colleagues in the Labour party were less than enthusiastic about it even during the years of the Labour Government.

I am trying to make the point that there are different ways of looking at the economy and at what the appropriate policies are. I was interested in a brief debate in the Treasury Committee about whether the OBR should look at other policies: should it look at the policies of an Opposition what might be? Outwith that, why should it just look at the particular ground rules that the Government have set out? Those rules will represent one view, but there might well be other views and policies that could lead to different results. The Government appear to have rejected the view that the OBR should look at anything other than Government policy, on the grounds that that would not make it politically neutral, but we need real transparency and a proper debate in the country about the best way forward.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I have been listening to the hon. Lady’s analogy. She does not like talk of the credit card being maxed out, and thinks it more akin to taking on a mortgage to purchase a home. Does she not agree, however, that having to pay £120 million a day in interest alone is actually more akin to using a credit card to pay the mortgage every month?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Clearly, I do not agree with that. These two analogies are interesting ones, in that they show the different viewpoints of the different sides of the House. They are both legitimate viewpoints, and it is right that we pull them out and have this debate, because there is not just one way of coming to a conclusion on what we should do.

If the OBR is to develop in the future, one option is to look at different ways of arriving at the ends we all want. There is no suggestion, despite what Government Members say, that Labour Members think it right to run a very big deficit on an annual basis. We have never said that; we have said that we want to reduce the deficit. However, we differ with the Government over the speed at which that is done. That will determine all of these forecasts and where we go from there. If we have those different viewpoints, would it be helpful—other people might think it is not—for a truly independent OBR to be able to look slightly wider than the tramlines that the Government are setting down and about which we have heard so much? Should we be able to forecast only on that basis? It would be interesting to consider whether alternative policies could lead to a different and—I would hope—better outcome.

I do not want to add anything else because I can see that some people here have somewhere far more interesting to go. I hope that some people receive red roses and chocolates tonight in celebration of the day.

Basic Bank Accounts (Scotland)

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood.

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. The stimulus for requesting it came from a report published in November 2010 by Citizens Advice Scotland—the umbrella group for citizens advice bureaux in Scotland—called, “Banking on the basics”. It was based on a survey that it carried out and the experiences of the many bureaux in the country. Many of the points and recommendations in the report are echoed in the report of the Financial Inclusion Taskforce, “Banking services and poorer households”, which was published in December 2010. It addressed the subject on a UK-wide level. Clearly, the issues are similar north and south of the border.

One of the relatively unsung but important pieces of work done by the Labour Government after 1997 was the detailed research, analysis and, most important, development of action plans to tackle poverty, deprivation and social exclusion. Outwith some of the political knockabout that sometimes takes place, I hope that we can all agree that it is only long-term, painstaking work of that kind that will make a real difference. It has to be sustained over a long period—we will not necessarily get instant results.

One of the strengths of the work was how it was spread across Government Departments, including the Treasury. It was not simply sidelined into the kind of Department that normally deals with poverty and deprivation. In 1999, Treasury policy action team 14 made its report on access to financial services, and from that flowed, among many other things, the basic bank account proposal.

Why is access to banking so important in this context? First, it helps people to manage their budgets more effectively and cheaply. Operating in cash is extremely expensive; for example, those who cannot pay fuel bills by direct debit pay a higher tariff, especially if they use prepayment meters. Buying essential household goods through catalogues, and mechanisms such as rent to buy are also extremely expensive. A useful report which highlights some of the issues for poorer families came out just this week from Save the Children.

Basic bank accounts also serve as a gateway to other mainstream financial services, including savings, insurance and credit, so people can make the journey from the basic bank account to other elements of financial inclusion in due course. Increasingly, many employers want to pay wages into a bank account. A number of bureaux survey respondents in the CAS report had encountered difficulties entering employment because of that. They could not get a bank account, or, if they got cheques, they encountered high bank charges to have them cashed.

Clearly, becoming “banked” will not in itself overcome poverty and deprivation, but it forms an important part of the jigsaw of policies and actions that are needed. There has been considerable progress. The goal of halving the number of the “unbanked” was met by 2009. Treasury figures for the UK in December 2010 show that the proportion of adults living in a household without access to a current, basic or savings account reduced from 4% in 2002-03 to 2% in 2008-09. The corresponding figures for Scotland show a fall from 6% to 3% over the same period.

The unbanked remain largely concentrated in the most deprived areas, and among certain groups: the retired, those who are of working age but in poor health and lone parents. Fairly significantly, in terms of access routes, 54% of the unbanked were council or housing association tenants. Only 16% of those with bank accounts fall into that category. I mention that partly because I think that that is a way in which some of the access routes could be enabled.

That still leaves a substantial number of unbanked adults. The CAS survey showed that two thirds of those who did not have access to a bank account had tried to open one. It is sometimes argued that the remaining unbanked do not want bank accounts.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have listened to my hon. Friend. From my experience working in a bank—I worked for a bank 10 years ago, when the basic bank account was introduced—I have to say that the attitude of some bank workers was appalling. The basic bank account does not credit score, so they could not sell products, and they treated many people with basic bank accounts as second-class citizens. Does she agree that that is an absolute scandal in this day and age?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly agree. I shall speak later about how we can move this forward, and one way is by improving the practices of some banks in that regard.

There are several main reasons why people cannot access basic bank accounts, of which that may well be one. Another is having a poor credit history or, indeed, no credit history. I shall quote one example from the CAS survey:

“I had a full driving licence but never had a bill in my name as I live with my mum and dad. I am 28 years old and can’t get a bank account.”

There are people who have not taken any credit in the past and do not have a record.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I was a dentist in a previous life—I am a glutton for punishment, perhaps. I have a similar story. We employed a new dental nurse who had no credit history at all. She did not have a driving licence—she was straight out of school—or her birth certificate, which had been lost in her parents’ messy separation, so she was not able to open a bank account. Instead, every week she had to take her cheques to one of the local pawnshops and pay £3.50 to get her money. That is a simple story, but the situation affects thousands of people across the UK.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for that example. It is important to understand that these things do still happen in this day and age, although it might be surprising to some people.

On the inability to meet some of the identity requirements, the Financial Services Authority permits use of a wide range of identification, but local advice agencies in my constituency have told me that meeting the requirements can be problematic. Not all banks operate to the FSA guidelines. They demand either a passport or a driving licence, which not everyone has. Such things as a letter from a housing association or benefit entitlement documents are not accepted, so the whole process takes a long time.

Other people are in a situation where they owe money to a bank. Sometimes it is appropriate that they open up a basic bank account elsewhere to enable them to function while they are dealing with previous debts. There is a growing difficulty with the consolidation of banks, in that there are too few banks in many places. In some small towns in Scotland, there is very little choice.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that an increasing number of people are being made bankrupt in Scotland because of the operation of legislation that allows people to be made voluntarily bankrupt because of their financial situation. That group in particular has a great deal of difficulty in opening bank accounts. Does she think that that issue also needs to be addressed?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I very much do. At present, only two of the mainstream banks allow undischarged bankrupts to open a basic bank account, and that creates a difficulty in Scotland in particular. One is the Co-operative bank, but it has few branches in Scotland, even with the merger with Britannia; the other is Barclays, which does not operate in many places in Scotland. In Edinburgh, there are only two Barclays branches. They are near each other in the centre of the city, so it is difficult for people to access any bank in Edinburgh that would enable them to have a basic bank account if they are an undischarged bankrupt.

There are also issues around high bank charges, which can lead people to abandon their bank accounts. For instance, a direct debit comes in at a time when there is no money in the account. They are unaware of that, and a bank charge is levied. Ironically, some people found that doorstep lenders who would be more expensive in the long term were more sympathetic and easier to use. They would allow a payment to be missed occasionally. We know that that is an expensive way of working, but the inflexibility of banks and an automatic bank charge when one is on a marginal income anyway put people off.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Recent research has found that 60% of people go to the high-cost pay-day lenders to consolidate their borrowing. Does my hon. Friend agree that access to a bank account may prevent some of that from happening?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree that we need to stop that happening, and bank accounts are one way of doing so, although we must also take other measures.

How can we make further progress? My submission is that banks should be legally required to offer a basic bank account when an application for a current account has been refused. That was proposed in the March 2010 Budget and was a commitment in Labour’s 2010 election manifesto.

