Lords Sitting of 26 May 1949

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL
  Read 2a.

  U.S.A. VETERANS' PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATION) BILL. [H.L.]
  3.6 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the administration by the Minister of Pensions of veterans' pensions and other sums payable under the law of the United States of America in respect of certain pensions; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that it be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  IRELAND BILL
  3.7 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Other provisions as to operation of United Kingdom and colonial laws in relation to Republic of Ireland]:
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after subsection (1) to insert as a new subsection:
  "( ) Notwithstanding the foregoing subsection, a person born within His Majesty's allegiance before December 6, 1922, in the part of Ireland referred to in this Act as the Republic of Ireland, who has not resided in the Republic of Ireland since that date, is not to be deemed to have ceased and does not cease to be a British subject by reason of anything contained in the law of the Republic of Ireland or by reason of anything contained in the British Nationality Act, 1948."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. This Amendment is moved because it seems to me that if this small alteration is not made in the text of the Ireland Bill an injustice will be done to many persons who have always been British subjects under the Crown and who have done nothing to affect that status. The point involved in this Amendment came out in the course of the debate on Second Reading. Having considered what was said in that debate, including what was said by Lord MacDermott and the reply of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and having also since the Second Reading made inquiry from the office of the High Commissioner for Ireland, Mr. Dulanty, I feel confident that this risk of injustice can be demonstrated. Since I am sure that Parliament cannot intend to perpetrate an injustice, I ask that this Amendment be inserted in the Bill in order to prevent what I am sure is an unintended and indefensible result.
  In order that your Lordships may appreciate the point, it is necessary to remind you of some of the contents of the British Nationality Act of last year. That Act was passed by Parliament in July, 1948. By that Act, we repealed the existing law defining British nationality, and from January 1 of this year a new definition is substituted. Some of your Lordships will recall, I have no doubt, the very clear explanation of the new definition which was given at that time by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. He described this new definition of the status of British subject as a new method of arriving at this status, and Section 1 of the Act of last year sets out a definition which is exhaustive. A man who does not come within that definition, and does not satisfy that test, is automatically, by the force of that section, not a British subject—though there is a provision in Section 2 which I will not overlook. I do not want to spend time reading what may seem to be unnecessary legislative phraseology, but I can state in very simple terms what the section provided.
  We must remember that the Irish Free State came into existence on December 6, 1922—that is the critical date. For present purposes, our Statute Law says that if a man was born in that part of Ireland (that is to say, what we call the Irish

  1153
  Free State; the twenty-six counties) before that date, and if by the law of the Republic of Ireland he is a citizen of that Republic, then Section 1 of the British Nationality Act denies to him the status of a British subject. He may have been one before, but he cannot be one afterwards, unless his father was born in what is now the United Kingdom. So far, I am confident that what I have said is an accurate statement; and I do not think for a moment that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would deny it. I venture to repeat that, if a man was born in the twenty-six counties before December 6, 1922, and if by the law of the Republic of Ireland he is a citizen of that Republic, then Section 1 of the Act which we passed last year denies to him from the beginning of this year the status of British subject. I do not overlook the fact that under Section 2, if a person is a citizen of Eire and was also a British subject at the end of last year, he may, by taking the specific action indicated in that section secure in certain cases that he remains a British subject. I will come in due course to that qualification.
  I would ask the House to let me trace as closely as I can tine reason why the result which I venture to describe as unjust has followed. This is a practical issue, for numbers of people want a British passport, and the granting of a British passport depends on the applicant being a British subject. The Passport Office, as I asserted on Second Reading, in fact and on advice, are refusing to grant British passports to some people who have never lived anywhere but in the United Kingdom and who have never borne any allegiance except to His Majesty The King. That must seem extraordinary to everybody. The reason is that the view is taken by that Office that these people are debarred from the right to a British passport because, in view of the operation of the British Nationality Act, they are not British subjects. That would not be so if the term "citizen of Eire" in the Act of last year bore the interpretation which I venture to suggest—namely, that "citizen of Eire" in the Act means and meant "citizen of the Dominion of Eire," because, of course, the Dominion of Eire has since then ceased to exist.
  Under the Ireland Bill, however, we are invited to enact that the phrase "citizen of Eire" includes a citizen of
  1154
  the Republic of Ireland. Therefore anyone who by Eire law is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, is, by the language of Section 1 of last year's Act, debarred from being a British subject, and must be refused a passport. I am not making any complaint to-day about the interpretation of the phrase "citizen of Eire" which has been preferred. It is one of those matters about which people differ. Parliament may enact whatever legislation it pleases. It is quite possible for Parliament to enact that when we say "black" in a Statute, on its true construction it means "white"; and if Parliament does so enact, then it does mean "white." We can declare a phrase in an earlier Act to mean whatever we choose to say it means. In that respect Parliament is like Humpty-Dumpty, who said that words meant what he chose them to mean. I will spend no time in discussing that. My Amendment is based on the fact that we must accept the view contained in this present Ireland Bill, that when Section 1 of the British Nationality Act defined the status of a British subject in a way which excluded a citizen of Eire from that status, it is to be treated as excluding a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. If that is so, I think I can satisfy your Lordships that this Amendment becomes absolutely necessary.
  I have pointed out that no one can obtain a British passport unless he is a British subject, and I would tell your Lordships what in fact is happening. I have made some inquiries, and I have received some information from people who have been to the British Passport Office and tried to get a passport. This is what is happening. If a man who was born in one of the twenty-six counties before 1922—a man, that is to say, who is now more than twenty-seven years old—applies at the Passport Office here in London to-day for a British passport, he will be refused it if he is a man who, under the law of the Republic of Ireland, is regarded as a "citizen of Eire"—unless, indeed, his father was born in what is now the United Kingdom. That has actually happened. If the Passport Office are in doubt, they refer the applicant to the office of the High Commissioner for Ireland, and tell the applicant to find out from Mr. Dulanty's office whether he is or is not a citizen of Eire. I have no doubt that the people at the

  1155
  High Commissioner's office do their best to be helpful. If Mr. Dulanty's office tell the applicant that he is not a citizen of Eire—that is a question of Eireann law, of course, and not our law—then the applicant can return to the Passport Office with this information, and he receives his passport. If he is not a citizen of Eire, then Section 1 of the Act of last year does not prevent him from being a British subject; and he can obtain his passport. If, on the other hand, the High Commissioner says that he is a citizen of Eire (we will examine that in a moment) then he cannot get his passport, unless he takes the special action provided in Section 1, subsection (2), of the Act of last year.
  There are many people who were born before December 6, 1922, in one of the twenty-six counties, although they have never been domiciled or resident there since that date. These people are being refused a British passport. Yet they have never lived anywhere else than in the United Kingdom, because the county in which they were born, one of the twenty-six, was part of the United Kingdom, if they were born there before 1922. That is beyond question, I think, a very strange result. Why a man should be told by the authorities that he cannot have a British passport when, from the beginning of his life, he has never lived anywhere except in the United Kingdom, is a little difficult to understand.
  I must make plain to your Lordships—I think I can do so—how this surprising consequence comes about. It depends entirely on the answer to the question: "Who is a citizen of Eire?" or, as the framers of the Ireland Bill (I do not complain of it in this connection) would put it, "Who is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland?"—because the Republic of Ireland have adopted in this respect the earlier Irish law. If a person falls within that category, it is a disqualifying circumstance under Section 1 of the Act of last year. The question as to who is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland has to be answered by reference to the law of the Republic of Ireland. Certainly my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will not dispute that. If an English court had to decide it, witnesses would have to be called who were experts in the law of the Republic of Ireland, to state what
  1156
  that law was. In practice, it is done at present by applying to the office of the High Commissioner. It is very inconvenient because hitherto we have been able to define a British subject by reference to laws which were passed in Parliament here. But, whether wisely or unwisely, we passed an Act last year which says that we ourselves will not undertake to define exhaustively who is a British subject, but will provide (under Section 1 of the British Nationality Act) that if a man is a citizen of Eire, then he is not a British subject. That is a new and rather inconvenient way of finding out who is and who is not a British subject. We have to find it out by reference to laws which we do not make, which we cannot amend, which we may not very accurately know and, of course, which we cannot alter. But there it is; that is the result of the legislation of last year.
  The answer to my question (and this is the point on which I hope my noble and learned friend will be able to help us to-day) has already been attempted more than once by Ministers of the Crown, since the Ireland Bill was introduced. Who is, under the law of the Republic of Ireland, a citizen of Eire? It is a difficult question, and the answers given in Parliament have varied in a surprising way since the Ireland Bill was introduced in the other place. Your Lordships will know—we take notice of it in this House—that the Second Reading of the Bill was moved in another place on May 11 by the Prime Minister himself, and in moving it Mr. Attlee truly said that there was a great deal of interest in the question, "Who is a citizen of Eire?" There undoubtedly is. The Prime Minister proceeded to give the House what at that time was his information. He said:
  "Broadly speaking, a person is a citizen of Eire (i) if he was born in Eire after 1922, or, if born outside Eire, is the son of an Eire citizen and was born after 1922; (ii) if he was born in one of the twenty-six counties before 1922 and was domiciled there in 1922; and (iii) if he is registered as an Eire citizen."
  The whole point of this is what is meant by "domiciled in Eire." When the Prime Minister made his speech—one does not doubt that he was most carefully provided with the information, I suppose from the Home Office—he understood by "domiciled in Eire" what he then said,

