House of Commons · General Debate
14 July 2025 · 13 other contributors
Opened by Kit Malthouse Con North West Hampshire
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Kit Malthouse raised concerns about deprivation of citizenship orders (effect during appeal) bill 2025-07-14 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Mr. Malthouse argued that the bill is discriminatory and undermines basic tenets of British justice, proposing an amendment to ensure fair treatment during appeals. He emphasised that individuals should regain their citizenship if they win their first appeal unless there are profound reasons for further deprivation.
Mr. Malthouse suggested a new clause requiring an independent review of the bill's effects within two years, and proposed an amendment to give judges discretion to suspend citizenship deprivation orders during appeals under specific conditions.
The Minister acknowledged Mr. Malthouse's points but did not elaborate on his stance or the government's response to the proposed amendment.
The hon. Member acknowledges the importance of access to justice but argues that those facing deprivation of citizenship have already committed actions contrary to British traditions and values, hence they forfeit certain privileges.
The hon. Member expresses concern over the Bill's impact on dual nationals and individuals with eligibility for citizenship elsewhere, particularly those from minority ethnic communities. She argues that such legislation disproportionately impacts certain groups and creates a two-tier system of citizenship.
The unnamed MP is against the Bill, arguing that it sends a message of second-class citizenship and undermines equality before the law. The MP criticises the lack of an equality impact assessment and suggests amendment 1 to safeguard individuals during appeals.
Supports new clause 1 to ensure proper scrutiny and oversight of citizenship deprivation powers, calling for a comprehensive review within two years of the Act's passage. Emphasises the need for robust safeguards to prevent misuse.
Expresses concern about national security but acknowledges the need for scrutiny and transparency in legislation aimed at protecting citizens.
Addresses an intervention to highlight that some Commonwealth countries allow citizenship based on heritage, emphasising the potential impact of the Bill on these communities.
The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill questions the Minister about who will be affected by the Bill, particularly those of British nationality with no other claim to a nationality.
The right hon. Member argues that the Bill creates a two-tier citizenship and seeks to undermine fairness. He asks about recourse if the Government drag their heels on appeals and whether membership of a proscribed organisation is grounds for deprivation.
The hon. Member proposes new clause 1 to ensure accountability in the use of deprivation powers, but the Minister argues that existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient and that the amendment duplicates these measures without adding value.
Ms Ribeiro-Addy questioned the fairness of the Bill, highlighting concerns that it may disproportionately affect certain communities. She requested the Minister to publish an assessment and address whether the legislation is discriminatory due to its potential impact on specific groups.
Ms Lam thanked the Minister for his work on the Bill, supporting its aim to maintain national security by allowing deprivation of citizenship. She argued that this power should be preserved and clarified, emphasising Parliament's authority over judicial decisions in matters of ministerial powers.
Government Response
The Minister outlines that the Bill does not change any rights of appeal or widen reasons for deprivation. He assures that courts carefully assess appeals, preventing superfluous or unfounded ones. Clause 2 is necessary to make the Bill operational and extends its application throughout the UK, Crown dependencies, and overseas territories.
Shadow Response
NoneDefends the Bill as an important step towards tightening rules on citizenship deprivation, emphasising that it ensures politically accountable Ministers are responsible for final decisions. Acknowledges the need for balance and proper use of deprivation powers. Ms Lam supported the substance of the Bill, stressing Parliament's role in clarifying its own intentions on ministerial powers. She argued that the judiciary should not override parliamentary will when it is contrary to the interests of the British people.