HL Deb 08 December 1942 vol 125 cc423-35

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)

My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill which was introduced into your Lordships' House the other day. The long title of the Bill will show those who are interested that this measure will amend the law relating to British nationality in several respects. I imagine that your Lordships will wish for a brief account of the main contents of the Bill. My account will be more easy to follow if I remind your Lordships, in the first place, of what is the broad principle of our law of nationality. A man may be a British subject either because he was born such or because he has acquired a certificate of naturalization. I think I am right in saying that, under the existing law, a man who is a British subject by virtue of a certificate of naturalization has the same full rights of British citizenship in all respects as a natural-born British subject. The other main matter to bear in mind is that our law governing nationality differs from the law as it prevails in some foreign countries, and indeed, I think, in most of Europe, in that we base British nationality on a territorial test rather than on a test of descent.

For our purposes you answer the question whether or not an individual is a British subject by asking: "Well, where was he born?" If he was born on British soil he is a British subject at birth. A son of Chinese parents born in Jamaica, for example, is just as much a British subject as would be a child both of whose parents were natural-born British subjects. Complications have been introduced in order to modify the full operation of the rule that your nationality depends on where you are born, because the individual is not able to control where he is born. In Hanoverian times, when there was a further complication because of the two Crowns—the Crowns of Hanover and of Britain—statutory provisions were made by our ancestors in the form of two Bills which provided that, even though an individual was born abroad, if his father was born on British soil he also was a British subject. At one time that also extended to cases in which the paternal grandfather was born on British soil, the grandchild then being considered to be a British subject also.

This Bill, which is not uninteresting, deals with a number of difficulties which have arisen and makes one or two provisions which are of special importance because of the war. Clause 1 is rather forbidding and technical. It starts by repealing sub-paragraph (v) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section one of the main Act of 1914, and, having repealed it, it makes provisions which are easy to follow and which will be, I think, of greater usefulness. By a previous Act of Parliament, an Act of 1922, provision was first made for the acquisition of British nationality by registration at a British Consulate. Take, for example, the large commercial communities which you find in various South American States, British communities, very often Scottish, communities of people who are very proud of their British nationality and are resolved to maintain it. In 1922 we provided that by registration of his birth at the appropriate Consulate a child though born abroad, if born of a British father, could acquire British nationality, the object of this being to secure that British households and families living in foreign parts should be able, for the sake of their descendants, to maintain their British nationality. The conditions laid down in the Act of 1922 were found in practice to be unduly severe. For example, it was necessary that a child born, let us say, in Buenos Aires of a British father must be registered at the British Consulate within one year of birth, or, with the leave of the Secretary of State—the Foreign Secretary, I suppose—within two years

The Argentine is a very large country, and many of these countries are very big. Many British subjects living a long way from the Consulate may not appreciate the opportunity which the law gives them. We have had a number of cases in which the conditions which the previous law lays down have not been appreciated and acted on in time. Clause 1 of this new Bill, therefore, provides for more latitude. That is particularly important at the present time, because there are large numbers of young men, the sons of British fathers, who have been brought up in various foreign countries and who have regarded themselves as British, who are coming over to join His Majesty's Forces and who naturally desire, as we all desire, that there should be no doubt at all about their British nationality. The provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill, therefore, give more latitude for such registration, and I do not doubt that this proposal will be universally approved. Clause 2 is a little more technical, although it is important. It turns on the circumstance that a British Protectorate, which for domestic purposes may not be regarded in the fullest sense as British territory, is none the less regarded as British territory for international purposes. We want to secure that the child born to a British father in the Protectorates shall be in the same position as a child born in a Colony.

Clause 3 is a very curious provision, and shows how difficult it is to get the expression of the law exactly right, for most lawyers have believed that what is here laid down was already provided for. It provides that: Any person born after the death of his father, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall, if his father died a British subject, be deemed to be and, in the case of a person born before the commencement of this Act, always to have been, a natural-born British subject … It has recently been appreciated that in the case of posthumous children it could not be said that at the moment of birth the father was a British subject, because he was dead.

Clause 4 is a clause of very special interest, and it will attract the notice of your Lordships. The provision is quite exceptional. Clause 4 provides a special power to grant a certificate of naturalization to French nationals if they desire it, if they are serving in His Majesty's Forces. Under the general law, in normal cases, the Home Secretary is empowered to grant a certificate of naturalization to suitable applicants only if the applicant has spent five years out of the last eight in British territory, and only if he has resided for the last twelve months in the United Kingdom. Service under the Crown abroad, whether in a military or a civil capacity, is treated as though it was, for this purpose, residence in the United Kingdom. Similarly, the Governor of a British Colony can grant a certificate of naturalization to an applicant only if the individual concerned has lived for five out of the last eight years under the British Crown and for the last twelve months in the Colony. The provision which we are making in Clause 4 does not call for these special conditions to be fulfilled at all; as I have indicated, it enables British nationality to be conferred on a French citizen who applies for it and who satisfies the usual conditions with regard to character and the like, provided that he is a person who is serving in the British Forces.