  1157
  namely, "domiciled in the twenty-six counties."
  I do not dispute at all that if a man was born, let us say, in Dublin, before 1922, and he was domiciled or resident in Dublin before 1922, he is a citizen of Eire, and he is not, under Section 1 of the Act, a British subject. Doubtless the Prime Minister's answer depends on what is meant by "Eire." According to the information which I have since obtained, and have personally checked, it is not correct to say that in the view of those who expound the law of Eire the definition depends upon a reference to residence in the twenty-six counties. On the other hand, the view of the Eire authorities is that "Eire" means the whole island of Ireland, and if you were resident or domiciled in Belfast, you were just as much resident or domiciled in Eire as if you were resident or domiciled in Dublin.
  I do not know how soon the members of His Majesty's Government realised that there was some difficulty about this matter, because I am sure that at every stage they have made the most candid statement which was available to them. But I noticed that eight days after the Prime Minister had given that answer, explaining, as he understood it, who was a citizen of Eire, the Home Secretary, Mr. Ede, was asked a question. He was asked on May 19 whether persons who are British subjects by birth in Eire and, of course, if they were born in Eire they were British subjects because it was part of the United Kingdom—and who have not been resident there (that means in the twenty-six counties) since 1922, should be regarded as citizens of Eire. What was the Home Secretary's answer? If I had to justify my Amendment by saying there is obscurity to be cleared up, this answer would be enough to prove it. What Mr. Ede said was this:
  "A person born in Eire but not resident there since 1922 may or may not have been an Eire citizen on 1st January, 1949."
  In other words, the Home Office was unable to answer, and I do not blame them, because it is a pretty severe thing to ask even the greatest of the officials of the Home Office to expound with accuracy the law of the Republic of Eire. So, very prudently, the Home Secretary said: "It may be so, or it may not."
  The object of my Amendment is to make quite certain what is the result of
  1158
  what we are doing. The Home Secretary's reply showed that the Prime Minister's statement a week before was not complete—which was not his fault, of course; it was what he understood at the time. As I told your Lordships on Second Reading, the Passport Office has not been acting on the Prime Minister's statement at all. It has been refusing a passport to such a person on the ground that he is a citizen of Eire. I gave notice before the Second Reading to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that I should make this statement. I did make it, and the House will remember that my noble friend did not challenge it at all.
  Now I have a new piece of information to give the House, and this also I have thought it right to send in advance to the Lord Chancellor and also to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Wanting to be sure that my own mind was as clear as it could be on this subject, this morning I rang up the Office of the High Commissioner for Ireland. I was courteously answered, not by Mr. Dulanty himself but by his deputy and representative, whose name is Mr. Ellison, and who spoke with authority. I made a note at the time of exactly what happened and I will read it to the House. My note reads: "I rang up the Office of the High Commissioner for Ireland (Regent 4716) and asked to be informed what, in the view of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, constituted a citizen of Eire, observing, of course, that this must depend upon the law of the Republic. Mr. Ellison (who is Mr. Dulanty's deputy and who spoke with authority) said that by the law of the Republic an individual born in one of the twenty-six counties before 1922 who had his domicile in Northern Ireland since that date was a citizen of Eire. He explained that this was so because, from the point of view of that law, the whole of the island of Ireland was Eire.' If, however, a person born in Southern Ireland before 1922 was since that date domiciled outside the island of Ireland, it was not claimed that he was a citizen of Eire."
  I am extremely sorry to dwell upon what may seem to be technicalities, but let me put that answer in simple terms. A man lives in Belfast and he has resided—or, if you prefer it, has had his domicile—in Belfast for years and years.

  1159
  At any rate, he has been domiciled and resident in Belfast since before 1922. But he is a person who happens to have been born in one of the twenty-six counties of Southern Ireland before 1922. As I said on Second Reading, none of us can help where he is born. Sometimes a mother produces a child in a place which is not her own domicile. The view taken of the Eire law by those who expounded it at the invitation of the Government and the Home Office is this: that such a person, resident and domiciled in Belfast, who never in his life has lived anywhere except inside the United Kingdom, is, none the less, a citizen of Eire, and as he is a citizen of Eire it follows from Section 1 of the British Nationality Act that he is not a British subject.
  I hope I am not leading anybody up a false path. I have tried merely to explain this matter as clearly as I can. If there is a correction to be made, then let it be made. But it seems to me that this discloses a position which must be cleared up by my Amendment before we pass the Bill. If your Lordships would be good enough to look at my Amendment, you will see that it is addressed to that simple point. What I suggest must go into the Bill is this. If you look at Clause 3 as it now stands, you will see that it is a declaratory clause which says, in effect, that when we are excluding citizens of Eire from the status of British subjects we mean anybody who is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. The Lord Chancellor will not deny that that question is decided by Eireann law.
  I have pointed out that a person who has never lived anywhere except in the United Kingdom—though he has been resident or domiciled in what we call "Northern Ireland" for thirty years—is, none the less, by the law of Eire, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and, therefore, unless he takes the special step required under Section 2 of the British Nationality Act, he loses his status as a British subject. Even if the law of Eire is that these persons, born before the Irish Free State came into existence and who have never resided in Eire since, are citizens of Eire because they reside in Northern Ireland, it is surely quite wrong for Parliament to approve the automatic forfeiture of their British status. Parliament
  1160
  never intended that for a moment, and none of your Lordships intended it. It is one of those accidents which sometimes arise when we have rather complicated legislation, with reference between one section and another.
  I am bound to say that I had not clearly apprehended all the aspects of this matter until I received this information this morning. It is perfectly plain, and at this moment if a man who has had his residence or domicile in Northern Ireland for the last thirty years goes to the Passport Office here and asks for a British passport he will be refused it, and he will be refused it on the ground that he is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. That is entirely due to the fact that, in a metaphysical sense, the lawyer-statesmen of the Republic of Ireland consider that their jurisdiction extends over the whole of Northern Ireland just as much as it does over the other twenty-six counties. Is there any answer to that? Of course, we shall hear from the Lord Chancellor if I have made a mistake. If I have, I know very well that he will correct me with courtesy, and I shall receive it with composure, provided I really have made a mistake.
  But the only answer I can think of is that the Lord Chancellor might say "Are you not making a great fuss about nothing? What have these people in Northern Ireland to do? They have only to make an application under Section 2." But what does Section 2 say? Imagine a man living in Northern Ireland, grasping this opportunity. I have pointed out already to your Lordships that under the law of Eire, such a man is a citizen of Eire—which he very likely resents. Section 2 of the Act says:
  "Any citizen of Eire who immediately before the commencement of this Act was also a British subject shall not by reason of anything contained in section one of this Act be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject if at any time he gives notice in writing to the Secretary of State claiming to remain a British subject on all or any of the following grounds, …"
  I have always regarded that as rather a mysterious section. Your Lordships will notice, of course, that if the citizen of Eire sends this letter—even if he puts a postcard into a pillar-box addressed to the Home Secretary—that fact, without any further investigation, enables him to remain a British subject. There is no provision that the application shall be acknowledged, or that he is to be pro-

  1161
  vided with a certificate. All that happens by that unilateral act is that this citizen of Eire, while not ceasing to be a citizen of Eire, retains what he otherwise would have lost under Section 1—namely, the status of a British subject.
  I do not wish to rouse feeling, but I think there are a good many people in Northern Ireland who would be unwilling to sit down and write to the Home Secretary to say "I am a citizen of Eire." I am supported in that view by very good authority. In replying to the debate on the Second Reading the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, admitted that:
  "For quite good reasons he"—
  that is, the applicant for a British pass-port
  "may be unwilling to make that declaration."
  And I should think so. Yet if the man does not make the claim, he cannot secure even the relief possible under Section 2. But, in any case, is it right or tolerable that a man who from every point of view is a British subject, who has always lived in the United Kingdom, who does not desire to do anything else and who does not live in the twenty-six counties, should be put into such a position that he forfeits his standing as a British subject unless he makes this application? There are tens of thousands of people who might wish for this sort of relief, but there are probably not more than one or two who can understand the language of the British Nationality Act, 1948. If a man is applying for a job it is often necessary that he should be a British subject. I heard of such a case from a friend of mine only yesterday. A man who had been in the Navy wanted a job, and one of the conditions was that he must be a British subject. This man, born perhaps twenty or thirty years ago in Southern Ireland, was never domiciled there. How is he to prove that he is a British subject? Is the Lord Chancellor going to say to him: "You have only to make this application, and if you keep a copy of the acknowledgment from the Home Office that will prove you are a British subject"? That does not seem reasonable to me.
  What I propose, therefore, is that we should by this Amendment enable such a man to remain by our law a British subject without his having to find out by a special application or otherwise,
  1162
  whether there are any means by which he can recapture that position. He should not have to take any special action—even though he lives in Northern Ireland. I cannot believe that the Government intend the contrary. While, therefore, I shall listen with all possible respect to the explanation which will be given, I hope that it will be realised that this provision must be inserted in the Bill unless a grave injustice is to be done to people who deserve better treatment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Simon.)
  3.47 p.m.
  LORD ROCHE: I desire in a few words to support this Amendment. I had better disclose at the outset such interest as I have. Personally, I have none; but my grandfather having been a Cork citizen, like his ancestors for many centuries, and my grandmother having come from County Down, I have interests in both ends of the Island of Ireland. I have relaions and many friends living there, and these relations and friends are vitally affected by the legislation which is now proposed. I will not attempt to follow or repeat the exposition of the situation as set out with admirable clarity by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down. I will confine myself to saying that I see no answer to this statement that we are proposing—by our legislation, and not by legislation in Eire—to allow and create a position in which anybody who was born in Eire—that is to say in the twenty-six counties—before 1922, although he may have lived in Northern Ireland, on purpose or by accident, is not a British citizen. He has enjoyed and valued, and still values, the rights and privileges of allegiance to His Majesty; but he is denied them by this legislation. I say that that is an intolerable wrong. Some of my relatives have, through diverse reasons of convenience or necessity, moved front one part of the Island of Ireland to another—perhaps their house was burned or rendered uncomfortable in some other way; or they may have moved to Northern Ireland simply for the purpose of being in that part of the world. Thus, whether by accident or design, they have been under allegiance to His Majesty the King and