The Government also have a role in encouraging mainstream banks to use all the best practice and not to introduce obstacles such as those that several of my hon. Friends and I have discussed. That includes ensuring that undischarged bankrupts are allowed to open bank accounts and that people with no credit history are given access. Banks should market such basic accounts fully, and staff should be trained and encouraged to do so. The ID requirement should be reviewed and, again, staff should be clear about what is necessary; they should not over-ask, which puts people off. If, even with such changes, banks have to or feel that they have to refuse an application, they should at least be obliged to give people information about alternatives.

The Government need to support alternative providers for people on low incomes, including credit unions and community development financial institutions such as Scotcash in Glasgow, which not only offers loans but has been giving people assistance with basic bank accounts. In its second year of operation, Scotcash assisted 553 individuals to open a basic bank account. However, such organisations depend on a relatively high degree of public support, and it is important to consider ways of helping those institutions to grow further. Many were able to get started because of the previous Government’s £100 million growth fund. If that fund does not continue, many will have to reduce their operations in future years. Reforming community interest tax relief would assist them, as would keeping mainstream banks to their previous commitment to help such community financial institutions—most have not kept that commitment. The debate is not primarily about savings or credit, but such points illustrate how all the issues are linked and how the Government need to have an overall financial inclusion strategy and to act upon it.

I have some specific questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to establishing a universal right to a basic bank account? Secondly, will they continue the work of the Treasury’s Financial Inclusion Taskforce after the end of the current financial year, because it has been behind so many measures? Thirdly, how will they encourage banks to remove current obstacles to securing a basic bank account, as outlined? Fourthly, how will they support alternative mechanisms for those for whom a bank account may still be impossible or undesirable?

I have a couple of specific proposals for the Minister. What practical and financial support can be given to enable post offices and credit unions to enter partnerships? In the short time that I have been in the House, there has been much discussion but no specific action allowing that to happen. If post offices do that, there is a cost, which the post office network perhaps feels is difficult to meet at this stage in its operations, but the Government could assist.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I apologise for missing the beginning of my hon. Friend’s contribution.

Has my hon. Friend shared my experience of young people in particular having difficulties? In my constituency, Save the Children has given compelling evidence about young people who have left the family home—they are put out of it—being denied the means to get a bank account and, therefore, the means to set up proper financial arrangements, further pushing them into poverty. The issue is a key plank in tackling poverty and helping people back on to their feet.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The issue is important for young people. Many people talk about financial education being important—indeed, it is—but if someone does not even have the mechanisms in place to act on such financial information, which was perhaps got through school, participating fully in society, getting employment, having wages paid into banks and so on will be difficult. Many young people in that situation are setting up home for the first time, so it would be helpful if they could access facilities that, for example, allow them to make fuel payments cheaply.

Finally, and specifically, I am interested in the Government’s view on reforming the community investment tax relief to assist community development financial institutions, so that they can expand their business without necessarily being wholly dependent on grant assistance. That would enable such an important strand of financial inclusion to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

That is an important point. Banks should see the opportunity to encourage and enable people to get greater access to mainstream services, moving them from a basic bank account to a more fully functioning current account.

I will touch on the issue later, but we need to go with the grain of how people want to live their lives. Many people are comfortable with access to a bank account without an overdraft facility, for example. A challenge for policy makers is that we think of things that we might like as a function, even though sections of the community might not want such functionality in their accounts. We need to think carefully about that, although we should be clear that moving to a fully functioning current account ought to be open to those with basic bank accounts. Banks need to look at credit histories and how people manage their accounts as part of that process.

At the request of the financial inclusion taskforce, eight of the major retail bank account providers have collaborated to provide management data on their basic bank accounts. That allows us to look at levels of take-up in different local authority areas and wards across the country. At local level, there are financial inclusion champions, such as the group in Scotland funded by the Department for Work and Pensions. They are looking at how best to work in deprived areas to raise awareness and encourage more people to open bank accounts. We can continue to make effective use of up-to-date regional data to help tackle the issue in areas of financial exclusion.

The hon. Lady referred to the financial inclusion taskforce report that was published in December. That is a timely piece of work that gives us the opportunity to take stock of where we are. It raises a number of issues referred to by the hon. Lady and her colleagues, and I encourage hon. Members to read the report on the Treasury website.

The taskforce found that the experience of banking services for poorer households has been mixed. Many households have made savings on services and retail purchases, but some have lost money through bank charges. The taskforce found that the remaining unbanked are generally the poorest and most deprived people, and it recommended a number of minor changes to existing basic bank accounts to make them more accessible and easier for poorer households to use. It also highlighted the scale of the challenge of extending bank accounts to those who currently do not have them.

The research found significant indicators of relative disadvantage among the unbanked: eight out of 10 of the unbanked are in receipt of income-related benefits; more than a third have major health conditions; and a quarter have numeracy or literacy problems. As more people open bank accounts, we see the unbanked becoming concentrated in hard-to-reach, more deprived groups. We must think carefully about how to work closely with those groups to get people to open bank accounts and access the benefits that they bring.

Interestingly, we should not assume that those who do not have a bank account have not previously held one. Six out of 10 unbanked people have previously held a bank account. The research does not give reasons why those people do not currently have a bank account, but some may have had issues with managing their account and decided not to keep it open, or the account may have been closed. We are not necessarily talking about people with no experience of bank accounts. Some people may have opted not to have an account for a particular reason.

Let me reiterate the point about going with the grain of how people run their lives. Many unbanked consumers express a preference for managing their finances in cash. Some low-income households employ a number of strategies to ensure that money is available for essential living expenses, which include not withdrawing all their benefit payments at once, leaving a small amount of money as a buffer, or perhaps putting cash towards a particular purpose. We are well aware of the number of people who join holiday clubs or Christmas clubs to try to keep money in a defined account that is kept for a specific purpose, and a lot of people on low incomes find that to be a more effective way of having control over their money. They want direct control over their spending and feel that a bank account takes that away from them. Unbanked people are more concentrated in particular groups, but not having a bank account could be a conscious decision as much as a matter of exclusion, and we must therefore have a more flexible approach.

In the long term, the taskforce believes that the introduction of new models and channels for the delivery of financial services may be necessary to address the difficulties that poorer households can experience with banking. It has called on the Government to engage further with banks, e-money service providers, bill payment organisations, retailers and post offices to pursue new ways to improve the opportunities for low-income households to make the most of their money. We are in danger of getting stuck by thinking about a model of banking based around bank accounts. Increasingly, people are turning to prepayment cards or e-money as a way of controlling their finances or paying bills online.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The Minister has correctly identified one concern of the financial inclusion taskforce—that of bank charges that are very high in relation to the sums of money that people are dealing with. Does the Minister have any proposals to address the banks on that issue, given that by definition, people cannot run up unnecessary debt on those accounts? Perhaps bank charges should be reduced for that customer group.

[Mr Hoban]

The coalition agreement commits us to tackling the issue of bank charges, and we are working closely with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

I want to respond to a couple of specific points. Hon. Members have discussed bankrupts not being able to open bank accounts, and the hon. Lady was right to say that Barclays and the Co-operative bank allow undischarged bankrupts to open accounts. A number of banks are currently reviewing their policies and, in response to a call by the Government in July for banks to reconsider the issue and recognise the problem, the Insolvency Service is working with the British Bankers Association to decide how to address the issue.

The guidelines in law on identification are high level, and banks and financial services institutions have a great deal of flexibility in deciding how to prove someone’s identity. It is not only about having a driving licence or a passport, because there are other ways of doing it. In one of my constituency cases, a letter from the local council addressed to the person who was seeking to open a bank account was deemed to be sufficient proof of identity. I encourage banks to make their staff more aware of the rules and flexibility, and we will continue to raise that matter with the banks and the BBA.

The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) asked whether banks are open to people opening basic bank accounts. The work of the financial inclusion taskforce, which sent mystery shoppers into banks, demonstrated that 80% of bank managers are much more open to people opening basic bank accounts. That issue has been a problem in the past, and we must maintain pressure on the banks to ensure that they offer basic bank accounts and do not turn customers away. We must tackle the barriers to people opening bank accounts.

Community investment tax relief is an important way of providing support. That tax is due for review shortly, and we will work with a full range of stakeholders to consider the options available for reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I do not want to get bogged down in what banks should or should not do. Through its mystery shopping exercise, the taskforce looked at the offering of basic bank accounts, and it will publish a more detailed report this year that will help inform those processes. Obviously, the Banking Code Standards Board will also have an interest in how such accounts are offered.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East also asked about support for credit unions and post offices working together. There has been much discussion about that in recent months, and there is already a lot of co-operation between post offices and credit unions. For example, credit union current account holders can access their accounts through the post office, and more thought is being applied to that area.

