HC Deb 21 July 1943 vol 391 cc880-2
32. Mr. Stokes

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to the method of settlement in the matter of compensation to the parents of boys who either lost their lives or who were seriously or permanently injured in the recent tragedy on the playing fields at Downside?

Mr. Alexander

Yes, Sir. This matter has been further considered most carefully and with the utmost sympathy. I am afraid, however, that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that since the scale of compensation to be paid in respect of war injuries is laid down under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, the grant of an ex gratia payment would be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the intentions of Parliament. The view which I have expressed is shared by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions who administers the Act.

Mr. Stokes

Does my right hon. Friend really think that the Act was meant to deal with exceptional cases of this kind, and does he think it provides adequate compensation for a small boy aged 15 who has lost both his legs as a result of this accident? Can he not reconsider the matter, because the present position is giving anything but satisfaction to people who have suffered terrible loss?

Mr. Alexander

I understand my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, but I would point out that the principle, accepted without a division in both Houses of Parliament in the Act of 1939, would appply to very large numbers of contingencies, and I really could not undertake to make any promise at all on that point.

Sir H. Williams

Do I understand that if the Crown injures somebody the Crown pays far less than would a private individual who had injured the same person? Are people to be deprived of their Common Law rights?

Mr. Alexander

At the time Parliament, apparently quite deliberately, made an exception in the Act of 1939 on this point—quite clearly.

Mr. Stokes

Does my right hon. Friend really believe that Parliament had accidents of this kind in mind when it passed that Act? Is he aware that his own Department has declared that the material damage done is not war damage? If the material damage done is not war damage, why is personal damage war damage?

Mr. Alexander

The question of the material damage is being satisfactorily cleared up, and I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

Mr. Stokes

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his own Department has declared that material damage done does not come under war damage, and if material damage does not come under war damage how does the personal damage? He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Alexander

The Act which I have quoted specifically excludes from payments of this kind all air accidents over this Island during the war.

Sir A. Southby

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these children lost their lives and suffered injury not because of the ordinary chances of the war, to which we must all be subject, but because something was done which was contrary to orders? There was a breach of his duty by an officer of the Crown, and is not this therefore a particular case?

Mr. Alexander

I am fully aware of the circumstances which my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned, but I must point out that this is one of a very large series of cases which arise for different reasons, either accidents or negligence. It is specifically covered by the Act, and I am bound by the law.