ENEMY PROPERTY BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 13 July 1953)

§ LORD MANCROFT
My Lords, it is nearly four months since your Lordships gave a First Reading to this Bill. In the course of that time your Lordships have gone into it with great care and deliberation and have discussed nearly sixty Amendments. I must therefore ask leave of the House to make one or two general observations on the Bill, in case during this length of time the main purposes may have been lost sight of. I do so for this reason. As some of its proposals have been characterised from the other side of the House as being "faintly discreditable" I am a little anxious lest this idea should gain currency. I repudiate that description. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is nothing whatever discreditable in this Enemy Property Bill. It is an indemnity Bill, and such Bills are a normal part of the business of clearing up after a war in which the nation's existence was at stake.
On some points, I think, our memories are apt to be a little short. One in particular has perhaps been overlaid by some of the speeches to which we have listened, with a certain amount of sympathy from this side of the House, if, perhaps, not with agreement. The point is that the prevention of trading with the enemy and the denial of possible benefit to him was an important feature of our economic warfare. Therefore, where a person was resident in enemy territory, not merely was it the law, but it was essential, if advantage was to be denied to the enemy, that his property in this country should come under control. This was the case no matter what his own political or religious convictions might be. I mention that point in particular, because several noble Lords opposite appeared to be worried lest we might be doing injustice to those with whose political and religious convictions we were in sympathy and who had suffered for them during the war. Furthermore, all this was very largely dependent upon the ready acceptance of their obligations by the community here at home as a whole. Those concerned who acted in the various ways described in Parts I and II of the 584 Bill, and are now liable to have claims made against them, are entitled, I should have thought, to some consideration, and certainly ought not to be expected to bear the consequences if they acted in good faith.
The second point I would make is this. It is not the case, as has been occasionally suggested during the Committee and Report stages, that would-be plaintiffs have had little or no time as yet to launch their actions, and will, perhaps, be penalised or have injustice done against them if this Bill passes into law. The contrary is true. They have had plenty of time. The courts have been open to Germans since July, 1951, to Japanese nationals since April, 1952, to Italian, Bulgarian and other Central European nationals since September, 1947, and to Austrian nationals since September, 1947. Allied nationals have been in a position to sue here ever since they ceased to be alien enemies on the liberation of the territories concerned, while the courts have never been closed to neutrals. Indeed, in some cases, notably so far as British subjects and other non-enemies are concerned, actions in the courts would now be time-barred by the Statutes of Limitation. The period of limitation as regards actions by persons formerly separated by the line of war is governed by the Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act, 1945, under which time does not run against such persons while they were enemies. In the circumstances, I really feel that those concerned cannot be heard to complain, eight years after hostilities came to an end, that they have had neither the time nor the opportunity to bring their claims, and that those against whom they would wish to do so must still remain uncertain of their position.
My Lords, those are the two points I wished to clear up, because I felt that there was slight uneasiness that some latent injustice might be done. I think I have said enough to show the House that that is absolutely not so and that no injustice of any sort has been done or is being done. I would conclude by thanking very much the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—who was good enough to tell me that he could not be in his place at this time—and his colleagues on the opposite side of the House, and also those noble friends behind me, who have been good enough to go into this Bill with such great care and have 585 done much to improve it. With those words, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

LORD SILKEN
My Lords, in the unfortunate absence of my noble friend and colleague, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I have been asked to say a few words in reply to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I think he is under some misapprehension when he suggests that there was any criticism at all about the purpose of the Bill. I think we all accepted the need for an indemnity Bill. There was no opposition at all on the Second Reading, and, so far as I am aware, all the Amendments on the Committee stage were directed to improving the Bill and to ensuring that innocent people did not suffer. Indeed, in consequence of representations made from this side of the House and of some from the other side, and as a result of the Amendments we moved, I think it will be generally agreed that the Bill has been improved.
There was just one matter to which the noble Lord referred, which did give rise to a certain amount of uneasiness. I had some sympathy with the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack because, possibly, these matters were outside the scope of the Bill. But I do not know. I could argue both ways. But I do not think any criticism ought to be directed against any noble Lord who tried to make a case for those who were as much victims of German aggression as we were ourselves. Persons, on whose behalf noble Lords on this side of the House spoke, suffered persecution and deprivation and all kinds of horrors, and it was felt that in talking of enemy aliens it was rather anomalous to refer to these people who were never enemies and who, as I say, had suffered just as much at the hands of the enemy as anyone else. It was felt that they ought not to suffer consequences similar to those imposed on enemies themselves.
Another class of persons was concerned, and this consisted of people who were opposed to the enemy but who became technical enemies because of German invasion—people like the Danes, the Dutch, and the Belgians. It was felt that 586 they also ought to receive some differential treatment. I think it was perfectly right and legitimate to raise this question. Whether it was, as the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack said, irrelevant to raise it in a discussion upon this Bill, I should not care to express an opinion. It may well be that it was so. But I do not think that noble Lords who raised it deserve any strictures for having done so. As the noble and learned Lord himself said, the case they put forward is one deserving of sympathy. And I understand that in fact it will receive a certain amount of sympathy by means of ex gratia payments. Subject to these remarks, I think we can bring this Bill to a harmonious conclusion. Since the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has been good enough to thank noble Lords on this side for what they have done in improving the Bill, may I say that the noble Lord himself has conducted himself on this Bill in a most efficient way. I should like to congratulate him on the very considerable mastery he managed to achieve over a difficult and technical measure.

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, I was not aware, until the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, spoke, of the harmony with which this Bill had been received on the other side. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, conveyed the impression to my mind that he was bitterly opposed to the Bill at one stage and thought it very unfair.

§ LORD SILKIN
Only on the one point to which he referred; not generally.

LORD HAWKE
I accept that. My noble friend, Lord Mancroft, who has piloted the Bill, has earned my great admiration for so doing. It is a Bill which, frankly, I could not understand, and a great many other noble Lords could not, either. Enemy property has always been a source of great difficulty. I had something to do with it during the war. It cropped up at every turn, whenever a territory was reoccupied. Fortunately, we had a corps of extremely clever and able civil servants who were always able to advise us what should be done, and nothing was done without the advice of these guides. It is strange to think that we should ever pass a Bill like this. It shows that we are a people who have great veneration for the law. If the Germans or Japanese had won the war, I wonder what their legislation would 587 have been like. I have not discovered exactly what legislation the Russians have passed in this connection. I am extremely glad we have such competent civil servants to advise us on these matters and a noble Lord who really did understand the Bill to pilot it through the House.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I wonder if the House will allow me to say this, in connection with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said. I should be extremely sorry if anything I said could be construed as criticism or strictures on the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. On the other hand, it was the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who referred to this Bill and to the administration of enemy property as something which was disgraceful; almost in the last sentence he used the word "iniquitous." I must confess that that seemed to me somewhat of a travesty of the provisions of the Bill and of the administration of enemy property, which has proceeded in precisely the same way under both the Socialist Government and the present Government. But if the noble Lord did say anything, I should not complain, because I ought to be capable of hearing that sort of thing without wincing. If I said anything that could be construed as being in any way offensive to the noble Lord, I am sorry for it. With these words, I will put the Question.