Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 59—to which I have added my name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee —which was moved so effectively and powerfully by my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton. In Committee, I spoke about the importance of our amendment then, and the amendment before your Lordships today reflects changes which we believe will make it attractive to the Government, as well as being a balanced and effective approach; I hope the Government will agree with that opinion.

As has been said, once fully commenced, Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act would make far-reaching amendments to the general inadmissibility of asylum and human rights protection claims from EU and other nationals introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. We believe this will likely result in violations of the United Kingdom’s international human rights obligations.

As my noble friend said, in Committee our Amendment 104 sought to repeal Section 59 of the IMA in full. It was widely supported and I was particularly pleased by the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, following my recognition of the importance of the 2010 Supreme Court judgment in HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. As noble Lords will know, he was one of the justices in that case. The concern in Committee and the concern now is about the efficacy and legality of Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act as currently drafted. The Government have made it quite clear that they believe that Section 59 of the IMA must be retained, hence why we have tabled this new amendment which looks to make changes to Section 59 with the intention of ensuring that it can provide the flexibility that the Government may require, but in an effective and legal manner that has as few unintended consequences as possible.

To put it briefly, the amendment would turn the duty of the Secretary of State into a power. It clarifies the exceptional circumstances test and provides an effective mechanism for the management of the safe states list and the removal of states which are no longer safe. Importantly, it would enable the United Kingdom to uphold the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights and would therefore be less likely to be challenged within the courts.

To be safe, a state must be a place

“where its citizens are free from any serious risk of systematic persecution, either by the state itself or by non-state agents which the state is unable or unwilling to control”,

and free from a serious risk of persecution in general. That is from the 2015 Supreme Court judgment in R (on the application of Jamar Brown (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.

As I said in Committee:

“There can be no general safety presumption if there is a risk of persecution to even one recognisable section of a community”.—[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 802.]


In relation to the HJ (Iran) Supreme Court judgment, the hard-won legal rights for LGBTQI+ refugees are meaningless if the safety of states does not account for their safety. Such refugees will have to hide fundamental parts of their identity if they cannot leap over the “exceptional circumstances” test currently in place, and are sent back home in contravention of that judgment. But, surely, even if their claims are declared inadmissible this Government will not send them home, forcing them to live in hiding in a state that the UK has called safe but is not in reality safe for them. I therefore look to the Minister to reassure me on that point.

If there is a real risk that a person would suffer inhuman and degrading treatment upon return to their home country, it would be a breach of their human rights to fail to rigorously scrutinise their claim. I believe that such claims must therefore be considered. This means that if the wider inadmissibility test is to be kept, it must be altered. Similarly, hard-won gay marriage rights will mean little if we must still show exceptional circumstances before a national of a safe country may be permitted to live here with their British or settled partner.

These are some of the reasons that we have added to the exceptional circumstances test the requirement for the Government to consider these claims if a failure to consider them would breach the human rights convention—arguably, a minimal safeguard to ask for. I hope the Government will have the courage to do the right thing: accept their human rights obligations and adopt this amendment or, at the very least, further reflect upon it and our submissions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I supported this amendment in Committee. It has been quite improved and I therefore agree with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Cashman. I do not want to go over what they have said because they put the case clearly.

It must be welcome that this amendment would turn

“the duty into a power, to declare as inadmissible a human rights or asylum claim, which may not”

in the end

“be exercised if the failure to consider a claim would contravene the UK’s obligations under the ECHR”.

That to me is the nub of it and, therefore, the Secretary of State, instead of simply having a duty, would actually have a power to do something about it. There is an ability, under the Human Rights Act sometimes, for people to know that this has been breached—but who should then put it right? It seems that this Bill gives the opportunity to turn a duty into a power.

The amendment would also do another thing. It would create

“a duty to remove States from the Safe States list, if they are no longer safe”.

To have a list over which you cannot have the power or duty to do that can really prolong a misnomer. When people may have come from some places that were safe yesterday, but tomorrow are no longer safe, it seems to me that the Secretary of State needs to be given the duty to do so, because we are living in a world that is so changeable.

When South Sudan became independent everybody was full of rejoicing. I was involved with a lot of asylum people coming to Uganda, because I was hearing cases as a judge up in the north. After the sheer carnage that went on in South Sudan, where people’s lives were ruined and destroyed for so many years, peace came and everybody rejoiced. Who would have believed that it would not be long before warring factions were tearing that country apart? The carnage in Darfur was quite unbelievable.

Then what happened? Sudan was being ruled by a real dictator, but then that Government were overthrown, and overnight law and order began to collapse. It was not very long before two warring factions were tearing that country apart. Yes, we hold the pen on behalf of the United Nations, but, my friends, we almost do not have the wherewithal to deal with such brutality.

Therefore, a country that was safe a few months ago could suddenly end up in a real mess. We created a list of safe countries under that Act, so the Secretary of State should have the duty to remove such a country when it is judged to no longer be a safe country. This amendment is in keeping with that. I am very grateful to the Government for saying how much they are going to be ruled and governed by the rule of law. There is nothing here that is not supported by the rule of law, so I support this amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. First, I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is still not well. I know that she would have intended to support this amendment as it is now. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has presented us with a very neat solution to a problem that the Minister espoused in Committee. He has also sought—and I think this is the whole purpose of the amendment—to make sure that previously unworkable and satisfactory legislation is converted into something that has a sense of purpose and direction, and which is understandable and has clarity and definition within it.

In reply to my question in Committee as to why the Government are retaining Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, the Minister said that it would be right

“to retain the flexibility to expand the use of inadmissibility in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals from countries that we would generally consider safe”.—[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 825.]

