HC Deb 14 May 1941 vol 371 cc1222-3
70. Sir I. Albery

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in cases where war damage has already been suffered, whether the insurance premiums, both for house property and chattels, will be debited against the claim, or whether the claimant has to provide premiums in cash in addition to the financial loss, direct and indirect, already incurred?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank)

I will deal separately with the contribution in respect of house property and the insurance premium in respect of chattels. Under Section 33 of the War Damage Act, 1941, any instalment of contribution falling due in respect of a house which has suffered war damage will be allowed to stand over so long as the Inland Revenue are satisfied that the house is unfit for occupation. A claim to defer payment on this ground should be made when the notice of assessment is received. In cases where a "cost of works payment '' is appropriate the instalment will not become payable until the house has been made fit for occupation. If the Inland Revenue are notified by the War Damage Commission that a "value payment" and not a "cost of works payment" is likely to be made, collection of instalments of contribution will be suspended unless and until the notice is revoked, and if a value payment is eventually made, the amount of that payment will be reduced by so much of the instalments as has not been paid. With regard to the insurance schemes under Part II of the Act, I understand that where war damage has been sustained before 17th April, 1941 (in the case of the business scheme),and before 1st May, 1941 (in the case of the private chattels scheme), the dates of coming into operation of these schemes, an amount in respect of premium will be deductible from the compensation allowance.

Sir I. Albery

Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in some cases, with reference to chattels, the insurance companies are collecting the premium?

Captain Crookshank

I am not aware of anything further than what I have stated. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with my hon. Friend for having twice been a victim himself.