HC Deb 28 June 1917 vol 95 cc519-20
48. Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR

asked the Prime Minister whether the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission was set up to deal with all claims arising in respect of direct and substantial loss incurred by reason of interference with properties or businesses in the United Kingdom through the exercise of the powers conferred upon the War Office, the Admiralty, the Ministry of Munitions, and the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) under the Defence of the Realm Acts and Regulations; whether claims arising in connection with the acquisition of breweries and distilleries and licensed premises by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) fall to be submitted to and settled by the Losses Commission; whether the Commission has now settled the principles applicable to the purchase of breweries and distilleries and licensed premises or has fixed the number of years' purchase to be allowed in such cases; and whether the Liquor Commissions now set up to consider the terms upon which the liquor trade might 'be purchased by the State will be bound to have regard to the precedents already established by the Losses Commission in estimating the purchase price of such undertakings or premises?

Mr. BONAR LAW

The functions of the Losses Commission are generally to deal as stated in the question with claims to compensation in cases not otherwise provided for. Private owners and Government Departments are not, however, precluded from making direct agreements for the acquisition of properties, subject to Treasury sanction, in cases where it is deemed expedient to adopt this method. The reply to the last two parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. LEIF JONES

Were we not assured by the Government when the Commission was set up that all cases of compensation should be referred to it?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I think not.

Mr. MILLAR

Is it not the case that in a great number of instances purchase prices have been fixed for breweries and licensed premises by the Commissioners, and what need is there for setting up another series of Commissioners to deal with the same subject?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I do not know that it is, but naturally they would be referred to this Commission if agreement is not reached between the parties.

Mr. JONES

Has it not usually been the practice, and is it not the desire of the Government that cases should be referred to the War Losses Commission?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I really do not see the point of that question. We should desire to see them referred to it if it were necessary to protect public funds, but we do not think it is necessary in cases of this kind.

Mr. JONES

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that up to a certain period all cases were referred to the War Losses Commission, and it was only when the decisions were found to be rather harder than the Control Board thought desirable that practice of referring cases to the War Losses Commission ceased?

Mr. BONAR LAW

No; I cannot accept that as a statement of fact.