On 11th November 2025, the Bishop of Chelmsford The Bishop of Chelmsford tabled her amendment to the Border Security, Immigration and Asylum Bill which would “ensure the good character requirement is not applied contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations across a number of instruments. It also ensures that an assessment of good character may not take into account a person’s irregular entry or arrival to the UK if they were a child, and it may only be taken into account to the extent specified in guidance published and in force at the time of an adult’s irregular entry or arrival.”
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I declare my interests as per the register. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for their support as signatories and for their guidance, especially as this is the first amendment that I have sponsored to a piece of legislation. My thanks go also to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for rightly explaining in my absence in Committee that I have tabled this amendment because I am passionate about the issues it raises: namely, how best to include, not preclude, those with a legal right to be here—those friends, neighbours and colleagues whom we live, work and worship alongside.
The Government’s change to the good character guidance, enacted through secondary legislation with retrospective implementation, in effect makes the “how” of a person’s travel to the UK a determining factor in their character assessment, not the “why” of the reason behind their travel in pursuit of sanctuary. This is a fundamental cultural shift and introduces a factor that bears no correlation to someone’s moral character, their worth and value or the contribution they might make to British society.
I will try not to repeat the issues raised in Committee, but the Minister raised a number of points that deserve our attention. I thank him for meeting me and engaging sincerely. In his response in Committee, he defended the good character test. There are certainly broader concerns about its application that I will not pursue now, but the point of this amendment is not the good character test per se but the addition to it of the manner of entry to this country. I do not believe that the Government have clarified why entry by irregular means is evidence of bad character, particularly when we consider the challenges faced by people fleeing conflict and persecution, which he earlier acknowledged with some compassion that he could never imagine.
It is important also to remember that many asylum seekers have few, if any, options to apply for asylum before making a journey. Even though a territorial system of asylum will always be required, if the Government provided preauthorised travel routes then asylum seekers could look to travel regularly and not fall foul of the recent altered guidance. Does the Minister agree that currently this is not possible?
I bring to the attention of noble Lords that, since Committee, the amendment is now drafted to be more specific as to what the UK’s obligations under international law are: to protect from discrimination refugees, stateless persons, victims of trafficking, women and children. The Minister said in his response in Committee that citizenship should not be afforded to those who have broken the rules and entered illegally, but I respectfully argue that the refugee convention makes it clear that it is not illegal to travel to claim asylum; hence, the state rightfully considers the merits of each claim. Why, then, should a legal act, forced upon many in the most desperate of circumstances, be used as a future test of their character and prevent them from ever truly becoming a full member of British society? It is not just too high a bar but an unattainable and, I suggest, an immoral one.
It remains the view of many legal experts that the exclusion of refugees from citizenship on the grounds that irregular entry infringes the good character requirement contravenes the convention—a warning issued by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Article 31 prohibits people seeking protection from being penalised for entry, provided they present themselves to authorities without delay and show good cause for their action.
We may not be able to agree on this, but perhaps the Minister could consider strengthening the guidance so that, first, it makes it clear that a person must not be refused citizenship on these grounds, if to do so would breach the UK’s international obligations under the refugee convention—which is no more or less than what the Minister says is intended. Secondly, and importantly, perhaps he could consider that the guidance should spell out more explicitly than now that the rules should not be applied to children who entered the UK by irregular means. I welcome the fact that the
Government have stated that, given that illegal entry is normally considered to be outside a child’s control, most applicants would not be held accountable for immigration breaches that occurred when they were a minor. Why, then, is it not possible to place this assurance in the guidance? The Minister stated in Committee that discretion gives flexibility, but for this matter I suggest that it will lead only to ambiguity, which is not in the interests of the child.
If I may be personal for a moment, I am very mindful—and indeed thankful—that I have been able to explore my vocation and serve and lead in the Church and wider community as a fully accepted member of British society, having arrived in this country as an asylum seeker when I was 14. Without British citizenship, this journey would not have been possible—indeed, I would not be standing before noble Lords today. If citizenship is to be seen as a privilege, not a right, then surely it is a gift that we should not close off for refugees merely on the basis of how they travelled here. Let us not forget that we are talking about people who have an established and legal right to remain in this country.
The guidance as it stands is needlessly unkind and will, moreover, harm and work against good integration, for the benefit of wider society as well. I cannot help wondering what the long-term impact will be of segregating refugees and British citizens in this manner, especially at a time when some seek shamelessly to exploit division and employ harmful rhetoric. Legislators need to be careful that they do not inadvertently divide us along arbitrary lines which do not properly reflect who we are.
