§ 5.20 p.m.
§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Title [An Act to make provision for British nationality, and for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies; end for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid]:
§
VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in the Title of the Bill, to omit "for citizenship" and insert "to constitute a British nationality." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment, because obviously if the Bill is to be altered on the lines suggested, it is necessary to alter the Title, in just the same way as it was necessary to alter the Title of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Bill which we have been discussing, when Clause 2 of that Bill was omitted. It would not make sense to keep the title:
An Act to make provision for British nationality, and for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.…
It is a purely formal matter. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
In the Title, leave out ("for citizenship") and insert ("to constitute a British nationality").—(Viscount Simon.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, quite frankly, if this were a question of logic the noble Viscount has an unanswerable case, but I do not regard this as a mere question of logic at all. I regard this as dealing with a very fundamental question. Speaking for myself—and I think speaking on behalf of my noble friends—we feel that if we assent to this Amendment, logical though it may be, we shall be becoming accessories after the fact in a very unpleasant and unfortunate deed. The proposal is to 1247 strike out the words "for citizenship." I was surprised on the previous occasion to hear the words "citizenship" and "citizen" spoken of as though they had some kind of republican flavour. They are very old words. In Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress I think you repeatedly find the phrase "Citizen of Heaven"—I do not know whether Heaven is a Republic or a Monarchy. Oliver Goldsmith wrote a book called The Citizen of the World. Anybody who looks at the Oxford Dictionary will see that the word "citizen" is a word of the widest possible connotation—sometimes referring to a mere inhabitant of a city, as opposed to an inhabitant of a county, and sometimes referring to a citizen of a country. The word has always been used in America, where you talk about "an American citizen," and the word "citizen" is undoubtedly the right word. We can use it in either sense. But the words "nationality" and "British nationality" have a wholly different conception. The whole point of British nationality is that it is something which applies all over His Majesty's Dominions throughout the whole world, and that was one of the great forces, apart from the allegiance which we owe to the King, which bound us all together.
In my submission to your Lordships, it is undesirable to advertise in the Title of this Bill that you are going to enact "to make provision for British nationality and to constitute a British nationality of the United Kingdom and Colonies," differentiating in regard to nationality between the United Kingdom and Colonies and those great countries which have always stood with us and Come to our aid. I will not lend myself to this proposal. I would far rather that the Title were amended to read simply:
An Act to make provision for British nationality; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.To insert these words at the very outset, which shows that we are detracting from the old conception of nationality as being a world-wide thing, and applying it to ourselves in contra-distinction to others, is, I think, a most grievous mistake. It is all the more grievous because it means that we are setting at nought an agreement which has been solemnly and carefully negotiated with all the representatives of our great sister States.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I am sure we have all appreciated the very moving statement made by the Lord Chancellor, but I think he made a little "heavy weather" of our Amendment. It was purely factual. He objects to the omission of the words, "for citizenship" but in fact the Bill, as now amended, does not make provision "for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies." I am not going to argue whether we were right or whether we were wrong to make this Amendment—that is a matter which we discussed before, and no doubt it will be carefully discussed again in another place when the Bill reaches that place. If we retain the original title, we are in fact telling a lie, for that is just the thing the Bill, as amended, does not do. If we do not alter it, it will make the House look ridiculous. I would not expect the Government, in accepting this Amendment, to agree to all the Amendments which your Lordships have made; there will be another opportunity of discussing them. But to insist upon keeping these words in the Title, to say that the Bill makes provision for something which, in fact, it does not do, is to make an absurdity of Parliamentary procedure. I suggest to the Government, with all deference, that that would be mere "pigheadedness." It makes no sense whatever. If they accept this as a consequential Amendment, without prejudice to what they do in another place, they will be sending down the Bill in a form which a draftsman could understand, but which, as it is now, nobody can. They are in no way prejudicing their action when it reaches another place. The only purpose of this Amendment is to bring the Title in accord with the rest of the Bill. If the Government feel that they cannot do that, then, of course, they will resist this Amendment, but I think they will be making a great mistake, and they will make themselves look foolish.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy Lords, this is making a very great deal about a very small matter. I should have thought that this Amendment might have been moved as a consequential Amendment, and accepted as such, merely to bring the Title of the Bill into conformity with what is now in the Bill. The Bill, as amended, rightly or wrongly, does not make provision "for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies." On the other 1249 hand, I understand that the Government may feel annoyed that this should be rubbed in by a second Amendment on the same lines. I would ask, therefore, why not accept the suggestion which was thrown out by the Lord Chancellor—not, incidentally, as a suggestion but as a parenthetical observation—that he would not object to leaving out the words:
and for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.The Title would then read:An Act to make provision for British nationality and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.That would satisfy the Government and, I think, the Opposition.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThat would satisfy us entirely.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONWell it would not satisfy us. We are not "pigheaded"—I do not accept the reproof at all. We are objecting to the "Little England" Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount has moved. It is proposed to confine nationality to the United Kingdom and Colonies. We think that British nationality has a much wider connotation than that. Besides, it is in keeping—and I will have something to say about this later on—with the general form of the Bill. We object to it in principle, and we shall certainly not agree to it.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, we have now suggested that we should leave out these words altogether. The Government made their position quite plain; they did not like the Amendments which were made, and they hoped to get them altered in another place. Last time, the Government accepted about twenty-four consequential Amendments following on the alteration we made in Clause 1 and said in effect: "While we do not like the alterations you have made in Clause 1, it necessarily follows, to make the Bill tidy, that we must agree to these consequential alterations." If the noble Viscount insists on retaining these words, he will in fact be saying something which, if I may say so with great respect, is not true. I do not know whether it is in order at the end of a Committee stage to alter the Title of a Bill; I think 1250 it is, and it was merely an omission on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, that he did not move to alter the Title of the Bill. Of course he could have done it, and nobody would have had any objection. We shall make cur-selves ridiculous if we send down to another place a Bill with a Title which says that the Bill does a certain thing when, in fact, the Bill does nothing of the sort. Let us be silent rather than ridiculous.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, if I may be allowed to speak again, I should like to intimate, as I moved this Amendment, that I am prepared in place of it to move to omit the words: "and for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies." The last thing I want to do is to evoke trouble on the Title; but no one wants to tie the wrong Title to the contents of the Bill. If I may, therefore, I would substitute for the proposal to alter these words a proposal that they should be omitted; and I beg to move the omission of the words: "and for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies." That, I think, is in accordance with what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor indicated just now.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI indicated only that an Amendment moved in that form would be less objectionable and offensive than an Amendment moved in the other form; but we could not accept it even in that form.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONI still wish to substitute the omission of these words for the insertion of any new words. I think we are showing ourselves more concerned than need be about what is nothing more than an alteration to make the Title correspond with the contents of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONI beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
In the Title, leave out ("and for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies").—(Viscount Simon.)
§ On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Title?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 44.
1251| CONTENTS | ||
| Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.) | Darwen, L. | Milverton, L. |
| Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.) | Foley, L. | Morrison, L. |
| Hall, V. | Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) | Nathan, L. |
| St. Davids, V. | Henderson, L. | Pakenham, L. |
| Inman, L. | Pethick-Lawrence, L. | |
| Ammon, L. | Kershaw, L. | Piercy, L. |
| Amwell, L. | Latham, L. | Shepherd, L. |
| Braintree, L. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. | Walkden, L. [Teller.] |
| Chorley, L. [Teller.] |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Reading, M. | Balfour of Burleigh, L. | Newall, L. |
| Salisbury, M. | Balfour of Inchrye, L. | O'Hagan, L. |
| Willingdon, M. | Carrington, L. [Teller.] | Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) |
| Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam) | Rennell, L. | |
| Buckinghamshire, E. | Clydesmuir, L. | Rochdale, L. |
| Fortescue, E. [Teller.] | De L'Isle and Dudley, L. | Rotherwick, L. |
| Munster, E. | Hacking, L. | St. Oswald, L. |
| Portsmouth, E. | Hampton, L. | Saltoun, L. |
| Radnor, E. | Harris, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Hatherton, L. | Sinha, L. | |
| Bridgeman, V. | Hawke, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Buckmaster, V. | Hutchison of Montrose, L. | Tweedsmuir, L. |
| Elibank, V. | Lloyd, L. | Waleran, L. |
| Samuel, V. | Montagu of Beaulieu, L. | Wardington, L. |
| Simon, V. | Moyne, L. | Wolverton, L. |
| Swinton, V. |
§ Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
§ Clause 2:
§ Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects.
