HC Deb 03 March 1953 vol 512 cc263-86

7.32 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out from "Kingdom," to end of line 1, page 2.

The House having decided to proceed to the Committee stage immediately, it would not be right for me to criticise the decision, but one of the inconveniences of the decision is that only manuscript Amendments can be considered because no Amendments for the Committee stage can be put down until the House has given a Bill a Second Reading.

My Amendment seeks to delete the words: … and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible… One of the objects of the Amendment is to ask the Home Secretary to explain a point which was not dealt with on Second Reading. The object of the Bill is to give effect to an agreement which has been made, as stated in the White Paper, between the member Governments of the Commonwealth with each other, and the title which it is proposed that Her Majesty should adopt in future is: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. In Clause 1 there is reference to "the United Kingdom," not "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," and the Bill purports to deal not only with Her Majesty's title in the United Kingdom but also with Her Majesty's title in other places than the United Kingdom: namely, in certain: … other territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible … I hope the Home Secretary will be able to tell us, first, to what other territories that relates and, second, whether any consultation has taken place with those territories, because I gather that those territories are not the members of the Commonwealth referred to in the White Paper. I am not disputing that this may be a good thing to do, but we have heard a good deal of criticism as to whether Scotland was or was not consulted in any way before the title was adopted, and some of us were hoping that the Secretary of State for Scotland would have intervened during the Committee stage.

However, I supported the Second Reading and, as regards Scotland, I believe it is right, notwithstanding the Amendment which was moved, that the Bill should be passed. Although I attach importance to the arguments based on historical accuracy which were advanced on Second Reading, I thought the Home Secretary made a good case for adopting one numerical connotation for every reigning Monarch after the Act of Union, thereby bringing Elizabeth II into line, so to speak, with Edward VII, Edward VIII, William IV and other Monarchs since the act of Union.

The Bill relates not merely to the title of Her Majesty in the United Kingdom—that is, in the territory governed by the Act of Union—but also other territories which are as much concerned as we are, and I hope that before we pass the Bill in this form we shall know to what extent the countries which are outside the United Kingdom, but for which, nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government are responsible, were consulted, whether they made any observations, and, if so, what and, generally, whether their approval was given to the title that we are now being asked to adopt.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am very glad to rise at once to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), because he has told the Committee that he has raised it in order to be informed and not for any other purpose. The answer is—it is, first of all, a drafting problem—that we have to use words which will cover not only the Colonies in the usual sense in which we use that term, but also the territories which are not part of the United Kingdom, such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are covered by the words we have used, namely: … for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible … That was the highest common factor and, at the same time, the best method of drafting that we could find, and that is the reason it is done in that way.

With regard to consultation, there is again a difficulty of words which I do not think really reflects a difficulty in fact. "Consultation" is usually applied in the House of Commons to discussions between this country and another country or between this country and the Colonies in this context. It is, of course, also applied to discussions with local authorities, associations and the like. When one is seeking to know whether something is appreciated between territories which have some form of self-government and others which are on a different basis, one can say that the usual procedure is that the relevant agency of Government seeks to find out by all the means in its power whether the proposal will be acceptable. That was certainly done. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I am being chary about the word "consultation," because that has rather an especial meaning.

I want to assure the hon. Member, however, that, before the style and title were chosen and before these words were accepted, consideration was given to them. It is fair to say that, apart from the question of the numeral, which is a Scottish point with which I have tried to deal, the form of title has not really received much criticism. I do not want to repeat what I have said, but it has always up to now been considered necessary to put some territorial description on these places, and that is the real answer to one of the points that has been raised. Apart from that, I do not think the new form has received much criticism, and, therefore, I think the hon. Gentleman can count that as part of the assurance that the people concerned are satisfied.

Mr. Hector Hughes

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down. I should like to ask him a question, and I am sorry to trouble him at this stage. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is agreed that the words to which my hon. Friend has addressed himself are very vague. The words are: …for use in relation to the United Kingdom and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible…

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

In what sense are they vague?