We take financial inclusion seriously, and we want to ensure that more people have access to a bank account and the benefits that that brings. It is important to ensure that bank accounts and financial services work with the grain of how people live their lives. We must look at new technological approaches and the barriers to opening bank accounts. Together, we will take forward the work of the financial inclusion taskforce in conjunction with our partners not only in government but in the financial services sector. If I have not replied to any of the hon. Lady’s points I will happily respond to them by letter.

[Sheila Gilmore]

It appears from the Minister’s words that the financial inclusion taskforce will be continuing.

[Mr Hoban]

The previous Government committed the financial inclusion taskforce to a five-year life. The problem is ensuring that inclusion becomes a mainstream financial services issue and is not seen as something on the margins. That is why I will work closely with the financial services sector and other interested parties to see how we can best take forward the work of the financial inclusion taskforce. It is not an issue for those on the margins; it is an issue that should be taken seriously from bank boards to bank branches.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I believe that there is a massive difference between the proportion of gross national product spent on health under the Tories before 1997 and the proportion spent on it now. Although I think that we should spend more on health—I have always argued that we should spend as much on it as Germany and France, but we have still not quite reached those funding levels—we have made massive improvements.

For a long time I complained that health service spending in Luton was below the fair funding target. We lobbied our own Ministers heavily on the issue, and I think that we made some progress in persuading them to move in the right direction, but we must ensure that health funding in all areas increases as a proportion of GDP. I hope that Buckinghamshire as well as Luton North will benefit in that regard.

We must accept that improving health care sometimes means increasing rather than decreasing labour intensity. Health care will improve if a ward containing 20 beds and two nurses is given a third nurse. That is certainly true in the elderly care sector, about whose future I am seriously concerned. The fact that our population is ageing is an additional major burden for the health service. We all want to ensure that we are cared for properly when we are elderly—even more elderly than I may be at present. When we are elderly and need care, we want that care to be properly funded, so that we do not suffer in the later stages of our lives.

I strongly support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, and I hope very much that the Government will accept the amendment.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It has puzzled me slightly over the years that successive Governments, and the Treasury in particular, have been so reluctant to engage in hypothecated funding. I know that there are arguments for and against it, but one of the main arguments for it—as has been borne out by the changes in 2003 involving the hypothecation of increased national insurance contributions—is the building of public support for the deed itself. It is true that if we want good services we must pay for them, but people want to know for sure that their money is going where they think it is going.

People in Britain tend to say that we should have Scandinavian-style public services with American-style taxes, but the two simply do not fit together. Scandinavian-style public services come with high taxation. If people can feel confident that their money is going where it is most needed, they will be much more committed to spending it. As I said earlier, I have not always understood why even my own party’s Governments have not necessarily been particularly keen on that point of view. It seems that Members have been captured by the Treasury as soon as they have become Treasury Ministers. However, an innovative step has been taken.

Amendment 8 does not ask for the national insurance increase to be hypothecated at this stage. It merely suggests that the door should be left open, and that if it proves impossible to reach the health service spending target to which the Government have committed themselves, it should be possible to use the national insurance increase to ensure that that commitment can be fulfilled.

[Gavin Shuker]

Have not the Government already accepted the case for the hypothecation of national insurance contributions for the health service? Does not the amendment merely seek to help them along the way by ensuring that the hypothecated funds end up in the right place so that they can fulfil their own commitment?

[Sheila Gilmore]

It is true that they have not chosen to retreat from the path taken by the previous Government, but the amendment gives them an opportunity to use the fresh, additional contributions if that is required.

The Government have taken a huge step forward in accepting that more money needs to be spent on the health service. For some years, when we were in government, one of the themes that emerged from the then Opposition was that spending lots of extra money was not making a difference. According to them, lots of money was going in at one end, with no indication that anything good was happening at the other end. I perceived that as a sort of softening up: they were telling people that they would still have a good service if they did not spend as much on it. Now, however, there seems to be a recognition that the money is important, and that spending is necessary after all.

That approach is vindicated by the increase in public support for the health service over the past 13 years. According to the findings of a 1997 survey, the level of public satisfaction with the service then stood at 34%. When the same question was asked in 2009, it had risen to 64%—the highest level since the study was first conducted, well before 1997—which showed that people really appreciated what was happening to health spending. I urge the Government not to put all that at risk, but to leave this opportunity open by accepting an amendment that would allow them to meet their own health spending targets and ensure that we do not lose people’s current satisfaction with the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I reassure the hon. Lady that when I was in the Treasury, I put an enormous amount of effort into supporting exactly this kind of initiative. I supported the Thames Gateway initiative specifically, as well as other regeneration initiatives.

The Government are now saying that they will not give grant funding, but instead will provide incentives. This is our one opportunity to boost the incentives for establishing the kind of business that the Prime Minister wants in east London, and it will be forgone unless the amendment is agreed by the House this afternoon.

I do not know exactly how things work in the Conservative party. Who speaks to whom, and who is on whose side is all closed to me. It may be that the Exchequer Secretary feels that he does not need to take much notice of what the Prime Minister says. Perhaps he speaks to other people in his party. Let me therefore point out that it is not just the Prime Minister who wants the initiative to go forward. I point him to what the Mayor of London said—perhaps he takes more notice of him than the Prime Minister, I do not know. The Mayor said:

“we can and must do more to cement our position as a global magnet”.

He went on:

“the Olympic and Paralympic Games will bequeath to London a vibrant new business quarter in the east of our city. We must do everything we can to support its development”.

This afternoon, we have the opportunity to do something to support the Mayor of London’s call to develop the vision set out by the Prime Minister. We must not let this opportunity pass us by.

Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary does not take much notice of what the Mayor of London says, either—again, I do not know about that. If that is the case, let me point out to him the position of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Its website states:

“The Government is committed to making a success of the Thames Gateway…we will promote incentives to invest and develop in the area, instead of grant funding specific projects.”

That returns me to the point that I made a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). We understand that the Government are not now willing to contribute grant funding. We disagree with them about that, but are told that there will instead be incentives to invest and develop. Here we have an opportunity to provide just such an incentive. As far as I am aware, the Government have not come forward with any other incentive, and we can provide one along the lines of the policy that the DCLG has set out. We should take that opportunity, and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will do so this afternoon by accepting the amendment, so that we can provide an incentive in an area that has been so specifically identified by the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and the DCLG.

The DCLG website also states that the Government will

“work with other departments to identify how their programmes bear on the Thames Gateway and need to be adapted”.

The initiative in the Bill clearly needs to be adapted to fulfil the Government’s policy for the Thames Gateway. I hope that the Minister will tell us what representations he has received from the DCLG, because it is an extraordinarily disjointed approach for one Department to say that it will introduce incentives and initiatives in one area and for the Treasury to take not a blind bit of notice and send all the incentives somewhere completely different.

The previous Government used to talk about “joined-up government”, and indeed we made important progress towards achieving it, so that all the different parts of Government were pushing in the same direction towards the same goal. Here we have a case in which the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Mayor of London are on one side, and the Exchequer Secretary and his colleagues are on the other. I invite him to support what his right hon. and hon. Friends are saying, and not to stand aloof from the policies of the Government of whom he is a member. The Treasury should not be an island, cut off from everybody else and doing its own thing without talking to others or supporting what they are doing, but that seems to be the position with this Bill.

I invite the Exchequer Secretary to accept the amendment and agree that the incentive should be applied in places in which the Prime Minister has so clearly identified its importance.

[Sheila Gilmore]

As a Member from Scotland, I might be expected to give the Scottish whinge about how everything goes to the south-east and nothing comes to Scotland. I am not going to do that, because the way in which the Bill has been constructed has not been well thought through. It is not clear, at least to me, what are the intentions behind parts of it and what set of policies it is meant to fulfil.

Is the Bill about helping areas with high levels of unemployment, some of which have never fully recovered from previous recessions, or helping areas with high levels of public sector employment, which we anticipate will suffer greatly from what will happen over the next couple of years? They are not necessarily the same places. The constituency of my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) is at the top of the list provided by the Library of areas with the highest public employment. Most people would think that large parts of that constituency are fairly affluent, because the public employment is, I suspect, largely at the university. It is perhaps not perceived, certainly in Edinburgh or even in Scottish terms, as in particular need of employment support. My hon. Friend, who is sitting on my right, probably disagrees.

