Date: 18 July 2025
Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill 2024-2025″ (the bill) is now going through different stages in Parliament’s law-making process.
In brief, the stage of the law-making process includes the followings: first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, third reading, Lords’ amendments in Commons. According to the Guide to Legislative Procedures issued by the Cabinet Office shows that: “A bill must be given “three readings” in each House before it can be submitted for the Royal Assent”. The First Reading is purely a formality when the Clerk of the House reads the title from a dummy bill. The Secord Reading is the main consideration of the general principles of a bill, at the end of which a vote is taken on the bill as whole. At the committee stage a Standing Committee of the whole House considered the Bill clause by clause and at Report stage further amendments to bill may be considered. At Third Reading the debate is confined to contents of the bill. The bill then is forwarded to House of Lords for the consideration of their lordships, where they may suggest making amendments on the Third Reading of a bill if they think would improve it, and Lords amenders then is considered in the House of Commons. A bill passed by the Commons can go for Royal Assent – which is the final stage in electing process to make a bill into a law.
The bill was granted a second reading on 30 June 2025, and it considered in a committee of the whole House on 14 July 2025.
The short bill proposes that a successful appeal against a removal of British citizenship would no longer restore the person’s citizenship immediately.
It should be noted here that British citizen by way of naturalisation is not an entitlement, but it is at the discretion of the Home Secretary. It is a matter of law as set out in the British Nationality Act 1981. Section 6 (1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 states that the Secretary of State “may” grant an application for naturalisation as a British citizen, “if he thinks fit”. This means the Home Secretary may exercise discretion to grant a “certificate of naturalisation” if he/she thinks and/or satisfied that the applicant meets the statutory requirements as set out in Schedule 1 to the Act. Therefore, the Home Secretary may, in particular circumstances, can refuse to grant a certificate of naturalisation who meets these requirements, but they cannot grant a certificate to a person who does not meet the requirements. Also, the Home Secretary may refuse to grant a certificate where the person meets the statutory requirements, but it would not in the public interest to grant citizenship.
For example, Mohammed Al Fayed’s application for British citizenship was refused. According to BBC news was published on 6 May 1999: “A Home Office statement said the decision had been made after taking into account all relevant material.”
Also, under Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Home Secretary may by order deprive a person’s citizenship, if they consider it “conducive to the public good” or if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person obtained the registration or naturalisation by means of (a) fraud, (b) false representation, or (c) concealment of a material fact [Section 40 (2) and (3) of the British Nationality Act 1981]
From 2010 to 2023, there were 222 deprivation orders on the ground that it was conducive to the public good. There is a right of appeal against deprivation of a British citizenship. Section 40A (1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 gives a statutory right of appeal against such a decision by the Secretary of State to the First-Tier Tribunal, which can allow the appeal or dismiss it. However, where the Secretary of State certifies that the decision to make a deportation order in respect of a person was taken on the grounds that his removal from the United Kingdom would be in the interests of national security under section 97A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, in such cases appeals are heard in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
With regards to the timing when a citizenship deprivation order takes effect, the current position is that a citizenship deprivation order takes effect when the Home Secretary decides, but the person can try to overturn it on appeal.
In February 2025, the Supreme Court [in the case on N3 (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent); ZA (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), made the following findings on what exactly happens when someone wins an appeal against citizenship deprivation order: (1) When someone successfully appeals a deprivation order, they are treated as never having lost their citizenship; and (2) No further action is required to undo the deprivation order. In this regard [at [para 93], the Supreme Court stated that: “As a matter of good practice and for good order, we consider that the Secretary of State should formally withdraw the deprivation order as from the date of the SIAC or tribunal order, to minimise the risk of confusion.” The bill would change the second of these Supreme Court findings, but not the first.
The bill contains one substantive cluse. The clause 1(1) provides that once a citizenship deprivation order is made under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, “the order continues to have effect during the appeal period”. This means that, even if someone wins their appeal at the first stage, they would still be without citizenship until the government has either lost any subsequent appeal to a higher court or run of time to lodge such an appeal. The government says these changes are necessary for national security.
Clause 1(2) would make this change retroactive – this mean, it would cover people who have an appeal ongoing already, not just cases which begin after the act comes into force. Also, the bill is not restricted to situations involving national security, but it is likely that scenario of citizenship deprivation for fraud under section 40(3) of the A981 act, would be affected.
During the Secord Reading, Dan Jarvis MP, the Minister of State at the Home Office, as for the reasons for the measure, said to “prevent someone who is outside the UK and who poses a risk to our national security from returning when a further appeal may be upheld”.
However, several MPs expressed their reservations and questions whether the measure was necessary. During the Secord Reading, Kit Malthouse MP (Conservative) for NorthWest Hampshire, said: “In fat, it has been an important principle of British justice that successful appeal equals vindication. This Bill is trying to remove that presumption.”
The bill was nevertheless granted a second reading without a division.
Sources:
- House of Commons Library, Research Briefing on Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill 2024-25
- Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill – HL Bill 127 (as brought from the Commons)
- HC Hansard, Volume 770: debate on Monday 30 June 2025]
Khaled Noor, 18th July 2025, London