Refugee Citizenship Rights
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I beg to move.
That this House has considered refugee citizenship rights.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Refugees should not be reduced to statistics. After all, refugees are human beings, and every human being deserves to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion, and with empathy for their vulnerability and their need for safety. How we treat each other is a basic measurement of us as people and of the kind of society that we live in. Every day we see prejudice, oppression and war. It would be easy to consider those issues as mere news items, but they demand a co-ordinated international response of co-operation based on humanity, social inclusion and integration.
On 10 February, the Home Office introduced significant amendments to the good character requirement guidance for British citizenship, which will have profound and lasting impacts on thousands of people who are already here in the UK and have been granted protection status following a well-founded fear of persecution or violence. They will likely be denied citizenship just because of the way in which they came to the UK, and that will include people who travelled by small boat or in other ways. We should bear in mind that those are people who have made their new home and life here, and they have been working and contributing to our economy and culture. The change was made in the back of a document, without any significant parliamentary scrutiny, and today’s debate, over five months later, will be the first time that it has been substantively discussed in this place. Given that we are elected officials and legislators, that is simply not good enough.
Under the policy, anyone who arrived in the UK via a dangerous journey or entered irregularly will normally be refused British citizenship. It will not matter how long they have lived here or how they have integrated into our society. Although there may be exceptional situations in which applications are approved, the Government have not provided clarity on how that discretion will be applied. It is understood that most applications will be rejected. Will the Minister provide clarity on how discretion will be applied?
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making good and valid points. He is not entirely right, as I tabled a series of amendments on this very issue in Committee on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which were supported by the Liberals, of course. I am grateful that he has been able to bring the issue to Westminster Hall today, but the situation is worse than he says. With a lack of safe and legal routes to access the UK, migrants have no other option but to arrive irregularly, such as in the small boats that the hon. Gentleman describes. What is happening as a result of these measures is a disenfranchisement of practically everybody who comes to the UK. Surely he agrees that cannot ever be right.
Brian Leishman
The hon. Gentleman is a champion on this topic, and his parliamentary record stands up there with the very best—although I did not vote for him to be my MP. I thank him very much for his contribution, and I agree with him.
It looks as though refugees will have to argue for an exemption to the blanket denial of citizenship. It would make for much fairer and effective policy if all cases were treated on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket ban being introduced, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could also address that point in her response.
I want to talk about people’s personal experiences of the policy, and I acknowledge the Scottish Refugee Council and Together with Refugees for supplying case studies for the debate. Sabir Zazai, the chief executive officer of the Scottish Refugee Council, would not be eligible for citizenship if he were applying now. Sabir has three honorary doctorates and an OBE; it is difficult to imagine a more compelling example of integration. But because he arrived here in the back of a lorry from Afghanistan, this Government would exclude him from ever being a British citizen.
The policy does not discriminate between refugees, victims of trafficking and children. It does not consider the unique vulnerabilities and complex backgrounds of people seeking protection, many of whom have fled circumstances that we could only imagine. For example, Gulan, a refugee from Iraq, shared how she escaped torture with her young children, risking death to survive. Despite years of integration and contributing to her local community, she feels like this policy makes her a second-class member of society.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and making such a great speech. He is absolutely right that treating people differently based on how they arrived in this country affects community cohesion, which has a detrimental effect on our society. What we need are safe routes that allow people to come here legally rather than risk coming via irregular routes, which is why the policy was introduced in the first place.
Brian Leishman
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Absolutely: more safe routes are a necessity, in the name of human decency.
British citizenship is a key building block of integration, but there are also significant pragmatic considerations. Without it, people do not have the right to vote, to stand for election to this place or to work in many government jobs, nor do they have the freedom to live in, or travel in and out of the UK without restriction. If they do manage to travel, they require access to consular services; but worst of all, they remain at risk of detention or, worse, deportation.
One example is Mohammad, a refugee from Sudan. He said that he feels like a perpetual outsider, being vulnerable to deportation despite years building his life here. We saw an extremely laissez-faire attitude to international law and obligations from the previous Government. It was damaging to the UK’s international standing and to our relationships with countries all over the world. Continuing in the same manner would be the wrong approach for the Government to take.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Forgive me for interrupting the hon. Member’s excellent speech, but he will note the complete absence of Members from the official Opposition party, apart from the shadow Minister, and of Members from the Reform party. My inbox is flooded with queries about various aspects of immigration. Does the hon. Member agree that the aspect of policy to which he is referring—which affects, for example, family members disunited from the rest of their family, asylum seekers, refugees and students—demonstrates that his own party is now following a cold-house policy? Does he accept that specific and special circumstances apply in Scotland, as distinct from the rest of these islands?