Mr. Hughes

I am coming to that in a moment. In attempting to reply to a question which was addressed by my hon. Friend, the right hon. and learned Gentleman addressed his mind to the Colonies. But will he explain how these words apply, if they apply at all, to the Protectorates? The Home Secretary will realise that the words in the Clause in question relate to the territories for whose foreign relations the Government in the United Kingdom are responsible. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are responsible to a greater or lesser extent for the Protectorates, and I should like to know how these words relate to the duties and responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government in relation to them. I say these words are vague because there is not in this Bill, as there are in so many other Bills, an interpretation Clause. There is nothing to indicate what the responsibilities are and to whom they refer.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The answer with regard to the Protectorates is that they are dealt with in the title which is put forward in this Bill. That title is used in relation to the Protectorates.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

Although resentment has been expressed by those vitally interested in this Measure, the Government have decided to proceed with all stages of the Bill. It is now becoming abundantly clear that, even knowing the feeling that is felt by some hon. Members, the Secretary of State for Scotland has no intention, despite the appeals made to him during the Second Reading, to say something on the Measure. It seems to me that the whole issue has been taken entirely out of the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I, for one, resent that very strongly indeed, so much so that I ask my Scottish colleagues to express that resentment by leaving the Chamber with me for the remaining stages of this Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale

I am glad, Sir Charles, that you did not accede to the invitation of your fellow Scotsmen and follow the four of them who have just left the Chamber as a protest. It is good to know that there is one Scotsman left in the Committee, although I see you are about to be relieved by your Deputy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has done a considerable service in putting down this manuscript Amendment, because I was under the wrong impression of the meaning of this phrase. I admit it was my fault. Had I read it more carefully, I would not have fallen into the error that I did. I had been trying to deal with the whole of the territories which will be served by the different titles, and it seemed to me at one time that, despite the Statute of Westminster, we were legislating for the Dominions in this matter.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it clear that the Dominions have nothing to do with it at all, but he has not made it clear what that has to do with it. He mentioned the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and other subject and Colonial Territories, but we have no safeguards as to what the words are intended to apply to. I do not want to go to the vaster topic of the Isle of Man, because in a couple of months it will be necessary to investigate their affairs with some care after the Budget decisions are finished. At the same time we have got to remember that this is a very vague form of words.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) and I on one occasion tried to draft a Human Rights Bill, which was intended to apply to as many of the British Colonies as we could possibly manage, and we came up against this problem of how to define a whole variety of territories held under wholly different powers, having wholly different legislative rights and wholly different constitutions. I do not suggest for a moment it is an easy task to approach. Is it correct that we exercise the foreign policy of the Channel Islands? I suppose that to a certain extent it is correct, but if it is to be applied in that sense, surely we administer the foreign policy of Austria with whom no peace treaty has yet been concluded.

Mr. Hector Hughes

And the Protectorates.

Mr. Hale

Let us deal with one matter at a time. I think recently we exercised the foreign policy of Heligoland, but that has ceased now. The occupation of Heligoland is over, so that island cannot be of any great importance to our foreign policy now. Let us deal with the Channel Islands. They have their own Income Tax laws and any British subject residing there escapes the liability of British Income Tax. and a good many people go there to do it.

What is the position of Sark in this connection? We always understood that the Dame of Sark claimed an hereditary principality and hereditary powers. If that is the only reason for the introduction of these vague and somewhat remarkable words, then I suggest they could be comfortably omitted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about consultation, but the Isle of Man is an independent country with its own Parliament. There are two houses there, the Tynwald and the House of Keys. It is difficult to know what consultation could take place in that connection, and I should have thought that there were plenty of grounds for the Isle of Man to say that they have the right to make their own representations on this matter.

I am not trying to make a heavy point here, but as far as the Colonial Territories are concerned a serious point arises, one to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given no attention whatsoever. I am thinking of the mandated territories. What happens there? These are territories which have been mandated to us by the old League of Nations or in some cases by the new United Nations Organisation. Have we the power to legislate as to the title for these territories in respect of which it is quite true we exercise the foreign policy but over which it cannot be said in any sense that we have ownership or unfettered rule? We exercise a delegated authority, which has been given to us by the United Nations and which can cease in a year or two's time.