  1163
  we are now depriving them of that privilege. I hope your Lordships will support this Amendment and insist upon it.
  With regard to possible action under Section 2 of the Act, I suggest to His Majesty's Government—and I hope the Lord Chancellor is going to accept this Amendment, for it would be a wise and statesmanlike thing to do—that the position as it stands under the Bill will be far more invidious if the Government are afraid of arousing feeling in Eire. They need not be. Those feelings frequently change, but Ireland is traditionally loyal. I do not believe that this phase of competition in disloyalty will continue for ever. I regard it as partly political. I have heard of "stealing the Whigs' clothes," and this seems to me to be stealing the clothes of people of other sorts—people who have the map of Ireland written in their faces. That is, perhaps, rather a digression, but I venture to point out to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and to His Majesty's Government, that for the Home Secretary to have to refer to Eire legislation by a pursuant notice, before he can re-confer citizenship upon these persons would be much more offensive to the Government of Eire than taking the direct course of seeing that our own legislation is in order. For those reasons, I venture to ask your Lordships to support this Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment, because I do not think that it would be good statesmanship or wise to do so. In the course of what I have to say, I shall be able to announce to your Lordships the policy which the Passport Office are going to follow. It is a new policy, which I hope and believe will satisfy the noble and learned Viscount and render this Amendment unnecessary. I should be reluctant to accept this Amendment, if only by reason of the fact that, were I to do so, I think I should be breaching the understanding which I came to, and I should be going beyond the clear statement which the Prime Minister made as the result of that understanding. This is a most complicated and technical question, and although I am not criticising or quarrelling with the great bulk of what the noble and learned Vis-
  1164
  count said, I hope he will not mind my putting it in my own way; because, of all the intricate questions with which I have had to deal—and they have been not a few—I think this is one of the most difficult. Therefore, if I may, I will start with a few elementary propositions which I believe to be right.
  The first is this. Be it always remembered that until the eve of January 1, 1949, which was the date when the British Nationality Act came into force, all persons born in the twenty-six counties were British subjects. It did not follow that all those persons then ceased to be British subjects. Some of them did; some of them did not. Those who ceased to be British subjects ceased because they came into the category of citizens of Eire; they are the people defined in the Irish Nationality Act. First, there were those who on December 6, 1922 (which was the date of the Irish Free State Constitution), were citizens of the Irish Free State. If I may, I will read to your Lordships the relevant Article, Article 3 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State:
  "Every person domiciled in the Irish Free State at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution …"—
  that is, December 6, 1922; I will not read all the words, but I will give their effect—
  "… who was born in Ireland or either of whose parents was born in Ireland or who has been ordinarily resident in the area of the Irish Free State for not less than seven years shall be a citizen."
  By "the Irish Free State" in 1922 was meant these twenty-six counties.
  The next way in which a man might become a citizen of Eire is if he were permanently resident there on or after April 10, 1935—that is the date of the coming into force of the Irish Nationality Act. Again I will read the relevant section:
  "Every person who is not a citizen of Saorstat Eireann"—
  that is, the Irish Free State, or Eire, or whatever you like to call it—
  "by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution"—
  which is the one I have just read—
  "but was born before the 6th December, 1922, either in Ireland or of parents of whom at least one was born in Ireland shall

  (a) if such person is, at the passing of this Act, or becomes thereafter, permanently

  1165
  resident in Saorstat Eireann be deemed to be a natural born citizen of Saorstat Eireann, or

  (b) if such person, at the passing of this Act, is permanently resident outside Saorstat Eireann and is not a naturalised citizen of any country, be deemed upon being registered to be a natural born citizen of Saorstat Eireann."

  There we have the active step of registering in the case of being born outside.
  The two main tests under the Irish law are these: Domiciled on December 6, 1922, or permanently resident on or after April 10, 1935.
  The third proposition is that a person who is born in Southern Ireland who was not a citizen of Eire on December 31, 1948, became a United Kingdom citizen on January 1, 1949, by virtue of Section 12 (4) of the British Nationality Act. The next proposition is that a person born in Southern Ireland whose father was born in what is now the United Kingdom became a United Kingdom citizen by descent on January 1 under Section 12 (2) of the British Nationality Act even though he might also be a citizen of Eire. I know that this is somewhat complicated but, to try to make this plain to your Lordships, let me imagine a large circle which I will describe as people born in the twenty-six counties. A smaller circle inside that one represents those who are citizens of Eire. A smaller circle inside that again represents those who are British subjects by descent by reason of the fact that their father was born in the United Kingdom. The effect of the British Nationality Act was to remove from British nationality, so that they ceased to be British subjects, the middle circle—not the outer circle or the inner circle but the middle circle—that is to say, those people who were born in the twenty-six counties and became citizens of Eire and whose fathers were not born in the United Kingdom.
  In addition to these people, with the exception of those who became United Kingdom citizens by descent, all persons who were British subjects and citizens of Eire on December 31, 1948, ceased to be British subjects on January 1, 1949, but retained the right to claim to remain a British subject under Section 2 (1) of the British Nationality Act. Here, let me say that the Home Secretary's answer was perfectly accurate. You do not give the Home Secretary sufficient facts to formulate an answer merely by stating
  1166
  that somebody was born in the twenty-six counties before 1922; you must also state his domicile. The Home Secretary must know about the permanent residence and the possibility of that person's registration. He cannot assert one way or the other until he knows all the relevant facts. I quite understand the object which the noble and learned Viscount has in mind. I quite understand that Section 2 (1) giving the right to claim, may cause some heartburning. I can see that the shoe may pinch unless, of course, people are United Kingdom citizens h y descent, which I should imagine a large number of them are. It is the fact that the Passport Office have hitherto asked them either to get a certificate or statement from the Eire High Commissioner that the Fire authorities do not regard them as Eire citizens, or to make a claim under Section 2 (1) of the British Nationality Act
  My Loris, I now come to the grounds on which I think we must resist this Amendment and, having given them, I will tell your Lordships about the new attitude of the Passport Office. In the discussions we had with Eire and the other Commonwealth countries in 1947, before the British Nationality Act was drafted, we were very anxious, if we could, to get, if not agreement, at any rate understanding. Of course we are entitled to pass in this Parliament any laws we like relevant to our own country, without anybody's consent and without any understanding at all. On the other hand, it was plainly desirable that if possible we should ensure that no other countries of the British Commonwealth (and Ireland then was a member of the British Commonwealth) should feel in any sense aggrieved by the course we were taking. As a result, every word of the British Nationality Act was most carefully considered, and the whole scheme of the Act was agreed in this sense: that none of the other countries concerned would have felt aggrieved had we passed legislation in those terms.
  It may be said that the understanding reached is no longer sacrosanct and should no longer bind us, in view of the fact that Eire has chosen to leave the Commonwealth. But even if that were a valid argument or a very wise course to adopt, your Lordships will remember that we did have discussions and negotia-

  1167
  tions with the Eire representatives and the other Dominions on this topic, both at Chequers and in Paris. The Prime Minister, in his statement on November 25, 1948, then summarised the effect of those discussions.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Those conversations were after the declaration of the Republic.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, the Chequers and the Paris conferences; and on November 25, 1948, after Eire's decision to leave the Commonwealth was known and accepted, the Prime Minister summarised the matter in this way: that the position of Eire citizens in the United Kingdom would be governed by the British Nationality Act. If we proceeded now to alter the British Nationality Act, in order to allow a whole class of persons born in Southern Ireland to remain British subjects automatically, we should be accused of departing from that statement, we should be accused of departing from our understanding—and rightly so. Apart from that, let me suggest to your Lordships the effects of the Amendment. Many of the persons it covers—it covers persons born in the twenty-six counties before 1922—are already British subjects. For instance, a man born in Dublin before 1922 whose father was born at Belfast or London or Edinburgh, remains a British subject by virtue of Section 12 (2) of the British Nationality Act.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I have not quite followed. Is my noble and learned friend suggesting a criticism of the Amendment I have put down?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Is there anything wrong with it?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am just going to develop the criticism. I am sorry it is so complicated. What I am saying at the moment is that the Amendment covers a group of people many of whom are already British subjects. I gave an illustration of that. Another illustration is that a man who was born in Southern Ireland but never acquired a domicile there before 1922, and has not permanently resided in Eire since 1934, is a United Kingdom citizen under Section 12 (4) of the British Nationality Act. So much for the people it covers who
  1168
  need not be covered. Then it covers a large number of people who ought not to be covered. For example, it would have the effect of retaining as a British subject a supporter of Mr. de Valera who was born in Cork, who went to the United States in 1921 and who has remained there ever since, even though he has registered (as some of these enthusiastic Irishmen do) as a citizen of Eire. By this Amendment we make him a British subject.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I am afraid I cannot agree.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Indeed we do. Let me go through it again. I am dealing with a man who was born in one of the twenty-six counties before 1922, who has not resided in the Republic of Ireland since that date—
  VISCOUNT SIMON: May I ask what is meant by "the Republic of Ireland"?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The twenty-six counties. He has not resided there since that date. It deals with his case. Now I put this instance. Take a man who was born before December 6, 1922, and who has never resided in Ireland since that date. He went out with his parents to the United States. He is a passionately keen politician. He has registered under the Irish Act as an Irish citizen, as a citizen of Eire, a citizen of the twenty-six counties, or what you will. By this Amendment we are making that man a British subject. At the same time, the Amendment does not help the people who really ought to be helped. It does nothing for the Loyalists, those people who, for reasons good, bad or indifferent, stayed on in Ireland and have done what they can to preserve the British connection. They are not dealt with at all because they have resided in Ireland since 1922. Therefore it seems to me that this Amendment helps exactly the wrong people and at the same time would undoubtedly antagonise the Irish. I see the noble and learned Viscount frowns. Let me make it plain.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I was not frowning; I just do not follow.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure it is my fault that you do not. It is a very complicated subject. A Loyalist who has been living in Southern Ireland and who has stayed there through the bad

