Lords Sitting of 18 March 1952

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

POSTAL SERVICES
2.36 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question, of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make regarding alterations in the postal service.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am afraid my noble friend the Postmaster-General has not yet arrived. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be willing to postpone his Question and I will get in touch with my noble friend as goon as I possibly can. I hope this suggestion will be satisfactory to the noble and learned Viscount.
EARL JOWITT: Certainly. To-morrow would do, or some other convenient time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Balfour of Inchrye to advance his Motion, now standing for April 8, to Thursday, April 3.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CHILDREN OF DIVORCED PARENTS
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, whether any more knowledge of the value of the court officer recently
766
appointed to protect children in divorce cases is now available, and whether the time has now come to appoint some more.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I am glad to say that the Judges of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court are making increasing use of the services of the court welfare officer in divorce cases. Since the present officer was appointed in December, 1950, he has been consulted in nearly seventy-five cases in which there has been a dispute about the custody of, or access to, children. He has also helped the court to effect reconciliations in appropriate cases. I do not think that there is any need to appoint further officers at present, and I should prefer to review the matter again in the light of any recommendations which may be made by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Can the Lord Chancellor say what percentage those seventy-five cases represent of the possible cases in which the officer might have been consulted; and, also, whether it is possible for him to be consulted in cases which are not heard in London but are heard elsewhere in the country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I would rather defer a reply to these questions until a recommendation has been made. In any case, it is clearly quite impossible to answer the noble Viscount's first supplementary question unless I am first told in how many cases it would have been possible for the officer to be consulted. The matter must be purely one of opinion.

DENTISTS BILL [H.L.]
2.40 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 7:
Proceedings in disciplinary cases
7.—(1) For the purpose of proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee under the last foregoing section the Committee may administer oaths, and any party to the proceedings may issue out writs of subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum, but no person shall be compelled under any such writ to produce any document which he could not be compelled to produce on the trial of an action.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to omit subsection (1) The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, on Committee stage. It ties up with Clause 11. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out lines 11 to 23.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for having acceded to the suggestion that was made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("any such proceedings as aforesaid") and insert ("proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee under the last foregoing section").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Restoration of name erased in a disciplinary case]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, leave out ("subsection (2) of").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 21 to 26.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Transitional provisions]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, leave out ("subsection (1) of section seven and").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15:
Miscellaneous amendments relating to register
(5) No appeal shall lie under section nine of the Dentists Act, 1921, against any refusal or
768
failure to register a person's name in the register, being a refusal or failure to comply with a request made after the coming into force of this subsection.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to add to subsection (5):
"and no appeal shall lie under that section against the removal after the coming into force of this subsection of a person's name from the register on grounds other than those mentioned in the second paragraph of section thirteen of the Dentists Act. 1878
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting, Amendment to correct an omission in the Bill as it now stands. The matter has been discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 7, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("the General Dental Council, or the Disciplinary") and insert ("that").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, leave out ("subsection (2) of").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Registration in Commonwealth and foreign lists]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not know whether it is in order, but I have had correspondence with my noble friend Lord Selborne in regard to the Amendments he had tabled to this clause, and I have reason to believe that he may not move them. Perhaps that is the reason for his absence.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, is it not a fact that the noble Earl is not moving them?
Clause 18:
Power of Council to create classes of ancillary dental workers
18.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the General Dental Council may make regulations for the establishment of classes of ancillary dental workers to undertake dental work of kinds prescribed by the regulations,

769
being dental work amounting to the practice of dentistry within the meaning of that expression as used in section one of the Dentists Act, 1921 (which prohibits the practice of dentistry by persons other than registered dentists).
(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision as respects any class so established—

(a) for prescribing the qualifications for becoming a member of that class;

(b) for prescribing the dental work which a member of that class may undertake and the conditions, if any, under which he may undertake it;

(c) for the establishment of a roll or record for that class.

