49. This runs contrary to the Government's general policy of ending crimination between the sexes. But there is considerable room for argument on how changes might be made. Registration on these grounds under the present law gives a woman the right of entry to the United Kingdom, and to extend the right to men in the same way would inevitably have repercussions on immigra- tion; in particular, the possibility that bogus marriages might thereby be encouraged cannot be ignored. It is of interest that some other countries which have granted husbands rights similar to those enjoyed by wives to acquire nationality by virtue of marriage (for example, West Germany, Denmark and the USA) have found it necessary to place some restriction on the right to acquire citizenship in this way, e.g., by a qualifying period of residence.
50. Four possible options, with some comments on them, are given below:- (i) to give men married to citizens the same entitlement to citizenship which women who are married to citizens now enjoy. This would “level up” the sexes by enabling a woman citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to confer on her foreign husband the same benefit as a man can confer on his foreign wife, and would more adequately recognise the equal status of women in marriage. But such a provision could, as indicated above, have some undesirable conse- quences. Because any Commonwealth citizen or foreign national would be able to acquire citizenship—and the right of entry to the United Kingdom-simply through marriage to a British Citizen, there could be an encouragement to bogus marriages, particularly where a foreigner was aware of being in danger of deportation (which his acquisition of citizenship would prevent) and, more generally, to securing entry ostensibly for some temporary purpose but really with a view to marriage and permanent settlement. Accordingly, a provision of this kind might have to include a reserve power to refuse citizenship in certain circumstances;
(ii) to give spouses of both sexes married to citizens an entitlement to
citizenship, but make this subject to a residence requirement of perhaps three years;
(iii) to treat spouses of citizens on exactly the same terms as other applicants for citizenship. This would mean that wives would have to qualify for citizenship in the same way that husbands do. It might be said that marriage should not of itself entitle anyone-male or female to take his or her spouse's citizenship, particularly if the marriage no longer subsists, and that we should not assume that a spouse is automatically fitted for citizenship or that he or she is prepared to identify with this country; but that spouses of each sex should be treated on their merits;
(iv) to treat spouses of citizens on the same terms as other applicants for citizenship, but to give both sexes some concession in the matter of residence-perhaps by requiring only three years, instead of the normal five, for naturalisation. This would ensure that marriage to a citizen brought a real advantage without giving the unqualified entitlement which at present is conferred on women but not on men. This would be broadly in line with the approach which has been adopted by a number of other countries which have recently revised their nationality laws.
18
Citizenship by naturalisation
51. Under our present law, foreign nationals who seek naturalisation have to satisfy the Home Secretary, amongst other things, that they have resided here for at least five years; that they are of good character; that they have a sufficient knowledge of English; and that they intend, once naturalised, to remain here or linked to British interests abroad. Many Commonwealth citizens have an entitlement to citizenship and have to show only that they have been ordinarily resident here for five years. But increasing numbers are having to meet similar requirements-see paragraph 47-to those for naturalisa- tion (Commonwealth citizens apply for registration, not naturalisation). There is no appeal against refusal of either naturalisation or registration.
52. There are three aspects of the procedure on which the Government will particularly welcome views-the good character requirement, the language test and the absence of an appeals system.
The good character requirement
53. The requirement that applicants for naturalisation must be of good character is long-established. Over the years, records of what constitutes good character have been carefully kept, and the doctrine has been modified from time to time as society's views of acceptable behaviour and attitudes have changed. But the requirement is imprecise. It is after all easier to say that someone is of good character than to analyse why this is so. Different people are bound to have different views of what constitutes good character. Every effort is made to treat applicants consistently and fairly in this matter, but it is not always easy to administer the good character requirement satisfactorily.
54. But, equally, it is not easy to devise an adequate substitute. One way would be to limit consideration of character to criminal and financial matters. It might be said that someone was acceptable for naturalisation who had never been 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 Rehabilita- tion of Offenders Act 1974; and, second, offences which led to a custodial sentence of more than 30 months (and which cannot therefore be "spent" under the 1974 Act) where the applicant completed his sentence not less than 10 years before applying for naturalisation.
55. But there would obviously have to be some reserve power to deal with applicants who were unsuitable on grounds of national security or the preser- vation of law and order.
56. 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
19