§ Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. OttawayHaving just about heard an "Aye" out of the less than massed ranks on the Government Benches for the previous clause, I shall raise a point already alluded to in the previous debate. Does the three-year time limit stem from the knowledge of overpayment or from overpayment itself? If a chap had overpaid but did not become aware of it for a year, would the three years begin then or would it have begun at the date of overpayment?
My only other point relates to the terribly subjective reference to unjust enrichment in clause 32(2), which states:
In the case of any claim for a repayment of an amount of aggregates levy other than a claim to a repayment to which a person is entitled by virtue of tax credit regulations, it shall be a defence to that claim that the repayment of that amount would unjustly enrich the claimant.Why should that be a defence? What does the Minister have in mind in referring to unjust enrichment? He may be satisfied with enrichment, but not with unjust enrichment. What does he mean by unjust, and what precedents and criteria are being applied?One assumes that the decision would be taken by the commissioners, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that there will be a right of appeal. Perhaps that appeal should be beyond the appeal procedure set out in the Bill.
We are well aware that the concept of unjust enrichment is set out elsewhere, but I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us to what extent it applies in this provision. Perhaps the Minister may draw some comfort from subsection (4)(b), which deals with the extent to which
any enrichment of the taxpayer would be unjust".Obviously, much thinking has gone into the nature of justness or unjustness. Perhaps the Minister could tell us which criteria would be involved.
§ Mr. TimmsThe clause does indeed contain further provisions about repayment of the levy. The time limit of three years is set for claiming repayment of overpaid levy; that will be three years from the overpayment occurring, I think, but I may well want to return to that point before we conclude our consideration of the clause.
Non-payment of claims is provided for if that is considered to result in unjust enrichment. The circumstances that we have in mind are when an amount of 101 levy is due for repayment to the claimant, but another person has in fact borne the cost. In that situation, unjust enrichment would occur.
The time limit is to establish reasonable control over the levy. It is similar to other time limits in Customs legislation. The three years run from the making of the claim—that is set out in 32(1). The measure allows for repayment of additional costs incurred, if they are sufficiently quantified. That relates to a point made earlier by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on interest payable by Customs when levy has been overpaid. Interest is payable by Customs as long as an error by Customs led to the overpayment.
§ Mr. OttawayMay I press the Minister on the point about the three years from the making of the claim? Once the claim has been made, what is the relevance of the three-year period? Can the claim relate back only three years, or do the commissioners have three years in which to make the payment? That would be ludicrous. The clause refers to an amount paid
three years before the making of the claim",so I repeat my question: does the three-year period start to run from the moment that the overpayment is made or in some other circumstances?
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.