Sitting of 22 July 1948

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
  2.4 p.m.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments, made: Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

  GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made: Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
  DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made: Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order), on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of July 15), Bill read 3a and passed.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EXETER) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order), on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of July 15), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HUDDERSFIELD) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order), on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of July 15) Bill read 3a, and passed.

  BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]
  2.9 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the issues which are raised by this measure are, of course, familiar to your Lordships. The Bill had already been fully discussed in this House before it went to another place. It was originally recommended to your Lordships by the Government as a non-controversial measure, merely incorporating the results of certain inter-Commonwealth discussions with regard to a number of technical matters. That was certainly the impression which was given to the House. As your Lordships know, this House, with all its wealth of experience on questions connected with the Commonwealth and Empire, felt itself unable to take so lighthearted a view as the Government took with regard to all the issues raised by the Bill. We believed that it was a deplorable measure, and we felt bound to say so. We thought it a thousand pities that it had ever been introduced, and we considered it likely to be most regrettable in its effect upon the structure of the Commonwealth.
  I do not want to go in great detail into the arguments which have already been exposed here, but I would remind your Lordships quite briefly that we did not like Clause 1 because we thought it would tend seriously to weaken the ties of Empire; and we did not like Clause 2, not only because we felt that it would

  1175
  be deeply resented by our oldest and nearest friends, the loyalists of Southern Ireland, but because of the wider implications of such a step—to which, in fact, it appeared that little attention had been paid. Holding the views we did, we introduced certain Amendments which were designed to neutralise the unfortunate results we thought were likely to follow from this measure, and especially in respect of Clauses 1 and 2. I can assure the Government—indeed, I think they know already—that the serious preoccupations we expressed arose from no desire to embarrass them in any way whatever. Indeed, those preoccupations have, since the debate took place, been widely echoed in the responsible Press and elsewhere. More than one the great newspapers and periodicals said that they thought it regrettable that this measure had been so hurried and that so little time had been taken, not merely for Governments to consider the changes made but for the general public—who are, after all, the people who matter—to appreciate, as they certainly do not at present, the implications of the changes which are now being introduced.
  It is, I think, quite evident to any of those who have considered this measure that Clauses 1 and 2 not merely are technical changes but raise constitutional issues which, in our view, deserve more serious consideration than, up to now, has been given to them. We had hoped that the Government and the Socialist majority in another place would recognise the substance of the arguments we urged, and, if they did not find it possible to accept our Amendments in the form in which they were tabled, would try to find some other method of meeting the very real dangers of which we were apprehensive. But in fact our Amendments were given no very serious consideration in another place; they were swept away as of little or no importance. I am frankly extremely doubtful whether the other place showed itself capable of understanding the whole nature and extent of the dangers about which we have so much anxiety. At any rate, they restored the Bill to its original form, and we in this House must deeply deplore that action.
  The question now arises, and must arise for all of us, what, if any, further action your Lordships can take with regard to
  1176
  this matter, about which we feel so keenly. I can assure the Government that we are most anxious not to give a Party character to an issue of this kind. On the other hand, as I have explained, we are genuinely perturbed as to the effect of this legislation. We believe the implications are not entirely, if at all, realised either in this country or in the Dominions. I do not mean by that that they are not realised by the Government Departments concerned; I mean by the general public. In support of that, I would mention—and perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has had the same experience—that since our last debate I have had letters on this subject from a number of people who obviously had not realised the implications and would not have realised them at all if these debates had not been raised. Even now, the implications are recognised only by a few people who are specially interested in these matters.
  I now have a suggestion to make which I hope the Government may find it possible to accept. I do this, not with the object of provoking controversy but of allaying it. We on our side of the House are prepared not to take any further action to insist upon our Amendments; and we hope that the Government, on their side, will give us an assurance that the implications and dangers to which attention has been drawn in the Parliament of the United Kingdom will be brought to the notice of the Prime Ministers of the other Empire countries at the forthcoming meeting of Prime Ministers in the autumn. We hope that we may be given, also, an assurance that further discussion will take place with them, at the highest level, on the new implications which have been exposed in Parliament here, and that, if possible, in the statement which will no doubt be issued at the end of the meeting, some indication will be given to the public of the purport of the discussions and of any conclusions that may have been reached. In my recollection, after the meetings that took place during the war there was always a fairly full statement made; and if we could obtain assurances that an opportunity will be provided of indicating to the public the purport of these discussions, and the general conclusions reached, we could at any rate feel that these important and maybe vital matters have had the full consideration

