§ 2.9 p.m.
§ Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
§ Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, the issues which are raised by this measure are, of course, familiar to your Lordships. The Bill had already been fully discussed in this House before it went to another place. It was originally recommended to your Lordships by the Government as a non-controversial measure, merely incorporating the results of certain inter-Commonwealth discussions with regard to a number of technical matters. That was certainly the impression which was given to the House. As your Lordships know, this House, with all its wealth of experience on questions connected with the Commonwealth and Empire, felt itself unable to take so lighthearted a view as the Government took with regard to all the issues raised by the Bill. We believed that it was a deplorable measure, and we felt bound to say so. We thought it a thousand pities that it had ever been introduced, and we considered it likely to be most regrettable in its effect upon the structure of the Commonwealth.
I do not want to go in great detail into the arguments which have already been exposed here, but I would remind your Lordships quite briefly that we did not like Clause 1 because we thought it would tend seriously to weaken the ties of Empire; and we did not like Clause 2, not only because we felt that it would 1175 be deeply resented by our oldest and nearest friends, the loyalists of Southern Ireland, but because of the wider implications of such a step—to which, in fact, it appeared that little attention had been paid. Holding the views we did, we introduced certain Amendments which were designed to neutralise the unfortunate results we thought were likely to follow from this measure, and especially in respect of Clauses 1 and 2. I can assure the Government—indeed, I think they know already—that the serious preoccupations we expressed arose from no desire to embarrass them in any way whatever. Indeed, those preoccupations have, since the debate took place, been widely echoed in the responsible Press and elsewhere. More than one the great newspapers and periodicals said that they thought it regrettable that this measure had been so hurried and that so little time had been taken, not merely for Governments to consider the changes made but for the general public—who are, after all, the people who matter—to appreciate, as they certainly do not at present, the implications of the changes which are now being introduced.
It is, I think, quite evident to any of those who have considered this measure that Clauses 1 and 2 not merely are technical changes but raise constitutional issues which, in our view, deserve more serious consideration than, up to now, has been given to them. We had hoped that the Government and the Socialist majority in another place would recognise the substance of the arguments we urged, and, if they did not find it possible to accept our Amendments in the form in which they were tabled, would try to find some other method of meeting the very real dangers of which we were apprehensive. But in fact our Amendments were given no very serious consideration in another place; they were swept away as of little or no importance. I am frankly extremely doubtful whether the other place showed itself capable of understanding the whole nature and extent of the dangers about which we have so much anxiety. At any rate, they restored the Bill to its original form, and we in this House must deeply deplore that action.
The question now arises, and must arise for all of us, what, if any, further action your Lordships can take with regard to 1176 this matter, about which we feel so keenly. I can assure the Government that we are most anxious not to give a Party character to an issue of this kind. On the other hand, as I have explained, we are genuinely perturbed as to the effect of this legislation. We believe the implications are not entirely, if at all, realised either in this country or in the Dominions. I do not mean by that that they are not realised by the Government Departments concerned; I mean by the general public. In support of that, I would mention—and perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has had the same experience—that since our last debate I have had letters on this subject from a number of people who obviously had not realised the implications and would not have realised them at all if these debates had not been raised. Even now, the implications are recognised only by a few people who are specially interested in these matters.
I now have a suggestion to make which I hope the Government may find it possible to accept. I do this, not with the object of provoking controversy but of allaying it. We on our side of the House are prepared not to take any further action to insist upon our Amendments; and we hope that the Government, on their side, will give us an assurance that the implications and dangers to which attention has been drawn in the Parliament of the United Kingdom will be brought to the notice of the Prime Ministers of the other Empire countries at the forthcoming meeting of Prime Ministers in the autumn. We hope that we may be given, also, an assurance that further discussion will take place with them, at the highest level, on the new implications which have been exposed in Parliament here, and that, if possible, in the statement which will no doubt be issued at the end of the meeting, some indication will be given to the public of the purport of the discussions and of any conclusions that may have been reached. In my recollection, after the meetings that took place during the war there was always a fairly full statement made; and if we could obtain assurances that an opportunity will be provided of indicating to the public the purport of these discussions, and the general conclusions reached, we could at any rate feel that these important and maybe vital matters have had the full consideration 1177 which they undoubtedly deserve. I recommend this course to the Government, sincerely and with all good will, and I hope that they will find it possible to accept it.
