← Back to House of Commons Debates
Immigration and Asylum Bill - Sitting 1
15 September 2026
Lead MP
Paula Barker
Liverpool Wavertree
Lab
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
ImmigrationAsylum & Refugees
Other Contributors: 64
At a Glance
Paula Barker raised concerns about immigration and asylum bill - sitting 1 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Called the Minister to move the programme motion and introduced witnesses for oral evidence session.
Vicky Tennant
UK Representative for UNHCR
Introduced herself as the representative to the United Kingdom for the UNHCR, responsible for advancing protection and solutions for refugees.
Eleanor Lyons
UK’s independent anti-slavery commissioner
Stated that there are already safeguards in place to prevent misuse of the system, no evidence of widespread abuse, and questioned the necessity of legislative changes. She emphasised the importance of trauma-informed and early identification of victims.
Will Prescott
Head of Research at Bright Blue
Emphasised the importance of dedicated first responders and proper training, noting gaps in the identification of modern slavery victims. He suggested that tightening criteria before addressing these gaps could be problematic.
Asked about the effectiveness of the current legislative solutions and what else the Home Office could do to tackle the misuse of the system.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Asked about the high number of charter returns that fail due to modern slavery referrals and sought to understand what could be done to challenge this.
Asked whether the referral system is exploited, to which Eleanor Lyons responded that there is no evidence of widespread misuse.
Summarised the issues discussed as being mainly in the administration of the law rather than the law itself and questioned whether the Bill addresses the identified gaps.
The Bill does not address fundamental issues such as lack of consistent training for first responders and outdated modern slavery strategy. It undermines the work done to recognise victims of various crimes and makes it harder for them to come forward. The Bill does not provide dedicated funding for police teams tackling modern slavery and does not effectively address the perpetrators of the crime.
Asked Vicky Tennant about the aspects of the Bill that present the greatest risk to refugee protection, focusing on the appeals system, recovery of asylum support, and changes to article 8 of the European convention on human rights.
Welcomed the Government’s objective of improving the asylum system but raised concerns about the appeals system, recovery of asylum support, and changes to article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Emphasised the importance of public confidence, procedural fairness, and the need for accurate high-quality decisions at the appeal stage. Highlighted the potential impact of the recovery of asylum support on integration and the importance of family reunion for successful integration.
Asked Vicky Tennant to outline how the Bill will harm integration, focusing on the recovery of asylum support and the ability to reunite with family members.
Asked Vicky Tennant about the likelihood of the Bill restoring confidence in the asylum system and what else would be needed to achieve this goal.
Vicky Tennant
09:28:00
Legislation is only part of the answer. The Bill's focus on quality, efficiency, and sustainability of the appeals process can contribute to building public confidence in the system. Public support for welcoming refugees is essential, and safe, regular routes are a critical part of a well-functioning, fair system. It is also about the ability to remove people who are not in need of asylum. International partnerships are crucial, including cooperation with France and other international partners, and adherence to international standards such as the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights.
Eleanor Lyons
09:28:00
Welcomes some parts of the Bill, such as better advocacy for child victims of exploitation and devolving decision-making pilots. However, the Bill makes it harder for safeguarding professionals to identify victims of exploitation, including child victims and UK national victims, which erodes public confidence in the system. Clause 36, which places an additional burden of proof on victims, is problematic and should be removed completely.
Prescott
09:28:00
Acknowledges the positive aspects of the Bill, such as expanding reporting requirements. Emphasises the importance of improving processes in the system, including dedicated points of contact for modern slavery in first responder organisations and standardised training for identifying potential victims. This is necessary to prevent last-minute claims and better support victims.
Questions Ms Tennant and Ms Lyons about the implications of clause 36, which places an additional burden of proof on victims to self-identify. Asks about the interplay between the clause and the state’s duty under the European convention on human rights and other international obligations.
Vicky Tennant
09:28:00
Responds that she has nothing to add.
Asks Eleanor about the transparency in supply chains required by the Bill. Questions whether the current measures are sufficient to tackle modern slavery in supply chains.
Eleanor Lyons
09:28:00
Notes that the UK imports more than £20 billion-worth of goods at risk of being produced with forced labour annually. Criticises the requirement in the Bill for businesses to report on forced labour in their supply chains without mandating action to prevent harm. Advocates for mandatory human rights due diligence to enhance the Bill's measures.
