HL Deb 31 May 1949 vol 162 cc1262-78

3.19 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 3 [Other provisions as to operation of United Kingdom and colonial laws in relation to Republic of Ireland]:

Consideration resumed of the Amendment moved yesterday by Viscount Simon.

VISCOUNT SIMON

Your Lordships will have realised that advantage was taken of the suggestion that there should be some consultation after the House rose yesterday. We shall all be glad if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor can tell us in a few moments that a conclusion has been reached which I am hopeful will be agreed. I had the honour of attending discussions between, on the one side, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the noble Lord, Lord MacDermott, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and others, and, on the other side, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, the Lord Chancellor and their advisers. I am glad to say that the result of that discussion is that an Amendment now appears in the name of the Lord Chancellor which, as it seems to me, deals in an entirely satisfactory manner with the point I raised in my Amendment. There is no substantial difference between the first of the two subsections in the Lord Chancellor's Amendment and what I was proposing, although have no doubt that the new Amendment covers the ground more accurately and completely. At any rate, it satisfies what, to my mind, is the one essential condition—that is, that the language should be plain and simple, so that those who are anxious to ensure that they are not losing their British nationality by anything in the present legislation should not have to consult Acts of Parliament or specialists, but should be able to answer the questions which are there raised from their own knowledge, to their own satisfaction and, as a result, find their position perfectly secure.

I do not think I can say the same about the second subsection in the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, with which I had nothing to do. However, it deals with a most complex question and I daresay this is the best way in which it can be stated. If anybody wants to see what is sometimes involved in doubtless most accurate drafting, he had better ask himself whether he really understands the second subsection without the assistance of some special guidance. I had nothing to do with that subsection and I have no doubt at all that it is quite correctly framed, though I think to most of us it has rather the appearance of a particularly difficult crossword puzzle. The main thing is that the point for which we were respectively contending and which the Lord Chancellor conceded in principle yesterday is now being met; and I have no doubt at all that it has been most admirably met by the clause which the Lord Chancellor is about to move and to explain. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.22 p.m.

LORD BROUGHSHANE moved, in subsection (2) (a) to omit "Republic of Ireland" and to insert "Irish Republic." The noble Lord said: In moving the first Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List, I have been influenced by what Lord Simon said yesterday—namely, that in the state of the law as between the Republic of Ireland and the British Commonwealth it should be plain that all who run may read. I consider it inadvisable that what I submit is an untrue statement should appear in clause after clause of the Bill, wherein the Southern Irish Republic is described as the "Republic of Ireland." That, I submit to the Committee, is not a fact, and therefore I am moving that for the words "Republic of Ireland" there should be substituted the words "Irish Republic." It is clear to everyone to whom I have put the matter that there is a vast difference between these two phrases, for the words "Republic of Ireland" would take in the whole of Ireland.

I remember the statement made by the Lord Chancellor on Thursday last as to the opinion of Mr. Ellison, who was representing Mr. Dulanty, the representative in this country of the Republic of Ireland, that in their view "Ireland" meant the whole of Ireland. Since then the Lord Chancellor has said that he has been in communication with the Government of Ireland and they have associated themselves with the opinion expressed by Mr. Ellison on behalf of Mr. Dulanty, that "Ireland" meant the whole of Ireland. As I said before, in a Bill such as this, a British Bill, introduced to make clear on the face of it what is the position, it is very undesirable that in clause after clause an untrue statement should be made. I submit that it is an untrue and incorrect statement to refer to the "Republic of Ireland"—"Irish Republic" is another thing. You can have several Irish Republics, if you so desire, within the area of Ireland; but to suggest that here there is an Irish Republic consisting of the whole of Ireland, as is now the claim of the Irish Government, is likely to mislead many people, especially foreigners. I submit that it is very desirable that these Amendments should be carried so as to make this British Statute—after all, it is a British Statute and not an Irish Republican Statute—plain to all.

It is rather remarkable that in another place a Member who referred to the "Irish Republic" was interrupted by several honourable Members who said "Not 'Irish Republic,' 'Republic of Ireland,' which is a different thing." That point has been urged again and again on behalf of the new Irish Republic—that they are the Republic of the whole of Ireland; that Ireland is an island, and that they are the Republic of that island. I know that the Lord Chancellor has contended that in the Bill the difference between the twenty-six counties and the six counties is definitely set out, but I submit that in a Bill having the authority of the British Houses of Parliament we should not have phrases admitting verbally that there is such a thing as the Republic of Ireland. That is an untrue statement which, in my submission, Should not appear in a British Statute. I hope very much that the Committee will say that that is so.

