Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)

We in Labour are opposed to this provision too for a range of different reasons. On budget night, indeed, accepting that this would go ahead, we did seek to introduce amendments to the resolutions that evening to at least establish a condition and connect the condition to these measures to provide for affordability, at least as a driver or a condition if these measures were to go ahead. Clearly, this, and, for example, the 9% VAT rate reduction, which we will discuss later on, are going ahead. I would be interested, although we are not going to be able to obtain this today, in the advice of the Minister's own officials on this matter. If it follows a trend in terms of the kinds of subsidies we have seen over the past few years, whether it is help to buy or any other subsidy, then I can imagine that the advice of officials in the Department and others would be to avoid this because of the potential unintended consequences. It is very difficult as well to measure the impact - positive or, indeed, negative - of this in isolation because we have got a range of other costly measures as well that the Minister will insist are designed to improve output and increase supply.

Like the other measures, is the Minister convinced that this will not, for example, drive up land prices in the context of the development land that is available at the moment? Is he persuaded that this will not have a deadweight effect like some of the other subsidies introduced in recent years? In other words, is it supporting, and will it support, development that will happen in any case without this measure? It just does not make sense to me for a range of different reasons. However, I am interested to establish whether the Minister has received advice and whether it is his view that this will promote supply. I am not so sure it will. I think the only thing it is going to do is to benefit the bottom lines of development companies, sadly.