HC Deb 10 December 1945 vol 417 cc78-81
Sir A. Gridley

I beg to move, in page 33, line 41, at end, insert: (5) Any person who has given such undertaking may submit proof to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that a sum not less than the net amount of the refund has been expended by him in accordance with his undertaking under this Part of this Act, and on the acceptance of such proof by the Commissioners, which must be given or refused within three months of the submission thereof, the undertaking will be satisfied and no further claim can be made on that person with regard to the net refund under the next two succeeding Sections. Provided that any such person may from time to time submit proof that expenditure for the above-mentioned objects or any of them has been incurred in respect of a sum less than the amount of the postwar refund, and on acceptance of such proof by the Commissioners the undertaking will be satisfied in respect of this sum. This is another very complicated Clause, and it does stand in need of clarification. It still leaves taxpayers in doubt whether or not they have fulfilled the required undertaking, as to how the refund is to be expended. The words "or indirectly" are left in the Clause and their very width gives rise to doubts. Moreover, the undertaking, apparently, is not to end after the five years, and taxpayers may be doubtful whether the views of the Treasury and their own views coincide on whether the undertaking has been discharged or not. All that this Amendment, if accepted, would do would be to provide a simple method of submitting proof that the refund has been properly ex- pended and the undertaking discharged, and, on establishing proof that this has been done, surely the taxpayer ought to receive a final discharge? The proviso in the second half of the Amendment would allow the taxpayer an opportunity of submitting his proof. I think the greatest importance is attached by taxpayers to the removal of uncertainty, and, for the purpose of removing these doubts, I hope, the Chancellor will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft (Monmouth)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

As the House knows, these refunds are being given to re-equip and develop an industry, and the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) suggests, by the wording of this Amendment, that, where a trader in an industry certifies to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that he has expended the money in that direction, namely, on development or re-equipment, that the Advisory Panel should look no further but that the certificate from the trader himself, which satisfies the Commissioners, should, in itself, be enough. I think that is the sense of the Amendment. If that is what the hon. Gentleman means, I am sorry to say that we cannot accept it.

Sir A. Gridley

May I point out to the Financial Secretary that the person has to submit proof that he has discharged his undertaking, and that it is only on acceptance of such proof by the Commissioners that he may be discharged?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman means that there should be a single transaction—that, once he has satisfied the Commissioners that the money has been spent in the desired direction, no further inquiry should be made at any time, and certainly not by the Advisory Panel. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and, if that is so, we cannot accept it. It may well be that, although 90 out of 100 traders would be only too anxious to comply with the directions given and would actually spend the money on development or re-equipment, there would be nothing to prevent some firms, at a date somewhat later, from readjusting the affairs of the firm or company so as to give back to the share- holders an equal amount to that which had been received in this way and spent on development or re-equipment. It is quite impossible for the Treasury to accept this Amendment, because it must have power to follow through where necessary, and to see that the directions and powers set forth in the Bill are complied with, not only immediately, but at some later date, should suspicion arise that something is being done that does not comply with the original undertaking. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Bowles

The Financial Secretary, no doubt, understands what happens in financing building. Certain proof is given that the work has gone a certain way, and then 10 per cent. is handed over to the builder. Do we understand that, in this case, the re-equipment to which the hon. Gentleman refers, has to be paid for before any Treasury repayment may be given, or is it done from time to time after the re-equipment? Exactly when is it done?

The Deputy-Speaker

The Financial Secretary can only speak again by leave of the House.

Mr. Bowles

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I asked this question on the previous Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Yes, but the hon. Member has made a speech, and, therefore, the answer can only be given with the leave of the House, which, I am sure, will be granted.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I would say this further word. These moneys are paid to the trader or company to whom they are due. The trader undertakes, when the money is paid over to him, that he will use it in certain directions—that is for the development or re-equipment of his business. [Interruption.] Yes, in some instances, he may have expended some of this money earlier; in fact, before 6th April, 1946, the date laid down, in which case it will be assumed, in law, that the money was spent as on that date. The point on which my hon. Friend desired information, however, is the one to which I was replying, namely, when the trader actually receives the money. Normally, he will receive it before he spends it, or, at any rate, some of it. It will be for the advisory panel later to see that the pro- mise he gave—that that money would be spent in the directions in which it must be spent—has been complied with.

Captain Crookshank

Having done that, what my hon. Friend wants to secure is that there shall be a final discharge. The man is paid the money, he has provided proof and the Commissioners have accepted the proof, having, if necessary, consulted the Advisory Panel, and wants to feel that the matter should now be at an end. Is it not possible that, under this procedure, the matter will not come to an end at all? It appears to me that what my hon. Friend has in mind is that there should be some period of time when the whole thing is concluded. Do I understand the Financial Secretary to say that there should be no such time?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

If I might speak again, by leave of the House, may I say I had assumed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had read the Amendment. This provides that after a period of three months has elapsed no further inquiry shall be instituted or made. That might be quite a reasonable arrangement to make with 80 firms out of 100, but we have got to realise that, human nature being what it is, with some firms all sorts of things might happen after the end of the three months. What may appear to be quite open and above board within the three months might, quite likely, take on a very different complexion with some firms later on. Therefore we must leave to the Inland Revenue and to the advisory panel, the right to decide.

Amendment negatived.