COMMONS AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 2 August 1944)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the next matter is rather more a matter of substance and perhaps of policy which I shall explain very briefly. .The Bill, as your Lordships remember, is for the purpose of giving legal effect and suitable interpretation to leases or agreements for leases which are expressed to be "for the duration of the war" or some vague phrase of that sort. That phrase does not enable you to determine what the agreement is. We have therefore provided in the Bill that all these leases are to be treated as though they were for a certain term of years, liable to be defeated on the termination of the war. We chose ten years; I trust it may not be so long. In any case that is all subject to the termination of the war, or whatever the contract says. We thought when we drafted the Bill that the right thing to do in a case where there was really nothing to show what the parties meant by a lease "for the duration of the war" was to treat it as a lease for the duration of the Japanese War no less than the German War or the Italian War. We thought that that was the right view to take, and it would therefore, under the Bill as it left this House, have been possible to make out that the lease was for a shorter period if there was something in the lease or in the circumstances to prove the difference.

I think we have had a number of communications from the public about it. On reflection it is really quite plain that if the agreement was made quite early in the war, at a time when the only enemy was Germany, the person who made that agreement was really thinking of the war with Germany. He cannot have been thinking of anything more. Consequently we see the force of the proposal made in the Commons, which was widely supported I think in all parts of the House, that where there was no reason to think the contrary regard should be had to the date when the agreement was made and that the understanding should be that these agreements, so difficult to construe, should be 81 regarded as referring to the war as respects those States with which His Majesty was at war at the date when the agreement was made, that is unless it is shown that the parties intended something different. If that is shown (as might be the case) the Amendment which the Common; propose says that we should have regard to the date and that we should treat these agreements as really referring to such war or wars as we were involved in at the date.

I cannot help thinking that that is as near as we can get to the possible intention of the parties. It will not suit every case. The soldier who goes abroad to fight may [or some reason make an agreement to dispose of his house for the duration of the war, and there may be cases in which that may mean whatever war is coming along. On the other hand, I think in the majority of cases the other view is right and that it is really being a little pedantic to treat an agreement which is to last "for the duration of the war" as though it was an agreement that was to last until the end of all wars in which we might be engaged, though the agreement was entered into in the first week of the war with Germany. One can imagine cases where premises have been evacuated in areas that have been bombed. Those must refer to the war with Germany because up to the present Japan has not developed that form of attack with which Germany has made us familiar. The Motion I wish to make is that we agree with the Commons in these Amendments.