HC Deb 02 March 1915 vol 70 cc759-67

(1) For Sub-section (4) of Section one hundred and fifteen of the Army Act, which relates to the impressment of carriages, animals, and other things in the case of emergency, the following Subsection shall be substituted:—

"(4) The Army Council shall cause due payment to be made for carriages, animals, vessels, and aircraft furnished in pursuance of this Section, and if any difference arises respecting the amount of payment for any carriage, animal, vessel, or aircraft the amount shall be such as may be fixed by a certificate of a County Court judge having jurisdiction in any place in which such carriage, animal, vessel, or aircraft was furnished or through which it travelled in pursuance of the requisition; and for the purpose of fixing such amount the provisions set out in the Sixth Schedule to this Act shall have effect.

"Where a sum has been paid or tendered by or on behalf of the Army Council under this Sub-section, that sum shall be deemed to be the amount due, unless within three weeks from the date of payment or tender, an application is made to a County Court judge for his certificate."

(2) After the Fifth Schedule to the Army Act the Schedule to this Act shall be inserted as the Sixth Schedule.

(3) This Section shall apply whether the article requisitioned was requisitioned before or after the passing of this Act.

Provided that in its application to articles requisitioned before the passing of this Act a reference to three weeks from the passing of this Act shall be substituted for the reference to three weeks from the date of payment or tender.

Proposed Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Sir J. SIMON

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

I ask the Committee to add this Clause to the Bill, because the matter is urgent. The Clause makes quite clear what are the conditions under which carriages, horses, and some other things can be requisitioned by the military authorities, in order, of course, that they may be paid for. There has been some doubt as to what is meant by saying that due payment is to be made. On the one hand, it has sometimes been thought that the military authorities were not willing to pay more than the value of the horse, if it is a horse that is in question, to the military authorities. That, of course, might be very much less than its real value. On the other hand, I am sorry to say that there are some people who think it a good occasion for making claims for consequential damages, moral and intellectual damages, sentimental damages, and all sorts of things over and above the market value of the horse. The proper principle is that when in the public interest a horse is requisitioned, the military authorities should pay for it its fair market value at the time, as between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

That is one of the things we make quite clear by this Clause. This also has been a point of doubt: supposing you do not agree with the War Department as to the value of your horse, you are entitled to ask a County Court judge to settle the matter; but inasmuch as there is a rule that the Crown neither pays nor receives costs, you might prove that the War Office had not offered you enough, and then have to pay your own expenses in proving it. That obviously is not right, and this provision will enable proper expenses to be allowed to the ore side or the other, according to the view which the County Court judge takes of the claim.

There was also another point of doubt as to whether when a County Court judge had settled the matter, it was possible to have prolonged litigation, involving an appeal to the High Court, and possibly an appeal to the House of Lords. It seems to us that a right provision to make is that the County Court judge is to act, hear evidence, and conduct the matter just like County Court procedure, but when he has arrived at his conclusion, he is to certify what the right amount is, and there is to be no appeal. That will limit the amount of litigation. It is entirely fair, as between the Crown and the subject, as it applies to both sides, and we put it in in order to remove all doubt on the subject. I will add one remark more, as I see the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) opposite. He will be gratified to know that, instead of making an Amendment in the form of striking out certain words in the Section and inserting other words, with the result that nobody can understand what it means, we have provided that the whole Clause shall be re-enacted, so that you can read it in the Statute from one end to the other without any complication at all.

