HC Deb 06 August 1918 vol 109 cc1281-8

The following Sections shall be substituted for Section seven of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), which relates to the revocation of certificates of naturalisation:—

"7.—(Revocation of Certificates of Naturalisation.)

(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a certificate of naturalisation granted by him has been obtained by false representations or fraud, or by concealment of material circumstances, the Secretary of State may by Order revoke the certificate, and may, if he thinks fit, before so doing refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified.

(2) Where a certificate of naturalisation has been granted during the present War to a person who at, or at any time before, the grant of the certificate was the subject of a country which at the date of the grant was at war with His Majesty, the Secretary of State shall refer for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified the question whether it is desirable that the certificate should be revoked, and if such question shall be answered in the affirmative shall revoke the certificate, but this provision shall not apply to a person who at birth was a British subject.

(3) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions the Secretary of State may by Order revoke a certificate of naturalisation granted by him in any case in which he is satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted either— (a) has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty; or (b) has during any war in which His Majesty is engaged unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy or with the subject of an enemy State, or been engaged in or knowingly associated with any business carried on in such manner as to assist the enemy in such war; or (c) has within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate been sentenced by any Court in His Majesty's Dominions to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months or to a term of penal servitude; or (d) was not of good character at the date of the grant of the certificate; or (f) remains a subject of a State at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status;

and that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good, but the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, before making such Order refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified, and in any case to which Sub-section (1) or paragraph (a), (b), (d), or (f) of this Sub-section applies, the Secretary of State shall, by notice given to or sent to the last-known address of the holder of the certificate, give him an opportunity of claiming that the case be referred for such inquiry, and if the holder so claims in accordance with the notice the Secretary of State shall refer the case for inquiry accordingly.

(6) Where the Secretary of State revokes a certificate of naturalisation, the revocation shall have effect from such date as the Secretary of State may direct, and the Secretary of State may Order the certificate to be given up and cancelled, and any person refusing or neglecting to gve up his certificate shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds."

"7A.—(Effect of Revocation of Certificates.)

(1) Where a certificates of naturalisation is revoked the Secretary of State may by Order direct that the wife and minor children (or any of them) of the persons whose certificates is revoked shall cease to be British subjects, and any such person shall thereupon become an alien; but except where the Secretary of State directs as aforesaid, the nationality of the wife and minor children of the person whose certificate is revoked shall not be affected by the revocation, and they shall remain British subjects:

Provided also that the Secretary of State shall not make any such Order as aforesaid in the case of a wife who is a natural-born British subject unless he is satisfied that if she had held a certificate of naturalisation in her own right the certificate could properly have been revoked under this Act, and the provisions of this Act as to referring cases for inquiry shall apply to the making of any such Order as they apply to the revocation of a certificate"

Lords Amendment:

Leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2), and insert the words, (1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a certificate of naturalisation granted by him has been obtained by false representations or fraud, or by concealment of material circumstances or that a person to whom a certificate of naturalisation has been granted, has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty the Secretary of State shall by Order revoke the certificate, and.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I think it would be a convenience to the House if I refer briefly to the whole of the Amendments. All the Amendments on the Paper are drafting Amendments proposed by the Government in another place, with three exceptions. The three Amendments are these: There is, first, the Amendment which substitutes "shall" for "may." That, as I shall show in a moment, has really no effect. Secondly, there is the Amendment which provides that if a naturalised alien is fined £100 his case may be submitted to the Committee for denaturalisation—a very reasonable Amendment, which the Government accept at once. Thirdly, there is the Amendment which provides that no enemy alien shall be naturalised for ten years after the War instead of five years as decided by this House. I hope I may make this observation: It is rather interesting to me that the Amendments adopted in another place should be so few and of so little importance. Upon the Debate on the Second Beading of the Bill in another place speeches were made which were not only vehement but violent, and threats were made that the Bill would be radically amended. It is obvious that when the Lords came to consider the matter in detail they found that, as I thought, the Bill was a good and a strong Bill, and did not require amendment in any substantial way.

This Amendment raises, among other questions, the question of "shall" and "may." May I just put that point to the House? I have heard the question of "shall" or "may" debated many times in this House. When a Bill proposes that a Minister "may" take a certain course, the Opposition nearly always propose that he "shall" take that course, and on every occasion the Government has defended the word "may," and this House, at all events, has entertained that view. The view of our House, I think, is that when you put into the hands of the Minister power and authority you must trust him in a proper case to use it. If he does not use it in a proper case, this House will call him to account. It has never been our practice to say that a Minister "shall" do a thing; it has been our rule, not only as a matter of drafting but of Parliamentary practice, to give him the power to do it, and hold him responsible if he does not use his power. Therefore, I think "may" is the proper word in this case. I think it is, in the case of this Bill, especially futile to put the word "shall" instead of the word "may," because see what this Clause provides: it provides that if a Secretary of State is satisfied that a certificate of naturalisation has been obtained by fraud or is satisfied that a naturalised alien is disloyal, or something of that kind, then he may revoke the certificate. Just consider the only case in which the difference between "shall" and "may" would operate. You must assume that the Minister has charged a naturalised alien with fraud. He will probably have brought the matter before a Committee. He will have made out his case to it, he will have the finding of the Committee in favour of that view, and he will have pronounced himself as satisfied that fraud has taken place or that the man is disloyal.