We must decide what we are trying to achieve. I am very persuaded by what I have heard from many colleagues, particularly in London but also in other parts of the south-east, which has a long history of difficulty. The south-east is by no means all affluent. It is important to create employment in the parts of London and the south-east where unemployment is high. Those places are suffering many problems and are now affected by the cuts in public expenditure. People there are being told that they may have to move because their homes are too expensive for them. Many things are coming at those areas, and I am persuaded by my colleagues’ words and by what I have seen in London that there is a need to boost employment in many places.

I am not convinced that the particular cut of the cake for which the Bill provides is the best. I am not clear about the reasons for it. On Second Reading and in Committee, it was suggested that it was done to target places that need help most. I do not think that that is necessarily the case. At other times, it was suggested that we have to do what the Bill proposes because we cannot act everywhere—that would cost too much. We are then back to the arguments about the need to reduce the deficit and the speed at which that has to happen.

However, the best way in which to get out of recession is to grow the economy and create jobs, and it is important to do that everywhere. I appreciate that, in terms of the amendment, we cannot ask for further expenditure at this stage, although we could review the position in later years. However, tax loss could be recouped quickly if new businesses grow and employment increases. It is important to build employment throughout the country. There is no particular reason for taking the route that has been suggested.

We are constantly told that we have to act in this way because the country is in such a mess and we must reduce the deficit more quickly. Labour Members do not accept either the Government’s description of how and in what circumstances the deficit arose, or their prescription. We must build employment and provide the economic stimulus that we need in various ways—the scheme is only one method; there are many others. National insurance contribution relief is only one small, albeit important part of a bigger picture.

We need a continuation of the policies that, in early 2010, meant that unemployment did not rise as high as had been predicted and that the deficit was falling more than had been predicted before the election. It is not true to say that the deficit was increasing—it was falling under our policies. The growth in various quarters of 2010 was the result of the economic stimulus package that we put in place. We should continue the economic stimulus. National insurance contribution relief is one small way of doing that and, in my view, it should be country-wide.

Bank Bonuses

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

That is one of the issues being considered, and I noted the Governor’s comments. The code of practice has a number of constraints on how bonuses are paid. It is a vast improvement on last year’s situation, and will help create a better regulated banking sector.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

When the Chancellor’s colleague the Prime Minister said in 2009 that no bank with significant taxpayer support should pay bonuses of more than £2,000, was he jumping on an Opposition bandwagon or was it a serious policy initiative? If it was the latter, what has changed since 2009?

[Mr Osborne]

That was about the time when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the then Prime Minister, said:

“The day of big bonuses is over.”

That is the kind of rhetorical—[Interruption.] That is the situation that we have inherited—no proper code of practice, no permanent bank levy, no plan for improving the system of regulation. We are putting in place measures that we believe will materially improve lending in this economy and the regulation of our banking system. Every single one of them has, for opportunistic reasons, been opposed by the Labour party.

Autumn Forecast

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

This has been one of the most difficult issues that the international community and, of course, the Irish people have had to wrestle with. For reasons of financial and economic stability, it was decided that it was not possible and would not be sensible to ask the senior debt holders in the Irish banks to take a haircut. That is exactly what did happen in late 2008, in some of the US bank rescues, with pretty disastrous effects, so that is why that decision was taken. Subordinate debt holders in the Irish banks will suffer losses and I think that is appropriate.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Given that the nearest year for prediction in the OBR report suggests that growth will fall in relation to previous predictions—it was 2.6%, then 2.3% and is now 2.1%—what confidence can we have that predictions further out than now will be any more reliable? Is it not likely that growth will not rise as much as predicted?

[Mr Osborne]

I said right at the beginning of my remarks that these are economic forecasts and that we should treat them with the caution with which one should treat all economic forecasts. At least we explicitly acknowledge that and the forecasts are independently produced. What we have here is a central forecast; previously, Chancellors just gave a number and asserted that that was the forecast come hell or high water. That is not what the OBR is doing today. However, one can take confidence that its growth forecast for next year is in line with those of most independent commentators and forecasters. It happens to be very close to the numbers that the European Commission produced today, which were not available to the OBR or the British Government until today. We can have confidence that it is part of a group of people who look to the UK and see it growing sustainably over coming years and jobs being created.

Banking Reform

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I speak not as somebody who has a banking background, but as somebody who represents part of a city that built much of its prosperity over the past 20 years on the financial services sector. I was encouraged and pleased to see many large banking organisations making their headquarters in the city and am hopeful that we will retain as many as possible, although there is a risk in such a situation as this that we may not. That industry has been extremely important for the city and has stimulated many other industries, not least property and construction. However, as we have seen, there are clear dangers in becoming over-dependent on the financial sector, as opposed to other parts of the economy, and we must reflect on that.

Like all Members, I represent people who were baffled by a lot of what happened, and who remain baffled by what is happening. They feel that whoever is responsible, we have gone wrong somewhere in how we deal with what should be fairly simple matters such as how we can borrow and lend, and grow our economy. Although it might be naive to think that we could return to the simplicity of savings and loans organisations such as that featured in the film “It’s a Wonderful Life”—it is a good time of year to think of that—we do need to return to some of the variants of financial services that we appear to have lost.

In the rush to demutualisation, with nearly all the building societies being turned into banks, we lost something very important in the sector. That has left a lot of distrust among many people. We talk about encouraging individuals to put their trust in saving, which is important for aspects of our economy, but many people do not have the faith and trust to do that. That cannot be healthy. It would be helpful if there were small and medium-sized organisations in which they had that trust.

I echo the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) that we have an opportunity to reconsider the mutual path when banks cease to be owned by the taxpayer. Those banks can go down a different road from the one that they have trodden. I hope that we will be able to consider that, because it would be healthier and better to have variety in our banking sector.

We hear many different views about whether there was too much or too little regulation. From the perspective of the consumer of banking services, it sometimes feels as though there were a lot of regulation of little things and not enough of the big things. When I get another letter from the bank to tell me about some small change in interest rates, or not even that, I feel that things have gone too far, especially when it is accompanied by a big booklet that, frankly, I do not read. I am sure most people do not. That is regulation taken to its extreme. Equally, however, it cannot be right that an organisation such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is of great importance to my city and country, was able to become so full of its own importance that it could decide to buy into ABN AMRO, which was the cause of a lot of its problems, without someone saying, “Stop. Halt. You can’t do this.”

Similarly, on the whole question of remuneration and bonuses, the ordinary person does not feel that what is happening is right or fair. They want us as parliamentarians to take a strong view on the matter. This debate is important, because there has been what some people would find a surprising degree of agreement and consensus that action needs to be taken. We need to translate that into not just a Back-Bench debate but Government action. If we do that well, we will restore people’s trust not just in banking but in politicians.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming]

The hon. Lady is entirely right. If we do not deal with the deficit, we face many other problems. We will end up paying a higher interest rate on sovereign debt. At the moment we are doing quite well, with an interest rate of about 3.5%. Before the bail-out, the Irish were being charged about 8% and the Greeks are being charged about 11%. When a country has a large deficit, if that country does not take action, not only does the amount of debt go up but so does the rate of interest.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In April, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said that big cuts would be extremely dangerous. Did the hon. Gentleman agree with him then? If he does not agree with that now, when did he change his mind?

[John Hemming]

That might be slightly out of order, but I should probably answer the question. There has been a debate about the £6 billion of cuts in this financial year. At about 4% of the overall deficit, £6 billion is not a large sum, but given what happened with the initial sovereign debt crises during the general election—things that we have to be aware of, such as what was going on in Greece—we need to give the message that we are serious about dealing with the deficit. That is a socially progressive policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

Let me offer these words to the House:

“Simply put the Child Trust fund started people saving for children again. Since its introduction, child saving across all schemes and products has risen. We should acknowledge that asset building for children became a widespread reality in the UK through the introduction of the Child Trust Fund in 2005, and it quickly became an internationally renowned example of a long term tax free savings and investment account for children, one which encouraged saving and promoted an understanding of personal finance.”

Those are not my words but the words of Phillip Blond, in a new pamphlet called, “Asset Building for Children—Creating a new civic savings platform for young people”. I did not expect to be speaking his words, let alone encouraging the Minister to listen to them.

[Fiona Bruce]

It is correct that families have engaged in, and benefited from, the improved financial awareness that was one of the stated aims of the child trust fund. However, the evidence given by Dr Samantha Callan, a witness to the Committee, said that of parents who opened child trust funds,

“99%...have not received the maximum funding available. Therefore, it is not those on the lowest income that are actually taking the initiative to open the accounts.”––[Official Report, Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Public Bill Committee, 4 November 2010; c. 102, Q253.]

