HL Deb 06 September 1939 vol 114 cc1009-14

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

3.37 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill deals with a group of cases in which the goods of one person are in the possession of another. The question always arises, when damage takes place in these circumstances, as to the liability for repair or for payment in respect of the damage. The Bill deals with cases of damage by war. The position in Common Law may be stated very broadly and generally. It is that the person who is in possession of the goods—called the bailee—is only liable in the event of his negligence having caused the damage; that is to say, he would be under no liability to repair or make good war damage. There are two exceptions to that rule—that he keeps the goods after the bailment or possession of the goods should have been terminated or he departs from the terms of the contract, say, by removing the goods to a place not authorised by the owner of the goods. But, in general, the position of goods is regulated or decided in such cases by a special contract which may contain an absolute undertaking that the goods shall be returned at a particular time or in their proper state, and the bailee may be under liability—and very often is—to insure the goods.

Clause 1 of this Bill provides that in all such cases as I have mentioned, except those express contracts to the contrary, which are related to war, the bailee shall not be liable for war damage. That is the rule now proposed in Clause 1, subject to the two exceptions I have mentioned. I propose at a later stage to ask your Lordships to agree to a small Amendment to Clause 1, which will come in at the end of subsection (2), to provide that where there are reasonable grounds for the bailee removing the goods to another place for the purpose of additional security he shall still be entitled to the protection which Clause 1 gives to him. Clause 2 deals with the case of goods on approval or sale or return, and it provides that liability for war damage should not fall upon the buyer. Clause 3 applies the same principle in the relief of innkeepers from liability, and innkeepers as such will be relieved from having further liability for loss or damage. Clause 4 deals with the case of fire arising from war when the goods have been made the subject of a pledge, and the loss in this case will lie where it falls. The pawnbroker is not to be liable to make any payment in respect of the value of the pledge and unless (in the case of damage) the pawnbroker redeems the pledge he shall not be liable to repay the loan.

Clause 5 deals with the same principle applied to a rather different subject matter. It applies to Customs Duty and Excise Duty, and the provisions contained in Clause 5, subsections (1) and (2), deal with the case where the goods are entirely lost by war and where the goods are damaged by war. The duty will not be chargeable where the goods have been lost by war before the duty has been paid. In the case of damage by war where the duties are chargeable upon the value of the goods, the value upon which the duty is payable will be the damage value. Where the duty is assessable upon the weight or quantity of the goods the goods may be abandoned if the owner so pleases to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and thereupon the duty shall not be chargeable; otherwise it will be upon the full rate of duty notwithstanding the damage to the goods. The Bill applies to Scotland and the other provisions that are contained in the Bill are for that purpose. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

3.42 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, we do not offer any opposition to this Bill, but I would like to ask the noble and learned Viscount, The Lord Chancellor—if he will excuse my ignorance—to tell me the meaning of the Latin phrase in Clause 6, page 4, line 4—locatio operis faciendi. I apologise for my Latin being so rusty, but probably the noble and learned Viscount has been using Latin more recently in his legal work, and perhaps he will tell others of your Lordships who might be as ignorant as I am—there are not many I am sure—what exactly it means. That will save whoever takes this Bill in another place a similar explanation. As their time is less valuable than ours, if that is done now it will help us to get the Bills back so that we can get on with the more important work.

That is the only question I venture to ask the Lord Chancellor, but I want to take this opportunity on behalf of my Party of raising a matter of principle. This Bill now says that the person who otherwise would get compensation because of losses for war damage is not to get compensation. That, in a sentence, is what it is. Therefore in any case that person loses. On the other hand, we have passed legislation insuring warehousemen who keep stocks needed for the nation at the present time, insuring grocers keeping extra foodstuffs who suffer loss through war damage, and we also insure shipowners, of whom I see several present amongst your Lordships. The moment they have a ship lost at sea they get the value of the hull and so on. But we are not yet in possession of the Government's intentions. We do not want to complain about this. I only want to press this point now as it is apposite. We are not in possession of the Government's intentions with regard to damage to ordinary property, hereditaments, and so on, and this matter has been for a long time exercising the minds of a number of small property owners and large property owners as well. We raised this matter in your Lordships' House before the outbreak of war. The Government, when they were pressed, eventually said that they were going to appoint a Committee of business men. I do not remember whether they were appointed or not, or, if they were appointed, who they are. I would be glad to know if it is intended still to appoint these business men to look into this matter of compensation for war damage to ordinary property.

