MPs back Government bid to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals
If the proposal clears Parliament, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal.
Mr Jarvis told the Commons: 'Of all the duties of Government, none matters more than keeping our country safe.
'It is an awesome task, and one to which we attach the utmost significance as this House and the public would expect. For people to flourish they must have confidence that they are safe as they go about their lives.
'For a society to excel, its values must be protected from harm and its laws upheld.'
The minister later said: 'This Bill will protect the UK from people who pose a threat to our national security by preventing those who've been deprived of British citizenship and are overseas from returning until all appeals have been determined.'
He added that where the Home Office is pursuing a person through the appeals process, the alleged extremist would be unable to renounce any other nationalities they might have until the Government runs out of road.
Under existing laws, a person who wins an appeal could be released from immigration detention or returned to the UK while the Home Office considers further action.
Mr Jarvis warned alleged extremists can renounce other nationalities and put 'themselves in a position whereby a deprivation order would render them stateless', limiting the UK Government's powers.
He has received support from the Conservative frontbench, when Katie Lam said from the despatch box: '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.'
But Conservative former Home Office minister Kit Malthouse warned that the Bill appeared to 'breach a fundamental tenet', by turning the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' on its head.
Mr Malthouse said: 'If I'm accused of a crime and I am found innocent, and the prosecutors decide to appeal my conviction, I remain innocent – until that appeal is heard and decided against me.
'And if it's appealed beyond that, I remain innocent then still.'
Turning to the wider deprivation of citizenship orders, which saw an average of 12 people a year lose their rights to a British passport on the grounds it was 'conducive to the public good' between 2018 and 2023, Mr Malthouse told MPs the system had 'created two classes of citizen in this country'.
Shamima Begum, who travelled aged 15 from Bethnal Green, London, to territory held by the so-called Islamic State group a decade ago, is a well known example of the state's use of its powers.
She was 'married off' to an IS fighter and was stripped of her British citizenship in February 2019.
Mr Malthouse said he was a 'freeborn Englishman of two English parents going back I don't know how many years' with 'no claim on any other citizenship anywhere else'.
He continued: 'It is my absolute, undeniable, unequivocal right to have citizenship in this country and it cannot be removed from me by any means whatsoever.
'That is not true of my children – I'm married to a Canadian citizen. They have a claim on Canadian citizenship. If the Home Secretary so decides, they can have their citizenship removed.
'That is true of every Jewish citizen of the United Kingdom who has a right to citizenship in Israel. There will be millions of British people of south Asian origin who feel that they have a second-class citizenship.
'This law only applies to certain of our citizens.'
Bell Ribeiro-Addy said: 'I do not believe that citizenship is a privilege. I actually believe that it's a right.'
The Labour MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I want to understand why if somebody was such a huge threat to this country, we could not deal with them under other pieces of legislation.'
She warned of a 'sense of nervousness amongst many communities when any legislation that touches and concerns citizenship is brought to this House', and said orders 'disproportionately' affect 'people of colour, or British-born or long-settled individuals whose heritage or ancestral links are outside of Europe'.
Backing the Bill, Labour MP for Makerfield Josh Simons said that 'high streets full of vape shops, dog muck and smashed glass matter so much' as a 'visible and constant reminder that others seem not to feel they belong'.
He described citizenship as 'belonging on a bigger scale – a larger us' and called for 'a modern citizenship regime – reform the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and judicial review, establish digital ID or, for that matter, radically reform the British state'.
Having backed the Bill at second reading, MPs will further scrutinise it in the Commons at a later date.
The Bill does not change the reasons why a person could be deprived of their British status, nor their rights to an appeal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
35 minutes ago
- New Statesman
What does Adam Curtis know?