§ 2.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTHMy Lords, I think we should all have felt happier if this Bill had been introduced at a later Session, so that the Conference of Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth, which we all hope will be held before the end of this year, could have had the whole subject before them and could have decided whether the principles which were agreed to at the 1946 Conference were valid to-day. But the Government have thought fit to persist with the Bill during this Session, and we have to face the fact. Moreover, I wish that the Government, before introducing the Bill, had thought fit to take into consultation certain noble Lords who have great experience of Commonwealth and of Colonial matters. In particular, I have in mind the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. As the noble Marquess points out, this is in no way a Party matter. We are all anxious to do everything possible to preserve and to consolidate the ties which happily bind all members of our great Commonwealth. Consultation between all Parties on a subject of this sort would seem to me to be a natural and well-advised course. However, the Government have chosen a different way and, therefore, clearly they must accept full responsibility for everything that the Bill contains.
Two principal points seem to me to have emerged during the discussions which took place both in your Lordships' House and in another place on various clauses of the Bill. The first touches the Commonwealth aspect. We have been told that, after the Conference of Prime Ministers in 1946, there was a conference of experts from the various parts of the Commonwealth, and the Bill was a result of their labours. To my mind, that is a factor of the greatest importance, and we must take it into account when we make our final decisions upon the Amendments now before us. Frankly, I have never been much impressed with the view that it was only a conference of experts. After all, the experts did report each to his own Government and, so far as I know, no Government took any objection to the 1178 finding of those experts. Therefore, I think it may be said quite honestly that the Bill, as it affects the Commonwealth, is more or less an agreed measure. If that is so, I think we should be almost foolhardy, and certainly foolish, if we tried to disturb the arrangements made, whether we believe them to be satisfactory or not. I hold the view that to try to change them at this last minute might be to endanger that unity of Commonwealth which we all desire to see maintained.
The second point is that of the Colonies. We have been told that the main contents of the Bill were submitted to the Governor of practically every Colony, and that no objection was taken by any of them. I think that that shows a most remarkable degree of unanimity. I do not think that we can ignore it and, therefore, we must accept their views. We have given another place every opportunity of reconsidering the phraseology of certain terms of the Bill to which we attach great importance, and also of considering whether it might not have been wiser—some appear to think it might have teen —to postpone parts of the Bill as it stands to-day. The Bill has been returned to us practically in its original shape. The Government have had no second thoughts. For those reasons, and for the reasons I gave earlier—and I hope I speak for the noble Lords who sit on these Benches—I feel that we are bound to accept the Amendments which have been sent to us from, another place, at any rate, so far as they concern the Commonwealth and the Colonies. I shall have a point to put to the noble and learned Viscount upon Clause 5 but, as that concerns a small domestic issue, I shall, wait till that Amendment is put.
§ 2.26 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I certainly have no desire to rake over the embers of Party controversy. Of all the subjects upon which I regret controversy, I regret it most upon any subject dealing with the British Empire und Commonwealth. Of course, I should never think of suggesting for one moment that the noble Marquess or any of those who act with him would use this subject as an opportunity for stirring up Party controversy. I am sure that he, on his part, equally will realise that we should never introduce a Bill of this sort merely to 1179 gain some Party advantage. This is something which all Parties hold much too sacred to be within the ordinary realm of Party politics. However, I am bound to say that we regarded this matter from a very different point of view. We introduced the Bill in order to keep alive and effective something which we all realise to be of the utmost importance—namely, the status which we all possess, the common nationality which we all hold. In the past that had been achieved by having either one code of laws or a series of codes of laws, all in substantially identical terms; but that condition had broken down. Therefore, if we were to achieve and maintain this common status, in our view there was only one way to do it. That was to allow—although it is not a question of allowing, because they can do it—each member of the Commonwealth to pass its own legislation laying down who are its own citizens, and for all citizens of the various Commonwealths to become automatically British subjects. That is the principle behind the Bill.