§ 2.—(1) Any citizen of Eire who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, was also a British subject shall remain a British subject by virtue of this section (whether or not he remains a British subject by virtue of any other provision of this Act) if he gives notice in writing to the Secretary of State claiming to remain a British subject on all or any of the following grounds—
- (a) that he is, or has been, in Crown service under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom;
- (b) that he is the holder of a British passport issued by His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or the government of any colony, protectorate, United Kingdom mandated territory or United Kingdom trust territory;
- (c) that he has associations by way of descent, residence or otherwise with the United Kingdom or with any colony or protectorate or any such territory as aforesaid.
§ (2) If by any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act provision, corresponding to subsection (1) of this section, is made for enabling citizens of Eire to claim to remain British subjects notwithstanding that they may not be citizens of the country in which the enactment is in force, any person who by virtue of that enactment remains a British subject shall be deemed also to have remained a British subject by virtue of this section.
1252§ 5.40 p.m.
§
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out Clause 2. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in regard to the next group of Amendments in order to facilitate the business of the House. I am a little surprised that the Government are going to move these Amendments because, as they know, we propose in any case to move the deletion of Clause 2. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will remember that during the Committee stage last Monday he said:
…for a man who has every reason to suppose that he is to be executed that evening, it is not much good discussing a dinner engagement for one day next week. In those circumstances";
the noble and learned Viscount said, with great good sense—
not wanting to occupy your Lordships' time unnecessarily, I think I shall be meeting your Lordships' wishes if I do not move any of these Amendments.…
We intend to-day, for reasons which seem good to us, to move the deletion of Clause 2, merely because we regard this again as consequential upon the Amendment to Clause 1 (4) which the House accepted on Monday. It seems rather a waste of time to adopt Amendments which will, in fact, be stillborn. If the Government want to move them, I suggest that they should do so formally, and we will
1253
let them go through formally so as not to take up the time of the House. But we do so without prejudice to our intention to move to leave out Clause 2 when the time comes. If that course is convenient, and is adopted, we may be able to make rapid progress with this little group of Amendments.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, we must not assume for certain that the execution is going to take place. It may be that the noble Marquess is susceptible to good reason and argument. I should be sorry to write him down as one who is not, if he is given convincing reasons. The Amendment to page 2, line 4, is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, at beginning insert ("Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHANCELLORThis is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("remain") and insert ("be deemed not to have ceased to be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis Amendment is also a drafting one. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out from ("subject") to ("he") in line 8, and insert,("by reason of that section if at any time").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI beg to move the next Amendment, at page 2, line 21.
§
Amendment moved—
("(2) A claim under the last foregoing subsection may be made on behalf of a child who has not attained the age of sixteen years by any person who satisfies the Secretary of State that he is a parent or guardian of the child.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("remains") and insert ("is").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1254§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("have remained") and insert ("be").—(The Lard Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to omit Clause 2. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I think I can deal with this Amendment quite briefly. We regard it as entirely consequential. As your Lordships know, the House accepted an Amendment adding to Clause 1, subsection (4), which states:
Nothing in this Act shall affect the status by existing law of the United Kingdom of a citizen of Eire in respect of his right to be regarded as a British subject.
