British Nationality Act, 1964

AuthorCedric Thornberry
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1965.tb01056.x
Publication Date01 Mar 1965
31.4~~~
1965
STATUTES
197
includes lay members appointed for their knowledge
or
experience
of industry, commerce or public affairs, in the best position to
decide whether any of the listed advantages to consumers outweigh
the detriments to them of maintaining prices? As Professor
Stevens has observed in his thoughtful article on Ju~ticiability,‘~
the policy is spelled out somewhat more clearly in the
1964
Act
than in that
of
1956,
in that only advantages and detriments to
consumers are to count and the criteria provided are rather more
specific. But the court will still have to decide the basic issue
between the proponents and the opponents of rpm; whether, for
instance, it is a detriment to consumers not to be able to obtain the
necessary service from some retailers if they are thereby given the
choice of buying cheaply and having to pay someone else for the
services
or
of paying a higher inclusive price in the first instance.
Conclusion
The Act is far from being
a
bold measure in favour of competition.
Many of its provisions, especially those forbidding discrimination
against price cutters and the
loss
leader defence will be very difficult
to
apply, both
for
the courts and even more for lawyers advising
their clients.Ie The sanctions are weak
:
why should businessmen
who deliberately infringe statutory provisions designed to benefit
consumers not incur the risk of imprisonment? Finally, the
Restrictive Practices Court is left with very little guidance to make
the basic decision whether competition
is
better for consumers than
the various benefits mentioned in the gateways that might be lost
in conditions of free trade. The publicity which was given to the
debates may, however, persuade some manufacturers to discontinue
maintaining minimum prices.
It
is impossible to say how far the
Act will be effective in promoting price competition-this will
depend not only on the courts’ approach, but also on the attitude
of manufacturers.
V.
L.
KORAH.
BRITISH NATIONALITY
ACT,
1964
IN
retrospect, the main feature of the British Nationality Act of
1948
may be identified as a last maternal clutching at a family
fragmenting in face of pressures
from
within and without. By
virtue of the
‘‘
common status
created by section
1
of that Act
Commonwealth citizenship
(or
the quality of being a British
subject) attaches to all persons who are citizens of icdependent
countries within the Commonwealth
(or
of Southern Rhodesia).
Thus, a Canadian citizen enjoying that status under the Canadian
1s
R.
B.
Stevens,
’‘
Justiciability: The Restrictive Practices Court Re-examined
16
See Lord Gardiner’s speech during the second reading in the
Lords,
cited in
j19641
Public
Law
221
at
p.
244, note 4.
note 14. above.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT