§ 48 and 50. Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if, following consideration of the problem of the best procedure to deal with the financial situation of trading organisations where the losses caused by the recent floods exceed £5,000 and are not covered by insurance, he can yet make a statement to clarify the situation;
(2) what compensation can be expected by householders and the business community where damage by the recent floods amounts to between £2,500 and £5,000 which is not covered by insurance.
§ 56. Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far the Government will meet out of public funds claims for compensation from those who suffered damage or loss of houses, farms or business property in the recent East Coast floods where these cannot be covered by private insurance or the Lord Mayor's Fund.
§ 64. Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the assistance, over and above their contribution to the Lord Mayor's Fund, which the Government will give to private persons who suffered damage in the recent storms.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI would refer hon. and right hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on 5th March, to which I have nothing to add.
§ Mr. DoddsFor a business-man's Government, is not this an astounding reply? Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that Parliament and the people accepted the Prime Minister's words, that the flood disaster losses would be a national responsibility? Does not the hon. Gentleman know that there are scores of business firms who are told to apply to the Lord Mayor's Fund for £2,500, and unless they get more than that they might as well go into liquidation? That promise must be honoured.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIf the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to consult the answer to which I have referred him——
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter—he will see the magnificent degree to which my right hon. Friend's undertaking has been honoured.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterAs regards the latter part of his question, if he will look at the statement that has been issued on behalf of the Lord Mayor——
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter—and the statements which from time to time have been made from this Box by my right hon. and learned Friend, he will see the massive contribution that has been made to those who have suffered from this disaster.
§ Mr. H. MorrisonIs the hon. Gentleman aware, and, if not, is the Prime Minister aware—because the Prime Minister made the original statement in very general terms asserting that the nation ought to accept responsibility in this matter—that many people are in grave financial positions over their bungalows and small houses and that a number of moderate-size business concerns are in grave difficulty? Ought not the Government to be more forthcoming in giving financial assistance in addition to the Lord Mayor's Fund, which is doing excellent work, and can the hon. Gentleman, or the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister's reputation is involved in this—say what they are really doing to live up to the right hon. Gentleman's specific promise that this would be boldly and courageously faced as a national responsibility?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI need only attempt to refer the right hon. Gentleman to some of the contributions that have been made with respect to rehabilitation of agricultural land, reconstruction of sea defences, emergency feeding, stopping the gaps, lodging payments and so on, and the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed the last sentence of the answer to which I referred his hon. Friend.
§ Mr. MorrisonThat does not answer the question. The Financial Secretary must not be as smart on the Treasury Bench as he was in Opposition. I want to know, apart from the point of the subjects to which the Government are contributing, whether the Government intend to live up to the undertaking that they would accept national responsibility for this matter, and are they coming to the point that they will give financial help to the extent that will inevitably enable the business man, manufacturers of moderate capital and people with houses to get going again, and whether they are going to stand by them in their hour of trouble.
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose——
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe number of statements that have been made in this House by my right hon. Friends and by myself on different aspects of this matter seem to me to indicate that we are clearly carrying out my right hon. Friend's undertaking.
§ Mr. AlportIs my hon. Friend aware that there are many other ways in which the Government can assist firms who are placed in a very difficult position, apart from direct financial aid, and will my hon. Friend consider any suggestions along these lines that may be put to him?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterYes, Sir.
§ Mr. GrimondWill the Minister bear in mind that it is the number of the statements that have been made about this matter that has led to confusion in the public mind, and that there is a considerable demand from individuals and organisations that have suffered heavy damage to know what is going to be done and what "national responsibility" in this sense really means?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI appreciate the force of what the hon. Gentleman says as to the number of statements. It may well be that it will be possible to coordinate them into a complete statement, and while I give no undertaking to do that, I will gladly look into it.
§ Mr. MorrisonMay I ask a question of the Prime Minister direct? Will he be so good as to make a statement as to 1125 what he meant in his original statement that the nation would boldly face up to a national responsibility?
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill)We were confronted with a grave national disaster and I certainly, in speaking on that Monday, had in mind that we should endeavour to face the physical effects in regard to restoration of land, reparation and repair of houses, safety of life and so forth. I was not at that moment contemplating the detailed processes which arise in making sure that in no circumstances had any person been liable, whatever their business, to loss in money from that event. I was dealing with the broad physical effects. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
I do not say that the other does not require consideration, and great consideration is being given to it by the Lord Mayor's Fund, to which we give £ for £, and also in the very large sums of money which will fall upon the Treasury directly or through the local authorities, for all the great measures of repair and reconstruction. But this is certainly no time to slacken off the efforts to endeavour to mitigate the force of this blow upon individuals. We cannot undertake—I never intended in what I said to undertake—that the business affairs of every shop or company affected would be restored by the nation.
§ Mr. JayIs there any reason why the Government should not say clearly that where private losses in houses, farms or businesses are not covered by private insurance or by the Lord Mayor's Fund, the Government will give compensation just as in the case of war damage?
§ The Prime MinisterThese matters should not be answered offhand across the Table. They require careful consideration. I am very doubtful whether, in the cases of other disasters which have fallen upon us, all indirect and consequential losses have been made good by the State.
§ Mr. JayI asked the Home Secretary that question three weeks ago and he asked me to wait and give the Government time to think it over. The three weeks have now passed.
§ The Prime MinisterThey have not been sterile. I have not participated in the detailed discussions. Perhaps a 1126 Question addressed to the Home Secretary would show to the right hon. Gentleman exactly how the matter stands.
§ Mr. HareIn view of the considerable concern which is obviously felt on both sides of the House, I would like the Financial Secretary to give an undertaking that he will make a complete statement—or his right hon. Friend—just to show us what the real position is. If we could have that, it would perhaps be more possible for the Financial Secretary to consider the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport).
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI do not think that it would fall to me to make such a general statement as my hon. Friend has been good enough to suggest, but we will certainly consider whether it would not be advantageous for this to be done by one of my right hon. Friends.
§ Mr. MorrisonIn view of the Prime Minister's statement of 2nd February, namely:
It is not yet possible to measure the magnitude of the loss either in life or in material, but it is clear that the catastrophe is one which will require to be treated upon a national basis and broadly, as a national responsibility."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1951; Vol. 510, c. 1483.]and in view of the ambiguity of the situation and the grave anxiety and possible suffering of many people of middling or modest means, I must give notice that we must ask the Government to provide facilities for a debate in order that the matter may be cleared up.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe are to have a debate on the matter.