They all have the right to be regarded as British subjects. Therefore, it seems slightly illogical that we should proceed to Clause 2, which states that a citizen of Eire shall have that right only if he writes to the Secretary of State and explains tie justice of his claim under all or any of three categories. I do not think I need say any more. I appeal to the Government. Of course, they can do what they like in this matter, just as we can, bat do not let us send down to another place a Bill which does not make any sense at all. When it gets to the other House, they have an absolute right to amend or re-amend the Bill, or put back into it what was there before; but do not let us send down a Bill which, as I say, does not make sense. I think that one of the greatest credits that we in this House have gained during the last three years is that we have proved ourselves to be accurate, skilful and practical draftsmen. The Bills that have gone from us have received the encomiums of Ministers in another place for the efficiency with which we have done our work. I did not for a moment expect the Government to agree to subsection (4) of Clause 1 but, at the same time, that having been inserted, it would be a little absurd to keep in Clause 2 which, even with the Amendments which the Lord Chancellor has moved, does not at present make any sense. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this again is a case in which, even though the noble Marquess is perfectly logical, we feel that we cannot assist him in carrying out his purpose. This is a most grievous matter. Here there was a real effort on the part of the Irish Ministers to come to a compromise. I have no doubt that it required no little courage on their part to do it. Since 1935, the Irish law has been that, if a man becomes a British subject, he ceases to be a citizen of Eire. It is, of course, for this Government to make exactly what laws they like in the territory over which they rule. But just consider what the compromise was. It was said: Anybody who chooses to write and claim that he has (If[...] I may put it broadly) British connections, can, by the mere fact of writing, make himself a British subject. And the Irish Ministers were prepared to agree to that. Of course, it was possible to say that he did not become a British subject but remained that which he was. For the rest, they were prepared to agree that, even though a man might not be a British subject, yet, if he was a citizen of Eire, he should have all the rights as though he were a British subject.
This right of making a declaration was to be a right not limited to to-day but, so far as his existing status at the time of the passing of the Act was concerned, extending into the indefinite future. That was a real effort at healing the unhappy state of affairs which has lasted far too long. After all, we have not so many friends in the world to-day that we should spurn a hand which is held out to us. The noble Marquess says: "This Amendment is merely consequential." I am not even sure that he is right there. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 deals with the existing law. Whatever else it does, it relates only to the law existing at the date of the passing of this Bill. But Clause 2 relates to the future. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 says:
If by any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in…section one of this Act provision, corresponding to subsection (1) of this section is made"—for the purposes there set out, then the person is to be a British subject. We have altered it in this way, and it means that if in the future by, let us say, the law of New Zealand, provision, corresponding to subsection (1) of this clause, is made, then, following upon that law, these 1256 people would become British subjects, not only according to the law of New Zealand but to the law of this country, too. So you are not tied or clamped down to the past as you are in what I venture to think is this most unhappy subsection (4) of Clause 1. Clause 2 looks also to the future, and therefore I cannot regard this Amendment merely as consequential to Clause 1, subsection (4). I regard Clause 2 as one which looks hopefully to the future, and, for my part, I should be very sorry to see it deleted from the Bill.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy Lords, on the Committee stage I expressed my complete disagreement with noble Lords of the Opposition on this particular point, and I still think that they have made a very grave error of policy in regard to the action they then took. Whether the present Amendment is consequential or not seems in doubt. From what the Lord Chancellor says, it is not to be regarded merely as an obvious and consequential Amendment. But even if it were consequential, I do not think it stands on the same footing as the Amendment to the Title which was under discussion prior to the last Division, because to amend a Title is a small matter, and to make the Bill tidy and complete it certainly ought to be done, if it appears to be necessary as a result of some action taken on Committee stage. But even if this Amendment were, on the whole, consequential, to leave out the whole of this clause with its own title—Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects—would, I think, have a deplorable effect after the long negotiations that took place in and around the conferences that have been held. This clause was inserted in thy, Bill, and the public outside, certainly in Eire, would not understand why the House of Lords was striking it out if that were done merely for the sake of drafting and for making the Bill properly consistent with itself. For myself, I think I would rather have the Bill inconsistent with itself, with not merely a verbal amendment to the title but a question of substance. I would rather have that than that a false impression should go out that we were destroying so much of the Bill as related to the agreement which had been arrived at with the Government of Eire.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, I also would be sorry should any false impression be created. I am not going to put forward again the arguments which appealed to the House on a previous occasion and led them to insert the Amendment to Clause 1, subsection (4), proposed by my noble Leader. I would say only that I think we took a perfectly simple and logical view. We are legislating here for what happens in the United Kingdom, and we have a perfect right to legislate, just as the Act of 1935 passed by the Irish Parliament was an Act that they were perfectly entitled to pass. As a matter of fact, in our illogical way things went along all right, and we did not regard the Act of 1935 as having the least effect upon any citizen of Eire if he came to this country; and if this ill-starred Bill had never been introduced nobody would have been a penny the worse. We should have gone on, with that Act of 1935 on the Statute Book of the Irish Parliament, and the whole thing would have worked in its illogical but perfectly suitable manner.