Photo byOn or about May 1979, the British character changed. That, in a sentence, is the argument of Adam Curtis's new documentary series Shifty. The election of Margaret Thatcher was the beginning of a revolution she helped accelerate but could never control, one involving economics, physics and ideology. Our nation – fretful, immiserated, lonely – was created in the two decades that followed. The adjectives most often used to describe Curtis's recent work tend to be related to drugs: hallucinatory, trance-like, psychedelic. They are apt. Though his earlier films featured interviews and televisual strictures, now he works through a combination of montage and caption, ditching even the nasal narration that once characterised his work. Some storylines he pursues for a full episode, others receive a mere 30 seconds of fame. The effect is disorientating, a constant swaying between plot and subplot. But sudden contrast is Curtis's fetish: gentlemen in cricket whites beneath skeletal electric pylons; shots of glass-and-steel towers immediately followed by a horse dying in a field. However, despite this reputation for experimentation, you get the sense that the scenes he is most drawn to are sober, humdrum, everyday. So, while you have Thatcher scuttling about laying tables for state banquets and trying to force monetarism to work, you also get nightclubs, barbers and police interviews – all the inventory of history from below. Sometimes you wonder where such moving footage comes from: who was letting documentarians into their house parties in 1981? But no matter. Such is the capaciousness of the BBC's archive that serves as Curtis's quarry, he doesn't have to show or tell you. You simply see. When he's doing history from above, though, Curtis is, by his own standards, dealing with a conventional arc. We move in a familiar sequence from Thatcher to Big Bang, from deindustrialisation to MDMA, from mass politics to mass atomisation. Perhaps it is a sign of the shifting historiography of the recent past that this feels more like restatement than reinterpretation. Thatcher is no longer seen as Britain's saviour on the right or left. We all know the bankers are crooked and the politicians are powerless. And did anyone else hear that Max Clifford was a wrong 'un? However, these familiarities are diversified by much more Curtis-like swerves into the strange and the eccentric. Like the story of Stephen Knight, a local reporter who became a national figure for claiming in his book Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution that the Victorian murders were linked to both the Freemasonry movement and the British royal family. Knight went on to write another conspiratorial book about the Freemasons before his early death from a brain tumour. Though Knight is scarcely remembered today, for Curtis he is illustrative of a paranoid society growing fearful and sceptical of its elites. The title of this series ('shifty') is a description of what happens 'in societies when the foundations of power begin to move'. It's something we all feel – almost to the point that you wonder if it is truly confined to the last two decades of the 20th century in Britain. The Sixties and Seventies – with their own depressive introspection, aristocratic crack-up, and stewing industrial conflict – could surely have served as part of the same canvas. At times Curtis overstretches himself, conflating the late-20th century with modernity in the broadest terms. Aside from Mrs Thatcher, Curtis's main protagonist is probably Stephen Hawking, whose hyper-rational analysis of the cosmos Curtis places in parallel with the penetration of market forces into the soul of Britain. It is difficult to see these phenomena as coterminous. At other moments, his captions are slightly strident, almost drunkenly so: 'The concept of privatisation had been invented by the Nazis.' 'Do you really believe that, sir, or are you just trying to make us think?' So Dakin asks his teacher Irwin in Alan Bennett's The History Boys as he hears the mythos of the First World War being swept away. I would ask Curtis the same question. But in Bennett's play, the boys learn that sincerity and iconoclasm are both necessary instincts. As a rare historian who is willing to prioritise sweep, argument and craft over the accumulation of credible detail, we are fortunate to have Adam Curtis. Shifty BBC iPlayer [See also: Amol Rajan's Ganges vanity project] Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Channel crossings by migrants pass 20,000 in record time
The number of migrants crossing the English Channel in a single year has passed 20,000 in record time. Some 440 people made the journey in eight boats on Tuesday, bringing the total for 2025 so far to 20,422, Home Office figures confirmed. This is up 50% on this point last year (13,574) and 79% higher than at this stage in 2023 (11,433), according to PA news agency analysis. It is the earliest point in a calendar year at which the 20,000 mark has been passed since data on Channel crossings was first reported in 2018. Last year the figure was passed on August 28, and in 2023 it was August 29. The first year in which at least 20,000 arrivals were recorded was 2022, when the milestone was passed on August 14, and the total went on to hit a record 45,774 by the end of December. The figures come as Channel crossings continued on Wednesday, with pictures showing migrants in life jackets and blankets disembarking a Border Force vessel in Dover, Kent. Cabinet minister Pat McFadden told LBC on Wednesday 'everyone in Government knows it's a big challenge'. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said: 'We are going to have to work harder to bring the numbers down. 'Everyone in Government knows it's a big challenge, and as a team we are determined to meet it.' Pressed specifically on whether the numbers would be down by this time next year, Mr McFadden said: 'I'm not going to make a prediction.' Asked again for an assurance that the numbers will reduce, he added: 'I can give you an assurance that the numbers at the moment are too high. We are working together to tackle this.' The Government's Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is continuing through Parliament, and will hand counter terror-style powers to police and introduce new criminal offences to crack down on people-smuggling gangs. It has been reported that the UK and France are agreeing a one in, one out migrant returns deal, under which migrants who arrive in the UK by small boats are returned to France, in exchange for the UK accepting those with legitimate claims to join family already in the country. Meanwhile French officials have also agreed to changes that would allow police patrolling the coast to take action in the sea when migrants climb into boats from the water, which is yet to come into effect. The UK's borders watchdog, David Bolt, said in June he did not feel 'very optimistic about the ability to smash the gangs', adding that with organised crime 'the best thing you can do is deflect it to something else you're less concerned about rather than expect to eradicate it'. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'One year into Labour's Government and the boats haven't stopped – they've multiplied. 'Labour tore up our deterrent and replaced it with fantasy. 'This is the worst year on record, and it's become a free-for-all. 'We need a removals deterrent so every single illegal immigrant who arrives is removed to a location outside Europe. 'The crossings will then rapidly stop.'
