Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Mr. William Ross: I do not know how far back the provision dates, although I suspect that its genesis can be found in 1920. However, we have come a long way from the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and since that time, several attempts have been made to set up devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, and devolved institutions have successfully been set up in Wales and Scotland. If the provision has for a long time applied to Northern Ireland, why does it not now also apply to Scotland and Wales? If it does not apply to Scotland and Wales, there can be no good reason for its continuing to apply to Northern Ireland. Given that we now have uniform systems in the three devolved regions, is it not time that all parts of the kingdom were treated exactly the same in terms of the collection of taxes?

23 Apr 2001 : Column 124

Mr. Tyrie: This is probably--almost certainly-- a minor matter, but we are not absolutely sure. The Minister does not know and nor do I. Will he undertake to drop me a line giving an explanation?

Mr. Timms: I shall be delighted to drop the hon. Gentleman a line.

Mr. Letwin: I hope that it will not be regarded as churlish if I follow up a point that is necessarily retrospective. This year's Finance Bill, like last year's, contains many clauses--other than those that deal with the aggregates levy--in respect of which the notes on clauses are genuinely helpful and explanatory. However, it is symptomatic of the way in which the aggregates levy has been presented that, in addition to the drafting of the provision being--perhaps necessarily--dense, the notes on clauses are a masterpiece of the gnomic. There is nothing that explains anything that cannot be seen on the face of the Bill--indeed, I venture to say that they are a genuine waste of paper.

I imagine that that regrettable situation is rooted in the same cause as the provisions as a whole--namely, that the measure has been produced on the trot and as a result of some late decision taken, much to the industry's surprise, suddenly to implement the aggregates levy. Presumably, there was stuff sitting on a shelf somewhere ready for production after the announcements made in previous Budgets, and when someone suddenly said that the provision was to be introduced, it was taken down at high speed. That is the charitable explanation for the fact that the notes on the clauses dealing with the levy, unlike those on many of the other clauses, tell us nothing. It might also be the charitable explanation for the fact that, even though it was the only new tax that he was introducing, the Chancellor did not mention it in this year's Budget statement.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 45 and 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

Interpretation of Part

11 pm

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 38, line 25, at end insert--

'except that, when any tangible moveable property which would not be regarded as aggregate for the purposes of this Part is imported, it shall be aggregate to the extent determined in regulations by the Commissioners.'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 24, in page 39, line 35, at end insert--

'"United Kingdom" means the United Kingdom except Northern Ireland.'.

Mr. Ottaway: The amendments go to the heart of the consequences of the aggregates tax, which will lead to the exportation of jobs overseas.

23 Apr 2001 : Column 125

Amendment No. 24 would exempt Northern Ireland from the tax. I have no doubt that my Friend the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will have something to say about that. Aggregate is taxed in its basic form when it is used for commercial exploitation in this country. It is also taxed in its pure form when it comes into this country to be used for that purpose. However, it is not taxed when it is imported in products such as pre-cast concrete. We are concerned that pre-cast concrete will be made in the Republic of Ireland and then imported easily into Northern Ireland without liability in respect of the aggregates levy.

Pre-cast concrete is only in small part cement, but it contains a large proportion of aggregate, so the House should be under no illusion but that a substantial amount of aggregate is involved. The same applies to ready-mixed concrete, which has a life of about an hour and a half, so its range of movement is about 20 miles by road. One can therefore assume that the entire 20-mile strip along the Northern Ireland border will become an aggregate-free zone, as pre-cast and ready-mixed concrete is imported from the Republic.

Amendment No. 26 seeks to draw attention--I confess that it does so fairly deviously--to the importation of asphalt from Normandy. As I said, ready-mixed concrete has a shelf life of about an hour and a half. Asphalt has a life of about 36 hours, and is rather like ready-mixed and pre-cast concrete, as it comprises a small amount of bitumen that glues together a large amount of concrete. It is used for making roads. We are advised that it is perfectly feasible for asphalt to be made in northern France and shipped into this country with substantial savings. Indeed, we are told that that already occurs.