  1177
  which they undoubtedly deserve. I recommend this course to the Government, sincerely and with all good will, and I hope that they will find it possible to accept it.
  2.20 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think we should all have felt happier if this Bill had been introduced at a later Session, so that the Conference of Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth, which we all hope will be held before the end of this year, could have had the whole subject before them and could have decided whether the principles which were agreed to at the 1946 Conference were valid to-day. But the Government have thought fit to persist with the Bill during this Session, and we have to face the fact. Moreover, I wish that the Government, before introducing the Bill, had thought fit to take into consultation certain noble Lords who have great experience of Commonwealth and of Colonial matters. In particular, I have in mind the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. As the noble Marquess points out, this is in no way a Party matter. We are all anxious to do everything possible to preserve and to consolidate the ties which happily bind all members of our great Commonwealth. Consultation between all Parties on a subject of this sort would seem to me to be a natural and well-advised course. However, the Government have chosen a different way and, therefore, clearly they must accept full responsibility for everything that the Bill contains.
  Two principal points seem to me to have emerged during the discussions which took place both in your Lordships' House and in another place on various clauses of the Bill. The first touches the Commonwealth aspect. We have been told that, after the Conference of Prime Ministers in 1946, there was a conference of experts from the various parts of the Commonwealth, and the Bill was a result of their labours. To my mind, that is a factor of the greatest importance, and we must take it into account when we make our final decisions upon the Amendments now before us. Frankly, I have never been much impressed with the view that it was only a conference of experts. After all, the experts did report each to his own Government and, so far as I know, no Government took any objection to the
  1178
  finding of those experts. Therefore, I think it may be said quite honestly that the Bill, as it affects the Commonwealth, is more or less an agreed measure. If that is so, I think we should be almost foolhardy, and certainly foolish, if we tried to disturb the arrangements made, whether we believe them to be satisfactory or not. I hold the view that to try to change them at this last minute might be to endanger that unity of Commonwealth which we all desire to see maintained.
  The second point is that of the Colonies. We have been told that the main contents of the Bill were submitted to the Governor of practically every Colony, and that no objection was taken by any of them. I think that that shows a most remarkable degree of unanimity. I do not think that we can ignore it and, therefore, we must accept their views. We have given another place every opportunity of reconsidering the phraseology of certain terms of the Bill to which we attach great importance, and also of considering whether it might not have been wiser—some appear to think it might have teen —to postpone parts of the Bill as it stands to-day. The Bill has been returned to us practically in its original shape. The Government have had no second thoughts. For those reasons, and for the reasons I gave earlier—and I hope I speak for the noble Lords who sit on these Benches—I feel that we are bound to accept the Amendments which have been sent to us from, another place, at any rate, so far as they concern the Commonwealth and the Colonies. I shall have a point to put to the noble and learned Viscount upon Clause 5 but, as that concerns a small domestic issue, I shall, wait till that Amendment is put.
  2.26 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I certainly have no desire to rake over the embers of Party controversy. Of all the subjects upon which I regret controversy, I regret it most upon any subject dealing with the British Empire und Commonwealth. Of course, I should never think of suggesting for one moment that the noble Marquess or any of those who act with him would use this subject as an opportunity for stirring up Party controversy. I am sure that he, on his part, equally will realise that we should never introduce a Bill of this sort merely to

