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.
The language test
57. 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, difficult for a naturalised citizen to exercise his civic duties, for instance, to vote or sit on juries, if he does not understand the language of his adopted country. It is difficult indeed for him to be accepted as a sufficiently integrated member of our society if he cannot communicate with his fellow-citizens. Moreover, some knowledge of the language is an indication that the applicant has com- mitted himself to living here and taking part in the life of the community.
58. Against this, however, it is argued that elderly applicants in particular can find it difficult to meet the language test. They may lead restricted lives, largely amongst their own fellow-countrymen, and the range of civic duties that they could effectively perform would probably be small. They may, none- theless, be anxious to acquire citizenship, particularly if they are stateless or of uncertain nationality. One solution might be to keep the language test but give the Home Secretary some discretion to waive it in such cases.
An appeals system
59. As mentioned above, those who are refused citizenship by registration or naturalisation cannot at present appeal against the refusal. Admittedly, a decision to refuse citizenship usually has little immediate impact on the everyday life of the applicant; it does not affect his ability to stay in this country, and he is free, for instance, to own property. But refusal might prevent someone from entering a post, such as those in the Civil Service, which is restricted to those holding certain nationalities. A right of appeal could offer some help in such
a case.
60. On the other hand, it is questionable whether it would be apt to have an appeals system if good character, assessed in each case by analysing all the factors involved, were to remain the criterion for citizenship. The diversity of circum- stances encountered in applications is very wide. The judgements which have to be made in this area are essentially subjective, and matters of this kind are not easily justiciable. It is for consideration how far it would be an improvement to substitute the views of adjudicators for those of the Home Secretary and his advisers. Under the present system the standards applied in the generality of cases can be, and are, modified, and exceptions made to them, where this seems justified. But if good character were to be replaced by objective tests the scope of a right of appeal would be small. The only issues that would then come to an appeal would be the length of an applicant's residence in this country or his future intentions. Applicants who were refused on security and similar grounds could not in any case be given a right of appeal, because of the difficulty of disclosing in public the information that had led to the refusal.
20
Dual nationality
61. United Kingdom law contains no bar on the holding of dual nationality. Of the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have other citizenships, some have obtained them by naturalisation in other countries, but the majority have them by reason of their descent. In particular, the close links between families in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic have led to much dual citizenship. Most other countries place restrictions on the holding of other citizenships in addition to their own. Nearly all Commonwealth countries, for instance, withdraw citizenship from those who voluntarily acquire the citizenship of another country, taking the view that those who, of their own free will, acquire the citizenship of another country should lose their original citizenship since they have sought and obtained the protection of another State. Some of these countries made provision to this effect on first attaining independence, while others which formerly allowed their citizens to hold another nationality have changed their law. Equally, many countries require applicants for naturalisation to renounce their former nationality as evidence of their commit- ment to their new country. Others extend the ban on dual nationality further, to those who have acquired it involuntarily-say, through parents of different nationalities who are both able to transmit their citizenship. Usually such countries allow the child to remain a dual national until he is of age, and then he has to decide within a specified time which citizenship he intends to hold, and renounce the other; if he fails to make a choice he automatically forfeits the citizenship of the country concerned.
62. If the United Kingdom decided to tighten its law on dual nationality, there are thus various options:---
(i) a complete ban on dual nationality where it arises either voluntarily (by naturalisation, etc.) or involuntarily (by descent, for instance), with some arrangement for children who are dual nationals to make a choice when they become of age;
(ii) a ban on dual nationality where it arises voluntarily-our citizens who voluntarily took another citizenship would thereby lose our citizenship, and applicants for our citizenship would have to renounce any other citizenship as a condition of becoming citizens;
(iii) a ban on dual nationality only where our citizens voluntarily acquired another nationality (as was the practice in United Kingdom law from 1870-1948).
63. To ban dual nationality completely would be complicated and expensive. A record would have to be kept of all children born both in the United Kingdom and abroad who had another nationality in addition to ours. When such children came of age they would have to be advised of the need to choose, and the time limit for doing so. In view of the large numbers of people from this country living abroad, and of people from other countries living in the United Kingdom, this would be an immense task, and it is very doubtful whether everyone affected could be covered. The alternative would be to rely on the individual remembering to make a choice, but this could lead to hardship where the individual inadvertently lost his citizenship by failing to do so; there would probably have to be elaborate machinery to exempt such persons, and this could also be expensive. Admittedly, there are bound to be more dual nationals if women are able to transmit their citizenship to their children born abroad
21