There are numbers of French sailors, soldiers and airmen who are serving with the British Forces—I think about five hundred in all. The Prime Minister, soon after the French collapse, made a public promise about them; he said in the House of Commons on July 4, 1940, that they should have the opportunity, if they desired it, to acquire British nationality. And this we are ready to grant, but without prejudice, of course, to the position of the vast numbers of Frenchmen who are fighting or serving in French units, and who are not in the least affected by this provision, which is limited entirely to Frenchmen who wish to take advantage of it and who are in this very special position, that they form no part of the Fighting French Forces, but who had preferred to serve as members of British units alongside British subjects.

Whereas Clause 4 deals with the special grant in war-time of certificates of naturalization in this country in a limited class of case, Clause 5, as your Lordships will see, has to do with certificates of naturalization under the law of a Dominion—Canada, for example. Several of the Dominions of the Crown have legislated to provide for the naturalization of persons in consideration of service rendered at any time during the present war period in connexion with the prosecution of the war. I think there are some cases of American citizens who, by that means, have become Canadian subjects. Clause 5 merely provides that the certificate of naturalization granted in those circumstances in a Dominion shall be treated in this country as we should treat an ordinary certificate of naturalization granted in a Dominion; that is to say, it shall be regarded by our law as equivalent to the grant of a certificate of naturalization in this country. One of the complications of this branch of the law is that naturalization may come about in the case of some individuals under the law of the United Kingdom and in other cases by the operation of the law of a Dominion—for example, the Dominion of Canada. As far as may be, the rules are made to correspond, and this is an instance of where it is necessary specially to legislate to achieve that object. I do not think that I need say more about that.

Clause 6 has to do with loss of nationality. I told your Lordships a few moments ago that a child born of a British father in a foreign country could none the less be registered at the Consulate and thereby secure British nationality. That, however, lasts only until the child comes of age, when, of course, he may have a different view of what he wants to do. If the child now grown up to be a young man wishes to maintain his British nationality that has to be clone by what is called a declaration of retention of British nationality after he comes of age. Clause 6 makes a rather more practical provision under that head. The difficulty is that in many cases, although the young man does want to keep his British nationality, he has not taken the step which he ought to take in his 22nd year—and I think later if the Secretary of State so allows—and has made no declaration of his retention of British nationality. Thus he no longer remains British. But what we are doing here is repealing that provision, we are re-enacting the former rule with an additional provision for those who obviously do mean to retain their British nationality because they are serving in the present war. Where you have a child who is registered in the Consulate for the purpose of securing his British nationality, and has omitted when he grows up to retain that position by making the declaration, he is treated, if he has joined the Forces fighting under the Crown, as having indicated his wish to remain a British subject, and is declared by this Bill to be a British subject in spite of his omission of this formality.

Although there are other clauses, I think what I have said is sufficient to show the House that this Bill is of some considerable importance. It brings together a number of needed changes and reforms, some of them specially needed in connexion with the war, and others of them making plainer and more effective the existing statutory provisions. That is the nature of the Bill, and I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD WEDGWOOD

My Lords, I think most of your Lordships will agree that this Bill is a liberalizing Bill, enabling more people to become British subjects, and one to be wholly recommended, particularly in war-time. There are obvious reasons why we should make it easier for those people to become British subjects who are serving in the British Army and who prefer to be British subjects rather than anything else. But we cannot look on a Bill like this without observing the omissions from it. There is in this Bill no mention, as there might so well be, of the British-born wives of aliens. Their position is still extremely unpleasant and difficult, and when we are making these liberalizing provisions in our law I could wish that was also included. But worst of all is Clause 4 relating to the naturalization of aliens serving in the British Forces. There, quite rightly, we make provision that where these aliens are French citizens they may, if they satisfy the Home Secretary, become British subjects. Very few of them will want to be British subjects, but so far as it goes the provision is all to the good.