(3) The regulations shall be so framed as to secure—
(c) that the extraction of teeth by an ancillary dental worker as aforesaid is restricted to the extraction of deciduous teeth.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that nothing shall be done in the exercise of the powers conferred under this subsection which shall curtail the existing provisions for the training of dentists."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that you will all agree that we should like every patient to be dealt with by a fully qualified dental surgeon. If there is the slightest chance that the education of dental surgeons may be curtailed or in any way interfered with through the institution of ancillary dental workers, I feel that it is really only logical that this Amendment should be inserted at the end of Clause 18 (1). I hope my noble friend will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Teviot.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I hope he will not press this Amendment, because I am advised that, in point of fact, it is covered in Clause 18, page 14, line 6. It is better to have it there rather than here
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, with great respect, is it on the same subject? Page 14, line 6, says:
"(c) that the extraction of teeth by an ancillary dental worker as aforesaid is restricted to the extraction of deciduous teeth."
My object is in regard to the education of the dental surgeon.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord. Under Clause 18, we will move an Amendment for the insertion of the following paragraph:
"(c) that provisions in the regulations as to the arrangements to be made for training persons to become members of a class of ancillary dental workers do not materially impair the facilities for the training of dental students existing at the passing of this Act."
I think that covers the. point.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. That entirely covers my point. I did not include that in the wording to which the noble Earl referred. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that the regulations shall not permit a member of any class to undertake the extraction of teeth other than deciduous teeth."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment moved to meet various points concerning the limitation of ancillary workers to the extraction of deciduous teeth. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 37, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, is the word "deciduous" really appropriate? These are teeth which come out once, and once only; they are first teeth. When you are talking about "first teeth," must you really use the word "deciduous"? Does not the word "deciduous" usually connote leaves which fall every year? It seems to me that this is a case where a simple English word might do.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am advised it is the correct word. As they fall every year for various children, they are deciduous.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 2, leave out ("extraction or").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 3, after ("teeth") insert ("or the extraction of deciduous teeth").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is an Amendment designed to meet the point raised on the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—
"(c) that provisions in the regulations as to the arrangements to be made for training persons to become members of a class of ancillary dental workers do not materially impair the facilities for the training of dental students existing at the passing of this Act."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out lines 9 to 15.—(The Earl Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after subsection (5) to insert:
"(6) If a member of a class of ancillary dental workers uses any title or description reasonably calculated to suggest that he possesses any status or qualification connected with dentistry other than a status or qualification which he in fact possesses and which is indicated by particulars entered in the roll or record of the class in respect of him, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds:
Provided that where the regulations do not provide for a roll or record of the class in which particulars of professional status and qualifications may be entered, this subsection shall have effect as if the words and which is indicated by particulars entered in the roll or record of the class in respect of him' were omitted."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is also put down to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on the Committee stage, and I hope that it will satisfy him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I did not think there were any other matters concerning myself, but I thank the noble Earl very much for his concession.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: Would the noble Earl consider whether the use of the word "professional" a few lines from the end of the Amendment is quite appropriate?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing up that point. I gather that it is being discussed, and I am empowered to say that the Minister will give full consideration to it when the Bill goes through another place. There is no time to alter the Amendment in your Lordships' House.
EARL JOWITT: But there is time in our House, by putting down an Amendment on Third Reading. Why could not that be done?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl, and if he will put an Amendment down we will consider it.
EARL JOWITT: It does not concern me at all.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 31, leave out from ("that") to ("if") in line 32 and insert ("the further regulations need not be framed in accordance with this subsection").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this Amendment is moved to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, on Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 40, at beginning inset ("Where a roll or record is established for a class of ancillary dental workers").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this also is a redrafting Amendment, to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, which was accepted in principle on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 41, leave out from ("for") to ("unless") in line 44 and insert—

("(a) prescribing a fee to be charged when a person's name is entered in the roll or record,

(b) prescribing a fee to be charged in respect of the retention of a person's name in the roll or record in any year subsequent to the year in which that person's name was first recorded, and

(c) authorising the person in charge of the roll or record to erase from the roll or record the name of a person who, after such notices and warnings as may be prescribed by the regulations, fails to pay a fee prescribed under the last foregoing paragraph,