  1179
  gain some Party advantage. This is something which all Parties hold much too sacred to be within the ordinary realm of Party politics. However, I am bound to say that we regarded this matter from a very different point of view. We introduced the Bill in order to keep alive and effective something which we all realise to be of the utmost importance—namely, the status which we all possess, the common nationality which we all hold. In the past that had been achieved by having either one code of laws or a series of codes of laws, all in substantially identical terms; but that condition had broken down. Therefore, if we were to achieve and maintain this common status, in our view there was only one way to do it. That was to allow—although it is not a question of allowing, because they can do it—each member of the Commonwealth to pass its own legislation laying down who are its own citizens, and for all citizens of the various Commonwealths to become automatically British subjects. That is the principle behind the Bill.
  That is all I will say about that matter. I cannot help thinking, however, that underlying all this controversy there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and misconception as to what I agree is a rather difficult, though important, Bill. I come to the specific question which the noble Marquess asked me. Let me answer him in this way. The question of British nationality was discussed at the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers held in 1946, and subsequently by a conference of technical representatives from Commonwealth countries. The recommendations of this conference were submitted to Commonwealth Governments, and the scheme embodied in Clause 1 of this Bill gives effect to them. All Commonwealth Governments have been kept fully informed of the action taken by His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom to carry out these recommendations. They have had full reports on the Bill and on the discussions which have taken place on it in both Houses. At the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in October, these will be available for discussion, if so desired. So I think that the noble Marquess (if he did not hear it, he can read afterwards what I have said) will realise that I am able to give him the assurance
  1180
  he wanted. There will be ample opportunity for the fullest discussion of this matter. Already the reports of all these discussions have been sent to each of the Commonwealth Governments.
  2.30 p.m.
  LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I wish I could say that we on this side of the House were convinced by the arguments which were used in another place, and which have been used again since then, upon the merits of this Bill. In common with my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I say that our dislike of the Bill remains as strong as it ever was; and the anxieties which we feel about its possible effects have in no way been lessened. I deeply deplore the fact, because it is obviously desirable that the solid consensus of Parliamentary opinion in this country should support any fundamental change in a matter affecting the unity of the Commonwealth. I deplore it the more particularly, as did my noble friend, because the division between us has, unfortunately, tended to take Party lines. That we deplore very deeply. We quite understand the motive of the Government in introducing this Bill, and we approve it. The object of the Bill is to maintain a common status as closely as it can be maintained. That, we not only understand, but approve. But we are very doubtful about the means taken.
  I am no more desirous than the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack of raking over the embers of this controversy, but we do feel that it is unfortunate that the hall-mark upon the King's subjects of this country, and of the Colonial Empire, will derive in the first place from the administrative and governmental system to which they all belong; and that, in a sense, therefore, allegiance to the King, which has hitherto been the single basis of it, will be secondary, and to that extent derivative. But perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can help me on this point. I am deeply concerned as to what is to appear on our passports. It is an interesting test case. As everybody knows, on the first page of a passport, when it is opened, on the left, there is the direction of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs calling upon all people to offer aid and comfort, and so on, to the bearer of the passport. On the other side, there