That means that they are not benefiting from the financial education and engagement that the funds were aimed at providing.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The hon. Lady overstresses that issue. She fails to see that the child trust fund was different from other savings funds because it was intended to provide not only financial education but a real asset to children who would not otherwise retain one. It is also important to realise that there is a real difference in kind between what the previous Government put in place and the junior ISA, which was thrown in fairly late on in the course of the thinking that occurred in response to the concerns expressed and is still fairly vague in its implications.

This is about a transfer of assets and tackling asset inequality. We are faced with not only income inequality but asset inequality. It is perfectly legitimate, and indeed desirable, that we look at asset inequality just as much as at income inequality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, the way in which child trust funds were structured enabled additional money to be put in for looked-after children and children with disabilities. That is extremely important for them at the age of 18. Junior ISAs do not deliver that; rather, they will be of greatest benefit to those who get the tax relief that goes with an ISA.

In the past, there have been many schemes allowing parents, grandparents and other people to save on behalf of children. My children had baby bonds, which were provided under the National Savings scheme, and some of the money that went in came from their grandmother. That was wonderful, and a great idea, but it would not—I am sure that it did not—assist many children from low-income households, to whom the child trust fund was specifically designed to give additional help.

I want to return to the pamphlet produced by Phillip Blond, which has been given a lot of support from several organisations interested in this field. He strongly advocates that the infrastructure of child trust funds should be retained, even if the rest of the system is to go:

“Our first and foremost recommendation is to maintain, extend and improve the infrastructure of the…Child Trust Fund under the auspices of the new ABC account. Maintaining the old CTF platform comes at a minimal cost (£2m pa) and it preserves a unique and valuable savings infrastructure for the further augmentation and development of children’s savings.”

That would then enable the new proposal that comes from a raft of organisations working with children—the ABC account—to be developed using the same infrastructure. It would also enable this Government, or a future Government, to return to it and decide that they want to put in additional contributions at a later date. I am surprised at the lack of faith shown by Government Members, including members of the Committee, about the economy recovering. They do not seem to think that it is worth preserving the infrastructure for a future time when it would be possible to put in extra contributions.

I urge the Minister to listen to the words of Phillip Blond and those who have supported his proposals and even at this stage, if the Minister cannot support amendment 1, to consider keeping the infrastructure.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

As the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) set out in his opening remarks, the amendments in this group, except for the two tabled by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), seek to delay the ending of child trust fund eligibility, or indeed not to end eligibility at all. Amendments 4 to 12 and 17 to 26 would delay the end of child trust fund eligibility from January 2011, either to 2016 or a date set by regulations. Amendments 1 and 36 would mean that child trust fund eligibility did not end at all.

I set out clearly on Second Reading the rationale for ending child trust fund eligibility, particularly for ending it from January 2011. This Government inherited a fiscal position that the Governor of the Bank of England described as “clearly unsustainable”, and dealing with it immediately was unavoidable. As hon. Members will recall, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out a package of £6 billion-worth of savings in 2010-11 just a couple of weeks after the coalition Government were established. Part of that package was £320 million of savings from the child trust fund this year. A large part of those savings have already been made through the regulations made in July, which reduced contributions at birth and stopped them at the age of seven. Delaying the end of eligibility would reduce the savings that we plan to make by £20 million this year and by around £50 million in each future year that the delay continued.

Those figures assume that the current value of the child trust fund would continue at £50 at birth for most children and £100 for those in lower-income families. Some providers have told us that those values would not be viable for them in the long term, and so some could withdraw from the market. However, if the value of the vouchers were increased, which could be done through regulation, the costs of the delay in ending eligibility would increase too. Either way, the money would have to be found from somewhere, through other spending cuts, tax rises, or even more borrowing. The Labour proposals would also be confusing for families who understand that CTF eligibility is due to end in January this year, particularly if we were to take the power to set a date through regulations.

I understand the point that the right hon. Member for Delyn made about delaying the end of eligibility until the junior ISA, which I announced on Second Reading, is in place. I am not expecting that to take too long; I hope that the new account will be up and running as early as autumn next year. It will be available for children who are born after the ending of the child trust fund—that is, those born after 3 January 2011.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said that the trouble with the junior ISA was that it is tax free, but so was the child trust fund, so I cannot see that its essential nature is very different. I do not quite understand her point.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

I am happy for the hon. Lady to clarify it.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The point that I was trying to make is that the only incentive given in the junior ISA is that the payer—the parent or grandparent, or whoever is putting in the money—can get tax relief. The child trust fund gave money to the children of families who do not usually benefit from putting money into a savings account that brings tax relief because they may not be paying tax, or paying very little tax, so it is not of such great advantage.

[Mr Hoban]

The fundamental difference is that under the junior ISA there will be no contributions from the state, whereas in the case of the child trust fund there were contributions from the state. Our intention is to save money in order to cut the deficit—that is why we are ending eligibility for those sums. The junior ISA will be a simple product. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) queried that, but she should remember—to reiterate a point that I made in Committee—that 20 million people have ISAs, 12 million of whom earn incomes of less than £20,000 a year. The ISA is a mainstream financial product that people of all income streams and all ages understand; they find it very easy to contribute to a cash ISA or to an equity ISA.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that there was a sovereign debt crisis in Greece and that we need to learn from circumstances. If we do not do so, we will face great difficulties. We have a saving of some £100 million-plus on a scheme viewed by independent experts as not being the best way to use that money. There is no independent evidence that it even achieved its objective, save perhaps for reducing the amount of money people spent on restaurant bills when eating outside the home or on takeaways. That is what the IFS drew our attention to at the evidence session. If we are serious—and we are—about ensuring that the Government keep the interest rate on sovereign debt down so that we avoid ending up with the problems of Greece or Ireland, we must take that into account.

Yes, I accept there is a job to be done: we need to look after people on lower incomes and ensure that they have access to funding systems so they can balance their finances when they incur higher expenditure. We also need to encourage people to save where appropriate, but it is not always appropriate to do so. As I mentioned, the Royal College of Midwives said that a mother who has just given birth should not be concentrating on saving all her money; she needs to focus on eating well. On that basis, the proposals represent an entirely sensible and reasonable way of reducing the amount of money that the country has to borrow.

[Sheila Gilmore]

First, the selection of evidence we have heard from the Committee sittings is very limited, particularly from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming). Other people giving evidence explained exactly how helpful the saving gateway scheme had been in its pilot phases and could be in the future. Mark Lyonette of the credit union movement said how important saving was, not only because of the money actually saved, but because of

“what it does to people’s confidence that they have… a few hundred pounds built up over a year or two. It gives them some sense that they are more in control. They will have credit commitments at the same time, but it is really important to feel that there is something of a buffer. Whether through the savings gateway or some other initiative, we think that the Government can encourage—and needs to encourage—more people to get that better balance between what savings they have, however small, and their credit.”––[Official Report, Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2010; c. 49, Q143.]

Yes, he also said that the saving gateway was not the only way to generate savings for the credit unions, but when asked whether it would make an important contribution he said “Yes, absolutely,” it would.

I did not quite understand the rhododendrons reference of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), but he seemed to suggest that we believed that a scheme like this was “the answer” to deprivation and poverty. That is obviously nonsense. We are not suggesting that and we never have suggested it. It is one part of a whole jigsaw of provision that has to be put in place. It is that part of the jigsaw that needs to look forward to two things: first, questions of asset inequality; and, secondly, long-term solutions where people begin to change their behaviour and build up some assets for themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is dismissive of the importance of advice, good numeracy education in schools and an understanding of money. Proper budgeting and gaining an understanding of how to spread what I accept are limited means—I agree that this Government desperately need to deal with poverty in this country—are important; she should not be so dismissive of the importance of advice and good numeracy education in schools.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I was not being dismissive of advice; I said that it is not enough in itself. To suggest that it can be a substitute for something like the saving gateway is to miss the point—the real nudge, or the real incentive, that comes from the matching.

It has been suggested that there were not enough outlets for people to use the saving gateway, but the housing association movement was very interested in it and had a great deal of discussion about how it could become, in effect, a front end for people who wanted to save through the saving gateway scheme.

[Bill Esterson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although advice and budgeting are important, one problem in society is the lack of good financial education? For people on very low incomes, it is difficult to find a means of saving. That is the whole point about the saving gateway and credit unions; otherwise, there are not the accounts or mechanisms for people on low incomes to save.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Indeed; I agree with my hon. Friend.

