---

Finance (No. 2) Bill

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way before I was tempted to intervene on him. He is trying to play games with the statistics. He said that the scheme had only a 4 per cent. take-up, but that is nonsense. I have already provided one example of an organisation that saw take-up of 16 per cent. and it has been at that level or higher for a number of organisations. The take-up among employers pushing the scheme has been very healthy and I have already argued that the scheme was about to take off with other organisations—[Interruption.] I have to ask Government Members who are intervening from sedentary positions why, if the scheme was so bad, both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions were about to roll it out for their own employees. Perhaps some Government Member could stand up and answer that question. I will gladly give way to anyone prepared to do so. Silence. Perhaps the greatest problem in the whole sorry saga is the effect on individuals who have benefited from the scheme. I have already explained how even their benefit will be time-limited. In order to understand how they will be affected, I cite the example of one HCI provider, the company Futuremedia, which established a website to allow subscribers to provide feedback on the scheme. Here are some examples from respondents outlining the benefits that they believe the scheme confers. I have taken four representative examples. One respondent said:"““I joined so that my twelve-year-old daughter would not be disadvantaged when it comes to homework, research and preparations for exams. To date it has proved to be money well spent.””" The next respondent said:"““I joined because it gave me the chance to involve myself in the process of gaining new skills. This without the direct pressure of any direct work-related scheme but with help at hand and the knowledge I could work at my own pace in my own time.””" A third said:"““I joined as I was looking for a computer for myself but couldn’t afford to buy one outright; when the offer came along I decided to apply as it was a cheap and easier way of affording a new computer.””" The fourth said:"““As a man approaching my 50th birthday I find it vital to be dragged into the 21st century learning computer skills, as more and more they become an everyday part of life.””" Those are just a few of the numerous examples of how HCI was benefiting people in exactly the way intended, allowing them to gain both IT skills and the chance to learn about other subjects online and giving access to a PC to those who could probably not otherwise afford it. All that could be lost if we do not delete clause 61. For all those reasons, we believe that the scheme needs to be retained not only for the UK IT industry, which could quite conceivably be harmed by the clause, or the 2,000 or so whose jobs could be lost, but for the many employees in the country who would have taken advantage of HCI in the future to help maintain Britain’s competitiveness. We believe that not least because all the indications are that HCI was just beginning really to take off. I now move on to options to save the scheme by producing a revised system, under which it could operate alternatively in future—