← Back to House of Commons Debates
Immigration and Asylum Bill - Sitting 2
15 September 2026
Lead MP
Christine Jardine
Edinburgh West
Lib Dem
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Asylum & RefugeesMigrants & BordersStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 73
At a Glance
Christine Jardine raised concerns about immigration and asylum bill - sitting 2 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Initiated the debate by welcoming witnesses and asking them to introduce themselves for the record.
Discussed the provisions of the Bill and their potential impact on arrivals and removals. Noted that while the article 8 restrictions and appeals reform could increase refusals and returns, the exact impact is difficult to predict due to the complexity of enforcement and the existing legal challenges.
Acknowledged the Bill as a step in the right direction but expressed concerns about its effectiveness in deterring illegal arrivals and speeding up removals. Emphasised the need for detention on arrival and quick action for deterrence, which is not present in the Bill.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Asked about metrics to judge the success of the reforms, with Dr Sumption suggesting tracking small boat arrivals, asylum applications, human rights grants, and returns. Alp Mehmet added that the speed of dealing with asylum claims and appropriate action post-decision would be key metrics.
Asked for a single policy that would have the biggest impact on reducing illegal migration within the constraints of legal frameworks. Dr Sumption suggested measures like intercepting boats, maintaining a low grant rate, and returns agreements, which do not require legislation.
Stephenson questioned Mehmet about the effectiveness of measures in the Immigration Bill compared to those in place in countries such as Australia, Denmark, the USA, and Greece, which have seen a reduction in asylum seekers through various measures.
Ahmed pointed out that small boat crossings have already decreased by 41% since the UK left the European Union, suggesting that the Bill may not be necessary. He also questioned the applicability of aggressive border control measures, such as those used in the United States, to the British context.
Mehmet reiterated his concerns about the Bill's inability to address the root cause of small boat crossings and the need for stricter measures, including securing the border and detaining and returning illegal immigrants quickly. He suggested that confiscating luxury goods and pushing boats back to the country of origin, as practised by Denmark and Greece, could be effective deterrents.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Jardine moderated the questioning session and invited Tony Smith to introduce himself.
Tony Smith CBE
Fortinus Global Limited
Smith, a former director general of the UK Border Force, stated that the best way to tackle illegal immigration is to prevent it at the source and swiftly remove those who enter illegally. He emphasised the need to reduce asylum intake and improve removal rates to deter future illegal crossings.
Critiques the provisions in the Bill that do not exclude people from safe third countries from claiming protection. He praises attempts to tighten up on article 8 of the ECHR but argues that it is insufficient to stop migrants from coming in. He also discusses the need for faster appeals processes and the idea of recouping public funds from individuals who have been a draw on public funds.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Questions Tony Smith about how the provisions in the Bill might make it harder for individuals with fictitious claims to stop themselves from being removed and asks for clarification on the article 8 provisions and their impact on strung-out appeals and deterrence.
Questions Tony Smith about the resources of Border Force and whether the Bill addresses the fundamental issues of illegal migration and processing and deportation, arguing that the Bill does not do enough.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Reminds Members to stay within the scope of the Bill, particularly about the resources of Border Force, and ensures the questions asked are within the scope of the Bill.
Identifies human rights legislation as the fundamental issue that makes it difficult to remove people who have no right to remain. He also notes that the Bill does not tackle the issue of people coming legally and then claiming asylum, which is a significant problem.
Guy Dampier
Party Unavailable
Constituency Unavailable
Discussed the new immigration appeal authority and its potential risks due to the lack of legally trained adjudicators. He also highlighted that while restrictions on Article 8 would reduce the number of people using it, the majority of those affected would remain in the country illegally.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Introduced Angela Afzal, policy manager at the International Rescue Committee, and facilitated questions about safe and legal routes for asylum seekers.
Angela Afzal
International Rescue Committee
Stated that refugees should have safe routes to reach the UK and not be forced to use people smugglers. She also noted the importance of family reunion for refugee integration and expressed concerns about the core protection framework outlined in clause 21 of the Bill.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Asked about the fairness of people claiming asylum in the UK after passing through a safe country and how it relates to international frameworks.
Blake Stephenson
Party Unavailable
Constituency Unavailable
Inquired about the number of legal routes the International Rescue Committee would like to open up and the potential impact of clause 21.
Siân Berry
Party Unavailable
Constituency Unavailable
Asked about the negative impact of conditional family reunion and the right to family reunion.
Jacqui McKenzie
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Concerns about the removal of the current tribunal system and the establishment of the independent immigration appeals mechanism, separation of powers, backlog in the system, poor decision making by the Home Office, lack of representation, and the impact on Windrush families.
