HC Deb 19 July 1918 vol 108 cc1379-91

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.)

(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 overt act or speech to be disloyal to His Majesty;

(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.

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

(2) The provisions of this Section shall, as respects persons affected thereby, have effect in substitution for any other provisions of this Act as to the effect upon the wife and children of any person where the person ceases to be a. British subject and such other provisions shall accordingly not apply in any such case.

Where a certificate of naturalisation is revoked the former holder thereof shall be regarded as an alien and as a subject of the State to which he belonged at the time the certificate was granted,"

Major NEWMAN

I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (3, a), to leave out the word "overt."

I recognise that the Secretary of State does reserve certain powers to himself under this Bill as to whether or not when a certificate is being revoked the case shall be referred to a Committee to be set up specially. I am perfectly convinced that for all practical purposes there will be an appeal allowed in every case, and that no certificate of naturalisation will be revoked before the holder of it has had a chance of putting his case before the tribunal.

Sir G. CAVE

If it will assist my hon. and gallant Friend, I may say that I propose to accept this Amendment.

Sir R. NEWMAN

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Major NEWMAN

I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (3, a), after the word "be," to insert the words "disaffected or."

Sir G. CAVE

I will accept this Amendment.

Sir R. NEWMAN

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (3), at the end of paragraph (f), to add the words "and has not so far as lies within his power severed his connection with that State."

This Amendment touches a very difficult and serious subject, namely, the evil of double nationality. I propose to make an addition to the Amendment which was accepted from my hon. Friend the Member for the Luton Division (Mr. Harmsworth) in Committee. The object of his Amendment was to exclude what I may call double-dealers in the matter of nationality—persons who pretend to take up British nationality, but who really desire for some sinister purpose at the same time to retain their foreign allegiance. One is bound to sympathise with that object. Certainly I sympathise with it very fully, and if that were all that were in the Amendment nobody would differ from the hon. Member. I wish, however, to amend his words, because I think they go very far beyond the evil which he has in mind, and will endanger the naturalisation certificate of thousands of entirely loyal persons, not because of any act or omission on their part, but because of the claim of the Government to which they formerly belonged to retain them, very likely utterly and entirely against their will. If war breaks out between their former Government and this country, their certificate may be in jeopardy, although they may have been British subjects for a great many years, and have done everything that they could to get free from their old citizenship and to do their duty to the country. If an outcry should arise that all men of such-and-such country must be denaturalised, it may be very difficult for the Home Secretary of those days to avoid doing so. I suggest that there are certificates which ought not to be put in jeopardy unless the holders themselves have committed some act or have been guilty of some omission which justifies it.

My object, therefore, is to ensure that punishment should be reserved for those cases in which some punishment has been deserved. The Clause as it now stands touches the question of double nationality, but only a very small part of that problem. There are thousands of persons who have a double nationality by birth. There are thousands of children born in this country who are British subjects by English law and foreign subjects by the law of the country from which their parents came, probably by the law of almost every other country in the world. There are others who have a double nationality on account of naturalisation and through no fault of their own. They have desired to be British subjects, while the country from which they came still insists upon holding them. These people may be excellent citizens here and be doing their duty to this country. I have in mind the case of a young Armenian who is now fighting in the British Army. He is a British subject by British law, but he is also a Turkish subject owing to the form of Turkish law. I have that on high authority. That is a case of double nationality by birth, but exactly the same thing may happen by naturalisation.

The Clause as it stands would only affect a small number of those Germans who have become naturalised in this country. Most people who have spoken at all about the question of double nationality have had in their minds a desire to exclude from British nationality Germans who still retain their German nationality. That is a proposal with which I entirely sympathise. But I would point out that the Clause as it stands will only apply to a very few Germans. The German law as it used to be did not retain German nationality for any of those who were naturalised here, and the German law as it is now—at any rate, so I am told; I do not profess to be an authority on German law—does not claim to retain as a German citizen any person naturalised in this country unless that person has obtained special permission beforehand to retain his German nationality. Therefore, the Clause as it stands will only affect quite a small number of those who were formerly Germans. But it will affect practically all those who were formerly Turkish or Bulgarian or Austrian subjects. That is a much more serious matter, because the laws of those countries seek to retain as their citizens the whole of their people who become naturalised elsewhere. Moreover, we have to remember the effect the Clause may have in the case of war breaking out with countries with which we are now at peace. Let me mention, for instance, that according to Swiss law a Swiss citizen who becomes naturalised here does not cease to be a Swiss citizen. The same applies to Greek law, and, most important of all, to Russian law. Russian subjects are naturalised in this country—Poles and others—by tens of thousands. I believe there are more Russian subjects than any other subjects naturalised in this country. But Russia claims to retain every one of them as a Russian citizen unless he has obtained special permission from the Russian Government to drop his citizenship. Therefore, this Clause would affect every Austrian Czech and every Pole who has been naturalised, and, in the event of war between us and the country now friendly or neutral, would affect the people who come from that friendly or neutral country.