If I mention the somewhat controversial matter of Central African federation, I might be guilty of anticipation, but it might very well be that this Bill will want amending if certain events happen in that Continent which I hope will never happen. There, again, we shall have an extraordinary state of affairs. We shall have a proposal for a federation in which there will be one self-governing Colony and two Protectorates—Protectorates in the sense that they are under the protection of the Colonial Office. How we can apply one collective title in those circumstances and make consultation, I do not know. In those circumstances, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at these words carefully and seriously.

Who decides what the exercise of foreign policy means? Who can say what limitations or fetters are upon it? I should have thought that the situations in Swaziland and Basutoland were obviously situations of some difficulty. Surrounded as they are by the Union of South Africa, it is difficult to say that we exercise a foreign policy in respect of those two countries. I should have thought it would not have been difficult to find a collective form of words to make it clear to this Committee what we are saying and in respect of what areas it is intended that this title should apply and in respect of what areas it is suggested that it should not apply.

My hon. Friend has moved what seemed to me to be an important Amendment and we have not had any clear assurance about it. I suggest that there is nobody in this Committee who can say what countries, Colonies, Mandated Territories, self-governing Dominions, and so on, are included in this and what are not. There is no interpretation Clause to say what the exercise of foreign policy means or by whom it should be exercised or whether it can be delegated exercise of foreign policy or not. The words are vague. This is an important constitutional document which must inevitably be added to the greatest constitutional documents of history. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make it plain to this Committee and not ask us to sign a blank constitutional cheque which gives authority over vast areas without our knowing what those areas are or where they are.

Mr. Rankin

I should like to press upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) with regard to the Trust Territories. I could readily understand that the Protectorates and the Dependencies of the Commonwealth could be incorporated into this phrase, but I find difficulty in understanding the application of the phrase to the Trust Territories, for instance, Tanganyika.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt, because I believe he is serious on this point. The words are "in relation to the United Kingdom and all the other territories." This will be the title used in relation to all other territories, and "in relation to" covers every form of connection, as I have already said in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). And it covers quite different forms of relationship, whether it be the territories within our own waters, the Colonies, the Mandated Territories or the Protectorates. I did not want the hon. Gentleman to be in any difficulty about that.

Mr. Rankin

I am grateful that the Home Secretary credits me with treating this matter seriously, because I hope I have been doing that all day. I am grateful for his endorsement, but I do not think he got the point I was seeking to establish. I was saying that I could well understand how the phrase covers our Dependencies and other of our Colonies, but when it comes to the Trust Territories I should like his guidance on the point that I want to put with regard to them and I am taking Tanganyika as an example.

The care of that territory has been vested in us by the United Nations to whom we are responsible for its care. Since that is so, does it follow that the United Nations vest in us responsibility for the foreign relations of Tanganyika? It seems to me that if the United Nations expected Tanganyika to have any relationship in external affairs, then that relationship would follow the pattern of United Nations foreign policy. It would not necessarily follow the relationships in external affairs pursued by this country, because it is a United Nations Trust Territory.

Now, by virtue of this Clause, it seems to me that we are assuming an obligation in regard to Tanganyika that has not been vested in us by the United Nations Organisation. If I am wrong, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me and I assume that he will then, speaking on behalf of the United Nations Organisation, tell us that when they vest in us what I have always taken to be the internal guardianship of a territory, at the same time they say to us, "You have control over the foreign relations of that territory even though they may occasionally be in conflict with those of the guardian organisation." Am I right or am I wrong? I should welcome the guidance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Hector Hughes

I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question to which he gave an answer which I ventured, with respect, to say was not satisfactory. My difficulty arises from the fact that this Bill, unlike many other Bills, has no interpretation Clause and there are many obscure and vague sentences and phrases in it which require interpretation. My hon. Friend drew attention to one such phrase and it is to that phrase that I am addressing my observations. It contains the words "relation" and "relations" used strangely in two different senses and the sense in which either is used is not clear. This is the phrase: The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the adoption by Her Majesty, for use in relation to the United Kingdom and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible. The two simple questions upon which I am asking for information are as follows: First, what is the meaning to be attributed to the word "relations" in the first instance and in the second instance? Secondly, what are the territories to which this refers? Are they Colonies? Are they Protectorates? Are they condominii? Does it include Western Germany, for instance? After all, Her Majesty's Government are responsible at present for the foreign Policy of Western Germany. Does it include Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia, which have a different status in constitutional matters? Does it include Nyasaland, and does it include the Gold Coast?

