Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Katie Lam Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his work and approach, today and every day. It is a pleasure to work across from him, against our enemies and in defence of our great country and its people.

Sometimes, fulfilling our duty to keep our country safe means taking action that we might otherwise wish to avoid, but it is completely right that depriving people of their citizenship under certain circumstances is a tool available to the Home Secretary. Those who hate our country and what it stands for, and work against our interests, should not be able to hide behind a British passport. Membership of a nation does not just imply rights; it also confers responsibilities. When British citizens engage in terrorism, support for terrorism or serious organised crime, they clearly disregard those responsibilities. It is clearly true that we cannot deprive such people of citizenship in all cases, particularly given that a worrying number of extremists are now homegrown, but where we can, we should.

If we accept that the deprivation of citizenship is an important tool in keeping our country safe, we should also accept that this power should be exercised pragmatically, with the safety of the British people coming first. Allowing potentially dangerous individuals to retain their citizenship while appeals are ongoing is absurd. This is not a power exercised lightly by any Government, and the idea that dangerous people might escape accountability by exploiting procedure is frightening. The current system also opens up the worrying possibility of dual citizens renouncing their non-UK citizenship during the appeal process, making it subsequently impossible to remove their British citizenship without rendering them stateless, so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said earlier, we support the Bill, which will ensure that deprivation of citizenship orders will continue to have effect until the entire appeal process is complete.

The hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) rightly placed the Bill in its wider context, both historically and politically, and I agree with him on the desperate need to restore our broken border and make British citizenship extremely precious. He spoke of the citizenship ceremony. My grandmother swore allegiance to the King when she became a citizen, and talked of it often. I know that it was one of the proudest moments of her life. The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said that she considers citizenship a right rather than a privilege. On that, I am afraid that she and I disagree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) rightly said immediately afterwards, citizenship is to be prized, not abused.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) was right to point out that there is a balance to be struck. Deprivation has a cost to those who are deprived. I say that the cost in the scenarios in which the Home Secretary may exercise deprivation powers is more than worth paying to protect this country and her people. Similarly, and more specifically to the Bill, the cost of maintaining a deprivation until the conclusion of the process is also a price well worth paying. I say that as a British citizen who, unlike my right hon. Friend, is entitled to several other citizenships.

Finally, the Bill is not just a good example of decisive action taken in the interest of national security; it is also a good example of Parliament’s role in our political system. In this country, the main job of the judiciary is to interpret and apply Parliament’s will. Unlike in other countries, judges are not the highest safeguards of our constitution. In Britain, that task is given to, and must remain with, the British people themselves. When the judiciary makes a decision that runs contrary to the will of Parliament, either as it was or as it is today, Parliament is perfectly entitled to overturn that decision; in fact, it must do so if our political system is to work as it should. In, say, the United States, the Supreme Court’s job involves working out the intention of long-dead statesmen. That is not the case here in the United Kingdom, where Parliament is a living, breathing institution, embodying the sovereignty of the British people. It can clarify its will or issue new guidance.

That kind of institutional dialogue is healthy; indeed, it is the lifeblood of our politics. We therefore welcome not only the specific measures before us today but the approach taken by the Government on this matter. We have seen Ministers and Government Members behave as if the law is an entity unto itself—an authority above all others, entirely separate from the political process. That could not be further from the truth. We must never forget that the supreme authority in this country is Parliament, and that the job of Parliament is to legislate in the interests of the British people. When the legal process produces a result that is not in the interests of the British people, not only is this House well within its rights to overturn it; it must do so.