Finally, basic discretion, without stronger guidance and safeguards around how it should be applied, may lead to children being sanctioned. It will needlessly segregate refugees and British citizens, in the end damaging community cohesion. Stating how discretion should be exercised does not nullify the discretionary element of the guidance. Therefore, I implore the Government to commit to look again at the guidance for what I argue are minimal safeguards. I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab, Home Office): I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for Amendment 60 and in particular for her courage in bringing her personal experience to the Chamber today. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, the noble Lord, Lord German, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for speaking in support of the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord German, indicated that there may be different political parties that may at some point in the future have the power to make changes that he and maybe even I would not find palatable. In the event of either of those political parties that he is concerned about winning an election, they could probably do what they wanted in both Houses of Parliament anyway, taking forward those policies that they probably would have won a mandate on. I may not agree with that point, but his argument not to make a change against the right reverend Prelate’s proposal today, because it might open up a gateway for a future party to exploit that amendment’s acceptance, does not seem to be a sensible way forward. If a Government of any political party, not mine, wish to make a change, they would be the Government. Like me standing at this Dispatch Box, they probably would have the numbers in the House of Commons to take that policy through and the numbers in this Chamber to make that case over a period of time for that discussion. So I do not accept that contention.
Having said that, my concerns are different. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one that goes back to 1981 and the British Nationality Act. It is considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant British citizenship. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, made, it is for the Home Secretary to make changes to the discretion in that policy. This amendment seeks to limit that discretion by preventing the consideration of illegal entry into the UK if the person was a child when they entered the UK.Apart from this potentially encouraging people to make false claims about their age to benefit from the provision, the amendment also seeks to ensure that the consideration of good character is compliant with the UK’s international obligations. The right reverend Prelate may not have received it yet, but I sent her a letter this morning which she can have a look at later. In it I say that the good character policy is compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention. Where a person has come directly from a country where they fear persecution, their protection under Article 31 of the refugee convention means that they will not be penalised when their application for citizenship is considered.
I hope that this will partly reassure the right reverend Prelate, but I will say again that the decision-makers are required to take into account the UK’s international obligations, including the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights, when assessing whether a person meets the good character policy. Furthermore, guidance on the good character policy provides for a decision-maker to be able to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. It may not find favour across the whole House, but it does include disregarding immigration breaches such as illegal entry if it is accepted that this is outside the applicant’s control. That case is for the applicant to make when they make that decision.
For example, a victim of modern slavery, or a person who is trafficked, or, indeed, going to the very nub of her argument, someone who entered the UK illegally as a child, would not be implicated by the policy and would have that discretion open to them by the decision-maker. I will just emphasise that still further by saying the good character policy does not apply to children under the age of 10 on the date of application.
The amendment would seek also a more generous approach for migrants—
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the question of children, the Minister has just said the policy does not apply to children under 10. What is the logic for applying it to children over 10? I do not understand the distinction, and it would be helpful to.
Lord Hanson of Flint: That is a valid question. I can say to the right reverend Prelate that it will normally—I say “normally”—be appropriate to disregard immigration breaches if it is accepted this was outside the applicant’s control. Given that illegal entry is normally considered outside a child’s control, most children would not be held accountable for their immigration breach. Certainly, as I have said before, no child under the age of 10 at the date of their application would be dealt with in that way. I hope that gives her some reassurance.
I consider that individuals seeking to become British citizens should demonstrate an equal regard to immigration legislation as we expect them to show to other aspects of the law, including the criminal justice system. We do not consider there should be an expectation that a person will benefit in the future from the policy in place when they arrived. This is consistent with the position taken in previous changes to the good character policy, such as the change in 2023 to align the criminality thresholds with the Immigration Rules.
I say again that I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for bringing her personal experience to the Chamber on Report today, but the Home Secretary makes the policy—they are accountable to the House—decision-makers have discretion, particularly for children aged 10 to 18, and no child under the age of 10 would be impacted.
I hope that gives her the reassurance that the good character test, which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned, is valid and accountable to the House, but that changing it today would lead to confusion and, potentially, particularly at the borderline areas of the older child, a contention that would cause difficulties for our purpose in life, which is, in the Bill, to try to stop small boats and illegal migrant crossings, and to not provide an incentive for them. I would hope that, on that basis, she could, with all humility, withdraw her amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and for engaging in the debate. Forgive me, I am not going to name individuals, but all the contributions—both those for the amendment and those against it—have been very heartfelt and some of them deeply moving, enabling us to reflect even more widely than the issues specifically pertinent to the amendment.
I have listened with care to the Minister and I want to thank him for his thorough response. However, regrettably, I have not received the assurances that I was hoping for, that the character guidance will adequately prevent a scenario where an immigration caseworker is not having to choose whether to break international law or not, or that, without further changes to the guidance, a child’s right to naturalisation will be safeguarded.
It is not right, I believe, that discretion remains to hold a child responsible for their travel to the UK when they had no control over it, even if that is only a small possibility. As I think I have already clearly expressed, dividing access to citizenship in this way for those who have a legal right to remain in the country will have grievous societal and, I believe, cultural consequences, however unintended. Therefore, I would like, with respect, to test the opinion of the House.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.