§
Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 9, leave out line 21 and insert
the date when expenditure was first defrayed on the provision of any asset comprised in the project;
§ Mr. Norman LamontI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. LamontI think that this can be described as a technical amendment. The purpose is to correct a defect in new section 3 of schedule 1.
New section 3(3) of schedule 1 is concerned with the qualifying date of the project — that is, the date on which the project has to satisfy certain conditions to be eligible for grant. The date matters because the rates of grant and the assisted areas map in force on the qualifying date will normally be those which apply to the project for its duration, irrespective of any subsequent changes in rates of grant or in the map. This means that companies can rely on RDG being available at the same rate throughout the lifetime of a project, which is different from the present scheme.
§ Mr. DouglasDoes the Minister have any consideration in mind relating to the Nissan project in this context?
§ Mr. LamontNo, this does not relate to that project.
The aim in drafting the Bill was to make the qualifying date either the date of receipt of the application for approval of the project or, if earlier, the earliest ascertainable date when action was taken under the project, which means in effect the date on which the first asset is provided or the date on which expenditure is first defrayed.
Before the amendments were introduced the qualifying date under the Bill was the earliest of three dates—the date of receipt of the application, the date on which the first asset was provided, or the date on which expenditure was first defrayed on that asset. The last three words are the key words. They assume that the first expenditure defrayed will be on the first asset provided, but that is not necessarily so because expenditure may be defrayed very early on in relation to an asset not provided until near the end of the project. Buildings or equipment may have a long lead time and a deposit may be paid at the time of the order, so expenditure may be defrayed long before the asset is provided.
The Bill as it stood would have set the qualifying date by reference to the first expenditure defrayed on the first asset provided rather than by reference to the first expenditure defrayed on any asset. I hope that that is clear. In other words, the first asset provided is not necessarily that on which the first expenditure is defrayed. The original drafting assumed that they were the same. The amendment will be of advantage in those cases where they are not the same. I think that that is a simple point.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.