But the overwhelming majority of these aliens who are serving with the British Army to-day are not French citizens but Jews of all foreign countries. They are more in need of British nationality than any other race on earth. They have already for three years been serving in the Pioneer Corps, and did very well in the Dunkirk evacuation. Their one ambition is to get British citizenship so that they and their children may be safe hereafter from the bloodiest persecution in history. Here we are met to discuss a Bill which will allow a few more aliens who are safe in any case to-become British subjects. At the same time we read in our newspapers this morning of the deportation of Jews from Norway. Everyone from eighty years old to babies in arms, with the exception of the men physically fit who are already in concentration camps, has been herded on the docks at Oslo, crammed into a ship, and sent away to the ghettos of Poland. We know what has been happening in France and throughout the whole of occupied Europe where the extermination of these people; is progressing, It has moved this country more than any persecution that has happened, certainly in my lifetime. We are all thinking of what we could do to prevent this abomination continuing till the liquidation is complete. I hope the Government are approaching the American and Russian Governments that we may make it easier for such neutral countries as remain within touch of Germany to receive these people if they can escape over the frontier, opening the door to them here. I hope they are making arrangements whereby anybody who escapes to Palestine will be allowed to get into that country. I hope they are considering the possibility of changing our attitude towards the Jewish refugees and assuring them that there is one country left on earth where they can expect freedom, justice and safety from these horrors.

This Bill provides an opportunity and I do not think that we should be acting up to the traditions either of this House or of the country if we let this opportunity pass without seeing what alternative there is, how we can save any of these people, how we might show that we are not as the Germans, so that when people are willing to fight for us and have shown their mettle, and are otherwise desirable, they should be allowed to acquire our nationality as a reward for their services. In the last war, for some reason or other which I do not understand, it was infinitely easier to acquire British nationality. I remember that when I went out to Siberia in 1917 I took with me a young man of Finnish birth, speaking Russian and of American citizenship, who had served in the Royal Flying Corps. Within twenty-four hours he was converted into a British subject, and has remained one ever since, with satisfaction to the country. It could be done in the last war. It is far more needed in this war, and I hope that when we deal with this Bill in Committee your Lordships will consider favourably an Amendment which will extend the provisions of Clause 4 conferring British nationality on these people who are fighting in the British Army to a rather wider company than these three or four hundred French citizens, who do not need it. I am sure your Lordships would not hesitate for a moment to include in this Bill American citizens who had any desire to become British subjects. And I do not believe you would object to Stateless men who were serving in the British Army coming in. I want this provision extended to those people who are the principal enemies of Hitler, against whom we are fighting. Could we not get away from the idea that this is a national war and remember that it is a war between two different conceptions of government and of humanity, and include in the liberation all those people who are on our side and fighting for us, whatever their colour, class or creed?

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, may I ask the Lord Chancellor a question regarding Clause 2? I apologize for not having given notice that I intended to raise this, and if the Lord Chancellor prefers I shall postpone pressing for an answer until the Committee stage. The question is this: In what way will Clause 2 affect the position of Palestinians? The reason I ask is that many people who would be British subjects are said to be Palestinians because they went to Palestine under the various schemes of settlement. They have all the obligations of citizens of the British Commonwealth, but when they come to this country they are treated as aliens. If Clause 2 eases their position I shall be very glad; but in any case I suggest that the particular complications that have arisen in regard to Palestinians might be further inquired to.

LORD MARLEY

My Lords, I rather hope that the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, may be sympathetically considered as far as possible. The fact of the matter is that these nationality laws can no longer be considered without the closest reference to the laws of other nations. You cannot consider to-day the mere facts of British nationality without considering the effects on other peoples. This is a House of Lords Bill and presumably, therefore, it has been drafted with a view to going through all its stages in this House, with such changes as we may care to make in it, before it goes to the House of Commons. It is easier to make any changes now than it would be if it were a House of Commons Bill coming up here. In the first place, there is the impact on American citizens. It is interesting to notice that in Clause I we get the traditional term for British citizenship which is "British subject." I do not know whether there is such a term as "British citizen," but the term used in the Bill is "British subject." There are no American "subjects," they are American "citizens." It is just the difference in approach indicated by the different wording. It would be advantageous to have an assurance from the noble and learned Viscount that in drafting the Bill the greatest possible consideration has been given to the Citizenship Laws of the United States to see that nothing has been included which might effect adversely their attitude to these problems.