My point about the housing association movement is that the people who say that there are not enough outlets to make the saving gateway really work are not sufficiently prepared to look at some of the things that already exist. I firmly believe that we could have built the scheme up. If tenants could have agreed to small savings being taken at the same time as they paid their rent, for example, which would then be passed over to the provider—whether it be a credit union or another organisation involved in the saving gateway—that would have provided a relatively straightforward and easy-to-access method for those tenants. Housing associations, which see themselves as having a wider role than simply being a landlord, felt that this would have been helpful for their tenants.

We hear so much of “We have to do this because of the deficit.” We are told by the coalition Government, “We had to change our minds about all these things”—in fact, both Government parties did not support all these proposals, although they did support the saving gateway scheme—“because of the financial situation.” We have two different views about how to get out of a recession. The Government parties did not just want to pay down a deficit which they suddenly claim not to have known about before, although they did know about it and, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), it had in fact been falling. They decided to reduce that deficit speedily, within five years, regardless of the consequences. There is another choice, although the Government may not agree with it.

The Government say to us, “You cannot support child trust funds or any of the other measures involved, because if you do, you will not reduce the deficit.” That is not the case. We take a different view on the economy. Our view is that the deficit should be reduced far more gradually. That was also the clear view of the Liberal Democrats as recently as late April: they said that fast cuts would be exceedingly dangerous. I do not see what has changed since then.

Ireland has been mentioned yet again. It cut public sector salaries and services, and it cut very hard. Indeed, only a few months ago it was being set up as a model in that regard. However, it has not got itself out of its financial difficulties.

We believe that if we reduced the deficit more slowly, two things would happen. First, we would be able to make choices about the things that are important, and I believe that the saving gateway would be one of them. Secondly, if we did not cut so drastically, unemployment would not be as high, which would mean more money for the Treasury, and we would not have a growing deficit problem. I firmly believe that if we proceed with the Government’s proposals the deficit will not be reduced as fast as they would like, despite the cuts, and it may actually increase.

We believe that those choices exist, and that the saving gateway is important because of the advantage that it brings to low-income families. It represents a long-term and real effort to change behaviour and improve the circumstances of such families, and that is why we want to retain it.

[Mr Hoban]

The speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was remarkable. It appears that only one group taking part in international debates is suggesting that we should be less aggressive in tackling the deficit and should put ourselves at the mercy of international markets, and that group is the Labour party. Surely the one lesson that should have been learned from our current circumstances is that a credible plan is needed to tackle the deficit, but Labour lacks that credible plan.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Many economists share our view, including Joseph Stiglitz and David Blanchflower. It is not true to suggest that it is only the view of the Labour party. There are different views, and it is entirely legitimate for people to hold different views, but it is simply not true that no one shares our view that reducing the deficit too rapidly is dangerous.

[Mr Hoban]

If the hon. Lady reads the comments of international organisations such as the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union, and those of rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s, she will find that mainstream opinion agrees with the Government about the need to take action now to tackle the deficit in order to avoid the crises that we are seeing elsewhere in the world. All that we hear from the Labour party is “Let us delay the difficult decisions. Let us go into the election with the structural deficit, and try to deal with it in four or five years’ time rather than now.” That has been the theme of Labour Members’ contributions throughout our debates on the Bill. They have denied the need to tackle the deficit now, and have ignored the lessons that are being presented all around us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

I support the abolition of the health in pregnancy grant, not least because £150 million a year could simply be better spent on improving the life chances of our younger generation—for example, by reducing the deficit and the burden that they would otherwise bear as a result for years to come. The grant is poorly focused, poorly targeted and poorly timed. It is poorly focused because it does not have to be spent on nutritious food or on the health and well-being of the mother or child, as was originally intended. As Dr Callan of the Centre for Social Justice said in evidence:

“There was absolutely no guarantee that the grant would be spent on nutritious food.”––[Official Report, Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Public Bill Committee, 4 November 2010; c. 116, Q279.]

Indeed, the Committee heard evidence to the contrary, as has tonight been confirmed by a Labour Member.

The grant is poorly targeted because it is paid to the better-off and not just those who really need extra financial help in pregnancy. I find that quite offensive, as someone who—along with many of, if not all, my colleagues on this side of the House—shares a real desire to improve the life chances of the less well-off.

[Sheila Gilmore]

On that basis, if the hon. Lady feels so strongly about it, why has she not advocated that the grant should be retained but restricted to the groups that she feels need it most? I am not saying that that is my point of view, but I was not aware that she or her colleagues were proposing it.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point: we are continuing the Sure Start maternity grant and the healthy start vouchers because their benefit is that they really hit their target, which is some half a million mothers in difficult circumstances who obtain vouchers from the 10th week of pregnancy to buy vegetables, vitamins, fruit and other healthy foods.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

There are, indeed, choices to be made: there is a choice about the kind of society we want to live in, and there is a choice about how we resolve economic problems. Members on the coalition Benches want the public to believe that there is only one show in town, which is that we have the worst deficit in peacetime and that we have a situation that was entirely caused by the last Government spending too much over too many years. That is the only argument they want people to believe, but let us just unwind a couple of years.—

[Paul Maynard]

rose—

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am not going to take an intervention just now.

I recall that three years ago, at the beginning of the recession, people were predicting how high unemployment would rise, how difficult things would get and how high our deficit might be. Unemployment did not rise nearly as high as predicted under the Labour Government, and I will tell hon. Members why: because we were putting in money as part of an economic stimulus. Yes, we borrowed to do that but we did so because it was the right thing to do. We were told that it was the right thing to do by the junior partner in this coalition throughout that period. I remember those debates before the election—

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

You were not here.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I was thinking about the public debates on television involving the Chancellor and the would-be Chancellors. I recall what the Liberal Democrat spokesman on finance said, and he put forward a completely different perspective from the current Chancellor. There was no agreement.

Members on the Government Benches may disagree with what I am saying, and I am happy for them to do so because that is legitimate in politics. We have a different view of how to do things, but that does not mean that our view is so unreasonable that we are not even allowed to put it. We are hearing that we are not allowed to argue any of these points and that we are not supposed to say that we would make different choices. The Minister gave this one away when he said that these measures would not really harm people; he said that the saving gateway had not even started and so nobody was being harmed, which is why it is an easy cut.

[Paul Maynard]

How does the hon. Lady respond to the point that there were no willing providers of the saving gateway? No matter how successful her party’s pilots were, no building societies were willing to make that provision. It is all very well her saying all this, but the gateway was not going to take place in reality; it was just going to take place in her own private make-believe world.

[Sheila Gilmore]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at all the evidence and the research, he will find that it is clear that this was going to take place—[Interruption.] It was going to take place because there were providers who were going to do it—[Interruption.] I do not know why he is waving his hands in the air—we could do that too. There were credit unions that wanted to get involved, as did two banks. The complaint made in Committee was that because only two banks wanted to get involved, there might not be enough access points. I have suggested other access points and I described the debate that took place when the housing association movement, with which I was involved, wanted to be one of the ones that would help people to make payments into a saving gateway scheme. That argument does not hold up.

We have heard a number of distortions of the evidence. We were told that the NCT thought that the money should go on women buying food, rather than saving, but we should recall that Belinda Phipps, the NCT’s chief executive, has written a foreword to the book that I mentioned earlier entitled “Asset Building for Children—Creating a new civic savings platform for young people”. It was written by two people, one of whom is Phillip Blond, who believes very strongly in the child trust fund; he believes that saving is very important and he suggests that we should have stuck with this arrangement. He does not say that it was without its faults—this is not a case of saying that it did not have faults—but he devotes a paragraph to saying that although it could be improved, that does not mean we should throw it out completely.

Some of the debate, particularly in Committee, was interesting and covered a lot of important material. If we want to do the best by people, we would not simply reach a point where, without looking at the wider context, we say, “Right. We have to make some savings now. Let’s just chop this, this and this.” It may be that we could have improved some of these schemes and they could have been differently focused. However, that is not the debate before us, but the stuff that has been thrown up in the course of it; the debate before us deals with the fact that either we have these schemes or we do not.

Labour Members believe that we could run our economy differently and that we do not need to cut so far and so fast. On that basis, we would be able to decide which things we wish to keep in place and which things we might want to save. I could talk about all sorts of savings that I might want to make, but I would also want to talk about the balance between savings and taxation. There are legitimate debates to be had about that.

We do not need to accept proposals that harm some of the most vulnerable in our society and the long-term view. It is astonishing that the Conservatives, in particular, whom I always understood to believe in saving, should not want to go ahead with the saving gateway. In 2003, it seems, the present Chancellor said:

“We think that having savings…gives people a stake in society, gives them independence, encourages self-reliance and bolsters the freedom of the individual against the overbearing state.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1345.]

He has clearly changed his mind.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Field]

The hon. Gentleman is right to make that important point, although it also raises the question of how we couch such a new clause and schedule in a future Finance Bill to ensure that it takes on board an industry that we want to encourage rather than see go much further afield. I am not a young lad of 15 or 30—or even of 46—so the industry has passed me by, but there is no doubt about the enthusiasm of the companies operating in this sphere. One of my biggest concerns is that all too often those companies have to employ programmers from eastern Europe and other parts of the world in order to get the relevant level of expertise. That is a regrettable state of affairs. None the less it is undoubtedly a thriving and enormous industry, in which we are cheek by jowl with the Japanese in terms of our expertise and export potential.

I implore the Minister to take our concerns seriously. Now would not be the time to accept a proposal such as the one before us, but I hope that he will give sufficient comfort to Opposition Members to ensure that they do not press the matter to a vote. However, the issue is worth discussing at length today.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

One thing that I have not understood—I have not understood it from either the debates that we had in the Public Bill Committee, on which I served, or the responses to the various parliamentary questions that have been asked about the video games industry and tax relief—is whether the objection is to the detail of previous proposals or this proposal, or whether there is a more fundamental objection about giving such a relief at all. At times, it seems to be suggested that it is not appropriate to give such a relief, but it would be extremely helpful to know which it was.

If the issue is the detail or exactly how the proposal is to be implemented, that could be discussed further. However, targeting such an industry—or indeed any industries—might be felt to be inappropriate. In one answer given in the Chamber last week, the suggestion seemed to be that a lower rate of corporation tax generally would be sufficient, without targeting specific emerging industries. However, a tax relief is important to a growing industry in that it allows it to get off the ground and develop in the way that it needs to. People have already spoken about the cash-flow difficulties for sectors such as the video games industry, so it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify where the Government are on this issue and what their future plans might be.

[Mr Redwood]

I am delighted that the Opposition have highlighted the example of the video games industry. However, I fear that it is only one example among many of how we are at risk of losing talent, enterprise, jobs and business development in a number of areas because our rates of taxation are now not internationally competitive. It is interesting that the Opposition, who do not normally favour lower rates, have identified lower rates—or a lower tax imposition—as the answer in this case. I hope that they will think on these things more widely, because the combination of a high marginal rate of income tax and what is now quite a high rate of corporation tax by international standards is not a good combination in an intensely competitive world, where there has been a shock to overall demand and where we are having to fight for our commercial lives in world markets.

From my point of view, there are a couple of problems with the proposals before us. The first is that going for 25% British content is a low ambition. I would have thought that one would want a rather higher rate of British content if we were formulating some special treatment for the industry. There is also a problem with concentrating on the profits that a company generates, because some companies will be small businesses with talented entrepreneurs. They might have just one good game in them that earns them an awful lot of money in a short space of time. That is when high marginal rates on apparently high earnings—they become genuinely high earnings where it is possible to sustain them—could become quite an imposition, because those entrepreneurs might get caught in the year or two of their success, but find afterwards that they are no longer able to achieve that.

The issue is therefore not just about corporation tax or profits tax; it can also be about income tax. I hope that the Minister will reassure us by saying something about how he sees our overall tax regime developing, in both corporation tax and income tax, because we have a general problem and we need to show the way to lower rates as quickly as possible in this very competitive world. I would also repeat to my hon. Friend the simple point that the evidence from the American and the British experiences is that when countries have been bold enough to cut rates on enterprise, income and profits, they have usually found their revenues increasing. It is quite obvious that the Government need a lot of extra revenue, so I would recommend that proposal to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The new clause would link the future withdrawal of child benefit from higher rate taxpayers with the principle of independent taxation. The payment of child benefit is clearly a spending issue and is not directly linked to the Bill. I therefore shall not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is important to set out the background to the change.

The spending review set out how the Government will tackle the deficit that they inherited from the previous Administration. Given the comments that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition—I congratulate him on becoming the recipient of another child benefit payment, and wish him and his family well—as well as by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and several other Labour Members today, I take it that the Labour party remains opposed in principle to our reform of child benefit and believes that it should continue to be paid to all households.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does the Minister agree that this is a case of reforming in haste and repenting at leisure? However tempting it might be to put in place something that sounds simple in principle, the complexity of the proposal should have been examined. The Government could have acted differently, such as by making child benefit part of taxable income. I do not necessarily suggest that that would be the best solution, but it would mean that several issues around independent taxation would not apply. If the Government wish to reduce child benefit to some households, there are other ways of doing it.

[Mr Gauke]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but I am not clear about whether her party’s position is to say, “Something should be done, but we don’t like the way it’s being done,” which, I think, is the position that she sets out, or to say, “We don’t think anything should be done at all,” in which case we must include the £2.5 billion that the measure will save the Exchequer—that is an estimate from the Office for Budget Responsibility—as part of our assessment of the Opposition’s fiscal policies.

--- Later in debate ---

The repeated technical difficulties demonstrated in the new clauses serve only to reinforce the point I made in Committee that such changes should not be made in haste, for fear of inadvertently moving groups of persons in or out of the definition. As hon. Members will be aware, the Treasury launched a new approach to tax policy making alongside the June Budget.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Earlier today I made the point, on another matter, that it may be unwise to reform in haste and repent at leisure. I am very pleased that the Minister has now decided to agree with me.

[Mr Gauke]

I am delighted if that is how the hon. Lady interprets my remarks, and if that pleases her, it pleases me.

In June, we produced our paper on the making of tax policy and we believe that it is very important to adopt a deliberative and consultative approach and, wherever possible, to consult thoroughly. We wish to avoid the experience of making reactive and piecemeal policy announcements that have been insufficiently thought through and result in unexpected consequences—we saw too much of that under the previous Government. Instead, we believe that appropriate consideration should be given to changes, thus providing an opportunity for those affected to comment and have certainty about our decisions. Any change on this matter should go through that process to ensure that we can come to this House with legislation that will work as intended.

Let me be clear that I agree that the wording in the current definition is outdated and that I am committed to delivering change. As I have said, my officials have already started to work with LITRG and will work with other groups that have the expertise to ensure that we get this right. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has alluded to the fact that LITRG is happy to work with Treasury officials and accepts the need to get this right. I believe that it will be possible to deliver change to the definition in the next couple of years along the timetable that LITRG accepts.

I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause to a vote, but I hope that he will engage with us on how to make the change behind the clause that we both agree is necessary. I am grateful to him for raising the issue in Committee and today. I agree that this should not be a matter of party political dividing lines and we will seek to address it. It has been of long-standing concern, but the Government are determined to address it, so I ask him to withdraw the clause.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to look very carefully at where money is spent and ensure that it is spent wisely in pursuit of improving the life chances of children and young people. That is why, for example, our right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced recently that we will extend to all disadvantaged two-year-olds 15 hours of free nursery care. That is a very targeted way of helping children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds to achieve their life chances. We have seen the pupil premium introduced, with £2.5 billion a year to help children from disadvantaged families. The coalition Government have set out plenty of measures that are focused on helping the most vulnerable in society. That is what we need to do in the light of this financial crisis: to target measures on those who need them the most, rather than simply opposing every cut for the sake of it, as the Opposition are trying to do.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not agree that the logic of his position is that universal benefits should not exist? In that event, why are women and children being targeted for the loss of these universal benefits? Why not pensioners, who might not use their winter fuel allowance to pay their fuel bill? They might use it for something wholly inappropriate, such as buying a new pair of shoes or a piece of clothing. Why are women and children being targeted in this way?

[Mr Hoban]

The Labour party is clearly looking for more substance for its economic plan, and perhaps the hon. Lady’s idea of tackling the winter fuel payment is something that the shadow Chancellor will embrace. I look forward to hearing whether those on the Opposition Front Bench will decide to adopt her idea or dissociate themselves from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Early in the Minister’s introduction to the debate, one of the reasons he gave for not going ahead with the saving gateway account was that there had not been enough take-up by banks. He also argued that credit unions did not exist in every deprived community, and that they would therefore be unable to operate the saving gateway accounts adequately. I think that he was putting the cart before the horse. The saving gateway would have given the credit unions a huge boost and allowed them to develop.

