CREDIT FOR AGGREGATES LEVY (Hansard, 23 April 2001)

§ Mr. Letwin
I shall limit myself to a minute and a half, to enable the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to have his say.
The mechanism in the clause is probably the right mechanism for solving part of the problem that we will debate later in relation to pre-cast concrete. I see no reason why exports, and import substitution, which we will come to later, cannot be subject to exactly the same regime, regardless of whether we are dealing with raw aggregates or the fabricated material. I hope that, when we come to that debate, we can look back at this clause and see an exact parallel that will enable us to resolve the problem of pre-cast concrete and safeguard the jobs that are at stake. I will not dwell on the subject now, as we will have plenty of opportunity to debate it later, but I wanted to ensure that we have a hook on which to hang those remarks.

§ Mr. David Heath
There is the age-old question whether, in subsection (1), the "may" should be a "will". I believe that it should.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) referred to exports. There is a strong argument for using this mechanism for pre-cast concrete, which represents about 3 per cent. of UK sales, and 9 per cent. in the case of paving. There is clearly a problem.
It is hard to understand why the processes referred to in subsection (1)(c) are not listed, even in rudimentary form, especially as in clause 18(3) relevant substances are listed exhaustively.
Finally, under subsection (2)(c), it is hard to see why no interest is to be added if repayment is in the form of a refund, given that provision is made later in the clause for interest to be added to a credit. I ask the Minister to look at that anomaly.

§ Mr. Timms
We will be looking at the main points raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) later.