HC Deb 30 June 1905 vol 148 cc646-56

Bill, as amended (by the Standing. Committee), considered.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said the Amendment he moved was a formal and somewhat technical one, but one which was required in order to make the Bill as complete and perfect as-possible. As one who had supported the Bill both on the Second Reading and in Grand Committee he might say that j so far from desiring to detract from it in. any way he believed it was calculated to remove an existing injustice from the people of our own country, and to effect equality of treatment as between British and foreign subjects. The Amendment was to add after the word "injuries," for which power of arrest was given by the Bill, the words "including fatal injuries." The Bill was one which was somewhat novel in form. It did not deal with an action for any injuries, and in that sense had no enacting power whatever. What it did was to give power of arrest of a vessel on board of which, and owing to the neglect of the owners or master or crew of which, an injury had taken place, the removal of which vessel might prevent the injured person from reaping the fruit of an action, even after admitted and proved negligence. That was an undoubted improvement of the law, but they had to remember the old English principle that a remedy for a personal injury died with the person. It was quite true that under Lord Campbell's Act there would be power on the part of representatives of a deceased person who had been fatally injured to bring an action, and the question arose whether it would not be better, as it was necessary to alter the common law in order to enable a deceased's representatives to sue, that arrest should equally take place on the application of the representatives of a deceased person who died in consequence of injuries received. In dealing with this matter it should be remembered that the word "injuries" in the clause was not used in the technical legal sense, but in the popular sense, and the word would mean personal injuries. Injuries after death were of course no longer personal, and therefore it might be open to argument that they were not technically and strictly within the letter of the Bill. All he desired was to take care that the remedy given, in the case of a person who had suffered death, to his representatives under Lord Campbell's Act should be given them with regard to the right to arrest a vessel so that it might never come to pass that, after bringing an action and succeeding, the fruits of the judgment which, in the case of death, were all-important to the surviving members of a man's family should not be reaped.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after the word" injuries 'to insert the words' including fatal injuries.'"—(Sir Albert Rollit.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR HARRY SAMUEL (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

said the promoters of the Bill were equally anxious with the hon. Member to support any question of fatal injuries. They thought that was absolutely covered by Lord Campbell's Act, but, if his hon. friend laid stress upon it, they were perfectly willing to accept his Amendment.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)

thought the words were unnecessary, but might be accepted.

MR. CHARLES McARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)

said in his opinion these words were unnecessary because the general term "injury" included "fatal injury." Furthermore, in the Workmen's Compensation Act the same words were used, and if "personal injury" did not include "fatal injury" under this Bill it did not include it under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs

said he did not think the Amendment was necessary, but as the point had been raised it had better be accepted. It would not do any harm.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

said the object in this was just the same as in the case of the last Amendment. The Bill spoke of injuries arising from the negligence of the owner, officers, or crew. This was what might be called positive in its enactment, but there was also something which was negative and which ought equally to be contemplated, and that was an injury arising from the defective condition of the ship or its apparel or equipment. Perhaps such an omission might be held to be within the terms "negligence" or "default," but it was as well to express what was so frequently a cause of injury and compensation.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after the word 'thereof' 'to insert the words or of any defect in the ship or its apparel or equipment.'"—(Sir Albert Rollit.)

Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."

SIR HARRY SAMUEL

said he thought they would apply almost the same remarks to this Amendment as to the last. He need not make any objection to it.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. LUKE WHITE (Yorkshire, E. R. Buckrose)

said he moved this Amendment in order to bring before the House and the Attorney-General the question of the machinery by which the principles of the measure should be carried out. Under the clause as it now stood great delay and difficulty might arise as to the question of the amount of security, and those questions arising under the clause as it now stood would be left open as a roving power for parties to apply to any Court of record in England or Ireland. If his Amendment were adopted the process of the Admiralty Court would be adopted as in the case of a claim for wages, and this process was well understood and was simple. His only object in moving the Amendment was to bring under consideration of the House the machinery to carry out the object and principle of the measure. They were all agreed as to the principle of making a foreign ship owner liable for personal injury, but in bringing into effect a clause to carry out that principle they must remember that this measure, if carried, should be made as effective and at the same time as simple as possible. It might be a measure which other countries would adopt in regard to British ships, and they ought to take special care that every provision was fair and equitable and that the machinery set up was effective for the purpose and at the same time simple. He trusted the Amendment which he now moved would be carried.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In Clause 1, page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'thereof' to end of clause, and insert the words 'the person or persons entitled to recover such damages shall in England have the like remedies by warrant for arrest of the ship in the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, or in any County Court having Admiralty jurisdiction, as if the claim for damages were a claim for wages, and such remedies shall be subject to such provisions as to bail, entering a caveat, and otherwise as are applicable to proceedings in rem for recovery of wages, and shall in Ireland have the like remedies under the Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Act, 1867, and the Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1876, and otherwise, and subject to such provisions as aforesaid as if the claim for damages were a claim for wages.'"—(Mr. Luke White.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be le t out, to the word 'consignee,' in line 19, stand part of the Bill."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press this Amendment, because if it were pressed and were successful it would involve the loss of the Bill. This was in substance, although not inform, a proposal to return to the idea of the Bill when it went to Committee. Consultations were held in Committee and the result was that the Bill assumed the form in which it had come back to this House. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would riot think it-necessary to ask the House to return to-the idea on which the Bill was framed—an idea which, after careful consideration, was departed from. He did not think the difficulties apprehended in the working of the Bill as it now stood would arise.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

