Mr Ian Stewart: I support the clause. I do not wish to add anything of substance to what I said in Committee. The more thought that is given to the problem of mortgagees in this situation, the better. I have had discussions with fellow members of the banking profession and with those who are concerned with lending money against the security of property. They are experiencing increasing anxiety. Whatever the...
Mr Ian Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 11, line 27, at end insert— '(2) The development value realised by the grant of an option shall not exceed the development value that would have been realised on a disposal at the time of the grant of the option of the interest in land in respect of which the option was granted for a consideration equal to the aggregate of— (a) the consideration, if...
Mr Ian Stewart: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. He has somewhat elaborated his comments in Committee. We feel that there are still some difficulties about the interpretation of options within this measure. When an option is abandoned, the case has not really been fully made out for there being a separate interest of land on which development land tax is potentially payable. However, with the...
Mr Ian Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 245, in page 12, line 38, at end insert: '(8) This section shall not apply in relation to options granted for a lease solely relating to the carrying out of material development consisting of the winning or working of minerals.' In effect, the amendment provides an additional paragraph to the clause, which covers the difficult topic of options. It has been...
Mr Ian Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 35, line 8, leave out 'as near as may be'. This amendment may appear to be facetious, but it is not intended to be so. It raised a question in the mind of the Minister whether the drafting of the immensely complicated Clause 21(5) was satisfactory. Clause 21 deals with a case in which a company ceases to be a member of a group. Subsection (5) deals...
Mr Ian Stewart: I am grateful to the Minister for the attention that he has given to this problem and also for the further and slightly corrected comments he has made. It is useful to have this exchange on the record. In view of what the Minister has said, and bearing in mind the appalling difficulties that the parliamentary draftsman must have faced in dealing with this subsection at all, I beg to ask leave...
Mr Ian Stewart: We are grateful for the Minister's explanation. We believe that these amendments constitute welcome improvements to the Bill.
Mr Ian Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 81, in page 55, line 26, leave out "section 80 or section 82" and insert sections 80, 81 or 82". I do not wish to repeat the case I made in Committee except to say that in subsection (1) of Clause 34 the provisions of the interaction schedule are stated to apply to certain other taxes for the interaction with development land tax, and Sections 80 and 82 of the...
Mr Ian Stewart: We are grateful to the Minister for having looked at it. In the light of what he said and the negative result of his consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Ian Stewart: I welcome the Government's action in responding to the point that we put forward in Committee. We tabled Amendment No. 85 only to prompt the memory of the Government. I know the Government had difficulty in putting down the amendments on time. We welcome the Government's kindness in responding to the point which we raised.
Mr Ian Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 56, line 42 at end insert: '(7) Where any adjustment is made in the computation of the profits arising or losses incurred in an accounting period or year of assessment in giving effect to a deduction or other adjustment under this Act, a claim for relief or (as the case may be) for additional relief under any other provision of the Tax Acts which is...
Mr Ian Stewart: I realise, in spite of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has said, that there are considerable difficulties in amending the legislation at this stage. The Government have realised that there may be a problem and I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I was hoping that, under the circumstances, he would at least say that the...
Mr Ian Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 90, in page 62, leave out lines 5 and 6.
Mr Ian Stewart: Since the Government have tabled Amendment No. 91, I would ask the Minister to comment on that.
Mr Ian Stewart: I am grateful for that explanation. The draftsman has managed to achieve our objective by reducing the length of the Bill, when our amendments would have increased it. I therefore welcome what the Minister has said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Ian Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 110, in page 78, line 32, after 'development', insert 'other than landscaping'.
Mr Ian Stewart: I hope that the virtues of this amendment are self-evident.
Mr Ian Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 241, in page 106, line 50, at end insert 'and (d) canopies'. Although we did not discuss the merits of Government Amendment No. 153 relating to lifts and staircases, it appeared to us during our deliberations in Committee that there might be some other categories that should be included in the schedule that do not constitute a material development. I shall explain...
Mr Ian Stewart: I am not entirely surprised by the reaction of the Minister of State. However, I hope he will accept that the amendment has raised a potentially important point. Even if it cannot be resolved by his accepting the amendment, I hope that the Government will give further consideration to the matter. I hope that they will do something if, on reflection, it appears that the Bill could catch...
Mr Ian Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 253, in page 108, line 30, at end insert— '(c) where, on the facts, it appears to the Board or on Appeal to the Commissioners, that, on an appeal against refusal of a planning application before 12th September 1974 it could be reasonably expected that a development would be permitted, then the value attributable to the land following that technical refusal...