I can quite understand what would happen if we were moving here an Amendment to the Act which Eire passed in 1935. That is not what we are doing at all, nor should we have any right to do it. So far as I know, they have no intention of amending their Act. We are saying: How are the people of Ireland
§ Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
1258§ to be dealt with here? And we say, quite simply, that we have every intention of treating Eire citizens as subjects of the United Kingdom, exactly in the way as we have treated them for the last twenty years and shall hope to treat them in the future.
§ Observe what would happen if we accepted this Clause. By accepting this clause we should put ourselves into a position which we have wholly declined to adopt. The effect of this clause is to say that certain selected people now living in Eire who write to the Home Secretary shall enjoy the status of British subjects, and, of Course, by implication, that the people who do not so write will not enjoy that status. That is a position we will not accept. We propose that the citizens of Eire in this country—which is where we have a perfect right and a duty to legislate—shall be treated in the future exactly as we have treated them in the past. But if we include this clause (having done what I think we have quite rightly clone by Lord Salisbury's Amendment to Clause 1), we should be saying, by implication, that we are excluding some of those people, and that we do not intend to treat them as we have treated them in the past.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 40.
1257| CONTENTS | ||
| Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor) | Darwen, L. | Moynihan, L. |
| Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal) | Foley, L. | Nathan, L |
| Reading, M. | Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) | Pakenham, L. |
| Hall, V. | Henderson, L. | Pethick-Lawrence, L. |
| St. Davids, V. | Holden, L. | Piercy, L. |
| Samuel, V. | Inman, L. | Rennell, L. |
| Kershaw, L. | Rochester, L. | |
| Ammon, L. | Latham, L. | Shepherd, L. |
| Amwell, L. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. | Sinha, L. |
| Braintree, L. | Milverton, L. | Walkden, L. [Teller.] |
| Chorley, L. [Teller.] | Morrison, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Salisbury, M. | Aberdare, L. | Lloyd, L. |
| Balfour of Burleigh, L. | Montagu of Beaulieu, L. | |
| Buckinghamshire, E. | Balfour of Inchrye, L. | Moyne, L. |
| De La Warr, E. | Broughshane, L. | Newall, L. |
| Fortescue, E. [Teller.] | Carrington, L. | Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) |
| Munster, E. | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam) | Rochdale, L. |
| Portsmouth, E. | Clydesmuir, L. | Rotherwick L. |
| Radnor, E. | De L'Isle and Dudley, L. | Saltoun, L. |
| Denham, L. | Sandhurst, L. | |
| Bridgeman, V. | Hacking, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Buckmaster, V. | Harris, L. | Tweedsmuir, L. |
| Elibank, V. | Hatherton, L [Teller.] | Waleran, L. |
| Simon, V. | Hawke, L. | Wardington, L. |
| Swinton, V. | Hutchison of Montrose, L. | Wolverton, L. |
§ Clause 12. [British subjects before commencement of Act becoming British subjects of United Kingdom and Colonies]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this is a mere drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 41, at end insert ("subsection (1) of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 13. [British subjects whose citizenship has not been ascertained at the commencement of this Act]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, after ("to") insert ("subsection (1) of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 6.5 p.m.
§ Clause 15. [Persons who have ceased to be British subjects by failure to make declaration of retention]:
§
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit subsection (2) and insert:
(2) In determining for the purposes of this section whether a woman who has married an alien would, but for her failure to make a declaration of retention of British, nationality, have been a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act, the marriage shall be disregarded.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, during the Committee stage I promised the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that I would try to get the words here simplified. The noble Viscount had some difficulty, as indeed I had, in following what they were intended to do. The new wording is easier to follow than the old, but this is a mere matter of drafting and does not make any difference to the effect of this subsection. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, leave out lines 41 to 45 and insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Samuel has unfortunately had to leave. He it was who expressed the opinion during the Committee stage that in the matter of the original wording we were rather, as it were, seeing through a glass darkly. I 1260 think, as does my noble friend, that the wording has now been greatly improved. He has asked me on his behalf to express to the Government his thanks.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 16 [Persons who have ceased to be British subjects on loss of British nationality by parent]:
§
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from the beginning down to and including "declaration" (where that word first occurs) and insert:
(1) This section shall apply to any person who—
and in determining for the purposes of this section whether a woman who has married an alien would but for those provisions have been such a subject, the marriage shall be disregarded.(2) If any person to whom this section applies makes a declaration in the prescribed manner.