Brian Leishman
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution; I can appreciate the political nature of what he has said. Yes, Scotland is a nation, and it has its own unique needs. This is something that both Governments need to collaborate on, to try to thrash out something for the benefit of Scotland.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed serious concerns about the UK’s updated guidance on the good character requirement for citizenship. It has been clear that the policy risks breaching article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, which prohibits penalising refugees for irregular entry when fleeing persecution. The lack of clarity from the Government and the presumption of refusal may deter eligible refugees and stateless individuals from even applying for citizenship, especially given the exorbitant cost of applying—British citizenship applications are non-refundable and cost £1,630.
The refugee convention also explicitly requires states to facilitate, as far as possible, the naturalisation of refugees and stateless persons. That is a particularly interesting article, because not only is the UK a signatory to the treaty, but the British Government of the day are widely credited with incorporating the article into the convention. Not only are we abandoning our international obligations; we are abandoning the very international obligations for which the UK historically advocated.
This policy change undermines the very values of cohesion, unity and fairness that the UK aspires to uphold. It denies people who have sought protection from us the dignity and security of citizenship. I want to see a system that welcomes refugees not as second-class residents but as full members of our society, with the rights and recognition they deserve as human beings. Before my final questions to the Minister, here are the thoughts and feelings of a young man with refugee status in Glasgow:
“I have lived in Glasgow since 2017, after gaining refugee status the same year. I work and study civil and environmental engineering full time at Strathclyde University. I’ve had indefinite leave to remain since 2022 and was about to apply for citizenship, having already passed the UK life test and English language assessment. These are my thoughts:
Denying people the right to gain British citizenship after waiting for the legally required amount of time and upon gaining indefinite leave to remain is modern-day segregation. It splits people into different classes by keeping some stuck as second-class citizens. Not having the right to be a UK citizen stops me from being equal with my local community. People who have already the UK had no idea that they one day would not be allowed to become a citizen because they were claiming asylum—it feels like you have been targeted.
Throughout my journey, other countries rejected me—Italy gave 48 hours to leave the country, France gave 72 hours to leave the country. Coming to the UK is not necessarily something you can control yourself; it was my only option. However, fulfilling the good character requirements, which are things you can control yourself after entering the UK, should remain important.
This policy completely erases the point of people showing they have good character, and instead rejects us based only on something that I could not control. This new guidance does not encourage contribution to the community, if you are not one day going to be a proper part of the community by being a full and equal citizen.”
I put it to the Government that they should reconsider their stance, in the light of Lords amendment 186 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. First, it would ensure that the good character requirement is not applied in a manner contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations. Secondly, it would uphold the best interests of children by prohibiting the consideration of a child’s irregular entry or arrival. Thirdly, it would remove retrospectivity, to further uphold the rule of law.
An adult’s irregular entry or arrival may be taken into account only to the extent specified in guidance that was published when they entered or arrived in the UK. Previously, the guidance permitted a person to acquire citizenship so long as 10 years had passed since their irregular entry. At present, the guidance applies to someone whether they arrive two months or two decades ago. It cannot serve as a deterrent to people who are already here. It serves only as a penalty and a scarlet letter.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to speak.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance again this afternoon, Ms Butler, and a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who made a stunning and impressive speech on a matter he clearly cares about, as do I. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, for the support I get from the Refugee, Asylum, Migration and Policy Project for a part-time member of staff in my office. I take that support because I care passionately about this issue.
To give the Government some credit, in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, they are repealing the legislative ban imposed by the previous Government on people applying for and gaining citizenship if they arrived irregularly. I commend the use of the word “irregular” rather than “illegal”. No one is an illegal asylum seeker; they have a right to do it.
Although I commend the Government for that, that is as far as I can get. The guidance mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, which was issued in February, creates a situation where we change the good character requirement, so that someone who arrives here irregularly
“will typically be refused citizenship regardless of the time elapsed since entry.”
That is wrong; the guidance contains no clear exception for refugees, stateless persons, victims of trafficking or children. It applies retrospectively, to people who arrived in the United Kingdom before the change was introduced. The Government say that people can apply for citizenship; indeed, they are encouraged to test to see whether the policy applies to them. However, for a family of four there is a non-refundable charge of £5,898 for that test—a rather expensive, cruel and prohibitive one.