EARL STANHOPE

May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I understand the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is to ask a private notice question about that to-morrow.

LORD STRABOLGI

I did not know about that, and I do not want to anticipate what the noble Viscount has to say about it. I will say nothing about the Committee, but I want to say something on the broad question, and I am sure the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches will be glad to support me in principle. The Government have made very heavy weather about this question. I speak as a property owner myself, and I know I speak for thousands of property owners in the country. We are quite prepared to subscribe at once to a fund and to take out of that fund, if we have to make claims upon it owing to loss by war, what the fund will bear. It does not matter as long as there is some fund and we know we can get some compensation if our property is destroyed by enemy action. There really should not be any difficulty about this. The business men I have spoken to, and those who have written letters to The Times newspaper, have pointed out that there should not be any difficulty or delay. We want to know that there is to be some compensation.

On the occasion of the last War the Government had an insurance scheme of this kind, and they made a profit of £10,000,000 out of it, which was very good for the general taxpayer. It worked perfectly well. A great deal of damage was done by enemy aircraft in various parts of the country, particularly in cities like Hull, which I represented at that time, and where the damage was very great. It was not known how great was the damage, but it was all compensated for in due course. What we do not want is to have to wait perhaps for years until the Government have assessed what is the whole amount that has to be paid and how much money there is to pay. In the meantime, many property owners may be ruined. I speak particularly for the small property owners whose houses are perhaps destroyed and who will have to whistle for the money. We will pay our shot. We will pay into a general fund. We will not expect to get the whole of the compensation at once, but we want something at once to enable us to get some relief for the damage suffered.

In saying this, I speak what is felt by thousands of small property owners, including workingmen who are buying their houses on an instalment plan and who will be ruined if their houses are destroyed and they get no compensation. I only want to take this opportunity of seeing that this question is at present in the minds of the important members of the Government who sit in your Lordships' House so that when other things have been taken care of perhaps they will be able to appoint someone to look after this matter. I know perfectly well that I am speaking not only for my Party, who feel very strongly about it, but also for large property owners in the country. I hope we shall get some comfort from the reply of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.

3.48 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Lord asked me the meaning of a phrase that appears in this Bill applying the Bill to Scotland. The term is a Scottish phrase, although it is in Latin. I understand that it refers to a case in which the person who has possession of the goods is under contract to perform some work upon them. With reference to the other question asked by the noble Lord, I can assure him that the Government have been alive to the difficulty of this question. It is under constant consideration, but I can assure him that the circumstances of the last War afford very little guidance to those who are considering the circumstances that may arise in the present war with regard to damage by war. As I have said, the matter is under constant consideration, and the Government will no doubt make a statement when their consideration is ended.

3.50 p.m.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, committed to a Committee of the whole House forthwith.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Liabilities in respect of bailments.

(2) Nothing in this Section shall relieve a bailee of any liability for loss of or damage to any goods occurring while the goods are being kept or transported in a manner or at a place which is contrary to the terms of any contract relating to the custody or transport thereof.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack announced, there is an Amendment to be moved which he has handed in in manuscript. The Amendment is to page 2, line 5, at end, to insert "unless the bailee satisfies the Court, in any proceedings brought to enforce any such liability, that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the goods were less likely to be lost or damaged while being kept or transported in that manner or at that place than while being kept or transported in accordance with the teems of the contract."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move the Amendment which has just been read. I apologise to your Lordships for not being in a position to have the Amendment printed, but your Lordships are aware of the circumstances in which these Bills are being prepared. It has been thought right, for the reasons I have mentioned, to insert this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("unless the bailee satisfies the Court, in any proceedings brought to enforce any such liability, that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the goods were less likely to be lost or damaged while being kept or transported in that manner or at that place than while being kept or transported in accordance with the terms of the contract.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Amendment reported.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.