HC Deb 22 November 1954 vol 533 cc1000-1

Lords Amendment: In page 56, line 7, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert: (4) Where, for the purposes of the Second Schedule to this Act, one or more development charges such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are covered by an assignation of one or more claim holdings to the Central Land Board, and by virtue of the provisions of that Schedule one or more of those claim holdings are deemed to have been extinguished or reduced in value by reference to the unpaid balance of the charge or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the unpaid balances of the charges, as therein mentioned, a sum equal to, or to the aggregate of—

  1. (a) the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been extinguished; and
  2. (b) the amount of the reduction in the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been reduced in value but not extinguished,
shall be deducted from that balance or that aggregate of balances and—
  1. (i) if that sum is equal to that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged;
  2. (ii) if that sum is less than that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges, or the balance or respective balances thereof remaining unpaid at the commencement of this Act, shall be reduced by an amount, or, as the case may be, shall be reduced rateably by an aggregate amount, equal to that sum:
Provided that where paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to this Act applies, any development charge in connection with which the claim holding in question was assigned in accordance with the arrangements mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged without regard to the treatment of the claim holding in question.

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is little more than a re-arrangement of the drafting. Subsection (4) deals with cases where one or more claim holdings have been assigned to the Central Land Board as security for one or more development charges. The Second Schedule provides for deducting the amount outstanding by way of development charge from the value of the appropriate claim holdings, and subsection (4) provides for the corresponding discharge of the development charge liability.

It is proposed to make a number of Amendments to the Second Schedule in order to simplify the calculations required. The effect of these will be that where two or more development charges were incurred in respect of land in the area of the same claim holding they are to be aggregated, and the aggregate amount outstanding deducted from the holdings assigned. This method of calculation makes necessary corresponding changes in subsection (4), but they are little more than drafting. The aggregate liability of the person who incurred the charges is not affected in any way.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 57, line 15, leave out "subsections (2) and" and insert "subsection."

Lords Amendment: In line 18, after "section" insert: except in subsection (4) thereof.

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a drafting Amendment designed to remove contradictions in the Clause.

Mr. Ross

Times out of number one of the two Ministers gets up from the Government Front Bench and says, "Drafting" but we do not know what the Amendments are consequential upon. In this case we are told that there is a contradiction in the Clause. Would it not be as well to tell us what the contradiction is?

The Lord Advocate

There is no question of anything consequential in this Amendment. The contradiction is that subsection (4) relates to cases where a development charge is met by deduction from one or more claim holdings under the Second Schedule. In that Schedule, the unpaid balance of a development charge is defined as referring only to the principal element which is outstanding. It must obviously bear the same meaning in subsection (4), and that is why the Amendment is needed.

Mr. Ross

Thank you.