I think the Lord Chancellor said that he was rather surprised when he heard this statement by Mr. Ellison, but that we must not take it as gospel. I understand that the point has now been definitely put before the Irish Government, and they say that Mr. Ellison was correct in saying Ireland was an island and that the Republic of Ireland represented the whole of that island. If we had "Republic of Eire" I should not so much mind; we know what "Eire" is. But it seemed to me a simpler and less objectionable way of dealing with this matter simply to substitute for the words "Republic of Ireland," the words "Irish Republic." I therefore beg to move the first Amendment set out on the Paper in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 23, leave out ("Republic of Ireland") and insert ("Irish Republic").— (Lord Broughshane.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I very much hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I do not think he has got the Irish conception quite right. It was that on December 6, 1922, which is a long time ago, the area of jurisdiction of the Irish Free State was the whole of Ireland. That was the proposition. It is not the proposition that the whole of Ireland to-day is embraced in the Irish Republic. The difficulty is that if we had only ourselves to consider there might be something to be said for these Amendments. But we have not only ourselves to consider. Our strength is that we are a member of a great group of nations called the British Commonwealth, or the British Empire., or what you will. This matter has been discussed and negotiated between all of us, and the opinion of every constituent member of the British Commonwealth is that we should accept this title of "Republic of Ireland." It is the title that the Irish people themselves want to adopt and, although I do not say it is conclusive, yet when you come to nomenclature I think the fact that a man desires to call himself by a particular name is at any rate some reason why you should accept that name. It may to doubt be true that it would be better to talk about the "Republic in Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland." But that is the title which they have adopted; that is the title which every single member-State of the British Commonwealth has accepted; that is the title by which they will be known in all negotiations with foreign countries; in treaties and documents which they sign that is how they will be called. We should be putting ourselves completely out of step with the rest of the nations of the world if we adopted the noble Lord's suggestion.

I could understand any apprehension which the noble Lord might have, had this not been a Bill which had, on the face of it, a clear affirmation of the position of Northern Ireland. But having regard to the fact that there is, in full measure—as some people think overflowing; but at any rate in full measure—a declaration of the status and position of Northern Ireland, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. I am sure it would be wise to accept the name which Southern Ireland have selected as the name by which they want to be known. We wish them good fortune in the future, and it would be a great pity if, at this moment of parting, we were to do anything which might be construed as showing any petty feeling or I sympathise with the noble Lord but I would point out that there are all sorts of illogical names. I am not sure that the "United States of America" is not, in itself, a rather illogical name. Possibly the early framers of the Constitution thought that Mexico in the south and Canada in the north would come in. I am not sure that "Northern Ireland" itself is not illogical for, after all, the most northerly part of Ireland is in the area of—what shall I call it?—the "Republic of Ireland," the "Irish Free State," "Eire" or what you will. So I do not think that in Irish affairs we can appeal too strongly to logic. Having said that, I would add that I very much hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, for the reasons which I have given.

LORD BARNBY

No one would wish to introduce any contentious subject, and it is certainly not my intention to do so, but I took particular note of the remarks made by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and, remembering that there is a good deal of contention between the people in Northern Ireland and those in Southern Ireland on certain matters, I would be glad to have this point made clear. The Lord Chancellor's statement was that this was the name which the Irish people wished to adopt. I rise merely to suggest that it is not to be inferred from that that the people in Northern Ireland would not be Irish and it is also not to be assumed, ipso facto, that everyone in Northern Ireland agrees with the term being "The Republic of Ireland," and not the "Irish Republic." There seems to be some conflict on this subject.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Perhaps I might say one word about this Amendment. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, will realise that what I am going to say does not arise from any desire on my part to leave the situation unclear. I think I have made it evident in speeches which I have delivered in the course of our discussions on this Bill how strongly I feel on this question of Northern Ireland. Nor, if I may say so, with all deference, was I entirely convinced by the arguments used by the Lord Chancellor about the British Commonwealth. I may be misinterpreting him—I sincerely hope that I am not—but I had the impression that he said that here we had a matter on which there was a united view in the British Commonwealth, and that it would be very unwise to break the common front. My Lords, the essence of the British Commonwealth is that it is a free Commonwealth of free nations. We all have a perfect right to take our own line on any question. Other Commonwealth nations would claim the right to do exactly the same thing.