  1169
  times is not helped by this Amendment at all, because he has resided in Ireland since 1922. It does nothing to help that man; but it does something to help the man who left Ireland in 1922 and went out to America and has since registered as an Irish citizen. That seems to us to be quite unworkable. We think this Amendment is very bad for another reason. My noble and learned friend and I had some discussion the other day, and we will both agree, I think, that we found it extremely difficult to define "residence." If I were asked to construe the words in the Amendment, "who has not resided in the Republic of Ireland since that date," I should want to know at once what "resided" meant. Suppose I have been there for a weekend, a week or a summer holiday, where do stand then? I have absolutely no criterion at all. So for those reasons, my Lords, I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Now I must say a word or two about the information which my noble and learned friend received to-day from Mr. Ellison. Since I received that rather surprising information, I have seen Mr. Dulanty, and Mr. Dulanty says this: "I am most certainly not an expert on Irish law and a fortiori Mr. Ellison is not an expert on Irish law either. It is not for Mr. Ellison or for me to pronounce on the Iris law." The noble and learned Viscount must not take it that any pronouncement made by Mr. Ellison is right. As I say, it was a great surprise to me when I received the note which the noble and learned Viscount very kindly sent to me. It must not be assumed that Mr. Ellison is correct in his statement.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: May I say that I hope I did not suggest—I certainly did not mean to—that either Mr. Ellison or our friend Mr. Dulanty is an expert on Irish law. The reason I referred to the matter was that—unless I am quite misinformed—the Passport Office is advised to refer an applicant in whose case they feel a difficulty to Mr. Dulanty or Mr. Ellison for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not that individual, by Eire law, is a citizen of Eire. That is the reason why I mentioned the matter. I agree entirely that the Passport Office is putting a good deal upon those gentlemen, and I sympathise with them; but that it what the Passport Office, under the auspices of the Government Depart-
  1170
  ment, do. That was the reason I quoted Mr. Ellison.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not making the smallest complaint. I am coming to the question of the Passport Office and I am going to tell the noble and learned Viscount of the new practice. But before I do that, I would like to make one other point. Whether the opinion which Mr. Ellison expressed—that the Irish view is that Ireland is one country—is right or wrong in Irish law, certainly by our law when we refer to Eire we mean the twenty-six counties.
  Now I come to the position of the Passport Office and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble and learned Viscount upon it. The existing practice of the Passport Office has been follows. If we have a person in Southern Ireland whose father was born in what is now the United Kingdom or a Colony he is given a British passport. Any other person born in Southern Ireland has been asked to submit evidence from the Eire High Commissioner that he is not regarded as a citizen of Eire or to produce an acknowledgment from the Home Office that he has made a claim under Section 2 (1).
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Then I stated the position correctly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perfectly correctly. We propose a new practice—I hope that your Lordships will be able to follow this. I know it is rather intricate, but if you do follow it I think you will see that the mischief is met. Every applicant born in Southern Ireland who want a passport will be asked to state on his application form where his father was born, and if his father was born in what is now the United Kingdom or a Colony, or, of course, in Northern Ireland, a passport will be issued to him as a United Kingdom citizen by descent. Secondly, an applicant born in Southern Ireland before December 6, 1922, who does not qualify as a United Kingdom citizen by descent will be given two alternatives. The first is signing a declaration that he was not domiciled in the area of the Irish Free State in 1922; that he was not, on April 10, 1935, and did not subsequently become, permanently resident in Eire, and that he is not registered as a citizen of Eire under the section of that Act—
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Would it be asking too much of the noble and learned Viscount if I asked him to repeat that?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do so with pleasure. The precise words are not yet fixed but this is the sense of it. If the man is not a United Kingdom citizen by descent, he will be asked to sign a declaration that he was not domiciled in the Irish Free State (the twenty-six counties) in 1922; that he was not on April 10, 1935, and did not subsequently become permanently resident in Eire (the twenty-six counties) and that he has not registered as a citizen of Eire (we can leave that last out, I think, because that would not affect the present point); or—and this is the alternative—sign a claim under Section 2 (1) of the British Nationality Act. I do not know if your Lordships are able to follow the matter. The noble and learned Viscount finds it difficult and I am sure that it must, therefore, be very difficult for the rest of your Lordships. What we are saying is this: "If you, the applicant, will assert that you were not domiciled in the twenty-six counties at the particular date—that is 1922—and you will further assert that you were not on April 10, 1935, or thereafter, permanently resident there, then you shall have your passport. If you cannot make that statement the alternative is that you will be asked to make a claim under Section 2 (1)."
  VISCOUNT SIMON: May I ask one question? This matter is much too difficult for us to discuss across the Table, but I want to get this point quite clear, if I can. Putting Section 2 (1) out of the way, I would like to know whether what the Lord Chancellor has just said means that if a man was not domiciled in the twenty-six counties in 1922, he is a British subject. No one can have a British passport who is not a British subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As a matter of fact that is not right. A passport is issued under the Royal Prerogative and a British passport can be granted to a foreigner—but that is neither here nor there. The noble and learned Viscount referred to the question of a man's domicile in 1922. The man must also say he was not permanently resident in 1935 or thereafter. In short, if a man who was born in the twenty-six
  1172
  counties goes or writes (I think it can be done by writing) to the Passport Office and states: "I was not domiciled in the twenty-six counties in 1922 and I have not permanently resided in Ireland in 1935 or thereafter," he will be given a British passport without reference to the Irish High Commissioner.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: That will not mean that he will be a British subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He gets a British passport.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: There are many other purposes for which a man wants to be a British subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We regard him as a British subject. Under our law he will be a British subject.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Then let us so legislate.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This applicant will be asked to send a declaration under B.1 or claim under B.2 to the Passport Office. On receipt of either document sent by the applicant, a British passport will be issued. If he has sent in a claim under Section 2 (1) of the British Nationality Act he will at the same time be sent the Home Secretary's acknowledgment that the claim has been made. I am dealing now with passports. The new practice makes things easier in two respects for an applicant from Southern Ireland: it exempts a person who is in fact not a citizen of Eire from the need to get a letter from the Eire High Commissioner stating that he is not regarded as a citizen of Eire, and it makes it unnecessary for the applicant to correspond with the Home Office as well as with the Passport Office. It is said: "It is all very well to give a man a passport; we can give a passport to a foreigner, but that does not necessarily prove that he is a British subject; therefore, why not legislate to make him a British subject?" I maintain that the British Nationality Act does make these people, unless they were domiciled in the twenty-six counties or unless they were permanently resident in the twenty-six counties at the critical date in each case, British subjects in our law.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: That depends on Eire law.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It depends on our view of Eire law. If a

