Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I do not want to detain the Committee for too long on clause 6, as we have already expressed our pleasure at its inclusion in the Bill. It copies an idea that my hon. Friend Mr. Osborne announced in October 2007, although the difference is that the proposal in clause 6 is limited to two years. However, I would like to ask the Government about two points of detail that have been raised with us.

First, as happens in many cases now, a first-time buyer might be helped out with the cost of a purchase by a parent or relative. That person might not have owned a home previously, but the provision applies if, as proposed new section 57AA(1)(d) of the Finance Act 2003 says,

"the purchaser, or (if more than one) each of the purchasers, is a first-time buyer who intends to occupy the residential property as the purchaser's only or main residence".

If a relative helps someone to buy a property but will not be living there full time, does the purchaser of that property still qualify for the relief?

The second point that has been raised with me relates to proposed new section 57AA(2)(a) of the 2003 Act, which says that "first-time buyer" means a person who

"has not previously been a purchaser in relation to a relevant acquisition of a major interest in land".

My understanding is that someone over 18 living at home would, even if they were not the purchaser, be deemed for legal reasons to have a major interest in land, and that their consent might be required if the home were being remortgaged. How is that situation dealt with in proposed new subsection (2)(a)?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, the issue would be whether the person who had previously owned the property owned a stake in the property being acquired as a result of the arrangement that the hon. Gentleman has described. If the answer was no, and those whose names were on the deeds were first-time buyers, they would be eligible. If someone else who was not eligible had a share in the equity of the property, the concession would not apply.

I did not entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's second question. I am not quite sure what he was asking about the relief. He appeared to be describing a situation in which an additional person in the property had not previously owned a property, and I do not think that the relief would be affected by that.

The Minister has clarified my first point about the situation in which a gift has been made to help someone to purchase a property: the relief could still be granted for that purchase when a gift had been made by, say, a relative to enable someone to purchase a house. My second point related to whether someone who was over 18 and, say, living in their parents' home would be deemed to have a major interest in that property. Would the provision in proposed new subsection (2)(a) prevent them from taking advantage of the relief when they subsequently bought a home of their own?

I think I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that. If someone who had been living in their parents' home and who had not previously owned a property or contributed to buying one subsequently left their parents' home and bought a property for the first time, they would be eligible for this relief.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.