  1181
  is the description of the bearer; and at the bottom of that page, under the heading (on one side "National Status" and on the other, in French, "Nationalité"), there appears, "British subject by birth." I hope that that description will still remain, and I would particularly ask whether we can be given an assurance to that effect. I think that is a really important matter.
  If that were done, it would also, to some extent, affect the objection which we have felt in regard to the change of nomenclature throughout the Colonial Empire. I still think that it would be far better that the Colonial Empire should know that all its members were simply subjects of the King, and that they should not bear a description or a label which really is expressive of an administrative unity based in Whitehall. But there it is. We have described our feelings. We have produced our arguments. I feel, with my noble friend, that due weight was not attached in another place to this matter, and that due consideration was not given to it. Nevertheless, we are unwilling to press these arguments any further at the present time.
  One course is still open—and to some extent the assurance which has just been given by the Lord Chancellor, for which I thank him, is of assistance to us upon this point. We are not satisfied that the general public, here or elsewhere, have hitherto been given sufficient opportunity of grasping and weighing the effects of this Bill. Of course, the subject does not lend itself to public exegesis, or to discussion on a really popular scale. But in this country and in the Empire there is a very large body of instructed opinion, both inside and outside Parliaments, which is deeply concerned in questions of this kind. The Proceedings of the Imperial Conferences of old were particularly valuable, because they enabled this body of opinion to study and digest the views of Dominion statesmen and to form its judgment upon the questions with which they dealt.
  Whilst I recognise, with the Lord Chancellor, that this matter was fully discussed at the meeting of Imperial statesmen in 1946, the fact remains that the Proceedings of that Conference were never published in an authoritative form. I think the Government themselves are to some extent responsible for the fact that
  1182
  the significance of that Conference was not realised. So far as I know, it was not referred to in the White Paper which accompanied the Bill, and the statements made in that White Paper about Dominion opinion were extremely tentative. We were led to believe that it was very uncertain to what extent the other Dominions (apart from Canada, which had taken the lead), would conform. We feel that particularly, as this is a matter for which the United Kingdom Parliament has a special responsibility which cannot be ignored. We therefore regret that instructed opinion throughout the Commonwealth has not had the documents, or the time, to form a considered judgment upon the provisions and the implications of this Bill.
  I welcome what the Lord Chancellor said as to the intention of the Government to present to the meeting of Commonwealth statesmen later this year the results of our discussions here. That is some comfort to us, but if that is to be done, I think it is absolutely essential—and I hope the Government will be able to give us this further assurance—that when those consultations have been held, when those opinions have been presented to the conference and considered, we should be given some authorative account of the proceedings. The old-established procedure by which the Imperial Conference published its own proceedings was immensely valuable to the large body of opinion which is profoundly interested in Commonwealth affairs. It is not enough to be told that the Dominions have been kept informed, that the Dominions are being consulted, and that a conference was held. We want to know what was said at that conference. We want to know the views of the different Dominions, and whether those views are liable to be changed.
  As your Lordships know, one Government in the Commonwealth have already changed since that Conference took place; and for all we know, others may change in the future. Nobody knows in these times for how long Governments may endure; General Elections are always taking place. It is essential that we know what views were expressed, and I believe that the other democracies of the Commonwealth should know what views ware expressed. I hope that in the discussions which are now to be held the importance of that will be emphasised by our

  1183
  Ministers. With that request for an extra assurance, which I hope will be given, and with the request for an answer, which I hope can be given now, upon the form which will be used in our passports when this Bill becomes law, I would say only that, greatly as we dislike it, and greatly as we deplore the effect that we feel it may have upon sentiment and upon the unity of the Commonwealth, we are not prepared at the present time to press our objections any further.
  2.39 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for a moment to answer, so far as I can, the two questions which were put to me by the noble Lord who has just sat down. With regard to the proceedings of the 1946 Conference, which I attended throughout, I may say that the form of the communiqué issued (which, as the noble Lord said, was brief), was issued after careful, friendly and long consideration by the Conference itself. The very words of the communiqué were discussed and settled by the Conference; and it was in accordance with the wish of the Conference, owing to the intimate and very friendly character of the matters discussed, that the publicity was in that form. So far as the proceedings of the Conference which we hope will take place in the near future are concerned—the noble Lord knows as much about these things as I do—I cannot give any pledge. As was the case last time, it will be for the Conference to decide how its proceedings will be published.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we recognise that what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House says, is quite correct. But it rests with His Majesty's Government to create the opportunity for these things to be discussed. That is within their power.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Marquess has, I hope, the text of the reply given by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, which was very carefully considered. As the noble Marquess, like myself, has an intimate knowledge of these Conferences, he knows that they decide their own agenda, and their own form of publicity. We all know how these things are arranged. It is for the Conference, and
  1184
  the Conference only, to agree upon its agenda.
  LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, of course we all agree with what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has just said. But, after all, the views of the Government of the United Kingdom carry great weight with the Conference, and we should like an assurance that, so far as they are concerned, this matter will be fully discussed and the proceedings will be reported.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, we all have knowledge of the nature of the proceedings at these Conferences and all that is involved. I assure the noble Lord that, with the best will in the world, and with every anxiety to be as helpful as I can, I cannot add anything. This form of words was deliberately and carefully considered and I am sure that it is right. As to the passport point, of which I did not receive notice, I have received some help from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and I now have a little note about it. The Foreign Office have not yet considered what description would be appropriate on passports. As your Lordships know, the Bill does not come into operation until January 1 next. The problem is one upon which the Foreign Office will be glad to receive the views of noble Lords. Therefore, I shall take care to transmit to the Foreign Secretary the views which noble Lords have expressed to-day.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I assume that it will meet the convenience of your Lordships that consideration of the question of the Title of the Bill should be postponed. Perhaps it will be in accordance with the wishes of the House, also, if I put together the various Amendments under each clause. With your Lordships' permission I will adopt that course.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  [The references are to Bill No. 119 as printed for the House of Commons.]
  Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out ("British subject or")
  Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out ("thereby") and insert ("by virtue of that citizenship")
  Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in these Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  After Clause 1, insert the following clause—
  Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects.
  ("(1) 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, that is to say—

