Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Kit Malthouse

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

“(2BA) But a judge may determine that an order does not continue to have effect for a person “P” during the appeal period if, on granting leave to appeal at any stage, they are satisfied that—

(a) “P” faces a real and substantial threat of serious harm as a result of the order,

(b) continuation of the order would significantly prejudice their ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal, or

(c) the duration of the appeal process has been excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority.”

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Independent review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, commission an independent review of the effects of the changes made to section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 by section 1.

(2) The review must be completed within two years of the passing of this Act.

(3) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report sent under subsection (3)(b) within one month of receiving the report.”

[Kit Malthouse]

I am pleased to be opening this debate, although, given the turnout in the Chamber, it seems to be a minority interest among Members of Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that the legislation affects some of our most basic freedoms and rights. Before I address amendment 1, I hope you will forgive me, Madam Chair, if I briefly indulge in a preamble. There are a couple of issues that I want to impress on the Minister in the hope that he will respond favourably and, if not accept my amendment, agree to consider the principles it raises in the other place. Given the number of senior lawyers there, this legislation will be examined by some pretty stringent legal eyes.

First, Madam Chair, I hope you will agree that we established on Second Reading that this Bill is highly discriminatory. One of the truisms we always utter in this House is that we all stand equal before the law, but I am afraid that where this legislation is concerned, that is just not true. The Minister would be unable to wield against me the powers he is seeking to bring in under this Bill; it would not be countenanced because I have no right to citizenship elsewhere. However, there are Members of this House against whom the Minister could wield that power. Although he could not wield it against me, he could wield it against two of my children, although not against the other one—I have three. He could wield it against the children of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak); against the children of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt); and against the children of the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). I am trying to illustrate to the Minister that this legislation is highly discriminatory, and unusually so. He is tampering with some of the basic tenets of British justice through this Bill—a principle has been established in the Supreme Court that he is attempting to reverse—and I want him to have in mind that he is trying to embed that discrimination in law. I hope and believe that that is not his primary motivation, but he must comprehend that before he takes this step.

Secondly, I say to the Minister, who has a distinguished record of service in the defence of this country and now serves as Security Minister, that much of the Bill is, let us face it, focused on those accused of committing terrorism here or overseas. Terrorists win in two ways: first, by the physical injury that they inflict and the fear of that physical injury that they are likely to inflict by exploding bombs, killing people and all the horrors we have seen in our lifetimes over the past 30 or 40 years, if not longer; and secondly, by a long, slow undermining of our way of life and by sowing division within our society. Their long game is to force us to twist ourselves in knots around the freedoms that make us different, which they despise, and slowly to erode our standard of living and the atmosphere in which we live, and we have seen that before in this country.

The Minister is old enough to remember the evolution of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, where hearings were held without juries. We dispensed with the basic freedom of the right to a jury trial in Northern Ireland for a while, largely because of accusations of violence towards juries. It was proven later that this was part of a known strategy by the IRA to make the Six Counties ungovernable, other than by military colonial means, so the IRA saw that move as a triumph. What terrorists want in the long term is a twisting of our natural freedoms. They want us to make compromises in our legislation that undermine our sense of belonging in our nation and create a division not just between the governed and the Government, but within society. This legislation, I am afraid, starts to do exactly that.

On Second Reading I pointed out, as I have possibly already done today—I hate to be repetitive—that this legislation and this power create two classes of citizenship in the UK. There are those who can have the order removed and those who never can have it removed. As use of the power has accelerated over the past two decades, and we are using it now more than we ever did, it creates a feeling of unease among those whose citizenship is conditional.

I will explain to the Minister why I tabled amendment 1. As I said on Second Reading, my view is that he is undermining some of the basic tenets of British justice with what he is attempting to do with this legislation. With this amendment, I am attempting to swing the pendulum back a little in the cause of fairness before the law. As he will know, individuals subject to this power have the right to appeal on a number of bases, and courts will decide whether to allow their appeal. Broadly, there are three areas on which they can appeal: the first is whether the decision was proportional; the second is whether it was procedurally fair; and the third is whether the Minister or the Home Secretary has made a mistake over whether the person has a right to citizenship elsewhere and so may in fact be rendered stateless. As he knows, that is not allowed under the legislation.

