HC Deb 27 June 1917 vol 95 cc383-5
73. Mr. MILLAR

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any claims arising in respect of property acquired by the War Office, the Admiralty, the Ministry of Munitions, the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), or other Government Departments under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Acts and Regulations have been settled by the Treasury without being submitted to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission; and what is the amount of the claims so settled?

Mr. BONAR LAW

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; but to obtain the figures asked for in the second part would involve a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour by the Departments concerned.

Mr. MILLAR

Was not this Losses Commission set up to protect the taxpayer in regard to the assessment of these claims, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that all claims are submitted to them in the first instance?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I think the hon. Member is mistaken in the object of that Commission. It was set up not to protect the Treasury, but to protect individuals against arbitrary action by the Treasury. Where agreement is reached by the Department and sanctioned by the Treasury the House may be assured that too much is not being taken.

Mr. L. JONES

Why does not the Treasury leave the matter to the War Losses Commission, which was set up under Statute to deal with them?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was set up, I believe, to protect the public against arbitrary action by the Government and not with a view to protecting the Treasury.

Mr. MILLAR

Was it not intended that where property was taken under the powers conferred on a Government Department under the Defence of the Realm Acts and Regulations all cases should be submitted in the first instance to this tribunal?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I think not. The intention was that cases should be submitted to it when agreement was not-reached.

Sir H. CRAIK

Is it not the case that a very much cheaper bargain has been made without the necessity of reference to the Losses Commission?

Mr. PRINGLE

Is it not the fact that in some, cases these agreements give larger sums than the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I am sure the question of my hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) can be answered in the affirmative. There is often a saving made.

Mr. PRINGLE

Is it not the case that there has been one instance where the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission thought that £20,000 was being overpaid?

Sir H. CRAIK

Is it not the fact that the case to which the hon. Member refers was never referred officially to the Losses Commission, but the opinion was expressed privately by one member of it?

Mr. BONAR LAW

Both hon. Members know much more about it than I do.