  1173
  British court had to determine what is Eire law, they would consider the evidence. If Eire law construed the word "Eire" one way, and our Statute construed "Eire" another, then the British court must have regard to our construction of the word "Eire." I hope I have shown your Lordships that I am right in saying that this surmounts the passport difficulty and the nationality difficulty. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a much more satisfactory solution than altering the terms of the British Nationality Act, which would involve us in a breach of the honourable understanding with our Irish friends, would not remedy the difficulty which ought to be remedied, and would extend British nationality to people who do not desire and whom we do not desire to become British nationals.
  For those reasons, I hope very much that your Lordships will not, at any rate at this stage, seek to put in this Amendment. I shall feel bound to resist it, because as one who had a prominent part in these negotiations I could not possibly accept it. I should feel that I was departing from the honourable understanding to which I came. I confess that the point that the noble and learned Viscount raised, as the result of Mr. Ellison's conversations with him to-day, was as much a surprise to me as I gather it was to him. Whether or not that is a correct pronouncement of the law of the Republic of Ireland, it is certainly not a pronouncement of law which in my view should bind us under the British Nationality Act, since in our law we do not say for this purpose that the whole of Ireland is one; nor do I believe that is Eire law. The difficulty arises under the Constitution of 1937. In that Constitution we find it is said that:
  "Pending the reintegration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstat Eireann…."
  I do not believe it is a correct pronouncement under Irish law. However that may be, I invite your Lordships to consider what I have said and to say whether the arguments I have advanced do not show very strongly that this Amendment should not be accepted.
  4.25 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, he is a very brave man who intervenes in this debate. This is as difficult a technical legal question as I have ever heard argued and I confess that my brain reeled several times during the debate. There seems to be a difference of interpretation not only between an ex-Lord Chancellor and the present Lord Chancellor, but also between two members of Mr. Dulanty's office. I do not think anyone, in this House at any rate, knows exactly what is the position. They may know it through British eyes but they do not know the position through Irish eyes. One fact which I think is a formidable one appeared clear to me. According to Mr. Ellison's interpretation, which may or may not be the right one—very likely it may be the wrong one; I do not know—it is possible that under the law of the Republic of Ireland, which in fact governs the Home Secretary's action, people born in the twenty-six counties before 1922 and subsequently resident in Northern Ireland count as citizens of Eire because, in the Irish view (or in Mr. Ellison's view, and he was speaking with some authority), the whole of Ireland, including Ulster, is really Eire. That is not our view, but that was the view expressed by a prominent member of the High Commissioner's office. Mr. Dulanty was not certain whether he took that view or not. I believe he feels as I do in this controversy and said he was no legal expert.
  Surely it is very important that this matter should be cleared up, and cleared up not only by His Majesty's Government, but if possible, by agreement with the Irish Government. It is very important that we should have the same view on this matter. If the Irish Government hold Mr. Ellison's interpretation and if we accepted that interpretation, we should also, by implication, accept the contention of the Irish Republic that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the Republic of Ireland, or of Eire, and not a separate territory at all. That, of course, is the whole point of difference between us in this country and the Irish Republic. Therefore, extremely wide issues might be raised by this apparently comparatively limited point. I suggest to your Lordships, with all deference, that until we know what the correct interpretation is, we cannot leave the Ireland Bill in its

  1175
  present form, unamended in some way—I do not say with the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, but in some way—without abandoning or seriously impairing the whole position which not only we but the Government have taken up on this subject.
  I urge the Government most sincerely, if they cannot accept this Amendment—and I understand they would find it impossible to do so—to let us all examine the position further. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said he thought it would not be good statesmanship to take an action which might be unacceptable to the Government of Eire. I also fully appreciate that it might be breaking the understanding he himself made with the Irish. I understand that the original undertaking was made before the Declaration of the Republic and that there were further conversations after the Declaration. I am not sure whether this particular point arose in the subsequent discussions or not. If it did, I do not think an undertaking ought to have been given until this point was cleared up; but I should think it much more probable, with a point of this extraordinary intricacy, that it did not form a subject of the conversations which were held.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That, of course, is true. Had we got down to a point of this meticulous detail, we should never have had time to discuss anything at all. The broad proposition was that we agreed that the status of Irish citizens should be covered by the existing British Nationality Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: For all these reasons, I feel that we cannot proceed with these discussions to-day but must have time to look at the speech of the learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. Very likely the noble and learned Viscount wishes to consider the matter further in the light of what has been said. I suggest that we adjourn the Committee stage now and have a breathing space to master these extraordinarily knotty points.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Marquess is prepared to do that, would it not be a good idea to dispose of the next Amendment? This can always be dealt with on the Report stage.
  1176
  If this Amendment were withdrawn now, we could deal with this matter on Report, in the light of the fuller information which we shall be able to obtain. Is that not a satisfactory arrangement?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With all deference to the noble and learned Viscount—I realise that the Government want to get this Bill through as quickly as possible—I do not think that would be satisfactory while we are in such a state of bewilderment. It would be far better to take the matter no further to-day. We can take time to try and clear our minds, and it would also give the Government time, possibly, to clear the matter up with the Government of Ireland, and then attack the problem again.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): I intervene only for a moment because it is my duty to consider the Business of the House, although I always consult the noble Marquess opposite. Like the noble Marquess, I have not the slightest desire whatever to rush our proceedings on this Bill by a procedure which is unacceptable to either side of the House, but I should have thought the suggestion that we should have this explored and return to it on the Report stage was perfectly all right.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think I know a little more about the Business of the House than noble Lords. I cannot see what the objection is. I will not press it, but frankly, as an ordinary matter of procedure, I cannot see why this suggestion is not acceptable. We do not want to make too great haste and not give full time to the discussion, but it can easily be done in the Parliamentary way on the next stage of the Bill. I do not understand the objection.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: May I explain my difficulty? I agree entirely with the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that in the ordinary way we should follow the course which has so often been followed. We all endeavour to behave reasonably. I should not in an ordinary case have any objection to putting it over to the Report stage. But this is rather different. I have put down an Amendment, which I drafted as carefully as I could, and I did not under-

  1177
  stand the Lord Chancellor to say that the proposition which I am trying to lay down—though possibly I have not laid it down quite correctly—is a wrong proposition. Therefore I naturally want to take advantage of the fact that the Lord Chancellor has spoken as he has, with his usual consideration, to see whether or not the Amendment I put down ought to be put forward in Committee in a slightly different form. I think I ought to be allowed to do that on the Committee stage. One reason is that on the Report stage only one speech is possible. I do not want to keep interrupting. I dislike all this technicality as much as any noble Lord, but this should be done in the ordinary way in which these things are done in Committee. For my part, I am prepared to consider what the Lord Chancellor proposes, and in the light of that decide whether I desire to withdraw my Amendment or to move it in a different form. In the circumstances, I feel that my noble friend Lord Salisbury is right in proposing the adjournment of the Committee stage.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have been informed of another point—namely, that if neither of these Amendments was put in now there would not be a Report stage, which would be quite unfair. Of course, I do not want to press that point. May I suggest that we do our best to reach an agreement? If we can agree at a further Committee stage, then perhaps noble Lords will be willing to have abbreviated proceedings on the Report stage. I am thinking only of the timetable. If we could have an understanding of that kind I should be quite agreeable to an adjournment of the Committee stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble Viscount that it is not our object to obstruct this Bill in any way. Clearly, if the matter is threshed out on an adjourned Committee stage there is likely to be less discussion on the Report stage. The alternative is to leave this to the Report stage, and we shall then have to have a long discussion. For the reasons which have already been given, I think that would be a mistake. I can give the noble Viscount the Leader of the House an undertaking that we will make the Report stage as short as we can—for all I know, it may be very short indeed. There may be
  1178
  points which will have to be discussed—the noble Viscount will understand that—but we shall do our best to facilitate further proceedings on the Bill.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: In those circumstances, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  4.36 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1 [Alteration of composition of National Coal Board]:
  THE PAYMASTER - GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR)THE PAYMASTER - GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR) moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "(2) The persons from amongst whom the members of the Board are by subsection (3) of section two of the principal Act required to be appointed shall include persons appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, the coal-mining industry."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to carry out an undertaking I gave to the noble Lords, Lord Rennell and Lord Hawke, on the Committee stage. I think I carry out that undertaking almost word for word. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said then:
  "My intention was only to ensure that among the categories of persons from whom the Minister should choose shall be included people who have experience of the coal-mining industry."
  The noble Lord went on to say:
  "Something analogous has been included in the other nationalisation boards, and I cannot see why the Minister should hesitate to include such a provision in this Bill."
  This Amendment includes the provision asked for on the Committee stage by the noble Lords, Lord Rennell and Lord Hawke. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord. The Amendment does, in fact, include the words I wanted. I do not know whether I am in order, but the next Amendment

  1179
  has a bearing on this. I should have thought it would have been easier to include in that Amendment a provision for a minimum number of people with experience in the coal industry to be given seats on the Coal Board. As we are to discuss that on the next Amendment, I think I had better leave it there. I again thank the noble Lord for having included in the Bill an Amendment which carries out the view I expressed.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL moved to add to the clause:
  "(4) The Minister shall so exercise his powers under the principal Act and this Act that of the whole number of members of the Board there shall be at least three members who shall seem to him to have had lengthy practical experience of the coal mining industry."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the second point which was raised during the Committee stage—namely, the inclusion of a minimum number of persons of the category described in the Amendment to which we have just agreed. At the time this was discussed in Committee, I think we were all agreed that it was unlikely that the Minister would fail to include on the Board people with a knowledge of the coal industry. But we on this side of the House felt that there was no reason why an obligation should not be put on him to include a minimum number, especially having regard to the fact that the membership of the Board is now being increased under this Bill from eight to eleven. Therefore, the Amendment which stands in my name provides that at least three out of eight, or out of eleven, shall be persons having experience of the coal mining industry, which seems a very modest request to make. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rennell.)
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised to find this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. He rather emphasised at the Committee stage that analogous provisions were made regarding other nationalised industries. That argument certainly does not apply in this case. In none of those industries was a specified
  1180
  number given. I should have thought he would be satisfied with the previous Amendment. If it is stated that three members must be connected with the mining industry, it may militate against the policy of the present Minister or some future Minister. I think there is an inclination to reduce the number of full-time members and to increase the number of part-time members. If the present Minister decided on a policy to reduce his full-time members to five, he would certainly prefer that three from the industry should be full-time members; and I think that three out of five would be out of all proportion. It may be he will have some part-time members, but I can assure the House that they would be very few.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask a question which may facilitate matters? Of the existing Board Lord Hyndley and Mr. Ebby Edwards come within that category. Are there any others?
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: There is Sir Eric Young from the management side, and also Sir Robert Burrows. Now we have four, which indicates how much in agreement the Minister is with the two noble Lords. I would not like to do anything which might lessen the number of full-time members. I am quite sure that to insert that three members must be from the industry would be undesirable.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Amendment has all along been put down not so much to secure the precise object mentioned, but to give an opportunity for some little debate on the composition of the Coal Board in general. We on this side of the House, and myself in particular, have no wish to harry the Minister personally on this matter, but we do wish to harry him into doing his duty. We feel, and have felt for a long time, that his duty primarily consists in having a thorough spring clean of Hobart House. We could have put Amendments on the Order Paper, and even carried them, which would have necessitated his taking brave and strong action in that citadel. But we have no particular wish to go to those lengths, and we do not intend to press this Amendment. However, I would like to ask the noble Lord if he will convey to the Minister the

