Rating (Empty Properties) Bill

My Lords, those issues are of course a danger; the markets are far from perfect, as we on this side are more prone to argue than are the noble Baroness and her supporters. However, the Government’s case is that, in general, economic advantages derive from our attempts to ensure that our land and property are more effectively used. I have some pretty weighty evidence behind my argument. The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, was very critical of Sir Michael Lyons’s report and the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that the Kate Barker report left something to be desired. Such reports are always open to criticism. We recognise that when reports of that weight and significance are put forward, there are points at which challenges can be adumbrated. Nevertheless, these two reports are very important. Both come to the conclusion that we could use our existing resources more effectively than at present. The purpose of the Bill is to achieve that. I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, said about damage to pension funds. Of course, I recognise the limited point that he makes, but he will recognise the far more significant point that the health of pension funds, the development of equity and the whole question of returns to investors depend a great deal more on the success of the broader economy. If this measure plays its part in improving the position of the broader economy, such pension funds will benefit from it. I emphasise that the Bill was introduced in a Budget that reduced corporation tax by 2 per cent. I noticed that the noble Baroness was extremely dismissive about that—about as dismissive as anyone would be who had a carefully selected fox to run and became upset when someone else shot it. I believe that that was the position of the opposition Benches on corporation tax.