8.0 p.m.

I agree with my hon. Friends that this is a very important Bill, which will have relations, to use the word in a different sense, with the various parts of Her Majesty's Dominions throughout the world. I am sure the Committee will agree that a Bill of this importance, small as it is, but great in Commonwealth importance and important in relation to foreign affairs, should be clear beyond yea or nay. There should be put into it an interpretation Clause, and apart from the interpretation Clause the Home Secretary should clearly define the terms to which attention has been drawn.

Mr. Michael O'Neill (Mid-Ulster)

It is intended, apparently, in this Bill to legalise the adoption by proclamation of the new Queen's title. We have seen, as a result of the Commonwealth Conference, that Canada, Australia and New Zealand are only prepared to accept a title bearing the words "the United Kingdom." But apparently it is the intention of the Government, in the title that is to be applied or used for this country, to use the term "Great Britain and Northern Ireland." We should very carefully consider the implications of this variation in the title.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I hesitate to interrupt, but the question of the title does not come into the Bill, nor does it arise on this Amendment. I must, with the greatest good will to the hon. Gentleman, suggest that this is not the time when he can raise the matter.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

That is true. It does not come within the terms of the Amendment, and it is not in order to refer to it.

Mr. O'Neill

By what procedure or form can we express our dissatisfaction with the proposal in the accompanying White Paper, which defines the Government's intention?

Hon, Members

On Second or Third Reading.

Mr. Rankin

The Home Secretary said that he was taking me seriously and that he believed I was dealing with——

The Deputy-Chairman

I thought that the hon. Member had finished his speech.

Mr. O'Neill

On a point of order. We have made an attempt to introduce an Amendment at this stage, but we have not been successful. We have heard a protest at the manner in which the Bill has been rushed through, and I think it is most unfair that we as a minority body are not given the opportunity to express the views of our constituents on this subject.

The Deputy-Chairman

That does not arise on the Amendment. There may be other ways of doing it, but not on the Amendment.

Mr. E. Fletcher

This discussion arises from an intervention made by the Home Secretary asking you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to rule whether my hon. Friend's observations were strictly relevant to the Amendment which I have moved. I suggest that where we are dealing with a Committee stage immediately after Second Reading, we are obviously in very great difficulty, because Members must apply their minds to manuscript Amendments. It is one of the difficulties in which the Government have put us, and I hope, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that you will grant us an ample measure of indulgence in view of the difficulties with which we are confronted in discussing manuscript Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman

There may be difficulties, but there is an Amendment before the Committee and the rule of the Committee, of course, is that the Amendment which is before it must be discussed.

Mr. Hale

My hon. Friend, as I apprehended, Mr. Hopkin Morris, was putting to you a preliminary and introductory series of observations about the decisions made by the Dominions and I understood that he was referring to the case of Northern Ireland in this connection. The manuscript Amendment which has been submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is to leave out those collective words which refer to other territories. In other words. the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be that we were discussing only the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland at the moment is a part, even if my hon. Friend objects to that. Therefore, it would make it quite possible to have a wholly different title for the United Kingdom.

In my submission, my hon. Friend would therefore be perfectly in order in raising the question of Northern Ireland and its effect upon the title in discussing this question. If the Amendment is carried, it would make a wholly different situation in that connection. That is very different from the point which my hon. Friend is now arguing.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Sure we have already passed the United Kingdom. We are now discussing the Amendment to leave out other territories. I submit that any argument directed towards the United Kingdom, which, as we know, includes Northern Ireland, is wholly out of order.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think that that is accurate. The first part of the Clause, which says The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given…. has been passed. The phrase "United Kingdom" has already been passed.

Mr. Rankin

In view of that, perhaps I may return to the point which I raised with regard to Trust Territories. I gathered that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was thinking about the point that I was raising and I assumed from his attitude that he would give us some guidance on it. It is a material point as to how far Trust Territories are affected——

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is repeating an argument which he has already put.