  1181
  strong wishes of this House that he should do his duty manfully, because the fate of England depends on his doing it, and that quickly.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I shall nave no hesitation in doing that, but I do not think it is necessary, particularly in the case of the present Minister.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I do not want to press this Amendment, but I do feel that future intentions about the size of the Board which are not contained in the Bill have no real bearing on the composition of the Board to-day. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Termination of certain long-term contracts transferred to the Board]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is also an Amendment which carries out an undertaking and which I hope will be accepted. It will be remembered that, during the Committee stage, the Lord Chancellor himself gave certain assurances, but despite those assurances I think some doubt was left in the minds of the Opposition. I would like to include in my remarks the Amendments which follow in my name—those to page 2, line 35; page 2, line 36; page 3, line 21, and page 3, line 23. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove any doubts which may exist regarding the undertaking given by the Lord Chancellor at the Committee stage. I think the Amendment which I am moving helps to clarify the position. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 32, leave out ("This section applies to provisions of any") and insert ("Where a").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think it is convenient that we should discuss all these Amendments together, and I am much obliged to the noble Lord and the draftsman for the skill they have displayed in this matter. It really is a question of expressing what we mean, because, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said last time, we are quite clear upon three things: first, that a contract will be determined
  1182
  only if it is practically impossible to carry it out—there is no question that it can be determined because it is commercially inconvenient. Upon that we are quite agreed. The second point upon which we were agreed was that if a contract were determined, the Board must determine the whole contract and should not pick and choose.
  There was considerable technical difficulty as to whether the words expressed that, because the language was "if the terms included." As this Bill is drafted, and as I read these Amendments—it is a little difficult to follow them—it does make it perfectly plain that, whether the provisions of the contract form part of those clauses of the contract which include the terms, or whether they are in some separate part of the contract, what has to go is the whole of that contract in so far as it subsists between the Coal Board and the party to whom the notice is given. Of course, it cannot be terminated for commercial convenience. I would suggest that it is desirable to add the Amendment which stands in my name on page 2 of the Marshalled List to Lord Macdonald's Amendment to page 3, line 23, and for this reason. He says in his Amendment:
  "whereto the parties were … in no way connected (whether directly or indirectly) with each other apart from the contract; and in the case of contract,"
  and so on. Now I can quite understand that he wishes to exclude cases—we are dealing with the question of arm's length cases—in which the party to the contract in fact controls the company. I do not use the word "control" in the narrow sense, of having 51 per cent. of the shares; I mean practical control—it may be with 49 per cent. or 40 per cent. On the other hand you might have a person having quite a small interest, perhaps 5 per cent., which obviously would not give him control. A person with only that interest so far as being at arm's length concerned would obviously be independent. Yet I think that the noble Lord's Amendment, as drafted, would embrace not only what we both want to embrace, the person who had control of a company, but somebody who had only a very small interest in the company and therefore, for the purpose of making contracts, was completely in dependent. I do not know

  1183
  whether the noble Lord has considered that. I have had my Amendment on the Order Paper for a day or two, and I should like to know whether or not I am right. It is entirely a question of finding the right language to express our common intention.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am sure there is no doubt as to the common intention, but we thought there was some possibility of confusion if the noble Viscount's words were used; and we felt that our words covered the point rather better than his.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is one of the disadvantages of having to deal with a complicated piece of drafting. The noble Lord evidently agrees with me that we do not want to rule out the person who has quite a small interest. In actual fact, the matter cannot arise except in the case of a company. Where a contract is made between the Coal Board and the company, the company are virtually controlled by the interested parties; but what would happen where a person has only a very small interest in the company? Would that be covered by the noble Lord's words?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word here, because otherwise my noble friend would be breaking the rules of the House on Report stage. I feel that we ought to be able to reach a compromise. I do not want to hit at the 5 per cent. man, and if my words suggest that, it is certainly not my intention. I do not like the word "independent." Suppose that one man owned all the shares in company A, and all the shares in company B. Company A and company B are quite independent of one another, but are controlled by the one man. That is obviously a case we must consider. I suggest that we might be able to deal with it by having some such words as "not connected in any material degree" or "not connected to any substantial extent." We are able in this House to put down an Amendment on Third Reading, and I will see whether that meets the noble Viscount's point. If so we can put down an Amendment on the Third Reading and deal with the difficulty in that way.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, and am content to leave myself in his hands in the matter.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 35, leave out ("being") and insert ("contains").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor).
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 36, leave out ("or include terms which provide").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I beg to move this further consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 31, at end insert ("this section shall apply to all the provisions of the contract which have effect as mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 23, after ("contract") insert ("whereto the parties were, immediately before the primary vesting date, in no way connected (whether directly or indirectly) with each other apart from the contract; and in the case of a contract").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I beg to move this consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 23, after ("services") insert ("this section shall not apply to provisions thereof").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 24, leave out ("the provisions") and insert ("they").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I beg to move this further consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 24, leave out ("or include terms which provide").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 8, at end insert ("Provided that the Board shall not determine the operation of the provisions of a contract on the ground only that the financial terms thereof, or any of them, are, or may become disadvantageous to them").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for inserting this Amendment which, I think, makes quite clear what the intention is.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in subsection (4), after "question" to insert:
  "whether provisions of a contract with respect to which the Board have served a notice under subsection (2) of this section are provisions to which this section applies or."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, for all practical purposes, these Amendments are consequential on a previous Amendment. It is perfectly clear that, under the Bill as it stands at the moment, the only question for the arbitrator is the amount of compensation and, in the unlikely event of there being a dispute whether the clause applies to a contract or not, it goes to the courts. However, there has now been introduced a qualification that the clause does not apply to contracts
  "whereto the parties were immediately before the primary vesting date in no way connected (whether directly or indirectly) with each other apart from the contract."
  1186
  It would seem convenient that any question arising on that point should go to the arbitrator, and so, by the Amendment to line 30, it is provided that any question whether the provisions of a contract are provisions to which the section applies are determined by arbitration under the principal Act. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 30, after ("question") insert the said words.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we again have to thank the noble Lord for meeting us in this matter. This appears to meet the point raised in our preceding Amendment to paragraphs (b) and (c). We are much obliged for the consideration given to us.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the proposed subsection (5) again is consequential. It deals with the case where that question arises and the time specified for the termination of the contract is reached before the arbitrator has determined the dispute. We can see a difficulty arising, but this Amendment enables the arbitrator to suspend the operation of the notice pending the determination of the question and until, he has completed his work. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 42, at end insert—
  ("(5) Where the Board serve a notice under subsection (2) of this section with respect to provisions of a contract, and there is referred to arbitration under the principal Act the question whether the provisions are provisions to which this section applies, and the question is not determined before the date specified in the notice, the operation of the provisions of that subsection relating to the frustration of the contract or so much thereof as is required to be treated as being a separate contract shall be suspended pending the determination of that question, and if the arbitrator determines that the provisions of the contract are provisions to which this section applies he shall substitute for the date specified in the notice such later date as he thinks fit (whether within the period of two years mentioned in that subsection or not) and the said provisions of that subsection shall thereupon have effect accordingly.").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.3 p.m.
  Clause 4:
  Superannuation, &c., rights
  (2) Subsection (2) of the said section thirty-seven (which provides that, in the case of persons who have been in employment in or in connection with coal industry activities or transferred allied activities before the primary or other relevant vesting date, the regulations to be made for the purposes of subsection (1) of that section shall be so framed as to secure, amongst other things, that where an expectation of accruer, whether as of right or under customary practice, of any particular benefits in favour of any such person, or in favour of another person by reference to his employment, ceases or is prejudiced by reason of his ceasing in consequence of the passing of that Act to be employed by his previous employer or to be employed in the activities aforesaid, the same benefits, or substituted benefits not less advantageous, shall be provided for under the regulations), shall be deemed to have been enacted with the omission of the words "or an expectation of accruer (whether as of right or under customary practice) of," but the said regulations shall be so framed as to secure that where, in the case of a person to whom the said subsection (2), as amended by the foregoing subsection, applies, such an expectation as aforesaid ceases or is prejudiced by reason of his ceasing in consequence of the passing of the principal Act to be employed by his previous employer or to be employed in activities to which paragraph (a) of that subsection, as so amended, applies, there shall be provided in his favour or in favour of another person by reference to his employment, fair and reasonable compensation for the cesser of or prejudice to that expectation, being compensation ascertained by reference—

  (a) to the period of employment to service wherein that expectation was ascribable; and

  (b) (except where the benefits expected to accrue would not have been ascertained by reference to emoluments enjoyed by him), to the emoluments enjoyed by him during that period:

