§ 58. Mr. EDWARDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Ebbw Vale Iron and Steel Company and its four subsidiary companies owed the Inland Revenue £650,000 in respect of Income Tax on past profits, but that £75,000, together with 259,195 paper shares, has been accepted in full settlement; what is the estimated loss to the Treasury; and what was the reason for not insisting on payment of the full sum?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAI am aware of the settlement to which the hon. Member 1235 refers—a settlement to which, I would remind him, all the interests concerned, of which the Inland Revenue is only one, have agreed. The alternative—liquidation of the group of companies—would have involved the throwing-out of employment of many thousands of men; and I am confident that by joining in the arrangement now made, the Inland Revenue have obtained a not unfavourable settlement, and one which in present circumstances is best calculated to secure the public interest.
§ Mr. EDWARDSMay I ask whether the Treasury were consulted before the firm were forgiven this huge sum of £575,000; and, secondly, is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the very district where this company operates, working men owing a pound or two in Income Tax were sent to gaol? Why this difference of treatment?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAThe Inland Revenue authorities were, of course, consulted, and they agreed I have told the hon. Gentleman that they agreed in order to protect the employment of a large number of men.
§ Mr. D. GRENFELLWill the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the Treasury gives the same consideration to small companies as to large companies?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHACertainly.
§ Mr. GRENFELLIs it not true that more pits have been closed down because the Treasury insisted on being paid in full?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAEvery case is treated on its merits.