If I am a little doubtful about the Amendment which is now before the House it is because I do not really believe it is necessary, as the point is already covered. If the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, will look at the title of the Bill, he will see that it is described as: An Act to recognise and declare the constitutional position as to the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire. … That is the very title of the Bill. Then, if the noble Lord turns to Clause 1 (1), he will see that it specifically refers to "the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire," and if he turns to subsection (3) he will see that it says that it is the part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) that is to be referred to throughout the Bill as "the Republic of Ireland." Finally, if he looks at subsection (2), he will see that it is there made clear that Northern Ireland remains part of His Majesty's dominions. Therefore, I think that the point which the noble Lord is quite rightly anxious to assure is already made in the Bill. For that reason I would advise him on the whole not to press his Amendment, though I can assure him that I have great sympathy with the object which it seeks to achieve.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

Of course I will respond to the appeal which has been made by the Lord Chancellor and by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. But I would like to know from the Lord Chancellor whether this point was actually before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers—that the title used in this Bill should be "Republic of Ireland" and not "Irish Republic." As I said a few minutes ago, there was a great feeling that the words "Republic of Ireland" which apparently were deemed in some quarters as covering the Island of Ireland from sea to sea, should be maintained. The other day in another place there was an interruption when an honourable Member referred to the "Irish Republic." He was pulled up and objectors said: "Not 'Irish Republic'—'Republic of Ireland'."

When during the Second Reading debate the Lord Chancellor stated that it was customary for one of the parties to a treaty to accept the terminology suggested by the other party, I then said: provided it is in accordance with the fact." I added, if your Lordships remember, that, if the Irish Republic wished to put in "all the seas surrounding Ireland," we would not dream of putting in such words. If they desired to use some such words as that, then I venture to say we would not adopt them in an English Statute. If the Lord Chancellor can tell me that the matter I have just mentioned was before the representatives at the recent Conference, and in view of the appeal made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury and by the Lord Chancellor himself, I will, of course, withdraw my Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I did myself discuss this matter with the representatives of the Commonwealth at the recent Conference.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

3.38 p.m.

VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:

Amendment of s. 2 of British Nationality Act, 1948

(". Section two of the British Nationality Act, 1948 shall have effect as if the following subsections were added at the end thereof— (4) The Secretary of State, on receiving a claim by a citizen of Eire under subsection (1) shall issue to the claimant a certificate that he has made such a claim and that he or the person on behalf of whom the claim is made is accordingly a person who under the provisions of this section remains a British subject. Any person who has already made such a claim shall be entitled to request the issue to him of such a certificate and the Secretary of State upon receiving such a request shall issue to him a certificate accordingly. (5) Such a certificate shall be received in evidence in any court of law that the person to whom it refers was at the date when the certificate was given a British subject".")

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the other matter which I sought to raise in Committee on this Bill. I am glad to say it can now be disposed of very briefly. There is other business to be dealt with and I am sure everyone would like to get on with it. We have had on several occasions to refer to what I have ventured to call the "mysterious section," Section 2 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. It is enough to say that, according to the language of that section, a person who is a citizen of Eire and who loses British nationality under the operation of Section 1, may, none the less, regain it if he takes the steps prescribed in Section (2). The reason I have always thought Section 2 a remarkable section, is that the steps required are nothing more than writing a letter to the Home Secretary. There is in the section no provision whatever that the communication should be acknowledged. There is nothing in the section to say that a man who falls within its scope will get anything from the Home Secretary which will show for the future that he is a British subject, as he claims to be.

It seems to me that that was rather unfortunate, because there are many purposes for which a man who claims to be a British subject but gets that status only as the result of an application to the Home Office might be glad to have from the Home Office some document which really showed that he obtained what he asked for. This is purely a practical matter. The Lord Chancellor has pointed out that there is a certain difficulty about this matter because, of course, the man gets the restoration of his status of British subject only if it is the fact that he was a citizen of Eire and was losing British nationality under the previous section. It may be that my noble and learned friend, who I know has looked into this closely, has something to suggest which will be better than the present Amendment. If it is the case that he is to make a proposal that would reasonably meet this real difficulty which afflicts a number of people, I should not wish to press my Amendment in the form in which I have moved it. I shall be well satisfied if, when we hear his statement, I find that it reasonably meets the difficulty. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Simon.)

