---

Finance Bill

They are absolutely not a luxury. Insurance not only on cars but on homes and foreign travel, particularly for those who are slightly frail, is a vital matter. Taking £2 billion out of that sector is damaging enough, but if it is a disincentive, which stops people taking out the appropriate insurance, we could experience all sorts of difficulties in future. Let me revert to the fuel duty derogation, and read out a quote:""The case for a fair fuel deal for remote and rural communities is absolutely clear. People face longer journeys, much higher pump prices and few if any public transport alternatives. A lower rate of fuel duty is already available for remote and island areas in many other European countries."" Those are not my words, but those of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury less than three months ago on 12 April. I hope that he reads today's Hansard, remembers those words and begins to deliver. There was an opportunity, had the Government chosen to take it, to stick to their own recently published stricture in the Spending Review Framework,""to protect, as a far as possible, the spending that generates high economic returns"." They could have done that by keeping tax relief for the video games industry, protecting more than 2,000 jobs and creating 1,400 new ones; saving £300 million in investment and encouraging £146 million more; protecting £282 million in revenue yield and increasing that by £133 million. However, they did not, and that is hugely disappointing for that sector and for growth in a modern industry in this country.