HC Deb 17 March 1953 vol 512 cc2035-8
2. Mr. Osborne

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remit the Purchase Tax on amusement and other equipment needed by the flood-damaged towns to replace losses suffered in the recent storms.

Mr. R. A. Butler

No, Sir. Purchase Tax or duty is only one element in the value of goods lost or destroyed in the floods, and after earnest and sympathetic consideration of all the factors involved, I am forced to the conclusion that to single out this element for separate relief would be neither practicable nor fair as between different claimants.

Mr. Osborne

Since a flood of this magnitude only happens once every few hundred years, would my right hon. Friend look at this matter again since the re-equipping of these places will involve more capital than some of these smaller people possess? If they could be relieved of Purchase Tax, it would help them to start their businesses again.

Mr. Butler

I referred in my original answer to "earnest and sympathetic consideration." We had this problem at Lynmouth, and a line similar to that which I have described was taken there. This does not mean, of course, that the interests of these small people are not being considered, as will become apparent in the Home Secretary's statement, which I think is to be made tomorrow; but I am afraid that I cannot adopt this particular suggestion.

Mr. E. Evans

Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is necessary for these seaside resorts on the East Coast, which were so badly hit, to be given every encouragement to start the season, in order that in small measure they may recoup themselves for the losses which they have sustained? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's illustration of the Lynmouth disaster invalid because that happened at the end of the summer season, whereas we want to prepare for the opening of the coming season?

Mr. Butler

I have no doubt that that major consideration is, of course, already in hand. When the hon. Member hears the further statement from the Home Secretary, he will no doubt see that we desire to see that those businesses get going. The difficulty is to try to segregate something which it is almost impossible to assess fairly as between different people. It is better, therefore, to do it in the broader way that we have in mind.

9 and 21. Mr. Dodds

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what further action is contemplated to provide the necessary finance to meet the flood losses of householders and the business community;

(2) if he will now make a statement to clarify the situation of householders, farmers and traders whose losses in the recent flood disaster were substantial and are not covered by insurance.

15. Mr. Osborne

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that many trading concerns lost far more than £2,500 in the recent flood disaster, but that this figure is the limit which the Lord Mayor's Fund will give; that stock and equipment replacements will require far larger amounts; and if he will make an immedate statement of the Treasury's accepted liability and say how soon that liability will be met.

18. Mr. Jay

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a full statement on compensation for loss or damage to houses, farms or business property, not covered by private insurance, as a result of the East Coast floods.

29. Mr. Braine

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial help can be given to religious and charitable organisations whose property was damaged or destroyed in the recent floods and who are not covered by the Lord Mayor's Funds or by insurance.

32. Mr. Stokes

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet assessed the approximate losses due to the tempest on the night of 31st January-1st February which will have to be borne by public funds or private subscription, respectively, having regard especially to the fact that the Astronomer Royal has described that night's damage as due to great waves lashed to fury by the gale.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make on Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. Stokes

Cannot the Chancellor be a little more specific, especially with regard to my Question, No. 32? Does he not yet realise that the Home Secretary made a statement to the effect that the total national loss, quite apart from the reinforcement of sea defences, was estimated to be £50 million? Does he not realise that the Lord Mayor's Fund is quite incapable of dealing with it, however generous it may be, and does he not also realise that until the question whether the losses arose from tempest or not is settled, nobody knows where he is?

Mr. Butler

It is precisely because of the magnitude of this question and its importance that I think it better to await the considered statement which the Home Secretary is going to make on all these matters, including the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, tomorrow.

Mr. Stokes

Tomorrow?

Mr. Butler

Tomorrow, Wednesday. As I have discussed this matter with my right hon. and learned Friend and it has been thoroughly gone into, it would be rather difficult to anticipate the statement.

Mr. Stokes

I thought it was to be on Wednesday next week.

Mr. Butler

No, tomorrow.

Mr. Dodds

Is the Chancellor of the opinion that all the money which is needed for relief will be raised by the Lord Mayor's Fund, and if not, will the Chancellor give an undertaking that the Home Secretary tomorrow will make a statement about how the additional money will be raised?

Mr. Butler

The word "relief" covers a great variety of troubles, and it is quite clear that the Home Secretary's answer will cover not only those matters which can be dealt with by the Lord Mayor's Fund but also the agricultural aspect, the aspect of local authorities' expense and so forth.