I can think of one man I met in Barrow not long ago who was being processed—he had been an interpreter for UK and US forces in Afghanistan. We had left him behind. He found his way, by hook or by crook and through appalling personal experiences, to this country by an irregular route. He would not be allowed now: he would not get through. He could test whether the rules or guidance applied to him, but it is extremely unlikely that it would. He would be left outside.
I can think of so many other people, as other hon. Members could as well, whose lives will be affected by this deeply and unjustly. It is not a deterrent, either. The possibility of being denied citizenship and maintained on indefinite leave to remain is hardly a calculation that a 17-year-old young man in Eritrea makes when deciding to flee in the middle of the night, knowing that within the next 48 hours he will otherwise be conscripted to murder his own people. That is not the kind of calculation anyone would make—it is a far-off, future consideration. It will not be any kind of deterrent, but instead will simply be a penalty based on the means by which someone got here.
There would be a case for this—maybe, just maybe—if the Government allowed safe routes for these people, but in real terms there are no safe routes for people from Iran, Eritrea or Sudan. People will do dangerous things in order to escape despicable, awful experiences. I would say that competence is the best deterrent. I commend this Government for doing better than their predecessor when it comes to removing people who have not been successful through the asylum process, but the people we are talking about here have been successful. This Government have decided that they are refugees, so why are we denying them the ability to settle here as full citizens?
This is all part of, and a consequence of, an awful, toxic debate. It feels like this Government are not the generators of that toxicity, but are scared of it, and cannot stand up to those who would demonise people who have fled from persecution, in fear of their lives. We know that 85% of refugees stay in the place next door to the one from which they fled. We know that, if we were to be put back into the European Union—if we were, we would be able to control our borders a whole lot better—we would be the 17th out of 28 in the league table of countries taking refugees.
It is a dishonest debate we are having nationally, and in this place we should be honest. We should not be scared of being vaguely humane and decent. This guidance works against integration and creates a divided society. Encouraging citizenship is a good thing, because it creates stability, a sense of belonging and inclusion. It offers hope to those who come to us for sanctuary. It is a decent thing for us to do—we should do it. This guidance should be scrapped.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this important debate.
I speak today as a member of the Citizenship Network, which was launched by Citizens UK last year. It is a cross-party group that brings together parliamentarians, policy experts and those with lived experience of the citizenship and settlement process, with the shared goal of exploring how we can improve our pathway to citizenship to ensure fairness and efficiency.
Last week, I co-hosted an event in Parliament alongside the Citizenship Network, where we were joined by my constituents from Wolverhampton West and community leaders from across the country. It was so inspiring to see those passionate individuals come to this place and speak about how they have benefited from our immigration system.
I was not born in this country; I was born in east Africa and came to Wolverhampton at the age of four. I believe that, by being a citizen of this country, I have been able to contribute to it in the way that I hope others will be able to as well. We heard stories from people who, although entitled to be in this country, are now facing barriers in their journeys to citizenship. The stories they told brought home the human cost of our current system and the urgent need for reform.
The reality is that, instead of helping people to thrive, our current system too often creates unnecessary barriers to opportunity and to a sense of belonging and a dignity, which is so needed by those who are entitled to be in this country. Many people in my constituency of Wolverhampton West have called the UK their home for years. They have worked here, raised their families here, and have contributed to our economy and society. Despite that and their deep ties to this country, they continue to face challenges in securing British citizenship, often spending huge amounts of money and time and then waiting for years just to be able to get citizenship.
Let me be clear: border security is important. Every country has the right, and indeed the responsibility, to protect its borders and ensure the integrity of its immigration system. However, this must not come at the expense of fairness, compassion or humanity. A truly effective system is one that balances security with justice, ensuring that we treat people not just as cases or numbers, but as human beings who bring their own stories about their families and futures. We must move away from a system that is overly complex, prohibitively expensive and riddled with delays and inconsistencies. The current system is not only failing individuals but is failing our country.
I accept that settlement is a privilege and not a right, but we must have an immigration system that offers real protection to those who are fleeing persecution. We must have a clear, achievable and affordable pathway to settlement and citizenship for those who have chosen to make the UK their home, so that they can enrich not only their lives but the lives of others and properly contribute to our country as citizens.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, for what I think is the second time today. It is, and always will be, a pleasure.