The Financial Secretary said earlier that the transport costs would offset the impact of the levy, but that will certainly not be the case in Northern Ireland. He hinted that he would say something about Northern Ireland, and I hope that he will do so. We are also advised that if sufficient quantities of asphalt are imported from northern France, it will be far more economical to use such materials than to pay the tax in this country.

Mr. David Heath: Although the amendment rightly deals with imports to the United Kingdom, does the hon. Gentleman accept that exactly the same arguments apply to exports of concrete products? There is a double effect in relation to such products, as not only the levy but the transport costs to which he referred must be paid. That causes a distinct competitive disadvantage.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If I remember correctly, the matter to which he refers was dealt with in an amendment that will not be considered because of this stupid guillotine business to which we have been subject. There is no credit when aggregate is exported in pre-cast concrete products.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will have much to say about these matters, and I hope that the hon. Member for East Londonderry will also make some comments. As time is short, I shall sit down and make way for others to speak.

Mr. Letwin: I begin by clarifying in slightly more detail than my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) the reason for the construction of

23 Apr 2001 : Column 126

the amendments and by elucidating their drafting. We were bound to table them in their current form because of the absurdities of today's timetable. The issues that they cover could not be debated before 7 pm; we did not have time to debate important issues that relate to clause 17. We therefore had to find a method of debating them at the end of the proceedings and thus benefit from the excessive amount of time that had been allowed for boilerplate clauses. Consequently, as my hon. Friend put it, slightly oddly, amendment No. 26 would amend an interpretation.

The amendment refers to the definition of aggregate. It states that aggregates should be construed in accordance with clauses 17(1) and 18,

"Tangible moveable property" refers to items such as those to which my hon. Friend referred. They include pre-cast concrete and asphalt. We do not want the commissioners to determine the matter, as the amendment would provide.

It was almost impossible to include our intentions in an amendment to an interpretation. That is a ridiculous way in which to proceed with such an important matter. We would have liked to debate a new clause which set out our intentions properly. However, the Government decided to timetable the proceedings, and we have therefore had to use the device in the amendment. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not stoop to claiming that a problem arises from the odd casting of the amendment. That is his responsibility, not ours. We do not stand by the amendment's words; if he wants to take away the point and include it in another provision, that is fine. We are trying to protect many jobs, and I shall discuss that shortly.

The same points apply to amendment No. 24. It is obviously bizarre to define the United Kingdom as

I hope that my Friend the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will not interpret it to mean that the Conservative party has taken leave of its senses and supposes that Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom. At this stage of our proceedings, as opposed to the stage when we should have debated the point, during our consideration of clauses 16, 17 and 18 or of a new clause, there is no way of introducing an exemption for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friends would support such an exemption. Again, I hope that the Minister will not quibble with the method of solving the problem, because his timetable motion created the need for it.

I want to explain the reasons for the problem. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly pointed out that we are dealing with a symmetrical problem of export and import. We are also tackling the problem of competing with imports--import substitution--and the ability of our exports to compete with home-produced items elsewhere in the word--export substitution.

The amendments deal with only half the problem, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South acknowledged. It is clearly our intention, and it ought to be the Government's intention, to deal with the whole problem.

23 Apr 2001 : Column 127

The problem is acute, but I get the impression from the responses that we have received from the Financial Secretary throughout the evening that he does not think that that is the case. He is not given to the practice, to which some Ministers and other hon. Members are occasionally given, of making things sound as though they are all right when he does not think that they are. I have, therefore, a real worry that he is being completely honest when he says that he does not think that there is a problem. I think that he is wrong, and if he is convinced that there is no problem, it is unlikely that he will change the text, however wrong it is.

I hope that I can begin to open the Financial Secretary's mind sufficiently, so that the discussions with the industry to which he referred will be treated by the Government not in the spirit of an annoying delegation that needs to be batted away, but a genuine inquiry to discover whether the industry passionately believes, as I do, that there will be a real problem, and whether the industry is probably right because it has done its sums.

Next Section

IndexHome Page