David Norris (Independent)

I was well aware of the fact that there was a sustained advertising campaign which stated it was to their advantage. The argument the Minister of State has advanced, that one should exempt companies because they derive no financial advantage from it, should also extend to those who got affordable housing. Whereas it was originally envisaged that they would receive a financial advantage, in much the same way no doubt as property developers envisaged that they would make a profit out of it, they both were wrong. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The affordable housing scheme must be looked at again.

The Minister of State stated it is a financial argument. He was fishing around as hard as he possibly could - he is a decent man - to look for financially sustainable arguments. At the end of the day, the crucial political element was that this was a significantly large proportion of the population who would be exempted and, for that reason, it would so substantially reduce the income from this that it would create some kind of budgetary difficulty. That is a different argument, one that should be suspended in light of the difficulty that could plainly occur for those within affordable housing who have suffered already through taking up affordable housing in addition to having their income substantially reduced.

I am glad my colleagues on this side of the House have decided to withdraw their amendment in this area and that it could be argued again on Report Stage tomorrow.