Mr. Rankin

I did not mean to repeat all that I have said. I was only seeking to emphasise the point that I had made and to which I assumed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude that he would make a reply. I do not want to press him, but if he could promise that he will make a reply on, say, Report stage or Third Reading, I should be quite satisfied if he could give some guidance of that nature. I do not want to rush the Home Secretary. Does he feel that the point is not material?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

If the hon. Gentleman wants my view, I am quite sure that these words do not make any difference to the position of the power, and I have already endeavoured three times to explain that. If I cannot make my explanation any clearer the fault is mine, but I give the assurance that in my view it does not make any difference and that the hon. Member need not consider that the foreign relations of Tanganyika will be altered in any way.

Mr. Rankin

I take it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply that a Trust Territory falls into exactly the same position so far as foreign relationships are concerned as does a Dependency, a Protectorate or any other form that governs colonial relationships. I take it that that is the real answer.

Mr. Edward Shackleton (Preston, South)

I hope that the Home Secretary will agree that I am asking my questions as sincerely as he agreed that the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) asked his. I think that a point of some substance was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) when he referred to the position of condominiums. There is the condominium of the New Hebrides, which I think is Australian-French rather than British-French. What is the position in regard to the Sudan? That seems to be point of real substance on which we should like some information.

I should like to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman further afield to the position of uninhabited territories. We had a lot of discussion lately on the subject of the Antarctic. Does a territory which is uninhabited except by penguins have foreign relations? I take it that it does in the sense that an occupation has taken place on the part of British officials and others.

There are some territories which are completely uninhabited. I remember one in the Canadian Arctic, on which I spent some months. It is called Ellesmere Land and at one time it enjoyed the distinction of being the only territory in the world entirely inhabited by policemen, as it had a mounted police force. Later, that was abandoned and it became uninhabited again. I take it that uninhabited territories can have foreign relations. It would be interesting to hear the reply on that point.

In regard to the Antarctic, this is a matter of real importance because of the claims of the Argentine and Brazil. I think our claims are much longer and more firmly established. We should like to have some information in regard to condominium and uninhabited territories such as the Antarctic.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M. O'Neill

We in Northern Ireland, at least more than 40 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland, resent the implication, as suggested by Her Majesty's Government, of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Before considering acceptance of this Clause, we should consider the implication. As a result of the Commonwealth Conference we have seen that the Commonwealth countries, practically as a whole, have not accepted a title including the words "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." It is only the Government of this country who insist on embodying that particular form of title.

We should consider the feelings of the Irish people in this respect. This will be viewed with very great resentment and very great pain by the Irish people—not only by the Irish at home, but by the Irish abroad. We should bear in mind that in these Commonwealth countries there are a great many Irish people and not only purely Irish but those of Irish descent. We should also bear in mind that they regard Ireland as their motherland. Possibly in the Commonwealth it may be found that many regard Ireland as the motherland in much the same way as a great many regard England as the motherland.

We know that the partition of Ireland has been a source of great embarrassment to the relations between these countries. It is the last remaining quarrel between the two nations and we know that the Irish people in the Commonwealth, in this country, and in the United States of America have the same feeling in regard to partition as have the people at home.

8.15 p.m.

We wonder why the person of the British Sovereign should be brought into this quarrel and why she should be subjected and exposed to the protests which will inevitably follow from every section of the Irish race while partition lasts. But the matter has even wider application. We must consider Irish opinion throughout the world. Our position as good loyal citizens of those countries must also be considered and as long as the partition of our country lasts so long will it be a source of embarrassment to the relationship between this country and the countries of their adoption.

The Crown is to be regarded as a factor of cohesion and unity in Commonwealth affairs. It is only right and proper that it should be kept from anything that tends to create disunity. Does it make for harmony and unity between the British and Irish people in the Commonwealth when we have the Dominion countries unanimously accepting one form of title while this country accepts another form, which is repugnant to the vast majority of the Irish people in those countries?

I cannot see why this country has subjected itself to all these embarrassments. I fail to see why it finds it necessary to subject the Crown to such embarrassment. In the Bill it is mentioned that it is desirable to have a common element. Is it the intention of the Government to single out this Bill to produce an uncommon element so far as concerns the unity of the Commonwealth nations? I feel that the answer is obvious. Ulster Unionism has used influence to cloud Britain's better judgment and the better judgment of those who were responsible for framing this Bill.

