§ 4.12 p.m.
§ LORD MESTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will repay any development charges levied by, and paid to, the Central Land Board in respect of operations or uses which subsequently became exempt from development charge by reason of the Town and Country Planning (Development Charge Exemptions) Regulations. 1950. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands in my name may I explain shortly that the matter arises in this way? In 1948, the Minister of Town and Country Planning made the Town and Country Planning (Development Charge Exemptions) Regulations, 1948. As a result of various representations made to the Government to widen the scope of those Regulations, on July 11, 1950, the Minister repealed those Regulations and replaced them by the Town and Country Planning (Development Charge Exemptions) Regulations, 1950. The 1950 Regulations are wider in certain respects than those of 1948-that is to say, certain operations or uses which would not have been exempt from development charge before July 11, 1950, are now exempt from development charge by reason of the wider scope of the 1950 Regulations.
§ In those circumstances, it may be that before July 11, 1950, certain operations or uses attracted a development charge which has been duly paid, whereas had those same operations or uses been effected after July 11, 1950, they would not have attracted a development charge. The Question is whether His Majesty's Government will repay any such development charges. I may say that some little help on this matter may be derived from Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which appears to me in certain circumstances to give the Central Land Board power, not only to vary a development charge that has already been determined but also to repay in part or in whole any such development charge.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the answer to the noble Lord is in the negative. The operations and uses of the type described in the Exemptions Regulations, 1950, which were carried out 953 before the date of the Regulations and in respect of which a charge had been deter-mined and paid before that date, are not exempted from charge by the Regulations, and no justification is seen for repayment in such cases. May I add two reflections of my own? The first is this. If you were to repay such charges, in many cases you would find that the man to whom you were going to repay the charges—that is to say, the man who had paid them—had himself had the fullest benefit of his payment by selling or passing on the business he was building, together with the rights which are attached to it by virtue of his passing it to someone else. Therefore, you would be paying him twice.
Secondly, and more generally—and I am sure your Lordships will all agree with this—it would be a very bad example if we were to enact the principle that, whenever a concession is made in the future, everybody who in the past has not had that concession must be compensated. I can imagine no principle which would be more damaging to the granting of any concessions than that the unfortunate Minister, when thinking whether or not he should make a con-cession, had to say to himself: "Well, if I do this, I have got to pay back to these people who did not have the concession all that money I have had." Therefore, as a matter of general principle, I would suggest to the noble Lord—I hope that I shall have his concurrence in this—that the principle for which he is asking is one of very doubtful public utility.
LORD MESTONMy Lords, I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. I know that he will not mind a little joke, even if it be against himself. It is refreshing to find him such an exponent of opposition to retrospective legislation.