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this also is an attempt to simplify the drafting. Apart from that, there is nothing in this Amendment. I think your Lordships will see that the new addition to Clause 16 is rather easier to follow than the old wording. I believe that I was asked to see whether I could get this part of the Bill simplified—at any rate, if I was not asked to do so, I myself asked that it should be made simpler. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("within") in line 5, and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 9, leave out from the beginning to ("the") in line 12.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this also is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, leave out lines 18 to 23.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 18 [Applications for naturalisation pending at the commencement of Act]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this is a mere drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, after ("before") insert ("the date of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this again is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, after ("Act") insert ("but not granted at that date").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 19 [Renunciation]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, your Lordships may remember that during the Committee stage of this Bill the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, made the point that if a woman married under 21 she would not be able to make a declaration of renunciation under Clause 19 at the time of her marriage, and would have to wait until she became of age. This Amendment is designed to meet that point. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 10, line 16, at end insert—
("(2) For the purposes of this section any woman who has been married shall be deemed to be of full age.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 25:
§ Certificate in case of doubt.
§ 25. The Secretary of State may in such cases as he thinks fit certify that a person, 1262 with respect to whose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies a doubt exists, is a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and a certificate issued under this section shall be conclusive evidence that that person was such a citizen on the date thereof, but without prejudice to any evidence that he was such a citizen at an earlier date.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit "certify that a" and to insert "on the application of any." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment and the two which follow were designed to meet two points which were raised during the Committee stage—one by the noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq, and the other by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. I promised them that I would consider both points. Lord du Parcq pointed out that a doubt certificate—a certificate in case of doubt—should be issued by the Secretary of State only on application by the person concerned. That is clearly right. The Secretary of State should not make these certificates without the approval, consent and knowledge of the person concerned. The first two Amendments make that plain. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, suggested that to make a certificate issued by the Secretary of State conclusive evidence would be a serious matter, because it might cover cases where there was fraud. Obviously, where there is fraud, or where the true facts are not revealed, the conclusiveness of the certificate should not hold. It is to meet these two points that the alterations contained in these Amendments are proposed. I beg to move—
§
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 32, leave out ("certify that a") and insert ("on the application of any").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, after ("exists") insert ("certify that that person").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 35, after ("shall") insert ("unless it is proved that it was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 34 [Short title, commencement and repeal]:
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, I beg to move the following manuscript Amendment. I think the correct form would be: Page 19, line 14, after the first "of" insert "subsection (4) of Section I and." For good or for evil, the Bill will leave this House with subsection (4) of Clause 1 in it. It refers to existing law. If that is to be given effect, may I not apprehend that, though in other respects the Act of 1914 will be rescinded—subject, of course, to the exceptions already in the Bill—we should also need to make it plain by inserting these words in the last clause of the Bill? It is simply a matter of drafting.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 14, after the first ("of") insert ("subsection (4) of Section 1 and").—(Viscount Simon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Second Schedule [British subjects without citizenship under Section thirteen of this Act]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 38, after the first ("to") insert ("subsection (1) of")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, we would like it to be finally understood that in our view the alterations which have been made in this Bill make havoc of an exceedingly carefully drawn and deliberately carried through Commonwealth conversation, resulting in an agreement both with regard to the Commonwealth and to Ireland. I think it is profoundly to be regretted that the Conservative Party should have taken this action.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, while I recognise that the Government went into these conversations in good faith and reached certain agreements 1264 which they thought satisfactory, it is for the British Parliament to decide what it is good for this country to do, and it is the duty of any Party in this Parliament, having that opinion, to do what they think right. The Conservative Party will not accept the suggestion of the noble Viscount that the Government are more fitted than they to decide what is right for the Commonwealth. Our record in the past stands and we are proud of it.
§ On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendment (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.