Is there no limit to the sacrifices that have to be made to this narrow-minded clique in Northern Ireland? They have already made an unnatural gulf between the two peoples. They have succeeded in influencing people in this country and in the Commonwealth countries and have succeeded now in introducing the Crown as a factor of disharmony by identifying it with the great problem of partition.

During the Second Reading debate we had some of the excuses offered by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory). He outlined the case for partition. I would point out how illusory and wrong were some of his statements. He referred to the Treaty of 1921. That Treaty was never clearly accepted by the Irish people. It was an agreement imposed upon them by the threat of civil war and a return to the Black and Tan terror. Moreover, the immediate result of that agreement was a terrible civil war in Ireland——

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is in order in saying that Northern Ireland should not be included. He is not in order in traversing the Second Reading speeches.

Mr. O'Neill

My intention was to correct some wrong inferences conveyed to the House during the Second Reading debate——

The Deputy-Chairman

That is out of order. If the hon. Member confines himself to his objection to the inclusion of Northern Ireland, that is in order.

Mr. O'Neill

I am sorry if I am to be denied that opportunity, because I could easily and convincingly point out that the Irish people never at any time accepted the partition of their country. We have repeatedly challenged a plebiscite on that point, and the challenge has never been accepted.

The Irish people are members of a republic and have been since 1798 when the policy was first accepted. It was no idle fancy. It was a sound practical belief in the economic destiny of the country that was proved to the world by the sacrifices, hardships and suffering of the Irish people in their efforts to achieve that form of Government.

Mr. Hale

What about Daniel O'Connell? He grovelled before George III.

Mr. O'Neill

Nevertheless, he represented a republican Ireland.

It has been suggested that Ireland as a republic is anti-monarchist. That is not true. The Irish people are republican in exactly the same way as the United States and France. If the United States and France can be great friends and allies of this country, so can republican Ireland. So, too, can republican Ireland have a great respect for the monarchist institutions of this country.

I ask the Government not to proceed with this proposal embodied in the White Paper. If they do not proceed with it, the door will be left open for a reconciliation with the Irish people. Unity on a fundamental issue between the Commonwealth of Nations would be restored. The person of the Sovereign would be removed from this unfortunate partition quarrel. No longer would there be the embarrassment felt by people in this country in their relations with the United States. The advantage which the Government stand to gain by pursuing this policy is merely that of placating a small minority.

I have a coincidental interest in this matter. Four hundred years ago another O'Neill, the great Hugh, pleaded at the court of Elizabeth I. He pleaded the same case and with the same arguments. But the enemies of Ireland got to work with all the devilry at their command and Hugh O'Neill went back to Ireland to face a future of centuries of tragic relations between the two countries. Today, I, another O'Neill from Tyrone, not a great O'Neill, but nevertheless an elected representative of those self-same people, plead with the Government of Elizabeth II.

Am I to be sent away like my great predecessor 400 years ago, to face a future of tragic relations between our two countries? Am I to be the victim again of the enemies of Ireland? Or shall I go home with the door left open? The answer rests with this Committee.

Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)

I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. O'Neill). Earlier this afternoon we listened to an historic dissertation from the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory). I do not wish to reply to his arguments because I might be ruled out of order, and also because I have replied to them so often that I am rather tired of it. If he really believes that the Government and people of Ireland agreed to the setting up of the Northern Ireland State, as he said, then he must be the most fantastic phenomenon in existence. If he really believes that, he is certainly the only man in this universe who does.

8.30 p.m.

I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who opened the debate officially for the Opposition, make his quite dignified objection to the inclusion of these controversial words in the Royal title when, as he reminded the House on Second Reading, none other of the countries in the Commonwealth have included them. I should like to ask the Minister whether, during the course of the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, their opinion was asked on whether or not these words should be included. It is hard to believe that their opinion was not asked; it is hard to believe that all these seven countries came spontaneously and coincidentally to the conclusion that they themselves should not use the words "Northern Ireland" in the designation which is used in their countries. I should like to know whether they expressed any opinion on whether we should use them or not.

