HC Deb 16 June 1931 vol 253 cc1619-20
43. Mr. C. WILLIAMS (for Sir BASIL PETO)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of the fund placed at the disposal of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action, known as the Sumner Commission, has been paid to claimants as ex gratia; what amount, if any, has been paid or otherwise given to claimants on a footing other than ex gratia; what amount has been repaid to the Crown as repayment of loans made to claimants; and what balance is left over at the disposal of the Crown, taking into account the repayment of any loans which may have been made to claimants?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN

No fund was placed at the disposal of the Sumner Commission; the awards recommended by the Commission were paid by the Treasury from annual Votes. The total so paid to claimants amounts to £4,929,000. These payments were all made ex gratia and no payments have been made on any other footing. The sum of £639,000 has been received by way of repayment of advances to claimants. No balance is left over at the disposal of the Crown, since any unspent surplus on the annual Votes was surrendered in the usual way, and the receipts in respect of repayment of advances constitute revenue and have been paid over to the Exchequer.

44. Mr. WILLIAMS (for Sir B. PETO)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, with regard to awards made by the Sumner Commission to claimants for damage in Turkey, payments have been made stated to be loans in advance, repayable from awards to be made by the Inter-Allied Commission in Paris; and whether such loans have, in fact, been covered by the payments made by the Inter-Allied Commission, and what fund has been charged with the payment of the balance, if any, of such loans as have been repaid?

Mr. SNOWDEN

The amounts paid to claimants for damage in Turkey in respect of awards by the Sumner Commission are only repayable if and in so far as payments are received by the claimants from the Inter-Allied Commission in Paris in respect of the same item of claim. Accordingly the last part of the question does not arise.