If I have had my citizenship deprived essentially at the stroke of a pen by the Home Secretary, and I win an appeal, it seems unfair, given that I have won that appeal on the basis of fact, that the Government can continue to deprive me of my citizenship pending a further appeal by them. Ordinarily, I would have got rid of this legislation, but the Minister seems insistent, and he won on principle at Second Reading, and that is fine. I am therefore appealing to his sense of good old British fair play to say, “This individual has won their first appeal on the basis of fact. Unless we have some profound reason to dispute that fact, we will not appeal, in which case they get their citizenship back.” On the basis of the fundamental British value of “innocent until proven guilty”, that person should get their citizenship back, particularly if a judge decides that the three conditions outlined in my amendment are satisfied.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Malthouse, do you wish to withdraw the amendment?

[Kit Malthouse]

In the hope that the Minister will do the right thing, yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

Points of Order

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Kit Malthouse

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Along with 6.5 million fellow members, I am a member of the local government pension scheme, through my proud membership of the London Pensions Fund Authority. We are uniquely affected by the Pension Schemes Bill, which we are about to contemplate. I am therefore concerned that it should be a hybrid Bill rather than a public Bill. I seek your guidance, please, as to whether the Bill has been properly certified as a public Bill and whether, in fact, it should be referred to the examiners to decide whether it should go through the hybrid Bill process. If not, and the House decides to proceed today, could the House of Lords independently decide through its examiners whether it is, in fact, a hybrid Bill?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his point of order and for giving notice of it. The Bill was not referred to the examiners at the time of presentation, indicating that the view taken by the relevant House authorities at the time was that the Bill was not prima facie hybrid. He is welcome to refer to any aspect of part 1 of the Bill during today’s proceedings. The Chair cannot be expected to respond substantively today, but I will ensure that he receives a substantive written response this week. His final point was about proceedings in the House of Lords, which are not a matter for the Chair, or indeed for this House. I ask him not to refer to that matter in his speech.

Points of Order

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Kit Malthouse

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I think the right hon. Member knows that that point of order is a matter not for the Chair, but for the Government. No doubt the Foreign Secretary and those on the Front Bench will have heard him and will respond in due course.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can remind the House what the processes are for us to obtain an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24, on the basis that this situation is so dire and so acute that a number of us may wish to apply for such a debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I and the right hon. Member both came into Parliament together. He knows how to obtain a Standing Order No. 24 debate, so he does not need me to remind him of the process. He will get much advice from the Speaker’s Office. Without doubt, the strength of feeling has been heard repeatedly, in the statement and in those two points of order, by the Foreign Secretary and Ministers on the Front Bench.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Kit Malthouse

Money resolution
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Thank you, Mr Shannon, for letting me know you would be making a point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Member’s speeches, but I remind the House of the advice in Erskine May on the importance of good temper and moderation in parliamentary language.

[Kit Malthouse]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was no intent in my remarks to undermine the integrity of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I may have misunderstood his remarks, but he implied that the Committee was adopting some kind of veil of secrecy over our affairs and I was pointing out to him that, in my view, that was a misunderstanding of what we were attempting to do yesterday. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was offended, as he knows I hold him in great affection and I had no intention to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, Mr Malthouse. I can see Mr Shannon nodding, so hopefully your apology has been accepted.

Government Policy on Health

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Kit Malthouse

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has obviously decided that attack is the best form of defence, but the operation of the House will collapse if he declines to answer any questions about a very serious matter of public concern. Can we seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether he is conducting himself appropriately in the House? We are seeking transparency on a matter of probity, and he has a duty to answer the House, not least under the ministerial code.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The urgent question has just started, so there will be ample opportunity to continue to hold to account the Secretary of State, who no doubt believes that his answers are responding to the UQ. We have some time to go, so if Members bob, I will endeavour to ensure that they are called to do so.