My personal interest in the matter is chiefly with regard to those friendly races living under Turkish or other domination. They cannot divest themselves of Turkish nationality without permission. After incurring the anger of the Turkish Government by becoming citizens here, after incurring serious danger to any property they may have in Turkey and to their lives if they should return to Turkey, and also danger to the lives and property of their relatives by becoming British citizens, on the outbreak of war are they, by this Bill, to be put in danger or deprived of British nationality, not through any act or omission of their own, but simply because the Turkish Government seeks to hold them? The same would apply to Poles and Czechs. It may be said that the law would not be enforced against these people. If that is so, it is only right to express in this Clause exactly what we propose to do, and to make it clear that the certificate shall not be endangered except by some act or omission of the grantee. The other provisions of this Clause are all on the lines that a man, if he forfeits his certificate, is to forfeit it because of some act or omission on his part. This provision, on the other hand, simply renders the certificate in jeopardy because of the act of the Government to which he formerly belonged. It may even be because of some law passed in that country since he ceased to be a citizen of that country. There is no danger whatever in recognising that a man is entitled to remain a citizen if he has done everything in his power to get rid of his former allegiance. The Clause as I propose to amend it will read: The Secretary of State may by Order revoke a certificate … in any case in which he is satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted … (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 has not so far as lies within his power severed his connection with that State. Therefore, if the man has not done what he could to sever his connection with his old State his certificate may be annulled, but if he has done everything in his power to sever that connection he would not be culpable and he would not be liable to have his certificate put in danger if my Amendment were accepted.

Mr. D. MASON

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope it will be accepted. Everyone knows that the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A. Williams) has been honourably associated with the work on behalf of the Armenians who have suffered from the butchery and cruelty of the Turks. The addition of those words would not in any way weaken the Clause, yet it would provide for such cases as those to which my hon. Friend referred, where an alien desired to be a British subject, but, owing to the antiquated laws which prevail in his original country, is prevented from getting a naturalisation certificate. In addition, it would also prevent the revocation of certificates when the individuals themselves desired to be loyal British subjects.

Sir J. WALTON

I hope the Home Secretary will not accept the addition of these words. If the law of the country stipulates that naturalisation here does not lessen or affect a man's being a subject of that country as well, nothing that the person can do can alter that fact, and therefore, to say that you waive the operation of the provision which my hon. Friend (Mr. Harmsworth) got introduced in Committee, and to say that if a man tries to do what he could not possibly do what the laws of the country from which he came prevented him from doing then this other provision shall be made, is to make an absolute farce of the other provision, and therefore I sincerely hope that if the right hon. Gentleman will not accept an Amendment which really destroys the efficacy of the Amendment accepted in Committee. I do not yield to my hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) in my sympathy with the suffering Armenian race and every other race that is treated as they have been, but we must have adequate protection in this country from the danger that arises from the residence in our midst of aliens.

Mr. C. HARMSWORTH

I usually find myself in very full agreement with my hon. Friend (Mr. Williams), because I know his intentions are always of the best, but I sincerely trust that the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment, because it seems to me to whittle down the whole purpose of this Sub-clause and reduce it a nullity. There are subjects of enemy countries who are individually friendly to us. We have endeavoured to meet their case in one or two points, although I think always with very serious danger of a misuse of those facilities. But in this case the Amendment is so far-reaching that if we accepted it, we really might as well leave out the Sub-clause that I moved. It was agreed the other day that if we had such a Sub-clause as this in our Naturalisation Act, it should in future serve as a lever in order to persuade other countries to bring their law of naturalisation into accord with ours. Where a foreign State permits its subjects to hold their original status and to acquire, as I think fraudulently, in every case the status of naturalisation in another country——

Mr. A. WILLIAMS

Not at all. It is perfectly right.

Mr. HARMSWORTH

Only not fraudulently in the sense that the law of our country understands what is going on. But as against the essence of naturalisation it is virtually disingenuous and fraudulent. We trust that by having such a provision in our naturalisation law we shall bring it home to foreign States that they must no longer permit their subjects to enjoy a double nationality. I have no intention of traversing the arguments of the other evening, but I adhere very strongly to my own view that in this matter we come to the very root and essence of the whole question of naturalisation, and that if we admit in our Acts of Parliament the possibility of dual naturalisation we are making a very great mistake. I earnestly trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment and will support the provision accepted the other evening.

