It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship again, Mr Amess, even after so many weeks of listening to these riveting debates. I thank my lucky stars that I come here every Tuesday and Thursday, but the wonderful thing is that the Committee is chaired by you. It is always entertaining. [Interruption.] I am trying to move up the batting order every time I stand up. I will keep giving you compliments, Mr Amess, if you call me first.

I have said previously that, on the Finance Bill, we can only ask for reviews. I have some sympathy for the Minister who is batting off Labour party amendments about reviews every Tuesday and Thursday. I bet he is fed up of hearing about still more reviews. We cannot—I repeat myself again—add to a Finance Bill, because it is a money Bill, but we can consider a review.

I did not think that I would say this, but clauses 91 through 172 are quite interesting. The annual tax on enveloped dwellings strikes at the heart of the problem in this country. Half of the 700,000 houses valued at £2 million are not being occupied, whether or not they are being used as some facility to avoid tax. The clause introduces an important measure. It is not a mansion tax, but we are in a situation in which 1% of the highest earners are benefiting from an income tax cut. I am not denigrating success. I believe that everybody wants to be successful—I do—but cutting the 50% rate by 5p is  affecting only a small minority in society. If 5p could be found to cut income tax for the high earners, why was not it given to the middle earners instead—those who play by the rules, work hard and just want to get on? Why could we find the money then but not now?