§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the decision of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to decline to allow exemption from landfill tax for all construction sites where contaminated soil is removed; how many such refusals of exemption have so far been indicated; what tax revenues he expects to raise as a result of those decisions; and if he will indicate the legal basis for those decisions. [11366]
§ Mr. Oppenheim[holding answer 20 January 1997]: In granting the exemption, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise needs to be satisfied that the applicant is carrying out, or intending to carry out, a reclamation of land rather than simply carrying out a construction project. It takes into account the presence of pollutants in the waste, the amount of waste being removed compared with the amount that needs to be removed in order to carry out the construction, and whether all the waste would be removed from an area wider than the actual construction area. Each case is individually considered, bearing in mind all relevant factors.
It is not possible in the time available to break down the number of refusals by reason. As at 6 January 1997, the total number of applications refused was 83. Applications that are not eligible for the exemption do not raise additional landfill tax revenue. The potential landfill tax payable if wastes arising from refused applications are landfilled amounted to £35,595,713 as at 6 January 1997. The legal basis for decisions to refuse an application for exemption is failure to meet the qualifying provisions contained in sections 43A and 43B of the Finance Act 1996 as inserted by article 3 of the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996 (SI 1996 No. 1529).
§ Mr. WintertonTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications have so for been received for landfill tax exemption certificates; in how many of those cases such a certificate(a) has been granted, (b) has been refused and (c) is still under consideration; and in how many cases of refusals applicants have lodged, or indicated an intention to lodge, an appeal. [13598]
§ Mr. Oppenheim[holding answer 30 January 1997]: HM Customs and Excise has received 542 applications for landfill tax exemption certificates. Certificates have been granted for 153 applications, refused for 92 applications, and 297 applications are still under consideration. An applicant who wants customs to reconsider a refusal must ask in writing for a formal review within 45 days of the refusal. Customs has received five such requests. Applicants who initially voice their dissatisfaction with a decision may choose not to take the matter any further, and customs does not record informal indications that an appeal is being considered.
§ Mr. WintertonTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 23 January,Official Report, column 685, if his statement that eligibility for 22W exemption from landfill tax of construction sites where land is contaminated was never intended to be automatic is consistent with Her Majesty's Government's previous statements on these matters; what recent representations he has received on this point; and if he will make a statement. [13596]
§ Mr. Oppenheim[holding answer 30 January 1997]: It was, and remains, the Government's intention that all waste arising from the reclamation of contaminated land, where the reclamation qualifies for exemption under the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996, should be exempt from Landfill tax. Waste arising from construction after the land has been reclaimed is not exempt, nor was it ever intended that it should be. I understand the Building Employers Confederation is in correspondence with HM Customs and Excise on some issues of interpretation of the dividing line between reclamation and construction.
§ Mr. WintertonTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of the legal case Pepperv. Hart for the interpretation of the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996 in the context of previous correspondence with the construction industry; and if he will make a statement. [13597]
§ Mr. Oppenheim[holding answer 30 January 1997]: I understand that the Building Employers Confederation, in correspondence with HM Customs and Excise, has quoted Pepper v. Hart in questioning customs' interpretation of the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996. Pepper v. Hart establishes that statements made by a Minister or other promoter of a Bill with, if necessary, such other parliamentary material as was necessary to understand such statements and their effects, may be relied upon to interpret a statutory provision which is ambiguous, obscure or which leads to absurdity. The case did not concern interpretation of a statutory instrument. In Pickstone v. Freemans—PLC (1989) AC 66—the House of Lords, in construing a statutory instrument, had regard to what was said by the Minister who initiated the debate on the regulations. Neither Pepper v. Hart nor Pickstone v. Freemans considered whether correspondence from a Minister prior to the introduction of the relevant legislation could be relied upon. Such correspondence does not constitute parliamentary material.