Daily Mirror
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Brexit a 'disaster' that 'ruined the country' - referendum 'should be repeated'
On the ninth anniversary of the day the UK voted to leave the EU, we asked readers to have their say on whether Brexit has been a success - and Mirror readers had a lot to say on the matter. Brexit has been slammed as a 'complete disaster' that 'ruined most of the country' in a poll marking nine years since the UK voted to leave the EU. Mirror readers slammed the European Union referendum, overwhelmingly voting that Brexit has failed. The UK marked nine years since the Brexit referendum on June 23 2025. The vote - which signalled the UK's intention to leave the European Union - ultimately ended a 47-year relationship with the political and economic bloc. Brits narrowly voted to leave the EU by 51.9% to 48.1%, a decision which lead to years of uncertainty across the country. A flurry of four different Conservative prime ministers ensued over a space of five years - including Liz Truss, whose premiership lasted just 49 days. Leaving the European Union has been proven to have made Brits' lives worse in at least six ways. Airport and port queues have grown drastically, food prices have spiralled out of control and small businesses have been forced to shut down. It has also become harder to work or study in the EU, music artists have been hit by a wave of barriers and NHS jobs have been left in chaos. To mark the 9th anniversary of the day the UK voted out, we asked readers to give their opinions on Brexit, with over 25,000 people voting in the poll. In response to the question 'do you think Brexit has failed?', an overwhelming 71% (18,565) voted yes, slamming the referendum as a 'disaster', while just 29% (7,520) voted no. Similarly, in response to the question 'do you feel better off since Brexit?', 78% (20,072) said no, while just 22% (20,072) said yes. We also asked 'should there be a second Brexit referendum?' and 'would you like to rejoin the EU?' - responses in both sections backed yes, with 66% (17,129) and 68% (17,572) respectively. There's still time to take the poll below - if you can't see it, click here. Results may change from those written above. What readers think In response to the poll, readers shared their thoughts in the comment section. Viking888 wrote: 'Brexit is a complete disaster. Ruined the country and most of the population.' While Bigal72 said: ' If it's been such a success why is the pound still 10% down making 40% of our food dearer.' Iron57 said: 'As far as the average person in the street is concerned, much of the pro Brexit propaganda that surrounded the leave campaign has been completely debunked. It's time for a proper debate where those wanting to remain can get their voices heard instead of having to listen to a steady stream of lies and half truths for those wanting to leave. Perhaps the remainers will also wake up this time and join the debate from the beginning rather than waiting until debate is lost.' Notanalt wrote: 'You got what you voted for, we left the EU, that the reality isn't whatever British exceptionalism fantasy you dreamed up for yourself is not the fault of anyone but you!' Suggesting Brexit is a failure, LynxVegas said: 'A vote like this should have had the agreement of every hamlet, village, town, city, county, region and country in the UK, British Isles, Commonwealth, plus all British ex-pats abroad, not just those living in the UK. A straight majority was unfair to so many people who wanted to stay in the EU. What are Brexiteers scared of? Lets have another vote.' Gozoman: 'The majority of people is not satisfied with the outcome of the previous referendum and after 5 years it should have been repeated.' However, on the opposing side of the debate, Nikgee said: 'Brexit has and hasn't failed. The main reason why Brexit failed was down to the politicians who screwed up the transition from the EU to being out.' What do you think? Do you agree with the readers' comments above? Nine years on from the Brexit referendum, h as leaving the EU has been a failure? Take our poll and have your say in the comments below.