3.41 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The great difficulty about the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, as I have pointed out to him and now point out to your Lordships, is this. If you are a naturalised person, then a certificate of naturalisation is, as it were, your whole title. If one of us wants to obtain a British passport, it is enough for him to assert that he is a British subject. If there were any argument he would show that he or his father was born here. The trouble is that if the Home Secretary were to give a certificate to everyone who sent in an application it would cover a man who had wrongly claimed to be an Eire citizen. For instance, a German might come over here and put in a claim under this section. Obviously, by making a claim, he proves only one thing: that he has made a claim. He has still to prove that he is an Eire citizen, and that he has been a British subject up to the end of 1948 and has lost that status by reason of the passing of the Act. I am anxious that in this matter the Home Secretary should not have to investigate the facts at all. I think that would be a mistake. Under Section 6 of the British Nationality Act, he must make an investigation; but I want it to be purely automatic. A man sends in a claim, and if in fact he shows that up to the end of 1948 he was a British subject and an Eire citizen then the fact that he sends in a claim secures that he remains what he was—namely, a British subject.

I make the suggestion that the letter which the Home Secretary should send to him—because the Home Secretary is going to acknowledge his claim, while the claim, of course, will be kept—should be in these terms—and, incidentally, I may add that if the letter from the Home Secretary is lost, it will be possible to secure another copy of it by application. I will read the draft of the Home Secretary's letter prepared for me. I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge receipt of your letter of such-and-such a date notifying him of your claim to remain a British subject under Section 2 of the British Nationality Act, 1948. Section 2 provides that any person who is a British subject and a citizen of Eire on December 31, 1948, remains a British subject if he gives notice to the Secretary of State of his claim to remain so on any of the following grounds— Then the letter sets out the three qualifications given in the section. The effect of the step which you have taken is therefore that you remain a British subject, provided you were a British subject and citizen of Eire on December 31, 1948. This acknowledgment should be kept carefully, since you may need to show at some future date that you have given notice to the Secretary of State under Section 2 of the British Nationality Act. I think that letter will meet the difficulty which the noble and learned Viscount has in mind. I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree that so long as the conditions of procedure are satisfied, such a letter will achieve what is wanted, that such a person remains what he was before—namely, a British subject.

VISCOUNT SIMON

I think this is a great improvement and it may be that this is the right way to do it. There are two questions which I should like the noble and learned Viscount to consider, assuming we accept, as I think we should accept, the general plan which he proposes. His plan is that there should not be a change in Statute Law, but that there should be a public undertaking, that an application will be acknowledged in terms such as are contained in the rough draft. I think that is good. The first of the two points that occur to me is a minor one. I. suggest that the letter might include a statement that, if the Home Secretary's communication is accidentally lost, the applicant, by referring to his previous application, may get another copy. Otherwise, people who do not know much about these things might think that because they have lost the letter, there is nothing much they can do about it. I remember Jerome K. Jerome, in an amusing article on stage law, said that on the stage it was possible for the accidental loss of a marriage certificate to annul the most canonical of marriages. That is transpontine melodrama! But we do not want even the most ignorant person to suppose that if he has lost the document, there is no means of getting another copy.

My second point is this. Let us assume that we take this step. What will happen to a person if, having done all he can to recapture his British nationality, he goes to the Passport Office and asks for a British passport? Up to now, there has been followed a system which, I am glad to know, has been completely abandoned. No one suggests now that anyone has to apply to the High Commissioner of the Republic of Ireland to tell him whether he is or is not a citizen of Eire. That is all finished. But what is to be done?—because I suppose the Passport Office will take the view that they are willing to give a passport provided the two conditions to which the noble and learned Viscount refers are fulfilled. I think it would be very hard to say to an applicant, "You have to prove these two things to us at the Passport Office, or else we will not give you a passport." That imposes on an individual a task which he could not be expected to perform. How is he to prove whether or not he was a citizen of Eire under Eire law?

On the other hand, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that we do not want this to be a field for fraud, or even something more dangerous than fraud. I do not know whether he has considered this point, but I would suggest that if a man has taken steps under Section 2, amplified as the noble and learned Viscount now suggests, the Passport Office should not automatically say, "You have to prove these two things or we will not give you a passport." I suggest that, like a reasonable office, they should ascertain what are the circumstances by getting the information from the applicants or in any way readily ascertainable. Normally a passport should be granted, without insisting that the applicant makes out his case.