I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). In the short time that he has been here, he has made a reputation for himself as a fighter and a person who speaks up for his constituents. I sit straight across the Chamber from him and I am always impressed by him. We do not agree on everything but today, on this subject matter, he and I agree. This is one thing we can definitely agree on, and well done to him.
I am grateful to address this House on an issue that tests not only our policies but our principles, and that is how we treat those who come seeking refuge and hope. Today I speak on refugee and citizen rights in the United Kingdom, a subject of both legal importance and moral imperative. This March, the Government imposed a blanket ban on citizenship for individuals who entered the UK irregularly, even if they have been granted asylum and have lived here for years. The Refugee Council estimates that some 71,000 refugees who have already been granted asylum may now be blocked from ever obtaining British citizenship. I ask the Minister, who as she knows I respect immensely, to answer the question of those 71,000 who have lived here for a number of years: will they have the opportunity of getting British citizenship?
This week, Parliament will be considering crucial legislation, including the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill and the ongoing Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. This moment offers a real opportunity to safeguard the future of those who have made the UK their home. I love the diversity that I have in Newtownards. It is not as big as in London, but there are people from Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ukraine and all over eastern Europe. They bring history, culture, friendship and social engagement and they enrich us as a society. I believe we should try to maintain that.
The UK has a long history of standing shoulder to shoulder with those fleeing conflict, persecution and violence. We have honoured our international obligations under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. Yet recent policy changes may have the unintended consequence—I believe it would be unintended; I do not believe it is a policy of Government—of leaving some recognised refugees without a clear pathway to fully participate in society. I want to see them having that right. It is vital that we ensure that those who have been granted asylum are not left in long-term uncertainty.
A clear and fair pathway to citizenship is an important part of helping individuals to put down roots, contribute fully and feel a genuine sense of belonging in the communities that they now call home. Citizenship is more than just paperwork; it represents civic responsibility, stability and inclusion. As Parliament continues to examine the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we must be mindful of our humanitarian responsibilities. That includes ensuring timely decisions on asylum claims, restoring service standards that offer clarity and dignity, and protecting the right to family reunion, which means so much to all of us here. Such steps are not just compassionate; they are also practical and necessary for social cohesion.
Furthermore, we must take care to ensure that assessments of good character do not rest solely on whether someone arrived through irregular routes, which is often a last resort for those fleeing persecution. Each case should be looked at individually, with a recognition of context and care, not with a one-size-fits-all approach that risks deepening hardship for those already in vulnerable situations.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I see the consequences of exclusion every day—not because I am better than anybody else, but because I focus on that and I see more of it happening. That is why it is important to me. Forced statelessness or permanent limbo adversely affect mental health, community cohesion and integration. We must speak not with condemnation, but with compassion and reason. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and I share those personal beliefs.
I always try to leave these things with a Bible quotation. The Bible reminds us in Hebrews 13:2:
“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”
That verse speaks to the heart of our shared humanity. It is a reminder that how we treat the stranger, the refugee and the vulnerable reflects the depth of our national character as individuals. This House has long stood as a voice for those in need, and we must continue in that tradition. Let us show leadership not only in lawmaking, but in compassion. Let us ensure that our policies uphold both justice and mercy, and let us do so with humility, conviction and care. In defending the rights of refugees, we reaffirm the values that have long made the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a place of refuge, opportunity and hope.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for bringing this important debate to the House; I am sure his constituents are very proud of the powerful speech that he made here today. I know that there are brilliant grassroots charities in his constituency offering sanctuary and support to new Scots from Syria, South Sudan and Ukraine.
Our constituencies are hundreds of miles apart from each other, but we are united in the belief that we have to give refugees our compassion and support. I wanted to speak in today’s debate because my constituency of Hampstead and Highgate has had a proud history of supporting refugees for years and years. During the first world war, 250,000 Belgians fled to England to escape the invading Germans. It was in Kilburn in my constituency that synagogues, churches and homes opened their doors to families who faced persecution.
I should say that Kilburn—or County Kilburn, as it is often called—was also a place of refuge for those fleeing the Irish famine in the mid-1800s. I am delighted to say that in Kilburn we now have the largest Irish community living in London. In Highgate, a new part of my constituency, Camden council provided refuge to families escaping the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are people who risked their lives and are now in Camden—our doctors, nurses, translators and civil servants.