  Provided that this subsection, so far as it relates to the framing of regulations, shall have effect subject to such limitations as may be prescribed for meeting cases in which any such expectations as aforesaid may have been created, otherwise than in the ordinary course, in connection with any provision made by the principal Act or with any anticipation of the making of any such provision.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (1) to insert as a new subsection:
  "(2) The power conferred by paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of the said section thirty-seven to provide for the continuance, amendment or revocation of existing schemes or other arrangements for the provision of pensions, gratuities or other like benefits and of trust deeds, rules or other instruments made for the purposes thereof, and for the
  1188
  transfer or extinguishment of liabilities under, and the transfer or winding up of funds held for the purposes of, any such schemes or arrangements shall be exercisable in relation to schemes or other arrangements for the provision of such benefits in favour of—

  (a) persons to whom subsection (2) of that section, as amended by this section, applies; and

  (b) persons, other than as aforesaid, taken into the employment of the Board before the commencement of this Act, being persons who had been in employment in, or in connection with, coal industry activities or transferred allied activities;

  or in favour of other persons by reference to the employment of such persons as aforesaid, to trust deeds, rules or other instruments made for the purposes of any such schemes or arrangements and to liabilities thereunder and funds held for the purposes thereof, but shall not be exercisable in relation to any other schemes or arrangements or instruments, liabilities or funds."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this proposed subsection clarifies the meaning of the provisions of Section 37 (1) (c) of the 1946 Act which, your Lordships will remember, is the section which relates to the amendment or revocation of existing pension schemes or arrangements and the transfer or winding up of funds held for the purposes of those schemes or arrangements. Regulations under the sub-paragraph provide in relation to schemes wholly for the benefit of persons taken into the Board's employment for the transfer of the funds of the scheme and its winding up; in the case of schemes relating partly to persons who are now the Board's employees and partly to other persons, the schemes are split so that the Board acquire "transfer values" relating to persons who have become their employees.
  The words of Section 37 (1) (c) of the 1946 Act, if taken literally, would authorise regulations to require the transfer of some funds from some wholly separate company—for example, the Imperial Tobacco Company—if one of their employees who had never been employed in or in connection with coal industry activities were taken into the service of the Board, and, though it may be that some limitation should be implied, for example that the powers are limited to persons whose pension rights had to be safeguarded under Section 37 (2), there is at least no certainty that the words would not be held to mean what they say or of the nature of the limitation, if any,

  1189
  which should be implied. Therefore, by this Amendment, the powers are limited to schemes relating to persons specified in paragraphs (a) and (b).
  The persons covered by (a) are those to whom Section 37 (2), as amended by Clause 4 (1), applies—that is to say, persons whether taken into the service of the Board or not who have been in employment in, or in connection with, coal industry activities or transferred allied activities and were employed by the persons specified in Clause 4 (1). Paragraph (b) covers, in addition, persons taken into the Board's employment before the coining into operation of the Bill who had been in employment in, or in connection with, those activities but were not employed by the persons specified in Clause 4 (1) of the Bill. Paragraph (b) is needed because such persons were, and are until the Bill becomes law, within Section 37 (2) of the 1946 Act and their rights under that subsection were accordingly taken into account in settling their pension rights in the Board's service. Accordingly, it would appear proper that they should not be excluded from the regulations which provide for their transfer values to be transferred to the Board. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 27, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Lord Chancellor for having noticed this, for dealing with it so effectively, and for having removed from the Minister any such predatory temptation to which he may be open!
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I hope that the action of His Majesty's Government at this late stage will bring home to possible victims, such as the company instanced by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, the fact that there is a use for the leisurely proceedings of a Second Chamber!
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b):
  "and (in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations) taking into account, as regards the amount thereof, any loss of benefits which might have been expected to accrue by virtue of employment after the expiration of the period aforesaid."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: I tried to make it clear in Committee that, in assessing compensation for cesser of a person's expectations of pension, we did not intend to ignore that part of his expectation attributable to future service. In point of fact, the schemes established by the National Coal Board with the Minister's approval do take account of future service expectations. Thus, the principle of taking account of future service in assessing expected pension is not, and never has been, an issue between us. By this Amendment, that principle, already recognized in the schemes approved by the Minister, is given formal expression in Clause 4 (2). I hope that this fairly meets the view, held by some of your Lordships, that the matter should be dealt with in the Bill and not left entirely to the Coal Board's schemes. It may be that your Lordships will desire to criticise these words, but that, at any rate, is the intention they have. I hope that they carry out the result of the discussions and the undertakings which we gave on the last occasion. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 12, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. We have now got this into a narrow compass. It is common ground that the expectation is to be taken into consideration in all cases. The Lord Chancellor put that quite plainly last time. I do not at all dissent from him that, whoever has to assess this, whether, in the first instance, it be the Ministry or the Board, or, on appeal, the referee, it will be better if he has some yardstick. I was anxious lest, by inserting in the Bill that yardstick, which must necessarily be a yardstick in reference to the past, we were to give the recipient of the compensation something only for the past and not for the future. The Lord Chancellor made it plain last time that that was not intended, and that everybody who had a hope for the future would have that hope fairly assessed. This Amendment is pure drafting, and the only question I want to ask the Lord Chancellor is this. The Amendment says:
  "in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations."

  1191
  I am quite certain the Lord Chancellor does not want to cut anybody out. He invited us to consider the drafting of the Amendment. Suppose that we had these words, would that not enable the regulations to select which persons with an expectation should receive compensation and exclude others? I know that that is not the intention, and it is a question of the best way of making clear that there is no power in the regulations to exclude anybody with an expectation as laid down in Section 37 of the principal Act. I do not know whether or not the Lord Chancellor can answer that point now. That is why I suggest that in the same line—I suppose it would follow his Amendment—we should insert my suggested paragraph (c), the next Amendment on the Order Paper, which is to this effect:
  (c) the benefits which might have been expected to accrue if he had not ceased to be employed as aforesaid."
  We want to make it quite clear that there is no power to exclude under the regulations, and I would like the Lord Chancellor's view in regard to the best way to achieve that end.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I propose to put down an Amendment on Third Reading on that other matter and rather than detain your Lordships now on this matter, I think I had better take the opportunity of looking at it to see whether I can devise some Amendment that will meet the noble Viscount's point. It is not my intention to cut anybody out. On the other hand, I feel that I must be able to give more or less detailed instructions to these unhappy people who have to decide this question. If it is left completely at large, I fear that I shall have great difficulty from the fact that there will be such divergencies. The only object I have here is to try to formulate some regulations—a difficult task—so as to reduce to the narrowest limits any room for divergence. If two people in comparable circumstances go before two referees, one might get £1,000 and the other £200, and there would be great heart-burning. Although I do not want to jockey anybody out of his entitlement, I want to see whether I can canalise the position in my regulations so that I do not get these divergencies. I would suggest to the noble Viscount, if he is content, that
  1192
  we leave it at this for now, and I will see whether I can go a little further to meet him. I do not promise.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am content to do that. We mean the same thing—namely, that nobody is to be cut out. I think we should therefore accept his Amendment now, and perhaps he would rather I did not move my next Amendment, which he can consider between now and Third Reading, with a view to seeing whether it is right or whether something else would be right.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved in paragraph (b), of subsection (3) to omit "satisfies the requirements of the regulations" and to insert, "is fair and reasonable." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment and the three which follow all go together. They also deal with expectation, and they attempt to bring the powers and duties of the referee exactly into line with the Government's new subsection (3) (a) which we passed on Committee stage last week, and which directs the referee as to his duties with regard to rights. Unless we insert the Amendments standing in my name, I do not see how he can do that. He is not given a corresponding direction as to how to deal with expectation. It does not exclude the yardstick which the Lord Chancellor is going to lay down in his regulations, but if these Amendments are made your Lordships will see that the two cases, rights and expectation, will be brought exactly into line.
  As I propose in my Amendment, subsection (3) (b) would read in this way:
  "in a case where an expectation of accruer of any particular benefits in favour of a person to whom the said subsection (2), as amended as aforesaid, applies, or in favour of another person by reference to his employment, has ceased or been prejudiced as aforesaid, whether compensation provided in pursuance of regulations so made is fair and reasonable"—
  that is exactly the same as the Government Amendment on Committee stage—
  "and upon a reference under a provision of regulations having effect by virtue of this subsection, the referee or board of referees shall determine what benefits or compensation must be provided in order to satisfy the requirements of the principal Act or this Act and it shall be the duty of the person charged by the regulations with the provision of the benefits or compensation to give effect to the determination."

