Finance Bill

First, we welcome Government amendment No. 1, on the regulations referred to in the clause. The Economic Secretary wrote about them to my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary and the hon. Gentleman will doubtless address them in a moment. Our amendment No. 6 makes a relatively minor inquiry about a small part of the clause. It is not entirely clear why it is necessary to write it in the Bill that the regulations referred to in subsection 58C(2) may"““refer to a scheme or process””." I understand why it is necessary to include provisions in the regulations for the establishment of a ““process of certification””, in paragraph (b), and for the establishment of a process of ““certifying energy efficiency”” in paragraph (c). However, it is not clear why the fact that the regulations may refer to something needs to be on the face of the Bill, so we would be grateful for clarification on that point. By proposing that the regulations lapse after a year, amendment No. 7 allows us to make further inquiries about the scheme that the clause proposes. It is clear that the scheme will provide for a number of zero-carbon—or more properly speaking, energy efficient—homes, which is why we welcomed it in Committee. What is not clear is whether it will provide the number that the Government claim it will provide eventually. After hearing the Economic Secretary’s reply to the debate in Committee, we were more doubtful about whether the scheme would provide that number than we had been before he stood up to speak. Anticipating his response that that reflects more on us than on him, I shall share with the House the causes of some of the difficulties encountered by the Committee. I shall not linger long over the mystery of the current number of energy-efficient homes. At column 139 of the Committee report, the Economic Secretary said that there were"““few or no zero-carbon homes””;" but by column 141, when he had been asked to choose between two estimates, he conceded:"““I do not know the answer””.––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 15 May 2007; c. 139-41.]" I accept that the point is relatively minor, although the Chief Secretary had previously told that supreme constitutional authority—Jeremy Paxman of ““Newsnight””—that he thought there were ““a couple of dozen””. On Second Reading, he said:"““a development of zero-carbon homes is going forward at Gallions Park in my constituency””.—[Official Report, 23 April 2007; Vol. 459, c. 661.]" A reasonable observer might assume that ““going forward”” meant that planning permission had been granted, but the Economic Secretary confirmed on 15 May that it had not yet been granted, so those with an interest in London planning matters should note that when Ministers say a development is ““going forward””, they presumably mean—to quote the Economic Secretary—"““The London Development Agency has earmarked the site.””" At any rate, the Economic Secretary was unambiguous about the target. He said:"““we intend to get to the point where 200,000 such homes are built each year by 2016—that is the ambition.””—––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 15 May 2007; c. 138-39.]" We also know, because it was announced last May, and re-announced this May, that the Chancellor wishes five eco-towns to be built containing 100,000 energy-efficient—or if the Economic Secretary would prefer, zero-carbon—homes in total. That returns us to whether the Government are likely to achieve those goals. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark), who is in his place, announced a rough calculation in Committee. Assuming that each new energy-efficient house went on the market at £200,000, he argued, the Treasury would lose a total of £200 million in stamp duty if 100,000 of those houses were built. He then drew our attention to paragraph A2.10, on page 230 of the Red Book, which says:"““The Exchequer cost is expected to rise to around £15 million by 2011-12.””" As he said, that suggests that by 2012 only 7,500 energy-efficient homes will have been built, and by his calculation it will take 13 years in total to build the Chancellor’s 100,000 homes. My hon. Friend’s figures may be rough, but on the basis of the figure that he dug out of the Red Book, it is hard to see how there can be an acceleration from about 7,500 in 2012 to 200,000 only four years later.