The noble and learned Viscount pointed out, no doubt correctly, that it was possible to grant a passport to a man who was not a British subject. We do not want to do that except in an occasional case of necessity or accident. I suggest that if we adopt the noble and learned Viscount's plan, which I know is put forward with every desire to meet our difficulty, the two points I mention ought to be considered. If, as I hope, the noble and learned Viscount will agree that my first point should go into the letter, and that the Passport Office should be instructed to grant passports where it is plain to them that there is a reasonable case, then I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I thank the noble and learned Viscount. I can give him the assurances which he is asking for on both points. It can easily be put in the letter that when the document is lost, it can be replaced. With regard to passports, if any ordinary man in the street applies for a passport, he is (in my recollection) vouched for by two responsible citizens, and that will be done here. The Passport Office will not ask the man anything about how he became a British subject. He will assert that he is a British subject, and unless there is reason to doubt his statement it will be accepted, and a passport will be issued to him just as it would be to any ordinary person. He will not have to show the root of his title to be a British subject. None of us has to do that. We do not have to say, "because we were born here," or "because our father was born here." We merely assert that we are a British subject, and get two people to vouch for it. The same thing will apply here.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There is one other question I would like to ask, although it is a more limited one. I take it that there are some very loyal people who, under Section 2 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, have since the beginning of this year already written to the Home Secretary and already received the unamended letter which is now to be altered. I hope it may be possible if any record is kept in the Home Office, for an amended version of the letter to be sent to those people, who will otherwise not have the same assurance as people who apply later.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I suppose the noble Marquess means if they ask for it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As I understand it, under Section 2 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, from January 1 it was proper for them to write and make a claim; and on doing so they received a letter which is now to be replaced by a better version.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If they write and ask for a better letter, they will certainly have it. Whether we can send the letter without their troubling to write, I do not know.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If it is possible, will that be done too?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will ask my right honourable friend to look into that. I do not know how many people have applied.

VISCOUNT SIMON

A few thousand.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Then I should think it will be possible. However, I will ask my right honourable friend about it.

VISCOUNT SIMON

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

3.54 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:

Provisions as to operation of British Nationality Act, 1948

".—(1) A person who—

  1. (a) was born before the sixth day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, in the part of Ireland which now forms the Republic of Ireland; and
  2. (b) was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of the British Nationality Act, 1948,
shall not be deemed to halve ceased to be a British subject on the coming into force of that Act unless either—
  1. (i) he was, on the said sixth day of December domiciled in the part of Ireland which now forms the Republic of Ireland; or
  2. (ii) he was, on or after the tenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and before the date of the commencement of 1275 that Act, permanently resident in that part of Ireland; or
  3. (iii) he had, before the date of the commencement of that Act, been registered as a citizen of Eire under the laws of that part of Ireland relating to citizenship.

(2) In relation to persons born before the said sixth day of December in the part of Ireland which now forms the Republic of Ireland, being persons who do not satisfy any of the conditions specified in paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection (1) of this Section, Sections twelve and thirteen of the said Act (which relate to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and to British subjects without citizenship) shall have effect and be deemed always to have had effect as if, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the said Section twelve, the words or a citizen of Eire' and in subsection (1) of the said Section thirteen, the words 'or of Eire' were omitted.

(3) So much of the said Act as has the effect of providing that a person is, in specified circumstances, to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having been a British subject immediately before the commencement thereof shall apply also for the purposes of this Section.

(4) Nothing in this Section affects the position of any person who, on the coming into force of the British Nationality Act, 1948, became a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British subject without citizenship apart from the provisions of this Section."

The noble and learned Viscount said: We now come to this new Amendment of mine, although I must not take credit for it. The credit of the scheme is as much due to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, as to anybody, but we asked our draftsman to do the technical work. The idea of this clause is to try to set out in subsection (1) a simple statement, which the ordinary man in the street can read and understand, showing the effect of the Bill. Then in the latter part of the clause we get to the technical part of it. That is very difficult, and the man in the street cannot read that—at least, he may read it but he will not understand it. I think we have carried out the conception which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, pressed upon us, and I feel that it has been well worth doing. I had originally drafted a clause which, though just as good as this, involved a great deal of research into law books, and that sort of thing. What I have tried to do now is to set out in the first part of the clause a simple statement as to what the result is and, in the second part, all the technical and somewhat dreary detail which is necessary.