That is all I will say about that matter. I cannot help thinking, however, that underlying all this controversy there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and misconception as to what I agree is a rather difficult, though important, Bill. I come to the specific question which the noble Marquess asked me. Let me answer him in this way. The question of British nationality was discussed at the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers held in 1946, and subsequently by a conference of technical representatives from Commonwealth countries. The recommendations of this conference were submitted to Commonwealth Governments, and the scheme embodied in Clause 1 of this Bill gives effect to them. All Commonwealth Governments have been kept fully informed of the action taken by His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom to carry out these recommendations. They have had full reports on the Bill and on the discussions which have taken place on it in both Houses. At the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in October, these will be available for discussion, if so desired. So I think that the noble Marquess (if he did not hear it, he can read afterwards what I have said) will realise that I am able to give him the assurance 1180 he wanted. There will be ample opportunity for the fullest discussion of this matter. Already the reports of all these discussions have been sent to each of the Commonwealth Governments.
§ 2.30 p.m.
§ LORD ALTRINCHAMMy Lords, I wish I could say that we on this side of the House were convinced by the arguments which were used in another place, and which have been used again since then, upon the merits of this Bill. In common with my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I say that our dislike of the Bill remains as strong as it ever was; and the anxieties which we feel about its possible effects have in no way been lessened. I deeply deplore the fact, because it is obviously desirable that the solid consensus of Parliamentary opinion in this country should support any fundamental change in a matter affecting the unity of the Commonwealth. I deplore it the more particularly, as did my noble friend, because the division between us has, unfortunately, tended to take Party lines. That we deplore very deeply. We quite understand the motive of the Government in introducing this Bill, and we approve it. The object of the Bill is to maintain a common status as closely as it can be maintained. That, we not only understand, but approve. But we are very doubtful about the means taken.
I am no more desirous than the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack of raking over the embers of this controversy, but we do feel that it is unfortunate that the hall-mark upon the King's subjects of this country, and of the Colonial Empire, will derive in the first place from the administrative and governmental system to which they all belong; and that, in a sense, therefore, allegiance to the King, which has hitherto been the single basis of it, will be secondary, and to that extent derivative. But perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can help me on this point. I am deeply concerned as to what is to appear on our passports. It is an interesting test case. As everybody knows, on the first page of a passport, when it is opened, on the left, there is the direction of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs calling upon all people to offer aid and comfort, and so on, to the bearer of the passport. On the other side, there 1181 is the description of the bearer; and at the bottom of that page, under the heading (on one side "National Status" and on the other, in French, "Nationalité"), there appears, "British subject by birth." I hope that that description will still remain, and I would particularly ask whether we can be given an assurance to that effect. I think that is a really important matter.
If that were done, it would also, to some extent, affect the objection which we have felt in regard to the change of nomenclature throughout the Colonial Empire. I still think that it would be far better that the Colonial Empire should know that all its members were simply subjects of the King, and that they should not bear a description or a label which really is expressive of an administrative unity based in Whitehall. But there it is. We have described our feelings. We have produced our arguments. I feel, with my noble friend, that due weight was not attached in another place to this matter, and that due consideration was not given to it. Nevertheless, we are unwilling to press these arguments any further at the present time.
One course is still open—and to some extent the assurance which has just been given by the Lord Chancellor, for which I thank him, is of assistance to us upon this point. We are not satisfied that the general public, here or elsewhere, have hitherto been given sufficient opportunity of grasping and weighing the effects of this Bill. Of course, the subject does not lend itself to public exegesis, or to discussion on a really popular scale. But in this country and in the Empire there is a very large body of instructed opinion, both inside and outside Parliaments, which is deeply concerned in questions of this kind. The Proceedings of the Imperial Conferences of old were particularly valuable, because they enabled this body of opinion to study and digest the views of Dominion statesmen and to form its judgment upon the questions with which they dealt.