  (a) that he is or has been in Crown service under His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom;

  (b) that he is the holder of a British passport issued by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or the government of any colony, protectorate, United Kingdom mandated territory or United Kingdom trust territory;

  (c) that he has associations by way of descent, residence or otherwise with the United Kingdom or with any colony or protectorate or any such territory as aforesaid.

  (2) A claim under the foregoing subsection may be made on behalf of a child who has not attained the age of sixteen years by any person who satisfies the Secretary of State that he is a parent or guardian of the child.
  (3) If by any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act provision corresponding to the foregoing provisions of this section is made for enabling citizens of Eire to claim to remain British subjects, any person who by virtue of that enactment is a British subject shall be deemed also to be a British subject by virtue of this section.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out second("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out ("1938") and insert ("1948")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do
  1186
  agree with the Commons in these Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 3, page 2, line 39, leave out ("in") and insert ("within")
  Clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 3, page 2, page 3, line 1, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 3, page 2, line 3, leave out ("possessed") and insert ("possesses")
  Clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out ("was not British subject") and insert ("is not citizen")
  Clause 3, page 2, line 7, leave out ("was") and insert ("is")
  Clause 3, page 2, line 7, leave out ("occurred") and insert ("occurs")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in these Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 4, page 3, line 10, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 11, leave out ("was a British subject") and insert ("is a citizen")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 14, leave out from ("was a British subject") and insert ("is a citizen")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 16, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 18, after ("Person") insert ("is born")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 22, after ("then") insert ("has or")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 30, leave out ("was") and insert ("is")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 33, leave out ("was") and insert ("is")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 35, leave out ("had") and insert ("has")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 35, leave out ("did") and insert ("does")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 36, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in these Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 5, page 4, line 3, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 5, page 4, line 7, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 5, page 4, line 17, leave out from ("woman") to ("who") in line 19.
  Clause 5, page 4, line 19, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in these Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 5, page 4, line 21, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("therefor to the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner, and, if she is a British protected person or an alien, on taking an oath of allegiance in the form specified in the Schedule (Oath of Allegiance) to this Act").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, this Amendment was introduced in another place; it was not in the original Bill. Up to now it may have been, and I think probably it was, too easy for an alien woman to acquire British nationality by marriage. On the other hand—and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will agree—we ought not to make it in any way too difficult. To do so would be to penalise a large number of innocent people because of the guilt of a few. I have no objection at all to the principle of the Amendment, but I would like the noble and learned Viscount to give me an assurance that the procedure will be made as simple and cheap, and above all as speedy, as possible, so that the Amendment will not entail any delay in the grant of British nationality in cases where it may properly be granted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have gone into this matter, and I am able to give the noble Earl in the fullest manner the assurance for which he asks. We have no desire to penalise a large number of innocent people for the sake of a
  1188
  guilty few, but we felt that it was only right that these women should go through the form of taking the Oath of Allegiance (it is set out in the Schedule) to impress on them a sense of the obligation which they are incurring when they owe allegiance to the King, and that they should swear to be faithful to that allegiance. I give the noble Earl in the fullest degree the assurance for which he asks.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 5, page 4, line 21, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 5, page 4, line 26, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen").
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in these Amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 6, page 4, line 29, after ("cause") insert ("the minor child of any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies")
  Clause 6, page 4, line 30, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 6, page 4, line 30, leave out lines 31 to 34
  Clause 6, page 4, line 35, leave out from ("by") to ("a") in line 36
  Clause 6, page 4, line 38, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen").
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 8, page 5, line 11, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen").
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 9 page 5, line 17, leave out ("Part I of")
  Clause 9 page 5, line 20, leave out ("Part II of the said Schedule") and insert ("the Schedule (Oath of Allegiance) to this Act")
  Clause 9 page 5, line 21, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 10, page 5, line 32, leave out ("British subjects") and insert ("citizens")
  Clause 10, page 5, line 34, leave out ("British subjects") and insert ("citizens")
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 11, page 6, line 4, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 11, page 6, line 9, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 11, page 6, line 19, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 11, page 6, line 25, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 11, page 6, line 31, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 11, page 6, line 33, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 11, page 6, line 34, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 11, page 6, line 38, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  page 7, line 1, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  page 7, line 3, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  page 7, line 5, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  page 7, line 12, leave out ("British subjects") and insert ("citizens")
  page 7, line 22, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  page 7, line 26, leave out ("British subjects") and insert ("citizens")
  page 7, line 32, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  page 7, line 35, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 12, page 7, line 39, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 12, page 7, line 41, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 12, page 7, line 44, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 12, page 7, line 45, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  page 8, line 6, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  page 8, line 9, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  page 8, line 10, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  page 8, line 12, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  page 8, line 14, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Cause 15, page 9, line 4, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Cause 15, page 9, line 9, after ("a") insert ('"citizen or")
  Cause 15, page 9, line 17, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Cause 15, page 9, line 18, leave out ("he shall become")
  Cause 15, page 9, line 19, leave out ("the said") and insert ("if he becomes a British subject without citizenship")
  Cause 15, page 9, line 19, after ("twelve") insert ("of this Act")
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 17, page 9 line 33, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 18, page 10, line 3, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 18, page 10, line 5, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 18, page 10, line 11, leave, out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen").
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 19, page 10, line 31, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 19, page 11, line 17, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 19, page 11, line 23, leave out from ("right") to ("inquiry") in line 25, and insert ("to an")
  Clause 19, page 11, line 28, leave out ("SO")
  after ("manner") insert ("for an inquiry").
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Cause 20, page 11, line 34, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Cause 20, page 11, line 40, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Cause 20, page 11, line 44, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Cause 20, page 11, line 45, at end insert—
  ("(2) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall give the person against whom the order is proposed to be made notice in writing informing him of the ground on which it is proposed to be made and may refer the case to a committee of inquiry constituted in the manner provided by the last foregoing section.")
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 22, page 12, line 12, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen").
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 24, page 12, line 33, after ("exists") insert ("whether on a question of fact or of law")
  Clause 24, page 12, line 34, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen").
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 31, page 17, line 12, after ("possession") insert ("as aforesaid")
  Clause 31, page 18, line 41, at end insert—
  ("(10) For the purposes of this Act a person shall be deemed not to have attained a given age until the commencement of the relevant anniversary of the day of his birth.")
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 32, page 19, line 6, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen")
  Clause 32, page 19, line 8, leave out ("British subject") and insert ("citizen").
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 33, page 19, line 14, leave out ("subsection (4) of section one and").
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  In the Schedules, page 20, line 1, at end insert the following Schedule—

