Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Government have today introduced the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill to the House of Commons.
Removing someone’s British citizenship—also known as deprivation of citizenship—is a vital tool that is used to preserve the UK’s national security. It is used against those who obtained citizenship by fraud and against the most dangerous people, such as terrorists, extremists, and serious organised criminals.
The power to deprive a person of their British citizenship on “conducive to the public good” grounds is used sparingly, complies with the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, and always comes with a right to appeal. The Home Secretary decides each case personally.
Bill proposals
This Bill is extremely narrow in its scope and intent, focusing solely on closing a loophole in the existing deprivation of citizenship process. The Bill does not change any existing right of appeal or widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship.
In the recent case of N3 and ZA v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Supreme Court decided that if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful or if a deprivation of citizenship order is withdrawn, the initial order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be a British citizen. This means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before further avenues of appeal have been exhausted.
This Bill will amend section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 in order to protect the UK from people who pose a threat to national security by preventing those who have been deprived of British citizenship and are overseas from returning until all appeals are determined. It will also prevent a person who has been deprived of citizenship on the grounds that it is conducive to the public good from seeking to undermine deprivation action while an appeal in their case remains ongoing, such as by renouncing their other nationality and putting themselves in a position whereby a deprivation order would render them stateless.
[HCWS720]