Sir G. CAVE

This is a question of real difficulty. The man the hon. Member has in mind is, of course, a man who has done all he can to sever himself from the foreign State. It is true that the paragraph we are now discussing will not hit the German as a rule. It will hit the Austrian of unfriendly race, it will probably hit the Bulgarian, and it will hit the Turk. That might induce one to look on the Amendment with a favourable eye. At the same time I feel great difficulty the other way. On the face of the Amendment, reading it with the paragraph, it means that if a man has ineffectively taken steps to sever himself from his native country he may remain a subject of this country, because the whole paragraph is based upon this: that his own country does not regard naturalisation here as freeing him from his original national status. Under the Amendment he will have done everything he can to get out of it, but he will not have succeeded. Therefore he remains a man with a double nationality. He is a British subject here, but in his native country he is a subject of that country. I feel great difficulty, therefore, in accepting the Amendment. At all events, we ought very much more carefully to consider the words which are suggested. I think there are formal methods by which a man may, even in Austria, renounce his civil rights. If I can find anything of that kind which can be definitely fixed upon one would consider it, but it would be rather dangerous to accept any general reference to severing connection. I do not think I can accept the Amendment to-day. I will consider it with a view to discussion in another place, but the Government will not, even in another place, accept words of this kind without very careful consideration, and, of course, if they are put in they will have to be further discussed here. My present view is entirely against the Amendment.

Mr. C. ROBERTS

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to give an assurance that he will consider the matter further, because I cannot help thinking those who think there are great dangers in this doctrine of dual nationality have got hold of something like a mare's nest. They seem to regard it as being some device of a hostile State by means of which they will plant their citizens upon this country while retaining some power of directing their activities against the interests of Great Britain.

Mr. HARMSWORTH

Is the hon. Member speaking of anything I have said? I am not thinking of that at all, although it is possible. I am only referring to the absurdity of a person being a subject of one State and of another State at the same time.

Sir J. WALTON

What about the Delbrück law?

Mr. ROBERTS

The Delbrüch law does not begin the history of the matter. The history of the matter begins in the fact that the Sovereigns of a great number of foreign States, as our own country did up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, maintain this doctrine of permanent allegiance. You were born a subject of the British Crown and you had no right to divest yourself of your allegiance to the Crown. While that doctrine held you could not get away from dual nationality. That is the law which I understand prevails in Russia and in Italy. Under these circumstances it is really rather hard on a man, who may wish on perfectly bonâ fide grounds to come and be a citizen of the United Kingdom, to be estopped, not from anything which he has done but simply because the law of his native country does not give him a right to divest himself of his allegiance to the ruler in whose territory he was born. That, of course, is treating the subject as the personal property and chattel of the ruler. That is the difficulty in which you are placed. It is not any question of the Delbrück law, which cut down this doctrine of permanent allegiance and preserved it only in special cases. This original mediaeval doctrine is a doctrine of the greatest difficulty for these people at the present time, and if there is any means by which they can renounce their civil rights when they have done everything in their power to show their sincere desire, it is very desirable that words should be inserted so as to prevent unfair and unjust treatment of people who may be perfectly proper citizens of the British Empire.

Sir E. CARSON

As I understood the statement of the Home Secretary, he entirely agrees with the view that no man ought to be allowed to have a double nationality, and I understood his promise only goes so far as to see whether he could find words which would alleviate certain cases, while at the same time maintaining that general principle. If my hon. Friend can do that, he will be a most wonderful draftsman and a most wonderful lawyer. This Amendment goes to the whole question of the root of naturalisation. Can a man have two nationalities?

Mr. A. WILLIAMS

Many men are born with two.

Sir E. CARSON

The sooner we put an end to it the better. We do not want to make double nationalities. This Amendment is asking us to manufacture dual nationalities.

Mr. WILLIAMS

It is not asking you to manufacture them. It is only asking that where you have manufactured them you will not, perhaps twenty years afterwards, undo that.

Sir E. CARSON

We want to get rid of dual nationalities. It is a most dangerous thing that a man should be in this country at the present time owing allegiance to the Sovereign of this country and allegiance to the Sovereign of Germany—an impossible position when war arises, and I think it is an utterly improper position at any time. It is said that the Germans, by reason of the recent law, have no difficulty in their case, because they do not insist upon retaining the nationality of their subjects. They can alter that law again, but we have laid it down as a broad principle that, as far as we as a nation are concerned, we will not admit it, that will go a long way to prevent the Germans from enacting any law that would prevent their former citizens in this country becoming naturalised. In the same way those countries that keep up this right of retaining control of the allegiance of their former citizens will be much more carfeul in regard to the matter when they know that this country no longer allows this. They will not wish their citizens to be in this country in an inferior position in any way, and they will know that it does them no good. I think it is an immense advantage to lay down the principle that we are only to have one nationality. You cannot serve two masters, no matter how you try, and I believe that the Home Secretary will find it very difficult to frame any words, or any form of law, which will enable him to interfere with the law of a foreign country in this respect.