Then it is suggested that that same Minister would say, "I have gone through this process for nothing; having made good my contention that you are guilty of fraud, and having put you to the trouble of defending yourself and having defeated you, I now say that I will take no action and will not revoke the certificate." It is only when a Minister says that that the difference between the word "shall" and the word "may" is at all important. As a matter of justice to myself, I ought to say that no one has said in this House that I would be such a fool as to take that course. It has been said that perhaps succeeding Ministers may take that view. Well, I have a better opinion of my successors, and I think that in practice any Minister not only "should" but "must" revoke a certificate under those circumstances. I am certain that the Minister, having taken the steps I have described, would have no other course open to him except to revoke it, and it is for that reason that I defended the word "may" here. Now comes the question what we should do. The House will see from what I have said that in my view to change the phrase would have in practice no effect at all, as I feel certain that whether you put "shall" or "may," this process having been gone through, the Minister would revoke the certificate. It would be beneath the dignity of this House to enter into a contest with the other House as to words in a matter which, in practice, is irrelevant, and, therefore, I think the House may fairly accept the decision and agree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. HEMMERDE

I want to ask the Home Secretary whether it is his view that "shall" in the next Clause is the same? I noticed that in another place, after "shall" had been put in the first Clause the Government accepted "shall" in the second as though the position was exactly the same. If that is the case, I should like to argue the matter of "shall" and "may" now, because if you are going to commit yourselves at all in the next Clause I should not like it to be altered now. The Home Secretary has stated that the ordinary practice of this House—it has been so for years—is in these cases to give Ministers a discretion. I do not understand why it is beneath our dignity to follow out the ordinary practice of the House. Apparently, the reason is that the Members of the other House made vehement and even violent speeches, attacked the Bill in every conceivable way, and then practically did nothing. If, after all, we find that the House of Lords did nothing in particular, and did it very well in this case, I do not see why we should not have "may" and in the next Clause it is very important to have "may" and to preserve that distinction. I urge upon the Home Secretary that we do not accept this Amendment, but insist on leaving it to the discretion of Ministers, as has been the invariable custom of this House.

Sir R. ADKINS

Without echoing the lively criticism of the other House which my hon. and learned Friend has made, I regret that the usual practice of putting in the word "may," particularly in a Clause of this kind, should not be adhered to. I have absolute confidence in the Home Secretary, and I think the substitution of "shall," while of very little, if any, effective value, tends to weaken and not strengthen the responsibility of the Home Secretary, and I think that responsibility ought not to be weakened in time of war and ought not to be weakened in connection with a subject of this kind. I regret that the Government is not adhering to its original intention. I would not willingly be a party to anything that reflected on the right hon. Gentleman, or even on his successors, because I believe the more responsibility is placed on the Home Office under these conditions the better and I am very loth to weaken the responsibility of the executive in a matter of this kind.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

The Home Secretary, having shown quite conclusively that the House of Lords is wrong, advises us that it is right to accept it. I suppose, in the circumstances, that is so, but I hope this will not be drawn into a precedent in future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "may," and insert instead thereof the word "shall."

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

What I said applies to this Amendment because in this case the Secretary of State must be satisfied, not only that the offence in question has been committed, but that it is conducive to public good that the certificate should be revoked. I cannot conceive that a. Secretary of State so satisfied could fail to revoke the certificate. He would be stultifying himself if he did so. Therefore, in this case, it makes no difference whatever in practice, and I think perhaps the better course would be to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HEMMERDE

I only raised the point on this Clause because I wanted to get it quite clearly from the Home Secretary that in his opinion the Lords words really govern the case, because if it was not so, and they did not really give him discretion, it is quite clear that the matters which were discussed in the House of Lords and rejected by them, for instance, taking away the Privy Councillorship of Sir Ernest Cassel and people like that, is clearly covered under (e). I only wanted it to be clear that these Amendments really give him a discretion in the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

In substituted Clause 7, leave out the words "(a) has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty, or."—Agreed to.

In paragraph (b), leave out the word "knowingly" ["knowingly associated"] and after the word "business" ["with any business"], insert the words "with his knowledge."—Agreed to.

In paragraph (c), after the word "servitude" ["penal servitude"], insert the words "or to a fine of not less than £100."—Agreed to.

In paragraph (f), leave out the words "a subject of a State at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status," and insert instead thereof the words "according to the law of a State at war with His Majesty, a subject of that State."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "but the" ["but the Secretary of State"], and insert instead thereof the word "the."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "such order" ["making such order"], and insert instead thereof the words "an order under this Section."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "this Sub section" ["of this Sub-section"], and insert instead thereof the words "Sub-section (2) of this Section."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (6) leave out the words "the Secretary of State may order the certificate to," and insert instead thereof the words "thereupon the certificate shall."—Agreed to.

In substituted Clause 7A, Sub-section (1), leave out the words "is a natural-born," and insert instead thereof the words "was at birth a."—Agreed to.