17 November 2025
On Tuesday 11 November, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev'd Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, introduced an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill in the House of Lords.
The amendment would have ensured that when the Government consider granting citizenship to a refugee, the decision would need to be made in accordance with international law and importantly not hold a child responsible for their irregular entry into the country as an asylum seeker.
Bishop Guli sponsored the amendment after the Government made changes to the Good Character guidance back in February – the rules which decide if someone who has a legal right to be in the UK is further eligible for citizenship. The changes to the guidance in effect made the “how” of a person’s initial travel to the UK, a determining factor, in their character assessment, not the “why” – the question as to whether they travelled to the UK in pursuit of sanctuary.
Bishop Guli took the amendment to a vote – a process known as testing the opinion of the house – which was not successful. While this was the expected outcome, doing so helped to demonstrate the level of concern amongst peers.
Bishop Guli's speech, introducing the amendment can be watched and read below.
My Lords I rise to move amendment 60 and want to start by saying how grateful I am to noble Lord German and Noble Baroness Lister for their support as signatories but also for their guidance, as this is the first amendment I have sponsored to a piece of legislation. My thanks also to the noble Lady, Baroness Lister, who in my absence rightly explained at Committee, that I’ve 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 that 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” – the reason behind their travel in pursuit of sanctuary. This is a fundamental cultural shift and it introduces a factor which I believe bears no correlation to someone’s moral character, their worth and value or indeed the contribution they might make to British society.
I will try not to repeat the issues raised at Committee but the noble Lord the Minister raised a number of points that deserve our attention. I would of course like to thank him for meeting with me and engaging sincerely.
In his response in Committee, the Minister defended the good character test. Now there are certainly broader concerns about its application, which I won’t pursue now, but the point of this amendment isn’t the good character test per se but the addition to it of the manner of entry to this country. I do not believe the Government has 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 himself has earlier acknowledged, with some compassion, that he ‘could never imagine’ (3/9/25 col 842).
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 pre-authorised travel routes, then asylum seekers could look to travel regularly and not fall foul of the recently altered guidance. Would the noble Lord the Minister agree that currently this is not possible?
I would like to bring to the attention of noble Lords, that, since Committee Stage, 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 at Committee that citizenship should not be afforded to those who have broken the rules and entered illegally. But I would respectfully argue that the Refugee Convention makes clear 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’d argue, 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 on Refugees). For 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 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 noble Lord the Minister says is intended. And then secondly, and importantly, that the guidance should spell out, more explicitly than now, that the rule should not be applied to children who entered the UK by irregular means.
I welcome the fact that the Government has stated that given that illegal entry is normally considered outside a child’s control, most applicants would not be held accountable for immigration breaches that occurred when they were a minor. But why then is it not possible to place this assurance on the face of the guidance? The Minister stated at Committee that discretion gives “flexibility” but for this matter I’d suggest that it will only lead to ambiguity which is not in the interests of the child.
If I may be personal for a moment. I’m 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 have not been possible. Indeed, I would not be standing before noble Lords now. If citizenship is to be seen as a privilege not a right – then it is a gift we should not close off for refugees merely on the basis of how they travelled here – and let’s not forget that we’re 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 can’t 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 don’t inadvertently divide us along arbitrary lines that 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 and 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. So, I implore the Government to commit to looking again at the guidance, for what I would argue are minimal safeguards. I therefore beg to move.