Police Conduct and Complaints

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Kit Malthouse

Thursday 30th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

It is a great pleasure, Ms Ghani, to appear before you for the first time and also to appear for the first time before someone who was elected to the Commons on the same day that I was. That happy day in 2015 seems an awful long time ago. [Laughter.] I am very grateful—

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Order. I hope the Minister is not trying to sway the Chairperson. I note for the record that it will have no relevance to the rest of the debate.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am also grateful to the assembled members—current and former—of the Home Affairs Committee for contributing to this debate. I am particularly grateful to the current members, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for securing it. It is an immensely important topic. We have had some interesting contributions, which I will take away and digest.

As a number of Members have said, the police perform a unique and critical role in our society. The public look to them for protection and reassurance and, in certain circumstances, through us, authorise them to sometimes use lethal force against our fellow citizens. The public rightly expect all who serve to uphold high standards of conduct and professionalism. As I have said on many occasions—pretty much since I was appointed deputy Mayor for policing more than a decade ago—public confidence and trust are integral to the long-standing model of policing by consent. It is fundamental to the very essence of policing in the United Kingdom. I have worked hard during my career in fighting crime to ensure that we cleave to that model and do not drift towards the warrior model of policing that we see in other jurisdictions.

A range of elements come together to form the full picture when it comes to securing and maintaining public confidence. One of those is an effective conduct and complaints system. As Members have said, the vast majority of police officers already act with the highest standards of professionalism. It is therefore all the more disappointing and, in some instances, completely shocking when the behaviour and actions of a few undermine the hard work of their dedicated colleagues. When things do go wrong it is vital that the systems in place are robust and fair, and stand up to scrutiny.

I note the positive comments in the Committee’s report on the February 2020 reforms made to the police conduct and complaints systems and the significant improvement in the IOPC since 2018. Of course, we accept that there is more to do. With policing—indeed, with any major public service—complacency is something we must fight against with all our might and energy. We must strive constantly for improvement; the public deserve nothing less.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned, the Independent Office for Police Conduct was launched in 2018 following reforms to the IPCC, which scrapped the old commission structure in favour of a single head of the organisation. The new structure resulted in the director general having a combined role that includes chairing the unitary board. The aim of having a single role was to both streamline and demonstrate the independence of decision making to enhance public and police confidence. Scrutiny of and support for the director general is provided by the unitary board, on which the non-executive directors must be in a majority. There is a senior independent non-executive director.

Since its launch in January 2018 and under Michael Lockwood’s leadership, the IOPC has completed more than 91% of the core independent investigations started since then within 12 months. The average length of all investigations has fallen from more than 11 months in 2018 to less than nine months now. I understand that the backlog that was inherited on the conversion to the IOPC has been eliminated. That is huge progress, which, I am happy to say, was also highlighted in the Committee’s report. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked about the number of former police officers on the staff: it is 28%. That is a number that we need to keep an eye on, as he said, in terms of their expertise.

Last year, the Home Secretary announced that she was bringing forward the first periodic review of the IOPC, in response to pressure from my hon. Friend and others. Such reviews of the Government’s arm’s length bodies typically consider the effectiveness of an organisation and its fitness for purpose. We agree that the existing governance structure, along with the Home Affairs Committee’s specific recommendation on the director general’s role, should be looked at as part of that review. The review has not started; however, we are currently working on the arrangements, including identifying an independent reviewer. We will update the Committee when we are able to confirm further details.

The Government are clear in our determination to listen and act on issues important to the general public and their confidence in policing—including accountability, which is crucial to public trust. As colleagues will recall from the Committee’s report, the IOPC is already making a concerted effort to uphold confidence in the police complaints system, which includes greater transparency in the publication of investigation outcomes, actively listening to policing bodies and communities about their concerns, improved investigation timeliness and thematic reviews.

The legislative reforms in 2020 to overhaul the police complaints and disciplinary system were wide ranging, and were designed to simplify processes while increasing transparency and independence. The reforms have significantly reduced the bureaucracy in handling low-level customer service matters, which account for the majority of complaints. The most serious cases continue to be dealt with under robust processes, including independent investigations by the IOPC.

We continue to engage with policing stakeholders across the piece, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and we welcome the ongoing engagement of the Police Federation and other staff associations. We have agreed to review the impact of the reforms, including considering the role of police and crime commissioners in policing complaints. As part of that wider review, we will look at the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North about super-complaints.