Sir F. BANBURY

I quite agree with the Attorney-General that this is a very important Clause. During the last seven months there have been some very hard cases in which horses worth £150 or £200 have been taken and only £50 or £60 allowed for them. The effect has been that an individual has been taxed as an individual because he happened to have a horse instead of a motor-car or some other means of conveyance. On the other hand, cases have undoubtedly occurred where too much has been asked, and attempts have been made to foist on the Government horses which ought not to have been put upon them. I cannot tell whether the Clause actually meets that point, but I think it is very important to enact that people who are anxious to assist the Government, as a great number of people are, by letting them have their horses, are not to be taken advantage of, and that horses worth £150 or £200 are not to be taken for £50 or £60 when there are plenty of horses, perhaps better suited to the requirements of the War Office, to be obtained at that price. The real evil has arisen because the buyers appointed by the Government have not always done their duty. Sometimes I think they have been somewhat overcome by a little brief authority, and have gone round requisitioning horses which they had no business to requisition. What the buyers really ought to be told is that they are to take horses which are more or less of the Government value, and not, in order to save themselves a little trouble, to run round to the nearest stable, take anything there, and pay whatever they choose for it. That is what has taken place, and I hope the new Clause will stop that practice.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I agree with what my hon. Friend near to me has said as to the great importance of this Amendment, but I cannot understand why people are not here to protest against it. The London General Omnibus Company have had a large number of motor omnibuses requisitioned, and if these were taken on a Monday morning, the result was a loss, for the omnibus could not be immediately replaced, and the value to the omnibus company was very much larger than what a willing buyer would give to a willing seller on a Monday morning. I am not quite sure that this Clause is fair to the company, and similar companies, for the difference between the value and whatever they have been paid or will be paid is, or may be, great. It is a very serious matter, and one which will involve many thousands of pounds of the London General Omnibus Company. We know that the omnibuses of this company were requisitioned to a very large extent— seventy in a day sometimes—and sent out to do useful work on the other side of the Channel.

The same remark applies to a very large number of motor lorries which were seized—and very properly seized—for the conveyance and delivery of goods, furniture, etc. Is it absolutely fair that the people concerned are to have no more than the literal amount which a willing buyer would give to a willing seller on a particular day. The work of the company is sadly disorganised by the commandeering of their vehicles. On the second count I object strongly to this Amendment. Suppose the-London General Omnibus Company put forward their claims, which no doubt will come to many thousands of pounds, and a decision has to be come to whether they are right or wrong—what is to be done? Is the matter to be tried by the ordinary Civil Court? No, it is to be sent to a County Court judge, and a County Court judge whose decision is to be final on a point of considerable difficulty. Can you imagine a tribunal less fitted to try a case involving thousands of pounds and including the difficult question of the valuation of mercantile commodities? The Attorney-General perhaps will allow me that I have had more experience of County Courts than he has had. In his very quick career he has been more fortunate than I.

Sir J. SIMON

The hon. and learned Gentleman is acquainted with County Courts, and no doubt knows that ever since 1881 that has been the law.

Mr. RAWLINSON

Requisitioning articles involving such amounts as these? Everyone will admit that a great question of value comes in. I cannot imagine a much more difficult question to try than this, involving a large amount of commercial knowledge and involving very large sums. In these matters involving different points of law and large amounts of money there is to be no appeal from the County Court judge, yet before the ordinary County Court judge any question that involves over £20 can be appealed from, and is appealed from, every day—and frequently with a considerable amount of success. Yet somebody puts into this Bill that there is to be absolutely no appeal! To be quite frank I cannot help thinking that this Amendment is directed against the London General Omnibus Company, who are unrepresented here, and I cannot but think that if this point had been appreciated some hon. Members would have been here to have said a word on their behalf.

Sir F. BANBURY

I began the few remarks which I made a little while ago by saying that I had not read the Clause of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have now had that advantage, and also of hearing the right hon. and learned Gentleman and also my hon. and learned Friend. I have great faith in my hon. and learned Friend, and still greater faith when I find that during the twenty-three years I have been in this House I have always observed that as soon as one hon. and learned Gentleman gets up and makes a statement another gets up and in reply shows that he is wrong. I have, however, come to the conclusion that my hon. and learned Friend has got such a complete case that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, with all his knowledge and ability, is unable to answer it. If that is so, I believe that my hon. and learned Friend has shown that we ought to pause before we pass this Amendment. There is no doubt whatever that the decision of the County Court judge should not be final in a case involving not only very acute problems of law but also very large sums of money.

I suggest to the Attorney-General that he should allow an appeal from the decision of the County Court judge. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made great play of the statement that the Government will be in the same position as the private individual, and that it was a great deal for the Government to say that they will not have an appeal from a County Court judge; that they were satisfied without an appeal, and therefore the ordinary individual ought also to be satisfied. I must say that I was a little suspicious when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, because as a rule the Government having the funds of the taxpayer behind them do not mind appealing. I do not say this in any way offensively, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other Gentlemen learned in the law are not as a rule in the habit of saying that a thing has not to be without appeal. I think they like an appeal.

