Finance Bill

I think that it was the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) who described the Chancellor as being in the driving seat when it comes to such measures, but unfortunately it seems that the Treasury is trying to look like it is putting the foot on the accelerator, while at the same time it is slamming its foot on the brakes. Unlike the present Chancellor, perhaps his successor will choose to grasp the issue more firmly. I am pleased to hear the Chief Secretary confirm that the low-carbon buildings programme allocation will begin in May, but today is 1 May and, as far as I know, the programme is still suspended. It is a matter of concern that it has been suspended for months and that we still do not have a firm date for its proper reinstatement. In the meantime, people whose job it is to increase the capacity of that programme face losing those jobs because that funding stream is not there. The clauses provide some clarity about liability for income tax and the fact that there will be an exemption, but I remain concerned about the sub-paragraphs to which the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I tabled refer. The matter remains obscure. I am still not clear what the Chief Secretary meant when he talked about the potential for commercial gain. Surely either we want to increase take-up of microgeneration or we do not. If there is an exemption from personal income tax, surely that deals with the commercial issue. If he is concerned about the issue of exceeding the amount of electricity that the household requires, surely that should be a reason to look again at the definition of microgeneration, rather than trying to deal with it as the Bill proposes, which does not seem clear. People who take up the scheme will not know when they have significantly exceeded the amount that they were intended to generate. To what extent is the measure supposed to apply?