---

Finance (No. 2) Bill

I think I have explained our diagnosis of the 1996 regime. I shall be happy to discuss the history at our meeting on 18 July, but I think our most important task is to ensure that the regime works. I have assured the right hon. Gentleman that we intend the regime to support investment in both commercial and residential property. I have also assured the hon. Member for Rayleigh and others that we will continue to keep the listing issue under review, and I repeat that assurance today. We do not have a closed mind. We want small investors to invest in both kinds of property under the regime. However, as I have said, on the basis of extensive consultation we believe that we are establishing the right regime, and we ask the House to support it so that we can achieve our objectives. The problem with the amendments is that they would introduce inflexibility and distortions. They would cost substantial amounts of money or would increase the entry charge for other aspects of the regime. The danger is that the amendments would also encourage people to manipulate their affairs to qualify for more generous tax reliefs if they presented their REIT in one way rather than another. That would be a retrograde step. I ask the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire to retain his interest in these matters but to support the regime that the Government propose. As I explained to the hon. Member for Rayleigh, we always imagined that the commercial property sector would make its intentions clear earlier, because of the scale and sophistication of its operations, but that it would take more time for housing associations and some other smaller investors on the residential side to consider the way forward. We are encouraged by the fact that discussions are continuing. We have been criticised by Opposition Members for not doing enough to support investment in residential housing, and perhaps the regime will not fulfil the thinking behind the Barker review. I understand the thrust of that thinking, because only a few months ago the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), told a conference:"““I want us to be on the side of the first time buyer, helping young families realise their dream of home-ownership.””" His sources explained that he was trying to shed the Tory image of nimbyism. The problem is that that message has not fully got through. I referred earlier to the views of the hon. Member for Braintree and the belief of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that house building is excessive. I draw the House’s attention to early-day motion 158, opposing house building in Essex, which has been signed by the hon. Member for Rayleigh, and to early-day motion 23, which opposed house building in Hertfordshire and was signed by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke). The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the chairman of the Conservative party, said of housing in Sussex:"““I oppose the huge increases in house building currently being contemplated.””""—[Official Report, 19 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 847.]" The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) said:"““Suburbs like Barnet are under attack from John Prescott’s excessive targets for new house building””—"