I cannot quite make out why the right hon. and learned Gentleman was so anxious that there should not be an appeal from the County Court judge. It is evident he thinks the decision of a County Court judge will possibly be in-his favour, and that it is better not to have an appeal from it. I am in favour of granting exceptional powers to the Government, but those powers must be given with some caution, for we do not want to put an undue burden upon any individual class. I do not hold any brief for the London General Omnibus Company, but I really do think that, unless a sufficient answer is given to my hon. and learned Friend, we ought to be very careful, before taking very valuable property and submitting it to the mercies of a County Court judge, without any appeal being given. Now that we are such an united party, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will attach as much importance to the few words I have uttered as he would if they were uttered by some hon. Member behind him. I see the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head in a very undecided way. I hope it is not final.

Sir J. SIMON

Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me to point out that it is just a little trying, no doubt, after this Section has been worked out with a great deal of care, with the assistance of a Committee of County Court judges and of other judges, to have to criticise it on the spur of the moment when coming in after dinner. It is a little hard after so much trouble has been taken that it should be subjected to that impromptu criticism. If the hon. Baronet has the leisure and will look at the Army Act of 1881—

Sir F. BANBURY

Not 1881.

Sir J. SIMON

It has been the law ever since.

Sir F. BANBURY

Unfortunately, in 1880 there was a catastrophe.

Sir J. SIMON

But in the course of that Parliament there was an Army Act, in 1881, and this part of it has been the law ever since, and it provides that

"The Secretary of State shall cause due payment to be made for carriages, animals, and vessels furnished in pursuance of this Section, and any difference respecting the amount of payment for any carriage, animal or vessel shall be determined by a County Court judge having jurisdiction in any place in which such carriage, animal or vessel was furnished, or through which it travelled in pursuance of the requisition."

Sir F. BANBURY

There were not any motor omnibuses then.

Sir J. SIMON

It has been amended with regard to motor omnibuses since. I do not, of course, want to lay down the law in a matter where there may be a difference of opinion, but I confess I should have thought from that Section that two things were very plain: one was that the County Court judge had to decide it. The only thing you can appeal from are judgments, and this Section does not say anything about giving of judgments. It does not give a judgment against the Army Council. The Army Council is not liable in the sense that it owes the debt, but that the Secretary of State should cause due payments to be made. Therefore, we are not making any change about that. We are merely making this point plain because it has been a subject of some dispute. The next thing I think is clear is, that as the matter stands the County Court judge could not award any costs to anyone, and, in order that that anomaly may be removed amongst other things, we have put in this Clause. The only thing we have done is to decide what is meant by "due payment." I never heard this omnibus company mentioned in this connection, although I spent many hours in settling this with those most experienced to advise me. I never heard of this case until it entered the mind of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I have heard of it for months.

Sir J. SIMON

All I know about it is this: if my horse—and for this purpose you might as well take a horse as anything else—is required by the nation, in order that it may be used as one of the Army horses, I have got to receive "due payment" for it. What does that mean? It appears to me, in common sense and fairness, that I should accept the market value of the horse, nothing more nor less. It seems ridiculous that I should not get that, although I have known buyers for the Army suggest I am only entitled to get the value of the horse for the Army, and they represent it to me as being an amazingly small figure. On the other hand, it seems a little unreasonable that I should want all sorts of sentimental valuations. I should have thought the market value of the horse at the date was a fair thing, and, in my belief, that is the conclusion to which one would arrive as to "due payment." I know it is the conclusion arrived at by many County Court judges since the present War began. That is all we have done, and what I would ask is, let us put this new Clause in the Bill, and, when the Bill is printed, hon. Members will have an opportunity of looking at it, and I will most gladly consider any representation if they think that the drafting is really open to criticism from this or any other point of view. It has been done very carefully, and, I venture to think that, in the interests of everyone, citizens just as much as the State, we should get it put into the Bill.

Mr. RAWLINSON

The right hon. Gentleman will not assume for a moment that I would object to the course he indicates about putting the Clause in the Bill. My object was to call attention to the effect. It is certainly more far-reaching than the Attorney-General has any idea of. It does involve a great issue. As regards the question of appeal, I admit that if the County Court judge misdirected on a question of law that would probably be open to appeal. That is a matter that possibly we might consider at the same time. Of course, if it really involves large sums, it probably might be desirable that some other tribunal should be substituted. I hope that between now and the Report stage those who are interested may see the Bill.

Proposed Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.