Finance Bill

I do, and the new loser bands—the bands for those who have residual uncompensated losses—apply to those with an income from around £6,400. The bands still run up to £7,600, and now, because of the £120, they taper out at £13,600. That is the umbrella of income under which people still have uncompensated losses. We are talking about a maximum of £120, which is still at that £7,600 point. The figure involved is 1.1 million people; we are not talking about drips and drabs. Typically, constituencies represented by Labour Members of Parliament have 2,000 or perhaps even 2,500—in some cases there are 3,000—such individuals or families. To Members of Parliament, £120 a year may not seem a substantial sum, but to families who are up against it, with high and rising core prices, even an addition of £10 to their monthly income can be helpful, crucial or valued. There was a choice, the Chancellor went for the simple and expensive option, and I am effectively adding to new clauses 11 and 12 my own humble attempt to refine the announcement in a way that would deal with those 1.1 million people. My scheme would build on the announcement, and it is, I hope, simple, accurate and inexpensive: £66 million seems to me to be good value if it gets rid of a political, financial and fiscal problem. There are plenty of sticks lying around for the electorate to beat us with, but let us at least put one of them on to the bonfire. My purpose in tabling new clause 20 was not to seek a method of beating the Government in the Lobby. I have not been the most persistent loyalist in recent years; I have had my concerns about a range of Government policies, and I have expressed my unhappiness through the votes that I have cast on a variety of topics. However, on this issue, my purpose was to ensure that the matters were debated and that an option was aired for the Chancellor to consider when he analysed the background to his pre-Budget report. I am not wedded to the scheme; it is just a suggestion. The Treasury Committee received from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others a range of ideas, and equally they might work. They have their costs, weaknesses and strengths. I believe that my suggestion would work, and I commend it to the House. I reserve the right to press the new clause to a Division if necessary, but when the Minister responds, I want to hear an absolute copper-bottomed, concrete-rooted guarantee that the Government, and the Treasury team in particular, are focused on those 1.1 million people. There are perhaps 2,500 such people in the Minister's constituency, and they are important.