HC Deb 24 June 1976 vol 913 cc1867-9
Mr. Sainsbury

I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 24, line 14, leave out from 'trade' to end of line 18.

Mr. Speaker

With this we may discuss the following amendments:

  • No. 44, in page 24, line 15, leave out on that date there was' and insert 'there is'.
    • 1868
  • No. 45, in line 21, after 'be', insert 'or would have been'.
  • No. 46, in line 21, after 'attributable', insert 'or deemed to be attributable'.

Mr. Sainsbury

Amendment No. 44 is consequential on Amendment No. 43 and Amendment No. 46 is consequential on Amendment No. 45. Amendment No. 43 seeks to avoid having to have planning permission to qualify for the relief on stock in trade.

Amendment No. 45 deals with a problem which was recognised by the Minister in Committee, when he said: now that he has made the point I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall look into it. I cannot say that we shall accept the amendment, because I am not certain of the extent of the problem".—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 5th May 1976; c. 915.] I hope that the Minister will now say either that he is satisfied that there is a problem and that he can accept the amendment or that there is no problem and that the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Denzil Davies

Amendment No. 43 seeks to give stock-in-trade relief even where planning permission in respect of the land was not in force on 12th September 1974. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to accept that amendment. We debated the matter in Committee. We are concerned here with a tax on planning permission, if that is not too loose a way in which to put it, and it would not be right to give an exemption in relation to an asset where planning permission had not been given.

The subject of Amendment No. 45 was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), who asked whether the stock-in-trade exemption would continue if there were a change in the nature of the development. I gave an assurance that I would look into the matter, and I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 11th June telling him how we saw the position. I said: There is nothing in Clause 16 to suggest that if a planning permission, which was in force on 12th September 1974, expires before the time of a subsequent disposal (and presumably is replaced by a fresh permission) the stock in trade exemption is lost. Similarly if the original permission is abandoned in favour of another, for example, if the site density is increased from 30 persons an acre to 50 persons an acre, the condition that there must have been a permission at White Paper day is satisfied, although the development takes place under a different permission. If there is a different kind of development—an increase in density, for example—the exemption is not lost, but if there is a completely different development—for instance, a change from housing to a supermarket or industrial development—it is lost. I could probably defend that by saying that it is an entirely different situation. If the development is not different in substance, the exemption is not lost.

I hope that what I said in that letter goes at least some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman that I fulfilled the assurance I gave the Committee.

Mr. Sainsbury

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In view of what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to