Questions Vicky Tennant about the confidence level of host communities in the asylum system. Asks for Tennant's assessment of the current situation, particularly in areas with high need for asylum accommodation, such as Glasgow.
The issue of asylum accommodation and the way in which the reception of asylum seekers are managed has contributed to a crisis of confidence. UNHCR welcomes the objective of restoring public confidence through a fair and efficient system. However, the work on the system itself must continue, particularly the efficient and quality decision-making process at first instance to avoid unnecessary appeals. There is a need for more detail on the balance between legally qualified adjudicators and lay adjudicators, and how legal expertise and subject matter expertise will be built into the process.
Asked witnesses to bear in mind the hard stop at 10:10 am and then thanked Ms Tennant, Ms Lyons, and Mr Prescott for their evidence.
Asked Vicky Tennant about the expertise needed for the adjudicators on the new panels, particularly concerning the ability to weigh up proportionality in relation to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
Director at the National Crime Agency on threat leadership. Stated that the Bill has more direct focus on modern slavery and human trafficking but nothing specific is missing to help tackle organised immigration crime. The measures in the Bill will make the UK less attractive for criminal networks facilitating illegal immigration. NCA has contributed to the reduction in small boat crossings but would not claim that the work is complete. The agency has the resources needed to continue the trend and go further by implementing the proposals in the Bill.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Thanked everyone at the NCA for their excellent work in disrupting organised immigration crime. Asked Helen Rance about how the measures in the Bill will help to deter people and make interventions earlier in the process of illegal immigration.
Asked Helen Rance about the Bill's impact on smashing the gangs and the progress made by the NCA in this regard.
Asked Helen Rance if the NCA has the resources it needs to continue the trend of reducing small boat crossings and go further by implementing the proposals in the Bill.
Asked Helen Rance about specific measures in the Bill that contribute to making the UK less attractive for organised criminals.
Asked about the timeline of increased demand for illegal immigration and whether the National Crime Agency (NCA) had seen an impact on illegal activity due to changes in routes available to asylum seekers.
Responded that she did not have the figures on when demand for illegal immigration increased and could not comment on the specifics of the legislation's deterrent effect on boat crossings from France or the geography of where migrants enter the UK. She also stated that the Bill does not address the geography of where crossings leave from or arrive to, and that she would not be in a position to answer questions about the NCA's analysis of the roots of demand for illegal immigration.
Asked about the Bill's ability to deter illegal immigration and whether it addresses the expanded geography of where organisations such as the NCA have to operate.
Asked about the NCA's observations on the impact of changes to routes available to asylum seekers and whether the NCA had seen an increase in trafficking and criminal activity as a result.
Asked about the Bill's increase in reporting by companies and individuals and whether this would help the NCA identify illegal routes and vulnerable victims.
Asked about the NCA's investigation into criminal activity around gangs and immigration in the UK and whether the Bill should legislate around cryptocurrency.
Introduced the next session with Dr Conor Casey and Professor Richard Ekins.
Discussed the potential for the Bill's article 8 provisions to move litigation to different questions and whether Parliament could go further in restricting the circumstances in which article 8 can prevent removals.
Noted his expertise in public law, administrative law, and the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights in UK domestic courts.
Professor Ekins agrees that the Bill builds on the 2014 Immigration Act but notes that it fails to address the small boats crisis and illegal migration robustly. He argues that the Bill does not sufficiently leverage the protections afforded by the refugee convention, particularly in expelling individuals who have entered illegally, and calls for more comprehensive measures to tackle illegal crossings.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Anna Turley questions whether the Bill strikes the right balance between honouring obligations to refugees and taking stronger action against illegal immigration. She inquires if the Bill adequately addresses both the broader issue of unlawful migration and the specific challenge of small boat crossings.
Dr Casey agrees with Professor Ekins, stating that the Bill lacks measures to deter unlawful channel crossings. She suggests that taking full advantage of provisions in the refugee convention could help, but notes that the ECHR's Article 3 imposes stringent restrictions even in cases of national security threats.
Professor Ekins reiterates his point about the misinterpretation of Article 3 by the Strasbourg Court, suggesting that the current interpretation is overly broad and limiting the UK's ability to manage immigration effectively.
Paul Kohler questions the establishment of the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, comparing it to Denmark's system and expressing surprise at the shift from judicial to administrative processes for appeals.
Dr Casey discusses the potential benefits and risks of expanding the pool of decision makers for the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, noting the complexity of immigration law and the risk of moving the backlog to the upper tribunal if less qualified individuals make errors.
