HC Deb 03 November 1949 vol 469 cc567-8
7. Mr. Francis Noel-Baker

asked the President of the Board of Trade what sums have been paid to Mr. R. Sullivan, of 48, Endymion Road, S.W.2, in respect of war damage caused by a flying bomb on 16th June, 1944, to the motor yacht "Halcyon" at Cubitts Yacht Basin, W.4; and whether these sums were intended to cover the loss of the vessel itself.

Mr. H. Wilson

Mr. Sullivan has been paid £110 4s. 8d. in respect of the damage in question, including the loss of the yacht. Mr. Sullivan had not taken out any policy of insurance under the Private Chattels Scheme and consequently was only entitled to compensation under free cover.

Mr. Noel-Baker

In view of the fact that this yacht was destroyed by a flying bomb a short time after Mr. Sullivan had taken up residence there, and that then he fell ill for nine months after the accident, could not my right hon. Friend have a look at it again, because the amount he has quoted is about one-third of the actual sum that Mr. Sullivan paid for the vessel?

Mr. Wilson

That was the limit payable to him under the free coverage scheme, and as he was not covered under the Private Chattels Scheme we could not have gone further. In fact, I ought to inform my hon. Friend that, although Mr. Sullivan was given householder's compensation, there was some doubt whether the tenancy of the yacht counted as a household.

10. Mr. Keeling

asked the President of the Board of Trade what sum has been paid on claims for war damage to goods insured under the business scheme, in accordance with Part II of the War Damage Act, 1943; and of what sum has payment been deferred.

Mr. H. Wilson

The total amount paid to date under the business scheme, is approximately £48 million, including £2 million representing accrued interest; payment has been deferred for an amount of approximately £46 million, not including accrued interest, which to date amounts to about £10 million.

Mr. Keeling

Is the President aware that the delay in paying something like half the claims is making the public dubious—or rather not dubious—about the benefits to be obtained from nationalising other forms of insurance?

Mr. Wilson

I do not think that question arises in any sense at all.

Mr. W. Fletcher

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how that payment compares with the minimum payments that have been paid overseas in many cases to the same claimants?

Mr. Wilson

That is another question, and if the hon. Gentleman will put it down, I will consider it.