Recent high-profile cases of misconduct have shone a light on the culture that exists in some areas of policing. Aside from examples of appalling behaviour that has no place anywhere, let alone within an institution entrusted to protect the public, there is a wider impact on how policing is perceived. When standards are not met, it not only undermines the excellent work done by thousands of officers, staff and volunteers day in, day out, but risks damaging the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public. It is therefore crucial that there are effective systems and safeguards in place to ensure that all officers adhere to the high standards expected of them and that breaches of those standards are identified quickly and dealt with appropriately.

Although the Government have overseen significant progress in the police complaints system in recent years, we do agree that forces, individuals and their representative organisations must take further responsibility for rooting out bad behaviour. The College of Policing is currently undertaking a review of the code of ethics. The review will provide clear expectations that everyone in policing has a duty to challenge and report behaviour that undermines the profession and damages public confidence, and to be open and accountable and learn from mistakes at an organisational and individual level.

As part of the 2020 integrity reforms, the Home Office introduced a duty of co-operation for police officers. The duty provides clarity on the level of co-operation required by an officer where they are a witness in an investigation, inquiry, or other formal proceedings. Failure to co-operate is a breach of the professional standards and can be dealt with by police forces accordingly.

The Government will respond in due course to Bishop James Jones’s report on the experiences of the Hillsborough families and the report of the Daniel Morgan independent panel. The Government will also consider calls for a broader duty of candour for public bodies and authorities—an issue raised by various Members.

Colleagues may also recall that the Home Secretary has announced the Angiolini inquiry, which a couple of Members referred to, part two of which is expected to consider wider policing matters, such as barriers to whistleblowing, vetting practices, and professional standards and discipline, including workplace cultures. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham pointed out, since 2017 it has been the case that retired police officers can be brought back to face gross misconduct proceedings.

I again thank members of the Committee for securing this debate. I am grateful for the opportunity that it has provided me to underscore just how seriously we take this issue. This is not an end point in our work on police integrity and the complaints system. As I said in my opening remarks, the maintenance of trust and the model of consent require constant attention and adjustment as we face different circumstances and incidents. The Committee has my undertaking that we will report to it on our progress on this issue. We will take seriously its report and weave it into the work that we do. We will continue with the work programme to reinforce the fundamental foundation of policing in this country, which is the trust and confidence that the British public have and the consent that they give to the policing model.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Minister—not an end point. I call Mr Tim Loughton to respond and wind up.

Terrorist Incident at Liverpool Women’s Hospital

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Kit Malthouse

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

Given that, in strict terms, this is obviously not my portfolio—I am here today because the Security Minister is in Liverpool himself—I am not sure that my views would necessarily be the most helpful thing to give today. It is the case, however, that in respect of both crime generally and possible radicalisation online, we are working through the implications of the lockdowns and the impact of covid on particular individuals who may be susceptible as a result of having spent time in confinement and been exposed to material to which they would not otherwise have been exposed. Those lessons are being learnt as we speak, and I am sure that in time my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister for Security and Borders will come forward with their proposals.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I have been contacted by many constituents wanting to stand in solidarity with Liverpool and pay tribute to the emergency services. I do not wish to speculate on the motivations of this lone actor, but I wonder whether the Minister has had time to read a report on the “tipping point” into extremism that I produced with the Home Affairs Committee. It contains a large number of recommendations on working with social media platforms to ensure that they do not promote, or engage young minds in, delivering lone acts of violence such as this may have been. Will the Minister update us on what we are doing about social media companies that do not remove those platforms?

[Kit Malthouse]

I know that the hon. Lady has done a vast amount of work in this area, and we congratulate her and thank her for it. She is right: while we entrust a huge amount of our safety to our police forces—and, in particular, to our counter-terrorism police and those who promote the Prevent programme and other radicalisation prevention strategies—we all have a role to play in our collective safety, including the executives and others of social media companies, who need to think about the role that they play in shaping young minds for the future. That is not, as I have said, to speculate on the motivation in this case. I speak in general terms, as a father with children, and I know that there are young minds out there to be shaped. Those companies are part of the shaping, and they need to step up to that responsibility.