Whilst I recognise, with the Lord Chancellor, that this matter was fully discussed at the meeting of Imperial statesmen in 1946, the fact remains that the Proceedings of that Conference were never published in an authoritative form. I think the Government themselves are to some extent responsible for the fact that 1182 the significance of that Conference was not realised. So far as I know, it was not referred to in the White Paper which accompanied the Bill, and the statements made in that White Paper about Dominion opinion were extremely tentative. We were led to believe that it was very uncertain to what extent the other Dominions (apart from Canada, which had taken the lead), would conform. We feel that particularly, as this is a matter for which the United Kingdom Parliament has a special responsibility which cannot be ignored. We therefore regret that instructed opinion throughout the Commonwealth has not had the documents, or the time, to form a considered judgment upon the provisions and the implications of this Bill.
I welcome what the Lord Chancellor said as to the intention of the Government to present to the meeting of Commonwealth statesmen later this year the results of our discussions here. That is some comfort to us, but if that is to be done, I think it is absolutely essential—and I hope the Government will be able to give us this further assurance—that when those consultations have been held, when those opinions have been presented to the conference and considered, we should be given some authorative account of the proceedings. The old-established procedure by which the Imperial Conference published its own proceedings was immensely valuable to the large body of opinion which is profoundly interested in Commonwealth affairs. It is not enough to be told that the Dominions have been kept informed, that the Dominions are being consulted, and that a conference was held. We want to know what was said at that conference. We want to know the views of the different Dominions, and whether those views are liable to be changed.
As your Lordships know, one Government in the Commonwealth have already changed since that Conference took place; and for all we know, others may change in the future. Nobody knows in these times for how long Governments may endure; General Elections are always taking place. It is essential that we know what views were expressed, and I believe that the other democracies of the Commonwealth should know what views ware expressed. I hope that in the discussions which are now to be held the importance of that will be emphasised by our 1183 Ministers. With that request for an extra assurance, which I hope will be given, and with the request for an answer, which I hope can be given now, upon the form which will be used in our passports when this Bill becomes law, I would say only that, greatly as we dislike it, and greatly as we deplore the effect that we feel it may have upon sentiment and upon the unity of the Commonwealth, we are not prepared at the present time to press our objections any further.
§ 2.39 p.m.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON)My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for a moment to answer, so far as I can, the two questions which were put to me by the noble Lord who has just sat down. With regard to the proceedings of the 1946 Conference, which I attended throughout, I may say that the form of the communiqué issued (which, as the noble Lord said, was brief), was issued after careful, friendly and long consideration by the Conference itself. The very words of the communiqué were discussed and settled by the Conference; and it was in accordance with the wish of the Conference, owing to the intimate and very friendly character of the matters discussed, that the publicity was in that form. So far as the proceedings of the Conference which we hope will take place in the near future are concerned—the noble Lord knows as much about these things as I do—I cannot give any pledge. As was the case last time, it will be for the Conference to decide how its proceedings will be published.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, we recognise that what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House says, is quite correct. But it rests with His Majesty's Government to create the opportunity for these things to be discussed. That is within their power.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThe noble Marquess has, I hope, the text of the reply given by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, which was very carefully considered. As the noble Marquess, like myself, has an intimate knowledge of these Conferences, he knows that they decide their own agenda, and their own form of publicity. We all know how these things are arranged. It is for the Conference, and 1184 the Conference only, to agree upon its agenda.
§ LORD ALTRINCHAMMy Lords, of course we all agree with what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has just said. But, after all, the views of the Government of the United Kingdom carry great weight with the Conference, and we should like an assurance that, so far as they are concerned, this matter will be fully discussed and the proceedings will be reported.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, we all have knowledge of the nature of the proceedings at these Conferences and all that is involved. I assure the noble Lord that, with the best will in the world, and with every anxiety to be as helpful as I can, I cannot add anything. This form of words was deliberately and carefully considered and I am sure that it is right. As to the passport point, of which I did not receive notice, I have received some help from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and I now have a little note about it. The Foreign Office have not yet considered what description would be appropriate on passports. As your Lordships know, the Bill does not come into operation until January 1 next. The problem is one upon which the Foreign Office will be glad to receive the views of noble Lords. Therefore, I shall take care to transmit to the Foreign Secretary the views which noble Lords have expressed to-day.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I assume that it will meet the convenience of your Lordships that consideration of the question of the Title of the Bill should be postponed. Perhaps it will be in accordance with the wishes of the House, also, if I put together the various Amendments under each clause. With your Lordships' permission I will adopt that course.