I think the Government were [...] advised to do this, first of all, because the words are so irrelevant and unnecessary. We already have in the title the words "United Kingdom," and there was no reason to designate it more closely than that. Furthermore, it has been so very often said in the House by hon. Members on both sides that it is the desire of all of us that, some day or another, Ireland should be united. What divides many of us are the devices and methods by which Ireland should be united, but I think it is the considered opinion of all of us that the two parts of the country should themselves come to some such decision. That is not my formula, but I think that even Ulster Unionist hon. Members will agree that, if the two sides could agree to a united Ireland, we should then have to have another Bill before the House to change the Royal title, whereas, if we do not use these offending words, there would be no need for further legislation.

Finally—and I think many hon. Members will agree with me—it is very much to be deplored that the name of Her Majesty the Queen is now to be linked officially by statute with a fiercely controversial issue. That is very much to be deplored, particularly when it was so unnecessary to place her name in this invidious position. It was also unnecessary to give offence to so many good Irish men and women who belong to the Commonwealth. The Government were ill advised to do this, and I hope that, even at this late stage, they might find it fitting even yet to remove these two offending words.

Mr. Alan McKibbin (Belfast, East)

In regard to what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) said about a united Ireland, we never asked for Partition; it was forced upon us. It has also been stated here this afternoon that Sir Edward Carson and Mr. Bonar Law both said that they were working for a united Ireland. If they said that—and they may have done, though I do not know—they meant a united Ireland under the Union Jack, not under the tricolour of the Irish Republic, whose people stabbed us in the back in the 1914–18 war and in the rebellion in 1916, and stabbed us in the back even worse in the last war by withholding their ports from Great Britain's use in the worst hours of her distress, which cost us so many British lives, and also by the maintenance in Dublin of German, Italian and Japanese Embassies and Legations and by keeping on their lights to direct German aeroplanes.

The Deputy-Chairman

I hope that we shall come to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McKibbin

The late King was styled King of Great Britain and Ireland, and if it had been proposed to give Queen Elizabeth the title of Queen of Great Britain and Ireland I could have understood some objection coming from the Irish Republic, for whom obviously the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. O'Neill) were speaking. I could quite understand that they should then kick up hell on behalf of the Irish Republic. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Well, I withdraw "hell," although it might apply to them.

Whatever reason was given by the Home Secretary, I consider that the reason for the change in the title was to make it absolutely plain to the whole world that we, the people of Northern Ireland, intend to remain part of Great Britain and the British Empire, and that there is nothing whatever that the few nationalists in Northern Ireland—and the two hon. Members whom I have mentioned do not by any means represent all the nationalists in Northern Ireland, because I know many of them who voted Unionist, and the number of those are far more than the hon. Members opposite believe——

The Deputy-Chairman

This is far removed from this Clause. I hope that the hon. Member will come to the Clause.

Mr. McKibbin

I am just giving the reasons for the alterations embodied in the Clause. I was going to wind up by saying that nothing these people can do and nothing that can be done by their friends in the back streets of Chicago and Detroit can force Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I rise because I have listened, as the whole Committee has listened, with care and attention to what the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. O'Neill) has eloquently said and to the support which he has received with equal eloquence from the hon. Member of Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). I want to make a short explanation and to add a few other words.

The explanation is this. There is no difference in the content, as we all know and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said earlier, of the words "United Kingdom" and the words "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." United Kingdom means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and therefore that is clear in any form of the title. The point that has arisen is why we should put in those words "of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

I tried to explain in my speech answering the Amendment that I did not know of any case where in the description by a territory of the title of that territory they have omitted the words of the territory. It has never been done in our own country as far as my researches show, and I cannot imagine it being done. I ask both the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and the hon. Member for Thurrock to consider this especially. They are speaking as great nationalists and lovers of Ireland. Great nationalists and lovers of their country should be the last to deny to the people of this country the right of having the description of their country in the title of their Queen.

Mr. O'Neill

We do not dispute the right of the people here to have their title for Great Britain, at all. We dispute their right to include any part of Ireland, our country.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

That goes to the root of the matter, because the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and one cannot get away from that without going on to the other argument which we can- not go into—whether there should be partition.

However much he disagrees with my views, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that I was sincerely worried by the suggestion that I was trying to exacerbate the position on the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. In every speech I have made on this subject for years I have tried not to do that but rather to soothe it down.

