convicted of a criminal offence (with some exceptions);
who was not awaiting trial for any offence; and who was not an undischarged bankrupt or a person barred from acting as a director under the Companies Act. The excepted criminal offences might be first, those which are "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; and, secondly, offences which led to a custodial sentence of more than 30 months (and which cannot therefore be "spent" under 1974 Act) where the applicant completed his sentence not less than 10 years before applying for naturalisation.
57. But there would obviously have to be some reserve power to deal with applicants who were unsuitable on grounds of national security or the preservation of law and order.
58. Even so, an objective test like criminal offences has its drawbacks. It cannot measure for instance whether a man's general behaviour makes him unacceptable to his fellow-citizens, even though he may have kept free of the Courts. And, if a man makes himself unacceptable to his fellow-citizens in this way, he may be a full citizen in law but he will be a second- class citizen in fact. He will not enjoy the equal status that, by and large, naturalised citizens now possess and the process of naturalisation may be devalued. Perhaps more sophisticated objective tests are needed, or the concept of good character loose and vague as it is should be retained. The Government
will welcome views on this matter.
Language test
59. The present law requires that applicants for naturalisation should have a sufficient knowledge of English (or, for discretionary registration, which was introduced in 1973, English or Welsh). Nowadays, it is usually sufficient for the applicant to have an adequate command of spoken English. Such factors as the age and ability of the applicant are taken into account in assessing this. Most countries have similar provisions in their naturalisation laws. It is after all
Page 150Page 151