  SCHEDULE.
  ("OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
  I, A.B., swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty, King George the Sixth, His Heirs and Successors according to law.")
  page 21, line 29, leave out ("Part of this")
  page 22, leave out lines 1 to 5.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Second Schedule, page 22, line 14, leave out from ("if") to the end of line 15 and insert ("that person is a male, nothing in this paragraph shall confer British nationality on any woman whom he marries during the period that he is a British subject without citizenship, or on any child borne to him during that period;").
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  In the Title, line 1, after ("nationality") insert ("and for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies").
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  2.58 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read 3a.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Addison.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, there is one point which might be mentioned. On the Report stage of this Bill on July 20, while thanking the Government for agreeing to the Amendment which my noble

  1193
  friend Lord Moyne had proposed and which I had taken some part in preparing, I indicated that a Government Amendment giving effect to our point made what I thought was a curious and regrettable change. The words, "with a view to," were no longer used and instead of them were inserted the (to me) rather strange words "by way of." I do not know whether anybody contends that the second phrase is clearer than the first. I find it very difficult to think so. "With a view to" exactly corresponds to the wording in other parts of the Bill, where it talks about "for the purpose of." I had rather supposed, because of the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, when he said that he would look into the matter between then and the Third Reading, that if he saw no objection to the words "with a view to" he might put down an Amendment.
  I make no complaint. I know that the noble Viscount and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor were fully occupied with more important matters in the interval. But as I understand that the words "with a view to" are accepted by the Government as perfectly appropriate words, I most respectfully suggest we might have from the noble Viscount, or from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, an assurance that when this, which is a new Amendment, goes back to another place, he will consider whether it is not better to use the phrase "with a view to." Perhaps I may put it another way. I would ask whether the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would make such a suggestion, not "with a view to" getting the change made but "by way of" getting the change made. Whichever of those two expressions is clearer, I leave anybody to judge. I know I am dealing only with a drafting point. We are most grateful to the draftsmen. They save us from innumerable pitfalls. But, at the same time, they are merely servants of the House, and we do wish, of course, to put in the proper words.
  I sometimes think there is a tendency to say about these small matters: "Oh, this is a drafting point," as though it were a wholly mysterious esoteric secret, which only the members of the College of Augurs could be expected to 1194
  understand. I am put in mind of an immortal observation of Mr. Pecksniff, who was, of course, a famous architect. Your Lordships may recollect that Mr. Pecksniff asked Martin Chuzzlewit to make a design for some building for him, and young Chuzzlewit did so. Mr. Pecksniff took the design, which appeared to be an excellent one, but he made a slight change in one corner; I think he changed the position of a small window. Then he said:
  "For it really is, my dear Martin, the finishing touches alone that great experience and long study in these matters provide."
  I suggest that my proposal is one which is intelligible to anybody who cares for good English and for the clear expression of an idea. Unless there be—it is always possible—some secret reason why we should adopt this phrase of "by way of" (it is a very odd one) I hope that those responsible for the Bill will be good enough to urge that this small change should be made in another place.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, in the first place, I would express my regret to the noble and learned Viscount that, although I took an early opportunity of consulting those concerned on the point, I had not got it to a determination, and omitted to put the Amendment on the Paper. I share the noble and learned Viscount's view—as I think I did from the start; I was a party to the original Amendment—that the words "with a view to" seem to be clearer than "by way of." I will certainly represent to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary what the noble and learned Viscount has said, and I will do what I can with a view to getting what I agree are better words inserted in the Bill in another place. Both the noble and learned Viscount and myself are well acquainted with the work of draftsmen, and we know that where we think we have done something very good they generally manage to alter a word or two. I cannot pretend to be an expert in that art, but it seems to me, as an ordinary person, that our words are better; and we did agree them here. I will see if any adjustment can be made.