also desired to appeal to his hon. friend not to-proceed with this Amendment. Many consultations took place, and those supporting the Bill thought this was the best machinery.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

said he was, in such sympathy with the hon. Gentleman in desiring the intervention of the County Courts, if possible, that he brought in a Bill on those very lines, but on consideration he had come to the conclusion that the problem, which was a difficult one, of allowing arrest and yet limiting the inconvenience of it, would be greatly exaggerated by adapting to that purpose the County Court system. There was but one Admiralty Court, but there were ten or twenty County Courts having. Admiralty jurisdiction, and the difficulty was that if a vessel left the jurisdiction of a Court—if, say, she were to move from Hull to Cardiff—she would be liable to arrest, therefore a vessel changing ports, whether British or foreign, would be liable to arrest, which would be inconvenient complex, and costly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In Clause 1, page 1, line 19, after the word 'consignee' to insert the words 'or agent.'"—(Sir Albert Rollit.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

suggested that if those words were to be inserted they should be inserted after the word "owners."

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

thanked the learned Attorney-General for that suggestion. The word "agent" was not used, in the general sense of the term, but as ship's agent, and its proper place undoubtedly would be next to "owners."

The insertion of those words would greatly limit the inconvenience under the Bill.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

I do not think this is necessary, but I am sure it will do no harm.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. CHARLES McARTHUR

said that when in Committee he proposed a Motion similar to the Amendment he was about to move. It was generally agreed that the proposal was in itself a fair one, but the Attorney-General expressed the view that it would be better dealt with in the Workmen's Compensation Bill. That Bill, however, had not yet been read a. second time in the House, nor did it contain any provision on this particular point. As the fate of that Bill was altogether uncertain he submitted that it was manifestly desirable that the matter should be dealt with in the measure now under consideration. The object of the Bill was to place the foreign ship owner in the same position as the British ship owner, and the Bill doubtless achieved its object so far as the workman was concerned. But the Bill did nothing for the employer who had satisfied the claim of the workman under the Compensation Act, and who, therefore, had the right to take over the claim of the workman against the foreign ship. Why should this be? The mere fact that a man was an employer did not take away from him the elementary right to claim justice. Under the Compensation Act of 1897 an injured workman could either sue the owner of the foreign ship for damages or claim compensation from his immediate employer. The Amendment did not interfere with that option. All it did was to enable an employer who had satisfied the claim of the workman under the Compensation Act to stand in the workman's shoes and prevent the foreign ship from escaping responsibility. It would injure no one. In fact the workman would be rather benefited, because an employer, knowing he had his remedy against the foreign ship, would be better able to make a fair settlement with the workman. The proposal was supported by the Ship owners' Parliamentary Committee, which represented nine-tenths of the shipping of the United Kingdom, and as it no more than completed the Bill he hoped the House would accept it

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In Clause 1, page 1, after line 25, to insert the words' (2) The words person applying" in this section shall include an employer who has paid compensation or against whom proceedings for compensation have been taken under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, or any Act amending the same, and who alleges that he is entitled to be indemnified under such Act or Acts by the owner of the ship.'"—(Mr. Charles McArthur.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said his hon. friend was correct in saying that when this matter was considered in Grand Committee he suggested it might be better dealt with by the Workmen's Compensation Bill, but as matters now stood he thought it better that the present Bill should be made complete in itself. The case was certainly one which called for a remedy. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act a stevedore might be liable to a workman in his employ who had been injured owing to defective tackle on a ship, and who might sue the owner of the ship for damages. But if he took the more direct remedy of claiming against his immediate employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the stevedore would be entitled to all the workman's rights of action against the owner of the ship. Under these circumstances it was only reasonable that, when giving this improved process, the immediate employer should be given the same remedies against the owner of the ship that the workman would have had had he proceeded against the owner instead of against his immediate employer. The Amendment, however, would hardly do in its present form. The section referred to liabilities and detention "in respect of injuries." The action of the stevedore against the owner of the ship would not be in respect of injury in any ordinary sense of the term; it would be an action in respect of the statutory liability of the stevedore to compensate the workman and the right which the statute conferred upon him to have recourse to the owner by way of indemnity. He therefore suggested that the hon. Member should not press his Amendment at this point, but move to add at the end of line 9 in Clause 1 the following sub-section— Where an employer has paid compensation" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, to a workman who would have been entitled to the remedies given by this section had he proceeded against the owner of the ship for damages instead of against the employer for compensation, and the employer claims to be entitled to be indemnified by the owners of the ship under Section 6 of the said Act, the employers for the purpose of enforcing that indemnity shall have the same remedies under this section as the workman would have had to enforce his claim for damages. Those words would meet the case, and, if the hon. Member would accept them, he would recommend the House to insert them as a new sub-section at the proper place.

MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR

accepted the suggestion of the Attorney-General, and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)

said the Amendment he was about to move raised the question of what was to happen if, after a vessel had been seized, the owners abandoned her and nothing further was done by them. Under the Bill as drafted the process would apparently be that upon complaint of alleged injuries the Judge of any Court of record might issues order directing an officer of Customs to detain the ship until such time as the owners had given satisfaction in respect of the injuries or security to abide the event of legal proceedings. If security were given the Bill provided that the person giving the security should be the defendant for the purpose of legal proceedings; but if no money were paid or security given there would be no defendant, and presumably, therefore, no legal proceedings. What he desired to know was whether under Clause 1 it inevitably followed that if a vessel was seized and the owners abandoned her the vessel could be sold without further trouble or undue delay to give satisfaction for the injuries inflicted. If that was not clear, he thought his Amendment should go forward. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In Clause 1, page 2, line 4, after Subsection (2), to insert the words' (3) In the event of the owner, master, or consignee of a detained ship not making satisfaction in respect of the injuries, or within a reasonable time giving security as aforesaid, His Majesty's Courts shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any legal proceeding that may be instituted in respect of the injuries and to give judgment against such owner, master, or consignee as if he had been served with legal process, and the ship so detained shall be made answerable for the claim and for the satisfaction of any judgment obtained thereon.'"—(Mr. Austin Taylor.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that the Amendment provided for a case which would hardly ever happen. The event contemplated was that the owner, rather than give the security asked for, would abandon the ship altogether. That was an extremely improbable thing. They could not have these proceedings without arranging for service or substituted service. The case which the hon. Member wished to provide for was one which would not occur probably more than once in fifty years, and by attempting to provide for that case they would land themselves into all those difficulties which formed the subject of a protracted discussion between himself and the gentlemen interested in this Bill. Under these circumstances he hoped his hon. friend would not, by pressing this Amendment, endanger the passage of the measure.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 8, to leave out the Words 'expression, "harbour, "has, 'and insert the words 'expressions' 'port' and 'harbour' have. "—(Mr. Charles McArthur.)

Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

If the hon. Member looks at the Merchant Shipping Act he will find that the word "port" is included in "harbour" The Amendment will do no harm, and therefore I accept it.

Question put, and negatived.

Words inserted.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

said there were many ships owned by corporations or as single-ship corporations under the Joint Stock Acts, and the object of the Amendment was that in case of a body corporate the principal place of business should be held to be the residence, and therefore the Act should not apply, with any inconveniences it might carry with it.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 98, at the end, to add the words 'And for the purposes of this Act, if the principal place of business of a body corporate shall be in the United Kingdom, the owner shall be deemed to reside therein.'"—(Sir Albert Rollit.)

Question proposed, words be there added."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he agreed that some provision was wanted for the case of corporations, but he would suggest a slight variation of the words which had been proposed. He wished to point out that many of the big lines had their offices abroad, and therefore their principal place of business would not be in the United Kingdom. For these reasons he suggested the addition of the following words—"and if the owner of a ship is a corporation, it shall for the purpose of this Act be deemed to reside in the United Kingdom if it has an office in the United Kingdom at which service of writ can be effected"

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment and said he was willing to accept the words suggested by the Attorney-General.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 9, at the end, to add the words—'And if the owner of a ship is a corpora- tion it shall for the purpose of this Act be deemed to reside in the United Kingdom if it has an office in the United Kingdom at which service of a writ can be effected.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said his hon. friend had called attention to the fact that some hardship might arise under this sub-section in a case in which a workman commenced proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act against a stevedore, and before those proceedings had come to an issue and compensation had been paid the foreign ship had sailed away. There was a difficulty in introducing words for the purpose of meeting that case owing to the fact that, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 6, it was only when compensation had been paid under the Act that the stevedore would have the right of indemnity against the ship owner. That question deserved consideration, and it would be considered with a view to possible action in another place. He begged to move the following sub-section.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, to add as a new sub-section the words, 'Where an employer has paid compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, to a workman who would have been entitled to the remedy given by this section if he proceeded against the owners of the ship for damages instead of against his employer for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and the employer claims to be entitled to be indemnified by the owner of the. ship under Section 6 of the said Act, the employer for the purpose of enforcing that indemnity shall have the same remedy under this section as the workman would have had to enforce his claim for damages.'"—(The Attorney-General.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

asked if he would be in order in proposing the Amendment which, unfortunately, a few moments ago he failed to take a division upon as a new clause.

MR, SPEAKER

The House has already pronounced an opinion upon it.

Bill read the third time, and passed.