LIMITATION (ENEMIES AND WAR PRISONERS) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 23 January 1945)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)

My Lords, there are two Bills on the Paper to-day of which, in each case, I shall propose the Second Reading. The second Bill—the Bill dealing with contributory negligence—is a Bill of very general importance and interest and I have no doubt that it may give rise to some speeches. I hope it will not be opposed. The present Bill—the Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Bill—is a Bill of very technical character, and while I do not expect that it will meet with any opposition, I hardly think that your Lordships will wish to have a very extended explanation.

631 Perhaps the simplest way to put the matter before the House is to remind you that civil claims in our Courts have to be brought within a certain limit of time or else they become what is called Statute-barred. To take the most ordinary instance, a claim on a simple contract has to be brought within six years of the cause of action arising. Now the situation we have to deal with arises partly because the war is prolonged and, secondly, because of the very wide area of Europe which has been, and to some extent still is, in the military occupation of the enemy. In the same way large parts of Asia are still in the occupation of Japan. If I may therefore give an illustration, the result is this: that Norwegians living in Oslo, or Dutchmen living at The Hague, or indeed British subjects living in Singapore, are for the purpose of pursuing actions in the British Courts to be treated as enemies. It must be so, because of course, if they were at liberty to bring actions while the war is going on, the fruit of their actions, if they were successful, would really inure to the advantage of Germany or Japan as the case may be. Even if they did not receive the money, those enemy States would at least have got their hands on a credit which had been created in this country as a result of the judgment, by means of which they might increase the sum total of their resources. Therefore the Trading with the Enemy Act defines an enemy as including people who are not only enemy subjects but who are residents in areas which are under the military occupation of the enemy, or companies and corporations which are carrying on business there. Such persons, though they may have perfectly good claims, which they ought to have the opportunity of enforcing, if they wish, in our Courts, are in danger of losing those rights altogether because of the lapse of time since their claim arose, it may be shortly before the war.

That is one instance which shows that something has to be done. Another instance is to put the position in the reverse way. There are individuals and companies in this country who have, or believe they have, perfectly good claims arising, it may be, just before the war, against enemies in Europe or in Asia in the sense that I have described. These would include, of course, actual Germans, 632 Nazis, living in Berlin or wherever it may be. There our Courts do not say they will not entertain such an action. Of course they will entertain an action which is brought by a British subject, but as a practical matter the action cannot be brought because there is no means by which you can serve the writ and bring the other party before the Courts and satisfy all the other conditions. Enemies certainly will not facilitate the service of writs on people who are within the boundary of their military occupation. There again there is a serious risk that a great many perfectly good claims will not be met, or if necessary litigated, as they ought to be, merely because of a lapse of time. We had the same difficulty at the end of the last war but not in so extreme a form, first of all because it did not last so long, and secondly, because the extent to which the occupation spread was not so great, and it was dealt with on that occasion in a rather different way. It was dealt with in an article in the Treaty of Versailles which was followed by a Statute in this country. Those are two examples which I think will satisfy your Lordships that something of this kind is needed. The effect of this Bill is to say that, where there is a party that is an enemy and consequently cannot have proceedings going on at present, the period which is the maximum period under the statutory provision shall be calculated leaving out that part of the time when, for reasons I have explained, an action could not be brought.

There is one further matter which I ought to mention. If your Lordships have examined the text of the first subsection of the Bill in which the word "enemy" appears and if you turn over to Clause 2, the Interpretation Clause, you will see that "enemy" means "enemy" in the sense of the Trading with the Enemy Act; consequently, the provisions in this Bill would appear at first sight also to give a new benefit to actual enemy subjects—actual Germans or Japanese—whose claims, whatever they may be, if brought after the war is over in our Courts would, as things now stand, be barred by the Statute of Limitation. I need hardly assure Your Lordships that it is no part of the intention of the Government or of my intention that we should, at this time of day, confer this new benefit upon those who are, in the full and natural sense, our enemies. The explanation is that while 633 one might think on looking at the Bill that that is a possibility, it is intended, and indeed I think to a large extent already provided, that the fruits of any such judgment would not go to the enemy plaintiff but would go to the Custodian of Enemy Property. Already the Custodian of Enemy Property, under a law which was passed not so long ago, is engaged in collecting assets available in this country which would be the assets of our actual enemies and the intention is to carry that through more or less on the lines that prevailed during the last war, with the result that a fund will be created out of which our own citizens can be compensated for the claims which they have against enemies on the other side. It only remains for me to say that your Lordships may be assured that no such benefit will be realized by those who are actually enemy subjects. That is not what I am proposing at all. What I am proposing is, as the result of the recommendations made to me by a very responsible Committee which I appointed, that we should now indicate by this Bill that the limitation period will not be calculated in the way in which it would be calculated under our general law but, for the reasons I have explained, will have blotted out from it the period during which it was impracticable or illegal to sue. I hope what I have said is sufficient to explain the general purpose of the Bill. I deliberately do not go into further details and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.