Mr. HEMMERDE

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the difficulties the Home Secretary will find if he tries to do what he says he is going to do. Unless I have read this Bill wrong, I think the words in the Amendment are unnecessary, because apparently the Bill simply says that the Home Secretary may revoke a certificate if the man 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. If that be so, it leaves a discretion for the Home Secretary. The point raised in the Amendment is one of the things that would weigh with the Home Secretary in exercising his discretion. If he finds that in a certain case a man has done everything possible to get rid of his nationality, that would be one of the eases in which the Home Secretary would exercise his discretion to allow that man to continue his naturalisation certificate. I do not know whether that is so, but it seems to be quite clearly a case of discretion.

Sir E. CARSON

It all depends upon whether "may" means "shall."

Mr. HEMMERDE

It seems to me that in this particular case "may" obviously means "may," and it is entirely at the Home Secretary's discretion. I dissent from the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), who seems to be performing that old device so well known of putting into the Home Secretary's mouth things he really did not intend. He seems to suggest that this disposes finally of the double nationality question. I do not think it does anything of the sort. I think it simply gives the Home Secretary discretion in cases where there is a double nationality through no fault of the person who claims naturalisation to decide one way or the other. In that case I should have thought he would decide in favour of the claimant. I cannot understand what the hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) means by talking about this Amendment, which is a perfectly serious Amendment, as reducing the whole thing to a farce. He seems to think we are going to run a national danger if a man who wishes to dissociate himself from Turkish citizenship and has done everything in his power to become British is unable, because of some antiquated laws in the Turkish Empire, to become a British subject. It seems to me that this Amendment is not a farce, but it is statements of that sort which amount to a farce.

Sir J. WALTON

This Amendment would take away from the Home Secretary the whole power to decide the matter, because it expressly stated that if the person has done all in his power to sever his connection with his previous country he is not under the Act.

Mr. HEMMERDE

I do not think it does anything of the sort, and I do not agree with the hon. Member's views about the Delbrück law. Yesterday people who sat on the Committee gave us a most ludicrous view of the Delbrück law, and gave it as a reason for taking away people's nationality.

Colonel FABER

That is not true at all. It is ridiculous!

Mr. HEMMERDE

I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman, but I am referring to the hon. Member for York, who gave a view of that law which was absolutely contrary to the fact, and gave it as a reason for taking away a person's citizenship. It is suggested that we are going to run a danger because Turkey says that a person who becomes naturalised here remains a Turk. We run no such danger at all. You must make up your mind what is the frame of mind of the man whom you naturalise. It seems to me that if the person honestly desires to become British you run no risk whatever, and that this Amendment is absolutely unnecessary, because it is clear that the Home Secretary exercises his discretion, and I certainly hope that the present Home Secretary, and any other Home Secretary, before taking away the nationality of people who are really friendly and doing everything they can to become British, will exercise his discretion.

Amendment negatived.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2), after the word "specified," to insert the words, and in any case to which paragraphs (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.

Mr. C. ROBERTS

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "which" ["case to which"], to insert the words "Subsection (1) or."

I think that this Amendment ought to include those who come under Subsection (l). Appeals are to be granted either under Sub-section (2) in various cases which are specified. I agree with both what is included and what is excluded, so far as that is concerned, but provision ought also to be made for appeal in the case where revocation of the certificate is made on the ground of false representation or concealment of material circumstances. Of course if there has been such false representation or concealment, by all means revoke the certificate, but I do not think it is fair that the certificate should be revoked merely upon the ipse dixit of the Home Secretary, who simply says that material circumstances have been concealed. He must be satisfied in his own mind, but the person affected ought to have the right to have the case inquired into. It is especially bad, because if proceedings are taken under the first Sub-section it involves the assumption that the Home Secretary has decided that the grantee has been or may have been guilty of fraud. That grantee appeals for an inquiry. He says that his case has not been properly investigated. The answer of the Home Secretary will be this: "You come under Sub-section (1). That is, you have either been guilty of fraud or false representation, or concealment of material facts. Consequently, I decline to let you have a further inquiry." The great stigma of fraud may thus be passed upon a man who has also the heavy penalty of losing a valuable privilege. I really think that in that case it is not too much that he should have the right to have his case inquired into by a judicial inquiry, and I hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to give an appeal in this case.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

3.0 P.M.

Sir G. CAVE

I quite agree that this is a case where inquiry may be needed, and therefore I am willing to give the same right of inquiry. But, while accepting the Amendment, I should point out that it may be necessary to make some changes in the drafting in another place, because in its present form it would read very badly.

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In substituted Clause 7A, at the end of Sub-section (2), insert the words: and the provision 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."—[Sir G. Cave.]