Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Bishop of Chelmsford Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

60: After Clause 48, insert the following Clause—
“Good character requirement for citizenship(1) Part 5 of the British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.(2) After section 41A, insert—“41B Good character requirement(1) A good character requirement must not be applied in a manner contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under—(a) the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings,(b) the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women,(c) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,(d) the Convention on the Rights of the Child,(e) the Statelessness Conventions,(f) the Human Rights Convention,(g) the Palermo Protocol, and(h) the Refugee Convention.(2) When considering whether a person (P) meets a good character requirement, the Secretary of State may not take into account P’s illegal entry to or arrival in the United Kingdom—(a) if P was under the age of 18 at the time of such entry or arrival, and(b) except to the extent specified in guidance published by the Secretary of State and in force at the time of such entry or arrival.(3) In this section—“a good character requirement” refers to the requirement or consideration that an adult or young person, applicant, or person who applies for naturalisation or registration is of good character in section 41A (registration: requirement to be of good character), section 4L (acquisition by registration: special circumstances), section 17I (acquisition by registration: special circumstances), and paragraphs 1 and 5 of Schedule 1;the“Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings” refers to the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings agreed by the Council of Europe in Warsaw on 16 May 2005; the“Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women” refers to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women adopted in New York on 18 December 1979;the“Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” refers to the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted in New York on 21 December 1965;the“Convention on the Rights of the Child” means the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted in New York on 20 November 1989;the“Statelessness Conventions” means the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons adopted in New York on 28 September 1954 and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness adopted in New York on 30 August 1961;the“Human Rights Convention” means the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4 November 1950 as it has effect for the time being in relation to the United Kingdom;the“Palermo Protocol” means the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, adopted in New York on 15 November 2000;the“Refugee Convention” means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 and its Protocol.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 (Lab)]

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.