Professor Ekins argues that while the proposed changes could integrate the review process closer to the immigration and asylum system, making public interest in enforcement a more pressing consideration, there are considerable risks, particularly the complexity of the law and unpredictability of adjudicators' decisions. He also highlights potential collateral litigation and judicial review challenges to the new adjudicative body's decisions. He doubts the effectiveness of clause 1(8) as an ouster clause and discusses the historical context of Home Office decision-making versus judicial oversight.
Paul Kohler inquires if there are examples of other jurisdictions, like Australia, that have attempted similar changes.
Professor Ekins responds that different common law and civil law countries have varying views on the role of departments in decision-making and judicial review, noting the shift in the UK from Home Office decisions to judicial oversight since 2007.
Jonathan Brash questions whether the Bill makes it less attractive for people who do not qualify for protection to claim asylum, citing provisions concerning the recovery of contributions for asylum support and the changes to the understanding of article 33 of the convention.
Professor Ekins responds that while the Bill may make it slightly easier to remove some unlawful migrants, major obstacles remain. He discusses the recovery of contributions for asylum support, noting its potential deterrent effect, but also its applicability to genuine refugees. He also addresses changes to article 33 of the convention, expressing concern about its drafting and practical implications.
Dr Casey agrees with Professor Ekins, noting that while the Bill might have a modest to moderate impact on deterring certain breaches of immigration rules, it is unlikely to deter unlawful crossings.
Blake Stephenson asks Professor Ekins to explain why clause 1(8) is a poor attempt at an ouster provision and what the benefits of better drafting would be.
Discussed the interpretation of ouster clauses in legislation and highlighted that clause 1(8) of the current bill would likely not be understood to categorically exclude judicial review of the Independent Immigration Appeal Authority’s decisions. He suggested that a more precise and categorical ouster clause might be necessary if the intent is to exclude judicial review.
Agreed with Professor Ekins and suggested that courts might be more cautious in interpreting an ouster clause when the independent body is not judicial in nature, implying that the current drafting might be open to judicial interpretation that allows for judicial review.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Asked about the interpretation and application of article 8 in the context of immigration and the potential for abuse of article 3, seeking mechanisms to prevent such abuse.
Responded to Anna Turley by discussing the expansion of article 8 into the domain of immigration law, arguing it was an innovation that was not part of the original agreement of the ECHR. He suggested that the joint declaration by member states recognised that something had gone wrong in the interpretation of the ECHR and that it needed to be addressed.
Agreed with Professor Ekins, stating that the extension of article 8 into immigration law was an act of judicial lawmaking through the living instrument approach.
Introduced the next session and set a time limit.
Introduced himself as the chief policy analyst for the Refugee Council and provided an overview of the organisation’s work in supporting refugees and asylum seekers in the UK.
Asked Jon Featonby about the Refugee Council's stance on the consequences for individuals who enter the UK illegally from safe countries versus those who enter through legal routes, and inquired about alternative deterrents the Council would support to discourage such crossings.
Highlighted the necessity of an asylum system that swiftly and accurately determines refugee status. Suggested that for those not in need of protection, the system should efficiently and humanely remove them. Emphasised the importance of safe and legal routes and criticised the suspension of refugee family reunion.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Asked about the proportion of irregular arrivals that the Refugee Council believes are fleeing war and persecution. Also inquired about the organisation's stance on article 8 rights, particularly in the context of balancing immigration control with safeguarding family rights.
Expressed gratitude for the work done by the Refugee Council and questioned the urgency of legislative changes to restore public confidence in the asylum system, noting the increase in applications since 2021.
Featonby expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of the measure to deter asylum seekers and highlighted concerns about its potential to prevent individuals from accessing necessary support, leading to destitution and negative public health and community impacts. He also raised worries about the risk of exploitation due to the need to borrow money from dangerous moneylenders. He suggested that helping refugees overcome employment barriers would be a better approach. Additionally, Featonby discussed the Refugee Council's stance on the application of article 8 in immigration claims, stating it is not part of their day-to-day work and focusing instead on fair and timely processing of asylum claims.
Asked Featonby about the perception of the increase in the application of article 8 to some immigration claims and the potential counter-effect of reduced article 8 claims leading to an increase in article 3 claims.
Inquired about the risks of asylum seekers declining support due to repayments and the interaction with the ability to settle and get jobs, referencing the core protection model and its impact on leave and settlement routes.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.