The other point I would raise was partly dealt with by Lord Wedgwood. He referred to the position of alien-born wives of British citizens. We have here two problems. As I understand it, under our law, if an English woman marries a foreigner, she loses her British citizenship. She may not always acquire the citizenship of the national whom she marries. She may not acquire it for a certain number of years. For example, I believe that an English woman marrying an American cannot become an American citizen immediately. I am subject to correction on the point, but I believe that is the case. If, therefore, she loses British citizenship on marriage to a foreigner, and does not acquire foreign citizenship immediately, she becomes a Stateless person for a period of years, which is a very serious disadvantage. It would seem to be a pity not to do something about this when we are amending the law. Similarly, I think I am right in saying that a foreign-born woman marrying an Englishman immediately becomes a British citizen regardless of the justification for granting that privilege. We see examples of it in the Royal Institute of International Affairs, where a woman who has taken a prominent part for years in the discussions of that body suddenly becomes ineligible through marrying a foreigner, however distinguished, whereas a foreign-born woman, simply by marrying an Englishman, acquires the right to participate in all these discussions. It seems a pity, when we have to deal with this question of nationality, that this matter, which has long been recognized as unsatisfactory, should not also be dealt with. I wonder if the Lord Chancellor could say whether there is any possibility, before this Bill goes ahead, of including a clause dealing with these two specific problems—the loss of citizenship by an English woman who marries a foreigner, and the gain of British citizenship by a foreign-born woman who marries an Englishman.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I ask your permission to answer briefly the points which have been raised. I shall not argue them because at this stage we are giving the Bill a Second Reading, and I am anxious to study more exactly the matters which have been indicated. The most important thing, perhaps, to bear in mind, which I am afraid I omitted to mention when I moved the Second Reading, is that legislation on this sort of subject must be most carefully prepared and agreed with the Dominions. Nothing but confusion would result if one portion of the Commonwealth legislates along one line and others take a different line. I should have told the House that this Bill is the result of most careful communication with the Dominions, and the Government would naturally feel great difficulty in pulling it about because that would not be consistent with the general arrangement we have made about it.

Let me, however, answer two or three of the questions that were put. Lord Strabolgi asked whether Clause 2 would have any bearing on Palestine. Clause 2 would apply to the children of British subjects born in Palestine. Your Lordships will see the words, "if at the time of his birth his father was a British subject." But that does not, and could not, apply to those who are not children of a British father—that is to say, it does not affect Palestinians as such. I hardly think we are entitled to interfere with Palestinian nationality. Lord Marley asked whether it would not be possible to reconsider the use of the phrase, "British subject." He was quite correct in saying that in the United States they speak of American "citizens," but there is nothing very degrading or objectionable in the British people calling themselves "British subjects." We are and intend to remain British subjects. That is the language that is used in reference to the Crown all over the Commonwealth. It is to be found in hundreds of Acts of Parliament, and I really do not think we can use this Bill for the purpose of making that change, even if it were desirable.

Then I was asked about married women. Your Lordships are aware that, though the matter has been briefly mentioned in two of the speeches this afternoon, this is a very large and difficult subject. It has been the topic of more than one investigation, I think of more than one Bill, and it certainly would not be possible to use a Bill with this title under these limited aims, carried to meet difficulties which arise in the war, and turn it into a measure altering fundamentally the law relating to married women. There is a good deal to be said on a number of points there. I think the situation is generally but not quite as stated by Lord Marley, but I think it is outside what we are aiming to do in this Bill, and I should doubt very much indeed whether your Lordships would wish to turn this measure, the clauses of which will have, I think, universal support and approval, into a measure of a different kind which raises at once very large questions that cannot be described as other than questions of controversy.

My noble friend Lord Wedgwood, in very feeling and very characteristic terms, pointed out that the provision with respect to Frenchmen in the British Forces did not cover others. He mentioned particularly the Jews, but not exclusively. Of course the reason why the provision is made in the form in which it is is that a specific pledge was given in reference to these particular people, and I do not think the noble Lord's impression is correct when he said very few want to avail themselves of it. I think he will find that quite a number who are serving in British units side by side with British soldiers, sailors or airmen, do want to avail themselves of it. We shall see how that is. No one will be naturalized if he does not desire it. It would be a different matter to extend it very generally. There is no objection, I am very glad to think, to the naturalization of an alien because he is a Jew; certainly not. I know enough of the work of the Home Office to know that is not so. I know very well from my own service in that office that that question is decided and dealt with constantly. No one would suggest for a moment that there is an objection to the naturalization of a man or woman who is a Jew, and I trust that that attitude will never be departed from. At the same time naturalization under ordinary conditions does not require any new Act of Parliament at all, and I think there would be a good deal of difficulty in extending to others this Clause 4, which has reference to certain individuals to whom a definite pledge has been given, who have not got their own Government established here in this country like, for instance, the Dutch have, or the Norwegians have, or the Czechoslovaks have. Those who come within the clause are to a certain extent at the present time very much wanderers on the face of the earth, and they lost not a moment, when things were most critical in France, in joining our own Forces and saying they wished to fight as part of the British units. That is quite a special case and that is the reason why they are dealt with in this Bill. I will attend very carefully to all that has been said, but I hope your Lordships will now allow us to have the Second Reading of the Bill.

LORD WEDGWOOD

My Lords, may I point out that most of the Pioneers were assured that they would have the opportunity of becoming British subjects? It is true the pledge was not given by the Prime Minister, but a pledge has been given to these people and many of them joined up on that assumption. I do not say it was universal, but even if the pledge has been given by the humblest recruiting officer I think we are just as entitled to implement that pledge as if it had been given by the Prime Minister himself.

On Question, Bill read 2a.