but the Privy Council shall not approve a draft of regulations under this section prescribing a fee under paragraph (a) of this subsection of an amount exceeding two pounds or a fee under paragraph (b) of this subsection of an amount exceeding one pound.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, leave out lines 1 to 4.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Duty to make arrangements for experimental scheme]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, to meet a point raised on the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 7, after second ("of") insert ("such").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this again is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 8, leave out from ("workers") to ("may") in line 9 and insert ("as is referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of the last foregoing section").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 36, leave out from ("kind") to end of line 38.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, again to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page l6, line 4, at end insert ("such").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment, designed to tie up various clauses that we have dealt with already. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 5, leave out from ("class") to ("continue") in line 7 and insert ("as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this again is consequential on an earlier Amendment, to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19 insert the following new clause:
Provisions supplemental to two last foregoing sections
".—(1) Section one of the Dentists Act, 1921, shall not operate to prevent a person doing anything which he is permitted to do by regulations under either of the two last foregoing sections, and the prohibition contained in that section on a person's holding himself out as practising or being prepared to practise dentistry shall not apply to a person for the time being permitted by such regulations to practise dentistry of any particular kind.
(2) The power of making regulations under either of the two last foregoing sections shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, shall have effect as if that power were a power conferred on a Minister of the Crown."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Further restrictions on bodies corporate]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this again is a consequential Amendment, to meet the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, on a point that he raised earlier. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 1, leave out from ("Council") to end of line 5.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Prohibition on practice of dentistry by laymen]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, leave out ("or").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is consequential, to meet a point raised by Lord Webb-Johnson on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22 at end insert ("or other dental appliances").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 24, leave out second ("or").— (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 25, after ("teeth") insert ("or other dental appliances"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 26, leave out the first ("or").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 26, after ("teeth") insert ("or other dental appliances"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after Clause 25 to insert the following new clause:
Conditions under which students may undertake dental work
".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section a person who, after the coming into force of this section, undertakes dental work in the course of his studies shall be treated for the purposes of the Dentists Acts, 1878 to 1927, and this Act, as practising dentistry if he would have been treated for those purposes as practising dentistry if he had undertaken that work in the course of earning his livelihood.
(2) Dental work shall not be treated for the purposes of the said Acts as amounting to the practice of dentistry if it is undertaken—

(a) by a person recognised by a dental authority as a student of dental surgery or of dentistry or by a person recognised by a medical authority as a medical student as part of a course of instruction approved by that authority for students of that kind or as part of an examination so approved, or

(b) by any person as part of a course of instruction which he is following in order to qualify for membership of a class of ancillary dental workers or as part of examinations which must be passed in order to qualify for membership of a class of ancillary dental workers.

(3) No dental work which a person undertook before the coming into force of this section in the course of his studies shall be treated for the purposes of the said Acts as amounting to the practice of dentistry.
(4) In this section the expression medical authority' has the meaning assigned to it by section two of the Dentists Act, 1878."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really a redrafting Amendment, to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, which we accepted in principle on the Committee stage. It seeks merely to tidy up the Bill in the correct and most convenient wording. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 25, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 28 insert the following new clause:
Evidence in proceedings before Council and Disciplinary Committee
(".—(1) For the purpose of any proceedings under this Act before the General Dental Council or the Disciplinary Committee relating to the removal of a person's name from the register, or its restoration to the register, or relating to the withdrawal from a body corporate of the right to carry on the business of dentistry, the Council or Committee, as the

777
case may be, may administer oaths, and any party to the proceedings may issue out writs of subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum, but no person shall be compelled under any such writ to produce any document which he could not be compelled to produce on the trial of an action.
(2) Section forty-nine of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 (which provides a special procedure for the issue of those writs so to be in force, throughout the United Kingdom) shall apply in relation to any such proceedings as aforesaid as it applies in relation to causes or matters in the High Court.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause:
Clause 30 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, to tidy up the Bill and to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 31, leave cut from ("means") to end of line 32 and insert—
("(a) in a case relating to the removal of a person's name from the register, or its restoration to the register, that person, and
(b) in a case relating to the withdrawal from a body corporate of a right to carry on the business of dentistry, that body corporate and any director of that body corporate, and
(c) in any case,").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 19, after ("register") insert ("or determinations to withdraw from bodies corporate the right to carry on the business of dentistry").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is also a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 40, leave out ("this repeal") and insert ("subsection (5) of section fifteen of this Act or the removal before that time of a person's name from the register on grounds other than those mentioned in the second paragraph of section thirteen of the Dentists Act, 1878.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

POSTAL SERVICES
3.0 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I see that the Postmaster-General is here now. Perhaps it may now be convenient to ask him the Question of which I have given the Government private notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make regarding alterations in the postal services.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Earl for putting this Question now, and I apologise to the House for having been detained on unavoidable business. I know that there have been some suggestions of major changes in the postal services. I am happy to be able to tell your Lordships that this is not intended.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (No. 1) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES (COM MONWEALTH COUNTRIES AND REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) BILL
3.2 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.—(Lord Ismay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Immunities of representatives of Commonwealth countries and Republic of Ireland and certain other persons
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section—

