CLAUSE 3.—(Subjects by birth.) (Hansard, 13 July 1948)

§ Mr. H. Strauss
I. beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out "and Colonies," and to insert "or in any colony."
The reason I. move this Amendment is that I. have—I hope rightly—a prejudice in favour of a statute's not being nonsense 1120 on the face of it. The Clause as it runs at present states: Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born in the United Kingdom and Colonies … I wonder whether anybody has ever met a person who has been born in the United Kingdom and Colonies. The thing is so fantastic that I. have every expectation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept this Amendment with gratitude in order to convert a Bill which is at present, in this Clause, nonsense into sense. Incidentally, it will do no harm to any point which the Government may have in mind. The marvels of modern science are very great, but I. still doubt whether it is possible for a person to be born in the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Attorney-General is not sure about that, and, doubtless, we shall hear a rather obstetric argument from him on 1121 this subject. Nevertheless, I think the thing, if possible, will be of sufficient rarity for my proposed words to be preferable.
Lest it should be thought that this is in any way hostile to the Bill I would point out that nowhere am I proposing to interfere with the phrase "British subject" or, if the Governments Amendments are accepted, "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth." That omnibus phrase will remain. That may be what the Government want. That, indeed, although objectionable on grounds which have been discussed earlier, is, at any rate, not meaningless: it is possible to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth. What is clearly impossible is to be born in the United Kingdom and Colonies. I therefore suggest that the Government should accept the Amendment, which will make the Clause run: Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born in the United Kingdom or in any Colony …

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger)
We all know how keen the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Henry Strauss) is on the proper use of English, and we take the Amendment which he has moved to be a manifestation of that. I should be the first to agree that on purely stylistic grounds there may be something to be said for the case that he has made. I would call his attention, however, to this fact, that throughout the Bill the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies" is constantly used in a number of different connections. The area comprised in those words is treated as one. Hon. Members opposite have spent the last three or four hours largely objecting to the fact that it is treated as a single area, and that these two conceptions of the United Kingdom and the Colonies should be treated as a single area throughout the Bill.
The question is not so much one of style as of clarity. Is it better to use this phrase which in most cases must take the form of "United Kingdom and Colonies" throughout the Bill as though it were a single unit, representing a single area, or is it better, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, to pick and choose certain cases where the phrase occurs, and where it may be thought in 1122 some ways better to alter it and, therefore, to have a variation of the phrase throughout the Bill?
I submit that it is much clearer to leave it as it is. If we like to read the phrase in a certain way and tone of voice, we can make a certain absurdity out of the proposition that a person is born in the United Kingdom and Colonies. I suggest that he would not wink an eyelid if someone told him that he was born in Ross and Cromarty. That is exactly the same thing. It is quite well recognised as a single area, and for the purpose of this Bill the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies" is recognised throughout as a single area. If there were any chance of ambiguity I should be very willing to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not think that there is. I think that there is much less chance of ambiguity by leaving it in this way than in the way in which he seeks to amend the Clause.

§ Mr. J. Foster
In page 2, line 21 the Bill says: any part of the United Kingdom and Colonies… which is obviously recognising that it is not one area. All the hon. Gentleman would need to do to meet the point of my hon. and learned Friend would be to say, "Any person born in any part of the United Kingdom and Colonies," and that would put the matter right.

§ Mr. Younger
I think that why the phrase occurs there is because the local laws are different, but for the purposes of this Bill it is, as I have said, a single area.

§ Mr. H. Strauss
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realised when he gave me the example of Ross and Cromarty, that "Colony" is mentioned separately in the definition Clause of this Bill. His argument will not do. I quite agree that "United Kingdom and Colonies" is a composite phrase which, on the ground of what has already been decided by the Committee, I do not question wherever it makes sense. I am attacking it on the one point where it demonstrably makes nonsense. I do not think that it is a trivial matter that this House should acquiesce in something which is nonsense. It is nonsense to say "any person born in the United Kingdom and Colonies," and if the hon. Member and his right 1123 hon. Friend will look at the definition Clause they will find that "Colony" is separately mentioned and that the United Kingdom and Colonies is not defined as a composite phrase. The Government can have their composite phrase in every other place where they really need it; but do they solemnly insist on the Committee adopting it in the one place where it makes obvious nonsense?

§ Mr. Benn Levy (Eton and Slough)
Although it is true that pedantically or literally speaking it is impossible to be born in the British Isles, would the hon. and learned Member object to that phrase?

§ Mr. Strauss
No, I should not.

§ Mr. Levy
One can be born in only one British island.

§ Mr. Strauss
Yes, but I think that if the hon. Member will devote his not inconsiderable intelligence to the fallacy in his own argument he will not find the slightest difficulty in discovering it.

§ Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)
The Under-Secretary has not really grappled with the point of my hon. and learned Friend's argument. The Under-Secretary said that in various parts of this Bill the words "the United Kingdom and Colonies" are used; but he has not grappled with the point that wherever else they are used they do no violence to the English language. In other words, they make sense. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that it is not possible to be born in the "United Kingdom and Colonies," and I ask the Under-Secretary to consider whether he could not before the Report stage adopt either this Amendment or the very reasonable compromise suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), to insert the words "in any part of."

§ Mr. J. Foster
Another compromise which I think would meet the situation is if the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies" were put into the definition Clause, for then it would be one area, as is the British Isles.

§ The Attorney-General
It is already there.

§ Mr. H. Strauss
No.

§ Mr. Foster
The word "Colony" is in the definition Clause, so it does not refer to the countries in Clause 3. Obviously, this is not vitally important, but it is a pity that something which makes nonsense, and which could be cured by the simplest form of drafting, should remain. It seems rather obstinate on the part of the Under-Secretary to insist on this. He has only to put in the definition Clause that the United Kingdom and Colonies shall equal the area comprised by the United Kingdom and Colonies now, and that would solve the whole problem. Or he could adopt the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, which is better still because it makes it clear.
I wish the Under-Secretary would look at it again, instead of being obstinate. Admittedly, it is pedantic; but people always describe things as "pedantic" when the other man is right. The Under-Secretary says it is stylistic, which is another word always used when the other man is right. The wording does not make any sense as it is. The people of the Dominions probably will not think any worse of us if we have this nonsense here, but Maxwell on his Interpretation of the Statutes will shake his head.

§ Mr. Younger
I do not think it is quite so simple as the hon. Member pretends. If I understood the earlier objections aright, they were on the ground that this phrase does violence to the English language, and I can see the point of that. The form of Amendment just suggested by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) would not remedy that at all; it would not alter the phrase; it would not make a linguistic difference to the beginning of Clause 3. Logically, of course, to somebody who looked at a quite different part of the Bill the thing would fit in rather better.
However, I think there might be a possibility of accepting something on the lines of inserting "in any part of," because that would leave the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies" intact as a unit. I hesitate to give any assurance on this point, because the draftsmen have considered this at an earlier stage. It is a very technical drafting matter, but I will undertake to look at this before the Report stage.

§ Mr. H. Strauss
Whatever the Government may think my attitude to any other Clause of the Bill to be, I assure them that on this particular Amendment I desired merely to be helpful, and to put forward an Amendment which would put the Bill into better form. I am not at the present moment discussing the best alternative wording although I believe my Amendment to be a wise one. But on the assurance the Under-Secretary has just given, that he will look into this again—although I appreciate he could not give a firm undertaking—and consider a more appropriate form of words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.