  On Question, Bill read 3awith the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) BILL.
  3.3 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Addison.)
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I desire to raise a point on the Third Reading with regard to the Title of the Bill. Like the point my noble friend Lord Simon has just raised, it is not one which need cause constitutional conflict between the two Houses. The Title of the Bill has undergone strange transformations. In the form in which it is now before your Lordships it is not, I believe, such as the House intended and desired. I must draw your Lordships' attention to the course of events in this matter. The Bill as originally introduced in the House of Commons was entitled "Monopoly (Inquiry and Control) Bill." In discussion there it was pointed out that that was not a very happy Title; and it did not truly represent the contents of the Bill, because the Bill dealt not only with monopolies but also with restrictive practices. The President of the Board of Trade, in one of the later stages of the Bill, said that, so far as he was concerned, he agreed, and would welcome a change in the Title; and, failing a better suggestion, he thought it might be termed "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Bill." When the Bill came to your Lordships' House I raised the same point on the Committee stage, and said that I agreed with the President of the Board of Trade that, failing any better suggestion, that ought to be the Title of the Bill. The Government said that they would give the matter consideration, and on the Committee stage put down an Amendment to omit the word "Monopoly," and insert the words "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices." That was done on July 13.
  The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in moving that Amendment, recalled the history of the matter, and said that the Government themselves had put down this Amendment to include the words
  1196
  "Restrictive Practices." I then expressed appreciation of the action taken by the Government, and welcomed the Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, did the same on behalf of my noble friends sitting above the Gangway. When the Bill as amended in Committee was circulated, its Title on the front page was, "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Bill." And Clause 22 says:
  "This Act may be cited as the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, 1948."
  That was quite satisfactory. Then, to my surprise, I found, when the Bill was reprinted after the Report stage, that the Title appeared as "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Bill." I inquired how it was that those words had slipped in. I was then told that it was because, instead of the Government moving an Amendment to omit the words "Monopoly (Inquiry and Control)," in order to insert "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices," they had moved only to omit the word "Monopoly" and to insert "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices"; and the words "Inquiry and Control," in parenthesis, thereby survived, unintentionally and contrary to everyone's expectation and desire.
  It is a long and somewhat clumsy Title; and a Short Title ought to be a Short Title. I feel that the words "Inquiry and Control" are unnecessary. I therefore suggest that the Bill should be altered back to the form in which it appeared when it was circulated to this House after the Committee stage. If it had not been circulated with that Title, I and others interested in this matter would have drawn attention to it at an earlier time, and given notice of an Amendment on Third Reading. But, as the Bill was circulated in the form which we desired, I did not put down an Amendment on Third Reading. There is a Rule of the House that Amendments cannot be moved on Third Reading except with Notice. I do not know whether this would be regarded as a purely technical point that might be corrected in spite of that Rule. I express no opinion on that point. If not, I hope the Government will give the matter further consideration when the Bill goes back to the House of Commons, because there it will come up afresh on your Lordships' Amendment. If they so desire, when the Bill is in the other place

