WAR DAMAGE BILL (Hansard, 27 April 1965)

THE EARL OF LYTTON

My Lords, I was advised in the Whips' Office earlier to-day that I might be the only speaker on this subject. It is a cause of embarrassment to me that I should have done a 400-mile journey to speak alone on this matter. I had imagined that there would be others. Nevertheless, at the risk of earning the reputation of the persistent Mr. Pratt I want to make two short postscripts to the long and interesting debate we had at Committee stage.

At that stage, the theme of Her Majesty's Government, and also, I think, of the Front Bench of Her Majesty's Opposition, was the subject's faith in the existing law. At the earlier debate, on Second Reading, the theme was the Government's faith in what I might call the non-existing law. These two subjects have been pursued separately, whereas the issue, surely, is this. There was from the first a known and acknowledged clash between the two faiths or the two views—an acknowledgment made by Sir Stafford Cripps on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, then a Labour Government, on October 20, 1947, in consultation with the oil companies of Burma. This acknowledgment was followed by an assurance from Sir Stafford that he could at the time offer no money at all. He recommended them to test the issue on these two faiths by nutting it to the impartial judgment of the courts. He recommended further, against all the misgivings of the Burmah Oil Company, that litigation should be undertaken in Burma.

Some little time afterwards—nobody has said exactly when—Sir Stafford Cripps again made an advance, or whatever one likes to call it, of £4¾ million. I understand that that was without prejudice to the litigation in Rangoon. In any case, the litigation went on for fifteen years, and so long as the relatively poor taxpayer in Burma was exposed to the risk of this claim the company were not 505 deterred from pursuing that course in the courts. Only when these proceedings ended and the litigants claimed against Her Majesty's Government, and the relatively rich British taxpayer was exposed, was the Government's decision conveyed. That was done in a letter of June 13, 1962, in which the British taxpayer was assured of 100 per cent. protection against the findings of his own courts. That is the first point.

The second point is the question of claims. Throughout the discussions, on the side of Her Majesty's Government it has been implied that there was something erroneous and "smart Alick" about claiming in the courts and claiming the full cost of reinstatement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, said (this appears at page 39 of his Opinion in the House of Lords judgment) that this was the starting point. He said it with evident approval. It has been repeatedly implied in this House that the courts are virtually bound to meet the claim as to 100 per cent.: the 100 per cent. figure has been constantly mentioned. However, in his Opinion the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said: I am deciding nothing about the proper measure of compensation. And the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, said: It must not be thought that by compensation I mean the full cost of reinstatement. It does not seem to have been contemplated anywhere—outside, in the courts and among the judges—that the compensation which those of them recommended should be given 100 per cent. When all is said and done on this claim, is it not probable that your Lordships, or the Government, could settle this matter for £12 million this afternoon, and not £100 million or £150 million? Those are my two points my Lords, and I am sorry if I have trespassed on a busy afternoon.