Finance Bill

I would not advise the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because the last time he did so he succeeded in broadening the debate so far that the Deputy Speaker had to get to his feet. We cannot possibly have that now, can we? Whatever happens to the Economic Secretary, we know that he is a perceptive man. He dealt with today’s debate calmly and with a smile on his face, which suggested that he knows that the Government were rumbled in Committee. He was able today—we will accept this as a graceful form of retreat—to announce that there will be a two and a half year review, which we had not heard before and which he was good enough to share with us. He also provided some welcome details about the introduction of the regulations. One accusation that is occasionally thrown at us is that we do not want the measure to succeed. Although we are still sceptical whether the 200,000 figure will be reached, and although the Economy Secretary did not answer the point originally raised by my hon. Friend the cynical and sceptical Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark)—[Interruption.]. If my hon. Friend is cynical about the Government’s endeavours, he is entirely right to be so. We do not want to pursue any proposal that is likely to ensure that the scheme runs into difficulty. We accept that it will produce some zero carbon homes, although we do not know how many any more than the Economic Secretary knows how many there are currently. For that reason, we will not seek to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: No. 1, page 14, line 37, at end insert—