  1197
  and the Question is put whether they agree or disagree with this Amendment, they could agree, subject to a further Amendment to omit the words "Inquiry and Control." Those are the points. The matter is not one of profound national importance, but it is as well that the Bill should have the form which the House desired, and which, I feel sure, the House, including the Clerks at the Table, understood was to be the case.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I have made inquiries into this matter, and the result of my inquiries has not confirmed what the noble Viscount has just said. The Amendment which the Government moved in Committee, as he correctly says, was to omit the word "Monopoly" and insert the words "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices." That Amendment did not cover, and was not intended to cover, the omission of the words "Inquiry and Control." They were left in. May I say that the Government Amendment was so designed, and that is why it did not mention them? There was a reprint of the Bill, and there was an error in the reprint. It had not been noticed that the Amendment simply inserted the words "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices" in place of the word "Monopoly" but had not disturbed the words "Inquiry and Control" which were intended to be left. That is why it now appears with what I agree is a rather clumsy and "long-winded" Title. That was in accordance with the decision of the Committee. Personally, I have no liking for "long-winded" Titles, and I will report the matter to the President of the Board of Trade.
  I can assure the noble Viscount that, on the information given to me, the Amendment was deliberately moved in that form, and it was not intended to disturb the words "Inquiry and Control," which certainly do relate to the business of the Commission and do describe what the Bill is going to effect. Of course, as the noble Viscount has said, we have not had Notice of it in accordance with our Rules, so it is out of order at the moment. But I will report what he says and inquire further into the point, although I am quite confident that the statement I have made is correct.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, by leave of the House may I make this further
  1198
  point? If the Title that was desired was "The Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Bill"—those are the words used by the President of the Board of Trade and the words used by me—when the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, moved his Amendment he did not suggest that the words "Inquiry and Control" should still remain. He did not draw attention to the fact that he was retaining those words. It would have needed rather more acute and alert intelligence than we have brought to bear in order to follow that he had not accepted the Amendment proposed. So much so that, when the Bill was reprinted, the Title was printed in the form which had been desired and in the only form in which it had been discussed. No one had suggested, on either side, in. either House, that the Title was to be "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Bill." If the Government thought that that was the right Title, I venture to say that they should have said so. However, I am quite prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  Clause 3 [Meaning of "Conditions to which this Act applies" in relation to supply]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, these three Amendments are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 7, after ("goods") insert ("other than the first of these references").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 8, leave out ("each") and insert ("any").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 9, after ("to") insert ("any of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  PUBLIC REGISTERS AND RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment; the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Fourth Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past three o'clock.