I may add that I have asked the draftsman to consider carefully whether any amendment of the Title of this Bill is necessary. He tells me that he is satisfied that the new clause is sufficiently covered by the words in the Title: … to make provision as to … the manner in which the law is to apply in relation to it. The scheme of the new clause is this: A person who— (a) was born before the sixth day of December, nineteen hundred anad twenty-two,"— that is to say, the date of the Irish Constitution— in the part of Ireland which now forms the Republic of Ireland"— there is no doubt about what that part is, anyhow— and (b) was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of the British Nationality Act, 1948, shall not be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject on the coming into force of that Act unless either "— here we copy out three things from the Irish Act— (i) he was, on the said sixth day of December, domiciled in the part of Ireland which now forms the Republic of Ireland"— that is their phrase, borrowed from their Article 3 of the Constitution of 1922, although the word "domiciled" is to our way of thinking a clumsy word to introduce into this sort of legislation; there have been elaborate judgments, and indeed books, written on what "domicile" means, and it is not at all an easy point, yet we thought it better to follow the words of the Irish Act— or (ii) he was, on or after the tenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and before the date of the commencement of that Act, permanently resident in that part of Ireland "— this is borrowed from Section 2 of the Irish Nationality Act, 1935— or (iii) he had, before the date of the commencement of that Act, been registered as a citizen of Eire under the laws of that part of Ireland relating to citizenship. The last part, again, is borrowed from Section 2 of the Irish Nationality Act, 1935. So we have taken the Irish Act, and what we have done is to make it quite clear that that Act, and the Article in the Constitution, refers to that part of Ireland which is now the Republic of Ireland—call it the twenty-six counties, Eire, the Free State, or whatever you will. We have got away from the metaphysical concept that Ireland is all one, when obviously it is not. If it were all one, as the Irishmen sometimes think in the metaphysical celebrations which they go through, how happy we all should be! But unfortunately, when they come down to reality, they realise it is two. That is the broad statement of the fact, and I hope it is satisfactory to all your Lordships. Then there follows the detailed part of the clause which deals with the technical law. We have gone through this very carefully, and I am prepared to expound it to the best of my ability if any noble Lord asks me to do so.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Do the words "that Act" in sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) refer to the British Nationality Act, 1948?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, they refer to the British Nationality Act, 1948. I think we were all satisfied, after going into this matter with great care with our draftsmen and technical experts, that this clause does achieve what we want, and I commend it to your Lordships. I think it necessary that we should amend the British Nationality Act in this respect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I rise only to say that if the latter part of subsection (1)—namely, the three conditions as to domicile or residence in the twenty-six counties—were to be taken as an example of English draftsmanship, I should strongly object to it. It seems to me utterly unlike our ordinary ideas of drafting a clause of this kind to apply the word "domicile" to subsection (1), and to apply the words "permanently resident" to subsection (2). But I can see that there is a great advantage in following the Irish Statute in that respect, and if the Irish are pleased with it, I think we can, at any rate, say that the form of it is due to an Irish view, and we shall leave it where it stands.

VISCOUNT SIMON

As I anticipated, what the Lord Chancellor has said quite meets my point. The reason why I strongly urge the House to accept the Amendment without more ado is that, so far as subsection (1) is concerned, a man who reads it can apply what it says without consulting anybody. He knows where he was born, when he was born and where he resided. Since he knows all those things, he can easily find out for himself whether he comes within subsection (1) or not. Thai is the only point I ventured to urge earlier, and I think the Lord Chancellor has met it completely. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, that the poor fellow has to scratch his head and say: "One minute they ask me where I am domiciled, and the next where I am permanently resident." That is due to the peculiar language of Eire Statutes, and I agree that "domicile" is not the right word at all. Some people use "domicile" as though it meant the number of the house in the street in which they happen to live, very much as a French policeman will ask: "Where is your domicile tonight?" That is not the meaning of the English word at all. But, on the whole, I think it is better to copy the language of the Eire Act. Really the test is the same in both cases. As for subsection (2), I have nothing to add. It is a most remarkable example of draftsmanship, and it makes one wonder whether one day we shall not have to have a different system rather than this legislation by reference which results in the ordinary person who reads an Act of Parliament not having a glimmering of what it is all about.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 25), Bill reported with an Amendment: Bill read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.