HC Deb 15 June 1944 vol 400 cc2243-5

Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that any trade, profession or vocation, to which this Section applies, has been temporarily discontinued under the following conditions;—

  1. (a) that a prohibition has been imposed under any War or Defence Regulation preventing its contiinuance;
  2. (b) that the stock in trade of the said trade, profession or vocation, could not be realised;
  3. (c) that the person carrying on such trade, profession or vocation, had losses to carry forward to which the provisions of this Section would have applied, if the trade had not been so discontinued;
it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners to grant such relief as is just, having regard to the circumstances of the case and to the period of the prohibition, by extending the period within which such losses may be carried forward and set off against subsequent profits, but so that such period shall not exceed a period of five years from the sixth day of April following the date at which the trade could have been resumed.—[Mr. Craven-Ellis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Craven-Ellis (Southampton)

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I have put down this Clause in the belief that it will benefit those who have suffered hardship due to war restrictions. I refer to the men who have joined the Forces. Many of these men have no doubt been in business, and before joining the Forces probably showed a loss on their businesses. The war has continued for nearly five years, and if the war were to end this year, it might well be that, when the men whom I have in mind have been demobilised, it will be two years before they can restore their businesses and get on to a profit basis. In these conditions, these men, under Section 33 of the Finance Act of 1926, would be statute barred. Service men are not the only men affected. There are industries which have been going through the processes of concentration. There are men who have had their premises blitzed and have been unable to restart in business and have suffered losses in consequence. The outstanding cases are those where businesses have been closed as a result of Government policy. The case which stands out in my mind as being the one which is perhaps more greatly affected than any other is the building industry. Immediately the war started most house building had to close down.

Many of these firms have properties which were partly finished, and many of these builders whose balance sheets were prepared subsequent to 3rd September, 1939, have shown losses. Unless this new Clause is accepted, those men will not have the benefit of the losses which are already on their balance sheet when they come to start again, because of their being statute-barred. There are other considerations. It may well be that many retailers will have to obtain a licence to enable them to restart their businesses, and as consumable goods will undoubtedly be short, these licences may not be granted very readily. Six, seven, or even eight years since 1939 may elapse before these men who are showing losses are again allowed to enter business. Then there is the case of industry, especially the building industry, where supplies will no doubt be on priority. That means there will be delay in the resumption of business due to the shortage of supplies which will have to be handed round by priority certificates. I submit to this Committee there are quite a large number of cases worthy of having consideration in accordance with the proposals of my Clause because they are definitely suffering hardship as a result of war restriction and limitation.

Mr. Assheton

The question of extending the six-year limit in Section 33, either generally or in relation especially to the circumstances of the war, is one which has been raised on previous occasions, and it was brought up in the time of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He told the House that he had noted the suggestion, made in view of the special circumstances of the war, and that it was one of the many taxation matters which would require consideration at the end of the war. I think it is quite clear that if it were decided ultimately at the end of the war that some extension of the six-year period was desirable, the provision would have to be in very much wider terms than those drawn in this present Clause, and I think the Committee will agree that in any event this is not the appropriate time for making such a change. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) that the matter he has raised will be noted for consideration in conjunction with these other technical matters that will have to be considered at the close of the war.

Mr. Craven-Ellis

While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, is there any justification for people losing rights which were given to them under the Finance Bill of 1926 because of something they have had no control over themselves, and which is due to the war? It is upon that basis that I plead to him. It may be that my new Clause is not in the terms which he would desire. I am not going to quarrel about that but, on the question of principle, I submit to him that it would have given more encouragement to the men for whom I am appealing if he had been a little more generous in his indication of what may be done in the future.

Mr. Assheton

I must tell my hon. Friend, as I said before, that I appreciate the great hardships which have been suffered in cases of this sort, and this is one of the matters which we hope to consider when the time comes. That is all I can say now. I hope the Committee will be good enough not to accept this Clause, and perhaps my hon. Friend would even be so good as to withdraw it.

Mr. Craven-Ellis

In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.