Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)

My Lords, I will introduce Amendment 186 on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who very much regrets that she cannot be in her place as she feels strongly about this issue. The amendment concerns a change in official guidance for immigration staff assessing good character in nationality applications. Refugees claiming citizenship after 10 February who entered the UK “illegally” will now normally be refused regardless of when they entered the country. The policy change, in effect, reintroduces sections of the Illegal Migration Act, which this Bill repeals. That repeal was described by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as “a positive step that recognises the importance of naturalisation, both for the individuals concerned and for social cohesion”. Without this amendment, this Bill is one step forward only for guidance to take us one step backwards. Following a Private Notice Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, there was considerable criticism of the new guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, commented that “this is a major change that deserves much more substantial consideration and scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force”.—[Official Report, 12/2/25; col. 1256.] There was no such scrutiny, but this amendment provides such an opportunity now. It would do three simple things. First, it would ensure that the good character requirement is not applied in a manner contrary to the UK’s international obligations. Secondly, it would uphold the best interests of children by prohibiting consideration of a child’s irregular entry to the country. Thirdly, it would remove retrospectivity further to uphold the rule of law. I will consider each in turn. First, in a letter to ILPA, to which I am grateful for its assistance with the amendment, the then Minister Dame Angela Eagle said that “the Secretary of State may choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship … where necessary to comply with our international obligations”. I will return to the discretion question later. Here I simply note that the amendment seeks to turn “may” into “must”. In the PNQ debate, my noble friend Lord Boateng warned that the policy contravenes Article 34 of the refugee convention, which calls on states to facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees as far as possible. The UNHCR makes the same point, citing a similar provision in the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. It also expresses concern that the policy may result in breaches of Article 31 of the refugee convention, discussed in the previous group, which clearly states that countries “shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees”. According to the UNHCR, Article 31 is central to the object and purpose of the refugee convention because it ensures that refugees can gain access to international protection and the rights associated with it without being penalised for breaches of immigration and other laws.