I could not help feeling that in the last year we have had many examples of the improvement in relations between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. There was the hydro-electric scheme for the River Erne; the Bill dealing with the Foyle fisheries, which hon. Members opposite started and I inherited and carried through, and there was the Great Northern Railway. There have also been visits of Northern Ireland Ministers to Dublin. All those things seemed to me to show a lessening of the tension, and that is very acceptable to everyone in this House.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to realise that all we have done is to state what is the fact—that this is the United Kingdom. I am specially anxious to make clear our attitude of mind because it was only a short time ago that I was constantly addressing the House on matters connected with the floods. The Irish Republic were among those who gave us help and who recognised our position. We realise the views of the hon. Members who have spoken today. We also realise the strong views held on the other side of the border; but I want hon. Gentlemen to realise that this Bill is not designed to cause an increase in the difficulties. It is the historic method of stating the title and I hope that they will consider it and accept it in that way.

Mr. Hale

I intervene in this debate only because of the speech made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin). I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman was serious on this occasion. I agree with nearly everything he said about this Clause; I do not cavil at anything. But I have not much sympathy with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. M. O'Neill) in his complaint about this matter on this occasion, because it is not an occasion to make such a complaint. It was not possible for the Government to consider the Irish situation in isolation in relation to this Bill. There may be much in what the hon. Member says, and it can be said on another occasion. I have a great deal of sympathy with the desire for a united Ireland. That has always been the aspiration of the party I serve. But it is not a good way of showing one's loyalty to the Throne to get up and repeat ancient calumnies upon a great and friendly nation as did the hon. Member for Belfast, East.

It is quite true that there were more volunteers from Southern Ireland than Northern Ireland serving in the British Forces in the last war. In those circumstances, it is a little distressing——

The Deputy-Chairman

I sought to call the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin) to order when he strayed. I hope that the hon. Member will not continue this line of argument.

Mr. Hale

I do not wish to argue the point. I hope I may be permitted to say that the hon. Member was called to order when he was concluding his remarks, but I am being called to order when I am only commencing mine.

All I wish to say is that here is a great and friendly people with whom we are now entering upon years of close and understanding relationships. I appreciate the fact that it would not have been possible for Her Majesty's Government to alter the Royal title on this occasion, but I regret to see the words "Defender of the Faith." I regret that. Her Majesty is the head of a very great Commonwealth of which the overwhelming majority of inhabitants are not Christians, let alone members of the Church of England.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

The title "Defender of the Faith" was not bestowed on Henry VIII for anything he did for the Church of England.

Mr. Hale

The title "Defender of the Faith" was not bestowed upon Henry at all. It was taken by him at the time when he quarrelled with the Pope.

Mr. Gordon Walker

That is not accurate. The title was conferred on Henry VIII by the Pope for a treatise against heretical errors.

Mr. Ede

The title was given in 1521 for Henry's book against Luther.

Mr. Hale

I accept that correction.

That is correct, but, at the same time, it was carried on after the split. Indeed, we are carrying it on in a country which still has a State Church, and we sit in a House in which State prayers are said and in which the majority of Members, I suggest, are not members of the particular denomination. I hope that we shall at some time devise a form of words much more acceptable to the varied collection of religious beliefs in this great Commonwealth, in which we want to see more and more unity as time goes on.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

I intervene only to draw the attention of my two hon. Friends from Northern Ireland to the need to face, as I think the Committee has to face, the situation that if ever Ireland is to be united it must be a reconciled Ireland. Because I think the Home Secretary was acting and speaking in a reconciling spirit, I recommend consideration of what he said in his last speech to my two hon. Friends.

I think they are right in insisting upon the difficulties with which partition will always confront us, but despite those difficulties the Home Secretary has made it clear that it is necessary, when talking about the Monarch of the Kingdom, the United Kingdom, at least to say the name "United Kingdom." We could not very well say that name apart from a recitation of the territories concerned. It is a phrase without any political consideration in it at all. To the extent to which the Home Secretary has spoken in that spirit, I hope that what he has said will not be considered in Northern Ireland as an exacerbation of difficulties which, I admit, are profound and serious and which the House will ultimately have to face.

We have to face most of all at this time, as at all times, how we are to contribute to the reconciling of those opposed factions. To the extent that the right thing has been said tonight from the Front Bench opposite, I hope that the matter will now be left in that spirit.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third Time, and passed.