My constituency of Hampstead and Highgate has a proud legacy of welcoming refugees, and I intend to continue supporting that legacy. For many of us in this room, watching what is happening in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, and of course the violence between Israel and Iran, it feels like the world is in disarray. The unfortunate truth is that it is innocent civilians who often suffer the consequences of conflict.
Of course we have to have an immigration system that is controlled, well managed and fair. I think everyone in this room would want that. However, we cannot lose the compassion that our country and my party prides itself on, and has done for many years. I am proud to represent constituents who made that dangerous journey to Britain, who claimed asylum and are now British citizens. I know they are of good character: they have made an incredible contribution to our country, to the constituency, to public life and to culture. One does not have to look too far to find them in my constituency.
I want to talk about my friend Camron Aref-Adib, who you may know, Ms Butler. His family was forced to flee from Iran on foot in the dead of night after an arrest warrant was issued for his father because of his political affiliations. Their journey to Camden was marked by constant distress, fear and uncertainty, as they were smuggled from Turkey to Yugoslavia and eventually western Europe.
Throughout that time, no safe and legal routes were available, but since reaching the UK Camron, his parents and sisters have given back more than 100 years of combined service to the NHS. I am pleased to say that Camron now serves as a Labour party councillor in Camden as well. These are the kinds of characters who have made Britain their home and who give so much back to our community.
I wrote to the Immigration Minister about my concerns and was assured that, when assessing good character, immigration breaches are likely to be disregarded if the journey was outside the applicant’s control. That is likely to be the case if, for example, they were a child when they made the dangerous crossing to the UK. I thank the Department for that assurance. However, I believe that a person’s access to safe and legal rules is also out of the applicant’s control.
Given the recent escalation of conflict in the middle east, Camron’s family story feels more pertinent than ever. I have heard directly from the Iranian community in Hampstead. They told me that they are frightened for their family members who are still in their country of origin. They also told me that they feel forgotten about and dehumanised by the lack of asylum routes available to them.
On behalf of families such as Camron’s, I ask the Minister: when the Department is assessing asylum applications on a case-by-case basis, will the insufficient provision of safe and legal routes be considered as a compelling or mitigating circumstance? I thank the Minister in advance for her response and the time she will take to address this debate. As a House and a country, we need to think deeply about the fact that these refugees are people; they are not just statistics.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on securing this really important debate. Before we begin, I declare an interest: my office receives support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project, or RAMP.
I would like to make a couple of points about refugee citizenship. First, it is important to set out that there has been no concrete change in the way we treat refugees. The change was made because the Government repealed sections of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. Those are two of the most regressive and pernicious pieces of immigration legislation. They totally distorted—indeed, almost collapsed—the asylum and refugee system in this country. Good riddance to them.
It was right that one of the first things that the Government did on immigration policy when elected was to get rid of those two pieces of legislation. That meant that the citizenship rules had to be altered to align them with the status quo ante, which is what happened, but that does not mean that we should not have a wider debate about citizenship for refugees, as well as all migrants. I was pleased to see that the Government’s White Paper on immigration has kicked that discussion off.
It is also great to hear many Members extol the virtues of refugees and champion them in their communities. I add my name to that list: Edinburgh has a long history of welcoming people, whether they are Ukrainians recently or English refugees hundreds of years ago—although it has been a while since then.
I also want to make a couple of points about citizenship specifically, and the actual concrete meaning of “citizenship” in Britain today. Our citizenship rules developed haphazardly and organically, basically from the empire onwards. There are four pathways to British citizenship: Commonwealth, European, refugee and for people from the rest of the world. In each pathway, people acquire rights and entitlements at various points in the process.
We need to be clear that there is no bright, clear line of distinction between the rights of a citizen and the rights of a settled person in Britain, refugee or not. The rights to benefits, to work, to integrate and even to vote, are not contingent on citizenship. People make full contributions to our society long before they naturalise, and some choose not to naturalise at all—whether because their home country forbids dual citizenship or because they simply do not want to. People who are not citizens are still full, participating members of British society, and refugees with settled status are fully within that category.
Of course, that is not to say that citizenship does not have value. Obviously, it has very specific benefits: it gives a person a passport, protects them from deportation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth said, and gives them consular protection. But it is not a prerequisite for a meaningful life in Britain. Citizenship has political and social value—it shows that a person is one of us, and that they have made a commitment to the country—but I would argue that we have essentially erased the distinction between citizenship and settlement. The distinction now is simply one of time, as the person has to wait a year or two after settlement, and of money, as they have to pay a whopping great fee. Those are the only distinctions in people’s lived reality.
Pete Wishart
I think the hon. Gentleman is sort of saying that citizenship is a good thing and a bad thing, but it is a central aspect of life within our society—an entitlement to so many things that he and I take for granted. If his citizenship were ever taken away from him, God forbid, he would feel it in a minute. Another thing: this is perhaps the most profound change to the good character requirement that I have ever seen—it has gone from lapsing after 10 years to not at all. He should recognise that that is an appalling new change to our immigration system.
Chris Murray
The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this issue a lot. I was not debating whether citizenship is a good or a bad thing—I fully believe it is a good thing. My point was that citizens do not get many more rights and entitlements in Britain today than people who are settled. We could have a wider debate about whether that is fine—I think we should—but a lot of things, such as applying to institutions, colleges or universities, or entitlement to benefits, to housing or to vote, are contingent not on citizenship, but on settlement. The distinction on voting depends on whether the person is a Commonwealth citizen or not. My argument is that in Britain, unlike other countries, we do not make a clear distinction between settlement and citizenship. The distinction between citizenship and indefinite leave to remain—settlement—makes little material difference for refugees living in our communities.
That brings me to my second point. There is clearly a case for citizenship reform in this country. It has been decades since we seriously looked at the issue. I welcome the fact that we are having the debate and that the immigration White Paper has kicked off a discussion about the distinction. The system should be managed, controlled and fair. As I said, the real distinction with citizenship is whether the person has been here an extra year or two and whether they can pay the fee. That is how they get citizenship.
However, some people come to this country and work hard, obey the rules, pay loads of tax, volunteer, do good in their communities and make a huge contribution. Some go on to score goals and win medals for us. Other people come here and do not do any of those things. They do not commit a huge offence, but they do not do any of those things. Is it right that the system treats those people just the same? I would argue that we should differentiate between them.
Madeleine Albright’s family fled the Nazis. They came first to Britain, and the question they were asked was, “Okay, you are refugees and are welcome here, but how long until you leave?” Then they went to the US—
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. I would also like to give Brian Leishman two minutes to wind up.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I start by complimenting the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) not only on securing the debate but on how he introduced it; his speech was excellent.
I am proud to represent Woking for many reasons, and one is our long history as a constituency of supporting and welcoming refugees. Ockenden International, originally Ockenden Venture, one of the first refugee organisations set up after the second world war, started in Woking. I used to live on the road where it once existed. We have since welcomed Afghans, Syrians and Ukrainians. One of the former MPs for Woking, a Conservative, set up the immigration advice service that a lot of my constituents, and I imagine others, have used. Where has that moderate, compassionate conservatism gone? I fear that the Labour party is going the same way.
The Liberal Democrats are strongly critical of the Government’s move to permanently bar refugees who have arrived here by irregular routes from ever obtaining British citizenship. Giving a hard, bureaucratic “no” to people in such situations, which are incredibly varied and complex, is wrong. It means, in effect, that refugees who have fled persecution and sought sanctuary are condemned to live as second-class citizens for the rest of their lives—never truly able to belong, assimilate or become British.
Earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats tabled a new clause to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that would have required the Home Secretary to change the Home Office guidance. That guidance currently states that anyone who entered the UK illegally, no matter how long ago or what the circumstances, will normally be refused citizenship if they apply after 10 February 2025. Our amendment would have ensured that illegal entry was disregarded as a factor when assessing whether someone meets the so-called good character requirement for naturalisation. We believe that to be fair and reasonable: human beings should be judged on their merit, not their status. Refugees are not criminals because of the way they arrive. They are often in desperate situations, fleeing torture, conflict or persecution. Many are fleeing death.
We have heard that this new Government wish to preserve the rule of international law in making policy decisions. That is why, they say, they made the Chagos Islands decision: to uphold such claims. Let us acknowledge that international law is fundamental to refugees. Those seeking asylum who have no choice but to enter a country irregularly should not be punished: that is what the 1951 refugee convention says. We are at risk of falling foul of that international law.
Many refugees who have been granted citizenship describe it as one of the proudest moments of their lives—a hugely amazing moment that they share with their friends and family. Yet we risk depriving them of that opportunity. If we strip away that possibility, we risk deepening divisions in our society, effectively telling thousands of our newest residents and constituents that they do not and will never fully belong. That is not the Britain that I know and love or the one I want to represent in Parliament.
Instead, we should have a fair and effective asylum system that upholds our obligations and treats people with dignity. Banning refugees from citizenship is not one of those things. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to think again, change their approach and show that Britain is still great at standing up for the values of compassion, fairness and the rule of law.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on bringing forward his interesting debate, although I am sure it will come as no surprise that my view is very different from his.
Britain is a compassionate and caring country. We have shown support and welcomed those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong as well as others in desperate need. In fact, our compassion and care are without limits. But the reality is that our resources are limited, as we have seen from the pressure on housing, public services, public finances and, yes, our criminal justice system.
The promise of citizenship for those who arrive illegally will only incentivise yet more people to cross by small boat. Uncontrolled migration has real consequences. What would Members proposing such a promise say to the youngster struggling to get on the housing ladder, to the person who has been waiting months for an operation or to the victim of crime who has just seen their attacker released from prison early? What is being discussed today is not those who have been welcomed, but those who have come to this country illegally.
Citizenship is a privilege, and we should not grant it to those who have broken our laws to enter the country. I listened to the proposals of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, and I have listened to those of the comrades of the Socialist Campaign Group in this debate, and the idea of disregarding that restriction is simply preposterous. How can we possibly say that lawbreaking should not be considered when assessing whether someone is of good character? The problem with the Government is that they fall between two stools: they want to appease the madness within their own party, but they also recognise the public’s desire to secure our borders.
The consequences of the Government’s inability to take strong action have been clearly demonstrated. Before the election, progress was being made on reducing the number of crossings, the number staying in hotels was going down and the proportion of those being removed was going up, but everyone understood that much, much more needed to be done. However, since the election, we have seen the number of arrivals increase by more than 38%. Yes, we are only in July, but already we have reached a record level of small boat arrivals this year. The number staying in hotels is up, and the number of those who have arrived illegally and been removed is at a record low. However it is measured, that is a failure on the part of the Government. It has left the Government’s pledge to “smash the gangs” in tatters, exposing it as the façade it always was.
We can all see that the problem is greater than the gangs. The heinous criminals who organise the crossings are responding to demand. There is a market for people wanting to cross the channel from a safe third country. A truly compassionate response would be to put in place a system that completely deters crossings by removing those who have come here illegally, yet the Government cancelled that plan before it even began. To deport anyone who comes to this country illegally is the fair option, and it would send a clear message. It is the right thing for those who go on the boats in extreme danger, it is the fair thing for the women and children refugees whom we cannot help while we lack control of our borders, and it is the fair thing for the British people who are picking up the tab, yet the Government baulk at such proposals.
Now it appears that the Government’s policy rests on the French Government riding out to the rescue. Relying on the French to save Britain seems about as likely to succeed as relying on them to look out for the interests of our British fishermen—it is technically possible but characteristically implausible. Ultimately, the Government are right to keep the guidance. However, the best approach would be to reverse the failures, implement a proper policy that ensures that those who come here illegally do not remain here and avoid the conversation about citizenship for illegal immigrants altogether.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and to respond to the debate.
First, I will respond to some of the points made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). I feel as though, once again, the Conservative party is in a state of amnesia. The Conservatives completely avoid talking about their own record, yet they know—we all know—that there were 800 people arriving by boats in 2018. The Conservative Government completely lost control of our immigration and borders system and allowed criminal gangs to get embedded across our border. They should apologise for that rather than continuing to pass the buck.
Seema Malhotra
I will not, actually, because I want to respond to all the points that have been made in the debate. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, of the 30,000 returns made between the election and the middle of May, almost 8,000 were enforced returns. That is a staggering 23% increase in enforced returns compared with the same period 12 months previously.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on securing this important debate. We have had a number of discussions on this issue in the House, but, notwithstanding that, I know that this is an important debate here and in the other place and I am grateful for the opportunity to make these remarks.
My hon. Friend and other Members spoke about our long and proud history of offering sanctuary to those who are fleeing persecution, conflict and tyranny, as well as our responsibility towards refugees, which we must take very seriously. Our country is an interconnected and outward-facing nation, and I am incredibly proud of that. Our history and geography mean that for generations British people have travelled overseas to live and work, but also that people have come to the UK to work, study, invest, join families or seek sanctuary. British citizens draw on heritage from all over the world, and that has made us the country that we are today.
However, there is another backdrop to the debate, which is that immigration must be controlled and managed. I think we all know that the last Government completely lost control of our borders and we saw net migration reach record highs. It is important, for public confidence and our nation’s security, that we are able to control our borders and who comes to our country.
We have heard about the importance of making sure that we continue our compassion and support for those who are fleeing persecution, war or other risks to their lives. We should be incredibly proud of the support that we provide to refugees and displaced people, whether it is through our UK resettlement scheme, the Afghan resettlement programme, our route for Hong Kong British nationals or our Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme. It is testament to those efforts that the UK is the sixth largest recipient of refugees referred from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the third largest in Europe.
Since 2015, some 674,000 individuals have been offered a route into the UK, with just under 30,000 resettled through resettlement schemes and over 34,000 through our Afghan schemes. The invasion of Ukraine, in particular, is an issue close to the hearts of people up and down our country, and I acknowledge the particular welcome that people from Ukraine have received in Scotland, which has its super sponsor scheme, which I was able to discuss on my visit to Scotland in February.
The Government recognise the contribution that people arriving through such schemes make to our economy and our society. The immigration White Paper sets out our intention to review resettlement and community sponsorship models, allowing businesses, universities and communities to sponsor refugees to live, work and study in the UK. Those schemes deliver better outcomes for both refugees and the communities that welcome them. We are taking this approach because we believe in supporting refugees to integrate into British society fully, and we have been clear that every active working-age person with the right to work in our country should be able to work and contribute to the growth of our economy. It is not just the right thing to do; it is in our national interest.
Refugees and displaced people who have had to leave their home country because of persecution often lack the opportunities to apply for jobs or to work in the UK, even where they have the talent and the training to do so. That is why, in the immigration White Paper, we talk about looking to new safe and legal routes—for example, drawing on the experience of the displaced talent mobility pilot—and we will be exploring reforms to allow a limited pool of UNHCR-recognised refugees and displaced people overseas to apply to come to the UK through skilled worker visas and existing sponsor routes where they have the skills to do so, giving them an opportunity to contribute to the UK and rebuild their lives.
In the few minutes remaining, I want to address some of the questions that have been raised, in particular regarding the changes to strengthen the good character guidance. There are already rules that can prevent those who arrive illegally from gaining citizenship. Indeed, from 10 February 2025, anyone who enters the UK illegally, including via dangerous journeys such as small boat crossings, faces having their citizenship application refused. As I have said, the UK must always play its part in supporting those fleeing persecution, but we are also clear that we must do all we can to prevent people from making dangerous small boat crossings, risking their lives as criminal gangs with no thought for their safety profit.
As has been mentioned, British citizenship is a privilege and not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one—one that is considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant them British citizenship. The good character policy is compliant with our international obligations, including those under the refugee convention. It is important to note that the guidance on the policy is clear that decision makers have the ability to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. That includes the ability to disregard immigration breaches if it is accepted that they were outside the applicant’s control—for example, if the person was a victim of modern slavery or trafficking, or if they entered illegally when they were a child.
It is important to say in response, in particular, to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) that we will be looking at new thinking and new models around earned settlement and earned citizenship in the consultation that we will launch later this year.
It is important to recognise that these issues concerning those who come to our country via irregular routes are an international problem, and they require an international solution. Any UK Government—it is disappointing that the previous Government did not do this enough—must work with our international partners to make sure that we have solutions and alternatives for those who seek to come to the UK in this way. The Government are determined to restore order to the immigration system so that every part of it—border security, case processing, appeals and returns—operates swiftly and effectively. That is a necessity for our national security and also a moral imperative.
Brian Leishman
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response and many hon. Members present for their wonderful contributions. Refugees are victims of war, famine, oppression and environmental catastrophes. The previous Government failed in their international obligations to refugees, and to allow people to exercise their right to seek asylum. I have to say that I found the speech by the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), equal parts insulting, distasteful, xenophobic and, frankly, classist. However, I respect his right to air his views—that is free speech, after all.
I also respect my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) and have a lot of time for him personally, but I fundamentally disagree with this sort of hierarchy of humanity. Personally, I do not care whether someone is an Olympic athlete or does a perceived lesser job—or, in fact, no job at all. As the Labour party in government, we have to combat the 14 years of austerity, division and classism that have ripped this country apart. Now that we are in government, we have to do better on a whole raft of issues, and everything that we do should always have basic, core humanity at its heart.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered refugee citizenship rights.