HC Deb 12 November 1917 vol 99 cc12-5
28. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

asked the secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Hugo Wiskemann, of the Wool Exchange, London, and of Stonebridge Park, the son of a German lawyer of Kemfungen, Hesse Cassel, still had the use of a telephone, two numbers, City 3813 and Willesden 1376; and if the use of the telephone is permitted to alien enemies?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George ,Cave)

Under Article 22 (a) of the Aliens Restriction Order an alien enemy may not have a telephone without the special permission of the police, which is very rarely given. I am informed that permission to have a telephone was given by the police to this man, who has been thirty-seven years in England, is married to an English wife, and is carrying on, under supervision, a business which is considered to be useful to this country. I propose, however, to reconsider the whole question of granting these permits to alien enemies.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a little more information about the pro-German views of these gentlemen, and put it before the Advisory Committee in regard to the interned men?

Sir G. CAVE

Any information of that character will receive consideration.

Mr. BUTCHER

Has this gentleman applied for naturalisation in these thirty-seven years?

Sir G. CAVE

I cannot say; I would like notice.

29. Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

asked the Home Secretary whether, in every instance, the cases of those persons interned under Regulation 14 B of the Defence of the Realm Act have been before the Advisory Committee, even where interned persons have not availed themselves of the opportunity to appear before the Committee themselves?

Sir G. CAVE

Every case has been before the Advisory Committee with the exception of four cases, in which no appeal against the Order was lodged. When there is no appeal the Committee have no jurisdiction under the Regulation.

32. Mr. BUTCHER

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether certificates of naturalisation have to be registered at the Home Office after the oath of allegiance has been taken by the applicants; whether such certificates can be regarded as final and complete until after such oath has been taken; and whether an oath of allegiance falsely taken or subsequently violated should be regarded as a misrepresentation as to the loyalty of the applicant for naturalisation which would entitle the Secretary of State to revoke the certificate of naturalisation under the powers contained in the Act of 1914?

Sir G. CAVE

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A certificate does not take effect until the oath of allegiance has been taken. As to the last part of the question, I think that it must, under the existing law, be answered in the negative, but the matter will no doubt be dealt with in the legislation now proposed.

Mr. BUTCHER

In view of the unsatisfactory state of the law, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in legislation?

Sir G. CAVE

I have just referred to the fact that before legislation can be introduced we must have the assent of the Dominions, who have an interest in this matter.

Mr. BUTCHER

Could not the revocation of our own certificates of naturalisation in this country be dealt with, and can he not deal with that generally?

Sir G. CAVE

My hon. and learned Friend is aware, I presume, that under the Act of 1914 what is done in this country takes effect throughout the Dominions, and vice versâ, and therefore we must consult the Dominions.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Did you not communicate with the Dominions nearly four months ago, and has there not been ample time to get an answer?

Sir G. CAVE

We are endeavouring to get an answer as soon as possible.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Stir them up!

Mr. G. FABER

Is the communication with the Dominions themselves or through their representatives here?

Sir G. CAVE

It is a matter which has to be referred to the Dominions themselves.

50. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

asked the Prime Minister when he can give a day for the discussion of the Resolution on the subject of Alien Enemies standing in the names of the Member for Brentford and others? ["That this House is of opinion (I) that, on the completion of the third year of the War, a more definite policy should be adopted by the Government for the internment of alien enemies, and, in particular, that no man should be allowed to remain uninterned except for definitely national as opposed to personal reasons; (2) that women and children of enemy origin should, where possible, be repatriated unless there are exceptional reasons to the contrary; (3) that the Government should forthwith introduce the promised Bill giving the Secretary of State for the Home Department power to deal with naturalisation certificates in the case of men who would otherwise be alien enemies; (4) that, in any case, when a naturalised alien enemy has been convicted of offences against the Realm power should be given to the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the said Act that such naturalisation should be reviewed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department with a view to its withdrawal; (5) that under no circumstances should any further certificates of naturalisation be issued to alien enemies during the War."]

Mr. BONAR LAW

This subject was fully dealt with on the Vote of Credit, and I hope that the House will not consider that any further discussion is necessary.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Owing to the fact that the policy on this subject was not very definitely dealt with on the Vote of Credit, and the very strong feeling both inside and outside the House, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there should be a discussion?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I have said that I hope the House will not consider that further discussion is necessary. I heard the discussion in the House on the Vote of Credit. There certainly would have been no difficulty in lengthening it if hon. Members had closen to discuss the matter then. In any case, an opportunity, if desired, can be found without taking a special day for it—that is, if the House desires that the Session should end at a reasonable time.

Forward to