---

Finance (No. 2) Bill

It is a genuine pleasure to sum up our thoughtful debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. In the time available, I shall do my best to deal with the points made by the participants in our proceedings. The Chief Secretary had a gentler run-out than he did in the debate on the Budget resolutions. He raised a number of issues and said that the Government offered potential. However, he did not say a great deal about the Government offering potential to pensioners—I promise that I will say more about that later. Interestingly, he said, ““It’s not a test of fairness to take two sets of figures and compare one set with another.”” I thought that Chief Secretaries did that all the time, not least when they attempt to discuss departmental spending limits in the run-up to a comprehensive spending review. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has found a new way of doing so, and we look forward to seeing the results. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) gave a very good, detailed speech outlining our critique of the Bill. She criticised the instability of the tax regime caused by the constant change and tinkering in which the Chancellor loves to indulge. She suggested a measure to save the home computing initiative by working co-operatively—again, I shall say more about that later, and I would very much appreciate it if the Paymaster General attempted to take some of my points on board. My hon. Friend filleted the Government’s case on trusts and took it to pieces. We look forward to her doing so again in Committee, both on the Floor and upstairs. The right hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made a timely contribution, given the publication of today’s report. He said that the Committee had concluded that it may be appropriate to review the operation of the fiscal rules. That is right and timely, not least as an economic commentator recently stated that the Chancellor had moved the goalposts on the golden rule so often that they were"““barely still on the pitch.””" The Chairman of the all-party Select Committee expressed reservations about the Government’s proposals on trusts—a theme that cropped up in speeches by Members on both sides of the House—which they should reconsider. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I, too, welcome her to her new responsibilities, but may I offer her a tip? She lectured the House about posturing, but there is delightful irony in being lectured on that subject by a Liberal Democrat. [Hon. Members: ““Hear, hear.””] That proposition has support from three quarters of the House. We look forward to engaging in debate with her at close quarters in Committee, and we will see how much posturing takes place there. We then heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), for whom I have a particular affection, as he spoke just before me when I made my maiden speech in this place some five years ago. He described himself as one of the usual suspects in Finance Bill debates, which is right. He also rightly sounded an important warning about globalisation and the need to maintain competitiveness in the face of rapid economic and technological change. Given that need, it makes little sense to hinder the spread of computer literacy by abolishing the home computing initiative, as his Government currently propose, and I hope that we may yet have his support for trying to save the scheme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke, as ever, very knowledgeably on these matters. He noted the declining productivity growth in recent years. He is absolutely right, as productivity growth is now a fifth of its level when the Government came to office in 1997. That is especially worrying as it is the Chancellor himself who described such growth as a fundamental yardstick of economic performance. My right hon. Friend hit the nail squarely on the head. We then heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). What can I say about that? If I may say so, perhaps more briefly than he did, and being serious for a moment, he began making a very thoughtful speech. He spoke with some passion on the environment and the threat posed to all of us around the globe by climate change. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said, the hon. Gentleman had the House with him on that issue. It was the other 55 minutes where it went a little wrong. I understand that he is keen to serve on the Committee. I cannot tell him how much we are looking forward to that. I really cannot. He may know that, during debates in the Committee last year, there was a move in all parts of the House to form a group called ““Friends of Rob Marris””, whose basic intention was to persuade him to get out more. We shall see how we do. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire focused on a number of subjects, including real estate investment trusts. He rightly criticised the Government for their delay in introducing the proposals—an issue to which I shall return later. Not least because of his background in housing, I look forward to enjoying his contribution to our debates in Committee on that subject. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) asked what aspects of the Bill we supported. I shall not disappoint him, if he waits a few minutes, as I shall go through them with him. He said that last year he made a speech that was too critical of the Government, so he suspected that he would not serve on the Committee. Having heard his contribution this evening, I look forward to joining him upstairs.