(a) a person for the time being recognised by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as the chief representative in the United Kingdom of any country to which this section applies, whether he is known by the title of High Commissioner for that country or by any other title, (in this section referred to as "a chief representative"), shall be entitled to the like immunity from suit and legal process, and the like inviolability of residence, official premises and official archives as are accorded to the envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to Her Majesty;

779

(b) such members of the official staff of a chief representative as are performing duties substantially corresponding to those performed by members of the official staff of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power shall be entitled to the like immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to members of the official staff of such an envoy:

(c) members of the family of a chief representative or of a member of the official staff of a chief representative entitled to immunity under the last preceding paragraph shall be entitled to immunity from suit and legal process to the like extent as members of the family of such an envoy or, as the case may be, of a member of the official staff of such an envoy; or

(d) members of the domestic staff of a chief representative shall be entitled to the like immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to members of the domestic staff of such an envoy:

Provided that a person who is a member of the official or domestic staff of the chief representative of any country, and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is not a citizen of that country, shall not be entitled under this subsection to immunity from suit and legal process, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of his duties, and the members of his family shall not, as such, be entitled to any immunity from suit and legal process.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
EARL JOWITT: I wish to ask a question on this clause. It is the same question as that which I indicated to the noble Lord during the Second Reading debate the other day. Before doing so, however, I should like to say this. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Ismay, has had a comparatively brief stay in Ministerial office, and I understand that he will shortly be leaving us. On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House I should like to say what I am sure all sides of the House would say—that we wish him the very best of luck in the new task which befalls him. He will understand that he undertakes that task with the complete good will, not only of his own section of the House but of the opposing section also. We are all at one in hoping that the noble and gallant Lord will have happiness and success in the great task which he has undertaken. I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying that, and now I will turn to the question I want to raise on Clause 1.
The question arises out of the proviso to subsection (1). If I had drafted an Amendment—and I say, quite frankly,
780
that I did not think the matter suffiently important for me to do so—I should have moved to leave out: "and is not a citizen of that country,". The point relates to dual nationality, and the position, as I understand it (the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong), is really this. Dual nationality is very common, particularly in the Commonwealth countries. Many people born in the Commonwealth countries come to live over here, and identify themselves completely and absolutely with this country. In the case of Ireland, too, I have no doubt that there are many noble Lords who, by accident of birth, happen to be both citizens of the Republic of Ireland and citizens of the United Kingdom. The situation is one which, as I have said, is quite common. Now this clause concerns the type of immunity and the extent of immunity which people shall have, and paragraph (d) of the clause deals with the immunity to which members of the domestic staff of a chief representative shall be entitled. May I tell the noble Lord at once, in order to avoid any misapprehension, that I entirely agree that members of the domestic staff of a chief representative should be entitled in all circumstances to immunity in respect of their official acts. I concede that. The question is: should members of the domestic staff be entitled to a wider immunity than that if they possess dual nationality?
I start this consideration from the fact that in my view we should confer diplomatic immunity very sparingly. I think we ought not to go one iota beyond what is reasonably necessary. If the noble Lord told me that Dominion countries have stipulated for and insisted upon this provision, then that, to my mind, would be a complete answer. But I do not believe for a moment that they have done so. To illustrate the problem may I visualise a case of this sort? Suppose, for example, we have someone serving with the chief representative of Canada, and let us assume that he is a domestic servant who is both a Canadian and a citizen of this country—a common state of affairs. Should he be given immunity limited to his official acts—which I say he ought to have—or should there be further extended to him an immunity not relating merely to his official acts but to every private thing he does? For instance, if he drives his car negligently and causes

