Finance Bill

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to strike this balance carefully. The two areas in which I have clarified our position in our desire to achieve alignment—gas mains and multiple homes—indeed involve ways in which we can offer the prospect, following consultation, of more generous relief through a more generous interpretation of zero-carbon homes in the early years when we produce the regulations in the autumn. We are making those concessions, but at the same time, we also have to ensure that we strike the right balance and do not open the door to substantial rebadging and tax avoidance relating to homes that do not really meet our zero-carbon objectives. We are trying to get a sensible and aligned, and in the early years generous, definition. Our two-and-a-half-year review is intended precisely to give us the opportunity to assess whether we are making that progress. As I said, however, to review year by year and particularly not to give any certainty that the regulations would continue after one year unless the House acts again, as the amendment proposes, would run the risk of holding back the market and making it too easy for Governments not to deliver on our commitment. We want to kick-start the market. Our fear is that the amendment would hamper the market’s ability to kick-start, because it would be too easy to renege on an annual basis if Ministers of either party so desired. I should like to return to our debates in Committee and quote the contributions of some Opposition Members, who unfortunately are not all present. The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) said: ““From my business background””—this was one of the numerous occasions on which he cited his business background—"““and given how long it takes to build properties, it seems to me that putting a short time limit on the tax relief””—" at that point, he meant five years—"““sends a signal that the Government are uncertain whether the relief will continue. What confidence does that inspire in builders, who have to invest hundreds of millions of pounds developing new homes? It sends no confidence signal at all.””" I set out to the hon. Gentleman why I thought a five-year limit was a sensible point at which to assess the future of the relief. In the same debate, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) said:"““I am concerned that from the outset there is a limited window of opportunity—five years—attached to the scheme, however. As a business man, I point out that the technology required to approach the standard of a true zero-carbon home will require significant capital investment from developers to reduce the high unit cost of microgeneration technology.””––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 15 May 2007; c. 137,126.]" It is because we want to make sure that we achieve the incentive that we have not only set out a five-year relief, but said that well in advance of five years, we will make a public decision as to whether the relief will continue. I think that we are hearing a rather a confused message. The amendment tabled by Opposition Front Benchers proposes not an extension of the five-year time limit, but annual renewal of the regulations, while two Opposition Back Benchers suggested that five years was not long enough. I genuinely value the practical experience brought to the Committee by former and, as in the case of the hon. Member for Braintree, current business men when designing the relief, I do not think that they would agree that moving to an annual basis for making the decisions would be a sensible way to proceed. Let me quote Stewart Baseley, the executive chairman of the Home Builders Federation, another business man:"““We welcome this package of measures in setting both the goal and direction for achieving more and greener homes. Progress will be achieved most effectively through a framework in which Government sets clear objectives, industry is given the space to deliver and consumers are on board.””" That is what we are trying to achieve with these measures. The amendments would not only add to bureaucracy, but by moving to an annual basis for making the decisions, they would have the opposite effect to that intended by hon. Members on both sides of the House and the Government, and also the Home Builders Federation. In conclusion, I hope that the House will agree that the Government amendment will add value to the process of developing better legislation and fulfil the commitment that I made in Committee to do everything I could to ensure that we had an affirmative procedure on this matter. I hope that I have given reassurance to the right hon. Member for Wokingham that we are making progress on the detail in order to achieve, within the scope of the clause, the objectives that we have set out. I hope also that we have satisfied the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne that we are making tangible progress in providing clarity in definitions, and that we have seen off some of what I think she called the cynicism that we heard in the Committee, which is not well founded in this particular policy area. I hope that we have persuaded hon. Members that presentation is not what this is about. I am sure that my colleague on the Labour Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, would agree that this is an area where substance not spin is the way forward. I therefore urge the House to deliver our 2016 zero-carbon home objective, to support the Government amendment and to reject both the amendments tabled by the Opposition.