  1193
  I hope that I have explained the matter reasonably intelligibly. I am advised that the Amendments would bring the position with regard to compensation exactly into line with what the Government in Committee instructed the referee to do with regard to rights. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 7, leave out from ("made") to the end of line 8, and insert ("is fair and reasonable").—(Viscount Swinton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am going to look at this clause to see where we are, because I do not think this will do. After all, there are two things you can do. First, you can leave it to the arbitrator, and say, "Give to this man in respect of his rights and his expectation that which you consider fair and reasonable." The drawback is that if you do not give him directions in regard to that, you will get all sorts of divergencies. The alternative is to have regulations. Of course, if you have regulations the arbitrator has to comply with the regulations, and although we hope that what is arrived at will be fair and reasonable it is no good combining the two in this way. Your Lordships will see that what we have provided is this (I am referring to paragraph (b) at the top of the page):
  "in a case where an expectation of accruer of any particular benefits in favour of a person to whom the said subsection (2), as amended as aforesaid, applies, or in favour of another person by reference to his employment, has ceased or been prejudiced as aforesaid, whether compensation provided in pursuance of regulations so made satisfies the requirements of the regulations …"
  If you are going to have regulations, as is the case here, and are to do it in that way, then the task of the referee must be to see that he is carrying out the regulations. If, on the other hand, you are not going to have regulations, then by all means leave it to the referee to say what is fair and reasonable. But I think that will give rise to many difficulties.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, before the Lord Chancellor finally closes his speech, may I say this? You are going to have regulations about rights under paragraph (a), and the regulations will of course give the arbitrator or referee his yardstick about rights. Where you deal with rights, you say that the referee is to give what is "fair and reasonable." But he will be equally bound on
  1194
  rights by the regulations. If it is right to say that he is to do what is "fair and reasonable" about rights under the regulations, I should have thought that you ought to say that he should do what is "fair and reasonable" about expectations, still under the regulations.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think that that is correct. Where rights are concerned, a man has served the requisite time, whatever it may be. That can be calculated. There is not much room for error, not much chance that two referees will diverge. But if the noble Viscount will look at the Marshalled List he will see that we have just passed an Amendment at page 6, line 12 which is as follows:
  "("and (in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations) taking into account as regards the amount thereof, any loss of benefits which might have been expected to accrue by virtue of employment after the expiration of the period aforesaid")."
  When loss of benefits which might have been expected to accrue is being dealt with—this is an extraordinarily difficult subject, I admit—the referee has to deal with it to the extent specified in the regulations. It is not necessary to put him in the same harness with regard to dealing with rights.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that is probably right. At any rate, I do not think I can offer any very convincing argument that it is wrong, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 [Power to provide for enforcement against the Board of certain workmen's compensation liabilities]:
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. There were certain compensation trusts in existence before the Workmen's Compensation (Coal Mines) Act, 1934 which were continued in operation for the purposes of that Act. This Amendment is to make it clear that the definition includes, and the clause therefore applies to, those trusts. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 25, leave out ("trust established") and insert ("compensation trust").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  WAR DAMAGE (PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKINGS, &c.) BILL
  5.23 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 25), Bill read 3a.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, is pleased to give his consent, so far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, that the House may proceed therein as they shall think fit. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  On Question, Bill passed.

  COMMONWEALTH TELEGRAPHS BILL
  5.24 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  Compensation to employees of the operating company
  7.—(1) The Postmaster General shall have power, exercisable by statutory instrument, to make, with the consent of the Treasury, regulations providing for the payment by him out of moneys provided by Parliament, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, of compensation to persons who, on such date before the passing of this Act as may be specified in the regulations, were employed whole-time as officers or servants of the operating company, being—
  (a) persons who suffer loss of employment in consequence of the giving of effect to Clause 5 of the Commonwealth telegraphs agreement by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; or
  and any such regulations may make different provision (including the specification of a
  1196
  different date) in relation to different classes of persons.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved, in subsection (1) to omit "have power, exercisable by statutory instrument, to make." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I have put down to Clause 7 can be explained very briefly. Its purpose is quite plain. This clause deals with compensation to employees of the operating companies. It deals with those who may have suffered loss of employment or loss of emoluments. I have put down this Amendment in order to make the provisions of this clause not merely permissive, as they are now, but mandatory. I think it not unimportant that when a great change-over takes place, such as in nationalisation—or, as in this case, renationalisation—those who may suffer by the change-over should be compensated. Although, as I see it, there is every intention to compensate them in this Bill, it is important that the ordinary citizen when reading this Bill, either now or when it becomes an Act, shall see clearly that its intention is that justice shall be done. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 34, leave out from ("shall") to ("with") in line 35.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): I must apologise to the noble Lord opposite and to the Committee for not being present when the first Amendment was moved. I hope your Lordships will agree that our business this afternoon has not taken quite the normal and expected course. What the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, seeks to do is to make this clause mandatory, instead of leaving it permissive as it is at the moment. A point I should like to emphasise is that we have every reason to suppose that no occasion will arise for any person covered by this clause to claim compensation. That is the first point. That being so, there seems to be no reason for regulations to be made at this moment—and, of course, if the noble Lord's Amendment were inserted, then the Postmaster-General would have to make these regulations, whether they are applied or not. I know that the noble Lord and many of his friends have often complained that too many regulations are made by Government Departments. I hope, therefore, that on this occasion they will feel

  1197
  that one regulation less may be rather welcome. I should like to say further—and this is an assurance which I hope will give comfort to the noble Lord opposite—that it a single case of this kind were to arise, if one case of hardship were to arise, the Postmaster-General would make the appropriate regulation to cover it. I can give that firm assurance. That being so, I hope the noble Lord will feel that there is no reason whatever to fear that arty individual will be handicapped because Parliament is not insisting on the making of regulations at this stage.
  The next point I should like to make is in regard to the fears of the noble Lord, that there are certain individuals who, because their conditions of employment have suffered, might put forward what they consider to be reasonable claims. If he is thinking of those persons whose conditions of employment were changed as a result of the company being taken over by the Government in 1946, I can assure him that the claim of such persons would not be covered by this clause. This clause applies only to changes and conditions of employment which result from the Bill we are now considering. The changes which the noble Lord probably had in mind, and which certainly other persons had in mind, were changes which resulted from the agreement negotiated during 1946, which came into effect on January 1, 1947.
  My third and last point is that the staff associations which represent the interests of the individuals he has in mind have been carefully consulted, and they agree with the provisions of Clause 7 as they now stand. They consider that the clause covers the interests of their members. I am sure we all appreciate the noble Lord's desire to see that the employees of Cable and Wireless in the United Kingdom do not suffer as the result of their transfer to employment under the Post Office. That is a desire we all share. I hope very much that the noble Lord will be satisfied, from what I have said, that their interests are safeguarded by the clause as it now stands.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am obliged to the noble Earl for his lengthy and detailed reply, somewhat long-awaited. I gather from what he said that those whom this clause is meant to safeguard are probably few in numbers, if any exist at all. It is possible that no claims may be
  1198
  made under this clause. There is some force in what the noble Earl says about not making regulations and so wasting Parliamentary time, until such a case comes forward. I think that in legislation it is important to choose words which will allow those who read the law to see the manifest of our good intention. I am not so much concerned with the form as with the substance. I welcome the noble Earl's firm assurance that if any such person comes forward regulations will be made, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  Provisions as to referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service
  8.—(1) The Minister of Labour and National Service may with the approval of the Treasury, pay out of moneys provided by Parliament—
  (a) …
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved to add to subsection (1)
  "(c) to the persons specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Section six of this Act such expenses and allowances in respect of his attendance before the referee as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."
  The noble Lord said: This second Amendment is equally plain in its purpose. Boards of referees have been set up by this Bill to deal with anyone who has a case to bring if he feels aggrieved in the matter of pension. Provision is made in the Bill for allowances to be made to the referees, and to witnesses who will be called to give evidence on behalf of the appellant, but I cannot find anywhere that any provision is made for allowances to the appellant. So far as I can see, the appellant may receive allowances if he gives evidence. I do not know whether the same rule applies for a board of referees as in a court of law, but the accused in a court of law may give evidence on his own behalf if he so wishes. Has an appellant before a board of referees an opportunity of giving evidence, by which he would thus qualify to receive expenses? It all seems to turn on that. As the Bill does not expressly state this, I have taken the liberty of putting down this Amendment. I feel that the appellant is receiving very much less than justice. I hope the noble

  1199
  Earl will explain this clause carefully; he may possibly be able to allay my fears.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 3, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that his Amendment is unnecessary, because I can assure him that appellants will be in exactly the same position as witnesses, and will not have to pay their own expenses. In this Bill we are applying exactly the procedure already applied under other Acts, such as the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act and the Transport Act, which transferred staffs from employment in private companies to employment by public authorities. Under all these nationalisation measures, where appeal tribunals have been appointed a man with a grievance about pay or pension can apply in person; and in that event his reasonable out-of-pocket expenses will be covered. I have here, but I will not read it because I do not want to bore your Lordships with an unnecessarily lengthy speech at this stage of the proceedings, a book of instructions issued by the Department to officials of the Ministry of Labour, which authorises them to pay subsistence allowances and travelling expenses for appellants, if they ask for them.
  I am glad to give a firm assurance that appellants under this Bill will be entitled to claim travelling expenses and allowances for attendance before tribunals set up under the Bill. An additional reason why we do not wish to amend the Bill is that Clause 8 is common form in this type of Bill, and any Amendment made would cast doubt on the interpretation of other Acts and would make uncertain the position of appellants under existing Acts. In the light of these arguments, I ask the noble Lord to reconsider his Amendment.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am much reassured by the words of the noble Earl. I understand that if these words were inserted, they would conflict with similar clauses in other Acts of Parliament and might to some extent shake the public faith in them—and I dare say it would not stand very much shaking! I am much relieved to receive the noble Earl's assurance regarding costs for appellants and, though it does not specifically say so any-
  1200
  in the Bill, I am glad that they will be covered. We want to see justice done: we are not fussy about the form so long as we can secure the substance.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported without amendment.

  BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE BILL
  5.41 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  LANDS TRIBUNAL BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to, and one other Amendment disagreed to, for which disagreement the Commons assign a Reason: the said Reason to be printed.