781
an accident, or gets into a brawl or anything of that kind, should he have immunity, his action, ex hypothesi, having nothing whatever to do with his official duties? Starting from the assumption that these immunities should be limited as far as possible—because, be it observed, what is called immunity for one man is a deprivation of privilege for another—I ask: why, except in regard to his official acts, should this man possessing a dual nationality be entitled to any greater privileges than those enjoyed by a pure and simple Englishman?
I should like the noble Lord, Lord Ismay, to consider that point. As I have intimated, I do not pretend that it is a point of great importance, and I think I should say why. It is not a point of great importance because, in practice, these diplomatic representatives behave themselves very carefully and with such complete propriety that these troubles do not arise. In practice, they waive immunity. Therefore, it is, I entirely agree, a somewhat abstract question. I think it is right that that should be said. Nevertheless, we in this country pride ourselves on living within the rule of law. We pride ourselves—rightly, to my mind—that every one of Her Majesty's lieges is entitled to the protection of the law. It is not right, in my view, that if one of Her Majesty's lieges is knocked down by a motor car he should not have a right to bring his action and should have to be dependent on some representative waiving privilege. I think that that is undesirable. Therefore, although, for the reasons I have given, I do not pretend that the matter is one of great fundamental importance, there is here a. chance for all sections of this House—for I think I shall have supporters in all sections—to lay down the principle that in these matters they will not go one step further than is necessary. If the noble Lord tells me that various Dominion Governments have said that they attach importance to this provision and want it, I shall regard that as a complete answer, and I will say no more on the subject. But if they have not stipulated for this, I say that, so long as a man is a citizen of the United Kingdom, no matter what else he may or may not be, he ought not to have any immunity except in respect of official acts: and that immunity I would give him to the full
782
I have given the noble Lord notice of my intention to raise this question, and I should like him now, if he will, to tell me whether he feels that it is necessary to retain these word,
"and is not a citizen of that country."
The matter is related simply to dual nationality and I put my proposition again quite shortly. It is this. If a man is a citizen of this country, and is serving as a domestic servant of a chief representative of one of the countries affected by this Bill, then he ought to be given immunity only in respect of his official acts and not in respect of the various private acts which he may perform. It is for that reason that I raise this question. I shall be most grateful if the noble and gallant Lord will apply his mind to it and give me an answer.
3.10 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (LORD ISMAY): I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Earl for his kind references to my early departure from my present office. I can assure the House that my new appointment was none of my seeking, but I promise to do my utmost, and it will be the greatest encouragement to me to know that I have the good wishes of your Lordships. On the particular point which the noble and learned Earl has raised, I confess that I did not have notice of this question. I am afraid it was my fault. It is a technical legal question, and right outside my knowledge. I thought it was perfectly clear that in Commonwealth countries there would be a large number of people of dual nationality owing to the fact that their fathers were born here, and it was for that reason that we could not apply the same rule as was applied by the Foreign Office in the case of foreigners. But when it comes to the point of actions done on or off duty, in a personal capacity or officially, I would beg the noble and learned Earl to let me look into the matter and see what can be done at a later stage of the Bill. I hope that that course will be convenient to him.
EARL JOWITT: That will be entirely convenient to me. I had a conversation of some considerable length on the telephone this morning with somebody who represented himself as a person who spoke for the noble Lord. I expounded to him the point involved, and said it

783
over again to make quite sure he had it correctly. I am sorry that it did not filter through to the noble Lord himself. It will be perfectly convenient if he will look into it and tell us at a later stage of the Bill whether he really wants to retain these words. If he does, I shall not complain, but I think it would be wiser to consider whether these words might not go.
LORD ISMAY: I am sorry I did not receive notice. I am sure it is my fault; but for the moment I am trying to do one job and get into another, and I have not been back to my office since early this morning.
On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
House resumed.

INSURANCE CONTRACTS (WAR SETTLEMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
An Amendment reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Power of Her Majesty to give effect to certain Agreements relating to insurance contracts]:
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert:
"(3) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the Committee stage of the Bill the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition suggested that, while he entirely accepted the proposal, which indeed we had agreed, that further Treaties under this Bill should be subject to Affirmative, and not Negative, Resolution, the form in which we carried the Amendment last time was unnecessarily cumbrous in that it required the presentation of Addresses from both Houses of Parliament. The noble and learned Earl suggested that we might consider whether there was not an alternative and simpler form. I have consulted the Parliamentary draftsman and found that we can
784
ensure the Affirmative Resolution procedure and at the same time avoid the formality of an Address. I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Earl for the suggestion. Therefore I beg to move to leave out subsection 3, which the House inserted last time, and in its place to insert these words:
"(3) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament."
That preserves the requirement for an Affirmative Resolution and makes the form of the subsequent procedure the simplest possible.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has done. This Amendment gives me all the substance I asked for, and I think the form is better. I take this opportunity of saying that I hope this form will now become common form. I am sure we all feel that we must relieve the Sovereign of all the extra duties we can, because the duties that fall upon her are already sufficiently onerous. This proposed arrangement is a small matter, but still, in bulk, it will effect a considerable saving of time. I think it is a useful innovation, in this sense: that at the present moment we have both forms, and unless there is good reason to the contrary I very much hope that the form we are now adopting will become the current form. It gives us exactly what we want in the way of an Affirmative Resolution and yet saves the Sovereign and those who advise her a certain amount of work which otherwise would be cast upon them.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.

DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past three o'clock.