The credit union in my constituency is fragile, because it serves an area in which people have difficulty saving. They might wish to borrow, however, and to do so through a credit union is much better than using some of the other methods on offer in the area. It is difficult for credit unions to balance their savings and their borrowings, even without taking into account their administration costs and all the other expenses that they incur, and they need to get volunteers to do the work. So, if we want the credit unions to grow, we need to assist them, and retaining the saving gateway account would have been one way of putting credit unions such as the one in my constituency on to a firmer footing.

If a credit union is not an example of “the big society”, I would like to know what is. I believe this illustrates a fundamental incoherence, which we can see in many of the policies presented by the coalition Government. They have a lot of the words and a lot of the language—in fact, I sometimes think that Government Members are stealing our language—but if we look at what is being done as opposed to what is being said, we see the truth. Here is an example of something that should be encouraged as part of the big society, which we are all supposed to be supporting, but some of its lifeblood is being cut off through this policy.

Another incoherence is seen in considering what types of benefits we should have. As I said before I was elected, we all need to discuss that—I am not suggesting that my party has no need of further discussions—and I shall carry on saying it. Do we want universal benefits or not? If we have them, yes, there are costs. Personally, I would have been happy to see child benefit made part of taxable income in a more coherent way. If we want universal benefits, yes, there are tax implications.

There are some strange inconsistencies around. I may have imagined it, but I thought I heard the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills extolling on the radio yesterday—several times throughout the day on the BBC—a policy that he claimed the Government would adopt over the next few years: providing pensions and giving the current rate of means-tested pension credit to everybody over pension age. I think that would be fantastic, especially if we could further reduce the dependence on means-testing. Many of my constituents, particularly those just over pension credit level, would feel that that was fair. There is a huge cost, however, which would have to be paid for. Is that really the policy of the coalition Government, or only that of one party trying to distract attention from the comprehensive spending review? Can it be the policy when we have heard today all sorts of arguments against universal benefits being made very strongly by Conservative Members? I found it quite offensive to hear some Conservative Members describe what they thought people might use their health in pregnancy grant for—it is not necessarily eased by other benefits. That is why I have referred to incoherence in the policy, which needs to be sorted out. It is right for us to expose it.

We have different views on how the economy works and on how to get out of the recession. We could go into all sorts of history lessons. The 1930s are often mentioned, but we have to go beyond 1931, 1932 and 1934. There is a strong economic argument for saying that we did not get out of the recession until re-armament started before the second world war. It can also be argued that the UK went through a double-dip recession in the mid to late-1930s. Economists disagree, of course, but none of us should take such an absolutist position as to suggest that we are simply right. We have a view; you have a view—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Speaker, you do not have a view. The coalition Government have a view, but we should be prepared to listen to alternative points of view.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In the course of the debate, yet again, we have heard an awful lot of myths and legends. One of the biggest of those is the notion that because the Opposition have a different view of the economy, we are deficit deniers. You do not have to be denying a deficit to hold a different view of how it arose and the background circumstances, and a different view of how we get out of the situation that we are in. That is quite reasonable.

It is healthy that we have politics within which there are different viewpoints. The proof of the pudding will be apparent in a few years. If you are right, I will have to eat my words. I do not believe that those on the Government Benches are right, but we cannot tell just by throwing words at each other. It is not correct to say that somehow the Opposition hold the view that there is no deficit. That would be plain nonsense.

There are other myths and legends that we have heard today. One, which we heard from the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), is that the previous Government were guilty of not mending the roof when the sun shone. We hear that repeatedly. If building schools, hospitals and roads was not mending the roof, I do not know what it was. If by that Conservative Members mean that we should have saved the money and put it in a reserve somewhere, that may be a legitimate criticism, but to suggest that we were not investing in the country’s infrastructure is plain wrong.

The hon. Member for Northampton South also suggested that the economic crisis was entirely our fault because of light-touch regulation. I may have been asleep through the years of the Labour Government, but I always thought I heard Conservatives saying that there was too much regulation, that we were the party of red tape and regulation, and that we over-regulated not just financial services, but everything. We heard an excellent maiden speech from the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). Although I disagreed with the entire political content, it was a good speech. The hon. Gentleman said that in his view there was too much regulation.

It is easy to say with hindsight that there should have been more regulation of the financial services industry, for example. I believe that there should have been, but when people say that we were over-regulating the economy, that is one of the myths and legends.

We are told that we do not want to leave our children and grandchildren in a big financial mess by not paying off debt, but equally, and perhaps more importantly, do we want to leave our children and grandchildren in the position that generations have been placed in by previous economic failures, by destroying jobs and creating long-term unemployment in various parts of the country? I do not want to leave that to my children and grandchildren.

We are allowed to differ and to hold different points of view and different economic theories. The difference is not about whether there is a deficit, but about how we got into the present situation and how we get out of it.

The previous Government managed to stop the rise in unemployment reaching the levels that had been predicted. That was the cause of economic stimulus. Far from the deficit spiralling, as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), the deficit did not rise as much as had been expected. Therefore, we were not in some sort of new crisis—that is what has been suggested—which justified an emergency Budget which had very little in it. The Finance (No.2) Act 2010 that we passed in a great hurry before the summer also had very little in it, and we lost an opportunity to make some important changes.

The public and private sectors are inextricably linked, and slashing jobs in the public sector will further reduce the tax-take, increase the demand on benefits and, in itself, increase, not decrease, public borrowing and the deficit. Equally, reducing our investment in infrastructure—not stopping it entirely, but reducing it more than we need to do—will ultimately put us in a more difficult position.

Just last week I visited two constituent households at their request. The problems that they asked to see me about had nothing to do with jobs; nevertheless, by no coincidence in both households there was a working-age construction worker who was desperate to work but could not find any in my city. One said that the last job on which he had worked was now a complete university building in the city, but we will not see much more of that kind of building by our educational institutions. He is very keen to work, but the jobs are simply not there.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Everybody would like to see that investment, but, and this is the point that I tried to make in my speech, the previous Chancellor would also have cut the capital budget. I talk about deficit deniers because I do not understand how you can ask for capital investment to carry on when your shadow Front Benchers would, as I understand it, follow that plan to reduce the capital budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thought I had covered that issue. We are not saying that there is no deficit or that there will be no reductions; we are saying that if you cut too far and too fast, you will worsen the current position.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

I am extremely interested in the fact that you admit that you would have cut the deficit, and I am extremely interested to know how you would do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Tempted as I am to answer the questions that are being posed about the deficit, I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman is not the only one in this debate currently blaming the Chair for everything, so I would be grateful if we could return to the convention, ensure that our language is correct and, if possible, keep me out of this argument—for now, anyway.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The whole matter is very much one of degree, not either/or. However, one other interesting difference between the Government and Opposition Front Benchers is that the Government frequently argue that high public spending and a big public sector act as a drain on, and kill off, the private sector. In the city of Edinburgh between 1997 and 2007, however, development and building—not just public sector building, but private sector building—flourished. In fact, the Royal Bank of Scotland built a huge corporate headquarters just outside the city during that period. The argument is that if we have a huge public sector, the private sector will shrink and disappear, and that, therefore, if we do the opposite, the private sector will suddenly rise up. I do not yet see, and doubt whether we will see, any great rise in the private sector. Where are the private residential houses and offices being built by the construction industry in my city? They simply are not there. They were at a time when, according to all the arguments that Government Members have put forward, they should not have been. If the public sector is so bad for the private sector, we should have had huge problems.

At this stage in the passage of a Finance Bill there are opportunities to do several things. We heard an interesting exposition of the importance to the film industry of tax reliefs and credits, so why did the Government decide not to go ahead with an equivalent tax credit for the video games industry? The city of Dundee, which is not far from where I live, suffered for many years after what happened to the old industries. It was a city of jam, jute and journalism, and it struggled for a long time, but the relatively recent expansion of the further and higher education sector in the city and the spin-offs in terms of the research and development have been very impressive. They have brought people back to a city that was losing its population, and they have encouraged young people who were educated there to stay there. Industries such as the video games industry, for which Dundee has become justly famous, have done that, yet for no good reason the coalition Government have stopped something that might have allowed the industry to develop and flourish. The opportunity exists in this legislation for the Government to reintroduce that opportunity, and I hope that they will do so.

I was at a briefing earlier today on the Robin Hood tax, a financial transaction tax that many organisations in this country advocate not only because they feel it right that the banks, which did so much to cause the financial crisis, should contribute, but because it is a way of raising funds to deal with poverty and deprivation here and elsewhere. That proposal could be included in the Bill. It is well worked out, and I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will be prepared to consider amending the legislation in order to include such matters.