That was the reason given for retaining that particular section.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has just expressed the issue with the words “generally safe”. There are many countries that may be safe for some people but not for all people. The one that currently sticks out an absolute mile is Georgia. If someone has any political thought that has nothing to do with Georgian Dream, they will be imprisoned. I have lost count of the number of politicians who I—and, I know, other noble Lords in this House—have met, who said that the day after we met them they would be going back to go to prison because they were going to be arrested, simply because they were politicians who were elected by the people but who did not speak on behalf of the Government, and who were speaking out against the Government. While “generally considered safe” means that it is generally safe to send people to Georgia, we would be absolutely wrong to send somebody who had a political opinion, because we know the disgraceful ways in which politicians have been treated in that country.

In conclusion, this amendment is a worthy solution to a problem that has been identified. In the context of the Government wanting to retain Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, they have before them a workable solution to make sense of it and convert it from an unworkable, unsatisfactory position into something that is exactly the opposite. We on these Benches commend it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to express my strong support for everything that the right reverend Prelate said. I will not repeat the principled case I made in Committee, but I thank my noble friend the Minister for the letter he sent me after the debate. In it, he stated that

“it is important to ensure clarity both for applicants and decision makers”.

One way of achieving greater clarity would be to accept the right reverend Prelate’s request that the guidance spell out explicitly that a person must not be refused citizenship because of irregular entry if that were to contravene our international obligations, particularly under the refugee convention, and that anyone who entered as a child should not be barred from citizenship on the grounds of the manner of their entry.

Leaving it to full discretion does not ensure clarity, despite the helpful reassurances provided by my noble friend and other Ministers, with the result that some of those who entered as children might be denied citizenship, even though it is accepted that the immigration breach was outside their control. Indeed, the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, has already received reports of refusal on character grounds, based on how the person entered the UK as a child. The PRCBC also contests what my noble friend said in Committee about the guidance providing flexibility; in its experience, the guidance is routinely applied in a rigid fashion.

Therefore, I urge my noble friend not to plead flexibility as a justification for rejecting the very modest request of the right reverend Prelate to spell out in the guidance our obligations under international law, including our commitment to upholding the best interests of children. As the Court of Appeal has advised on sentencing policy, children are not mini-adults. No child who entered the country by irregular means should have that held against them when, subsequently, they would otherwise become eligible for citizenship.

I wish we could strike out completely this unjust and, as the right reverend Prelate called it, immoral rule, which will, as we have heard, impede refugee integration. The amendment would, at the very least, erect some guardrails around the rule’s implementation and thereby mitigate its impact. Failing that, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give the assurances sought by the right reverend Prelate.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I find myself persuaded by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. Her arguments need to be listened to.

Archbishop Robert Runcie defined a saint as a person whose character has never been fully studied or explored. We all have a dark side to ourselves. If we talk about good character, it may appear in a person’s life only when they have moved away from all the bad stuff that was hanging around them. We carry within ourselves both a sainthood and some not so good characteristics—that is why Archbishop Robert Runcie’s definition of a saint was right.

When I arrived in this country in 1974 and went to Cambridge to study theology and my doctorate, I was so unwell in the first seven months that I was going in and out to see doctors. Eventually, they said that I must have lost a lot of blood through internal bleeding, from the blows received from Amin’s soldiers. I was very angry—extremely angry—that I should be subjected to such terrible things. Of course, that was all bottled up, but I was very angry. Had someone said to me at the time, “We want to know how good your character is, so that we may see whether you can become a citizen”, I would still have been extremely angry in those interviews.

It was not until one night, when I remembered my mother saying, “John, never point a finger at anybody, because when you do, three others are pointing back at you”. Friends, noble Lords, noble Baronesses, this whole question of good character can be very subjective and misleading when the person first arrives, particularly when they come as children. We all have the grace and ability to grow out of some of the not-so-good bits of us, but we still remain a very rough diamond. We are never fully polished until we go through the gate of death.

I find it strange that this country—that I have grown to love, that always shows give and take, that always has this magnanimity of meeting people halfway—would, I am beginning to understand, now use good character as a ground for someone being accepted as a citizen. How do you know that at the time you receive them? They could go on and do some outrageous stuff, because within all of us there is the good and bad. Legislation based on good character as a way of allowing someone to be a citizen has probably not understood that we are on a scale of learning, of growing, of finding ourselves in the future. Even when we die, there will still be lots of stuff that we have not dealt with.

May I plead that when the guidance comes, particularly on dealing with people who arrived here as children, there is more grace than the harshness which I sometimes hear has come into this most green and pleasant land. People become more harsh, more judgmental, more unloving, more uncaring. The legislature should be the guardian against such attitudes and behaviour. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, we listened to the right reverend Prelate talking about coming to this country, as indeed did the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. Just think for a moment: the right reverend Prelate and her parents arrived in this country as refugees from a place they could not go back to, and where, I seem to remember, the right reverend Prelate’s brother had been murdered. If they had come to this country illegally, would we really have sent them back, as being of bad character? If one thinks about it, it is quite extraordinary.

As Members of this House will know, like the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, I was a judge. I spent a lot of my time hearing evidence, often from people of bad character. Bad character is, of course, a wide definition. Technically, I suppose, you are of bad character if you speed: to that I admit—on more than one occasion. Are you of bad character if you are fleeing a place you had to leave because you might otherwise be dead, and are coming to this country by the only means you could? Let us bear in mind that the places people can go to in order to come legally to this country are almost non-existent. Consequently, nearly every refugee to this country comes illegally. Are we to say that doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, all people fleeing for good reason, are to be treated as being of bad character? I say to all Members of this House: we really need to reflect every now and again on what comes before this place and what we ought to do.