Sarah Singer
University of London
Highlights her expertise in refugee law and the importance of the best interests of children in the context of the Bill's provisions, expressing worries about the redefinition of the family and the targeting of families despite the small number of refusals.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Questions the effectiveness of the Bill in addressing the backlog and proposes the use of an intermediate tier to reduce the time taken by judges and the tribunal system.
Asked Professor Singer about the unusual drafting and wording in the Bill, citing clause 19(4) and the ouster provision in clause 1(8) as examples. Raised concerns that such wording may lead to increased litigation.
Critiqued the drafting of the Bill, stating that it lacked detail and was poorly drafted. Highlighted issues such as the lack of clarity regarding the eligibility and content of core protection status, and the absence of operational details for the asylum support system. Suggested alternative ways to address the backlog, including improving initial decision-making quality and legal aid provision. Questioned the necessity of creating a new body to handle asylum claims.
Asked about the Government’s efforts to speed up the asylum process, acknowledging political pressure and public dissatisfaction with the current system. Highlighted the Home Office’s role in creating the backlog and questioned the effectiveness of the proposed new system.
Defended lawyers, stating that they are helping and not bucking the system. Emphasised the importance of high-quality legal aid and the need for better system design. Acknowledged the Home Office's structural issues and the need for more resources, but questioned the necessity of the Bill to address the backlog.
Jacqui McKenzie
14:58:00
Jacqui McKenzie discussed the issue of training and the occurrence of rudimentary errors in decision making, attributing them to a cut-and-paste approach and targets in the Home Office, such as star sheets for deportations. She also highlighted the need for more people, better training, and a root-and-branch change in the system.
Singer
14:58:00
Professor Singer deferred to Jacqui McKenzie on the initial review process, but later emphasised the limited impact of the proposed legislative change and the concern over separated families and children.
Zubir Ahmed asked about the guidance needed for judges on invoking Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and whether the current system commands public confidence, particularly concerning the impact on children and families.
Ben Goldsborough expressed the need for a confidence-based immigration and asylum system and questioned the Bill's goal of providing clarity on Article 8, emphasising the concerns about backlogs and the need for a clear legal structure for the judiciary.
The Bill does not address the public's misunderstanding of article 8. The public perception is skewed by media coverage of minor cases, leading to confusion. It is the job of parliamentarians to educate the public on the actual application of article 8.
There is already a detailed legislative framework around article 8 in the Immigration Act 2014. The current bill adds complexity without clarity. The Home Office's impact assessment suggests minimal impacts from the bill.
Asked about evidence that the Strasbourg court thinks the UK is applying article 8 too liberally, highlighting the confusion around the issue.
Focused on the issue that most refusals are appealed by default, and questioned if better decision-making at the Home Office would actually speed up the system.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Asked about the impact of the Home Office granting more applications in the first instance and if it would regain public confidence.
Provided evidence on the need for a smarter mix of legislation to combat modern slavery, including a mandatory human rights due diligence Bill and a forced labour ban for the UK.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Asks whether financial penalties will encourage greater compliance with transparency in supply chains.
Reiterates the need for enforcement beyond financial penalties and suggests that the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade might be better for enforcement.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Welcomes the panel of witnesses and asks about the impact of the new appeal authority on delays in the system.
Explains the reasons for the new appeal authority, stating that while judges and the court system have increased capacity, demand is growing faster, leading to a backlog of 150,000 cases. The new body aims to increase capacity and add flexibility, retaining legal support and ensuring quality.
Questions the necessity of the new appeal authority and its impact on immigration lawyers and the system, to which Neal Barcoe responds that it is vital to address the backlog and improve the system with proper staffing and independence.
Inquires about the impact of the IIAA on the workload of the first-tier tribunal and the safeguards in place to manage case complexity, to which Daniel Flury responds that as the IIAA grows, the work of the first-tier tribunal will decline over one to three years, and HMCTS offers reasonable adjustments for appellants.
Daniel Flury stated that the new body is intended to speed up appeals but avoided specific claims about its effectiveness, suggesting that the Home Office might be better placed to provide a view.
Neal Barcoe confirmed that the intention of the IIAA is to increase efficiency while maintaining the integrity of the system. He suggested that the Home Office colleague might add more information.
Alison Hewett emphasised the independence of the IIAA, including the appointment process for the chair and the professional standards office, and the independence of the chief executive and chief appeals officer from the Crown. She also mentioned mechanisms for annual reviews and reporting to Parliament, and noted the Bill's role in ensuring the integrity of decisions and the efficiency of the system.
Matt Vickers inquired about the current average time for an appeal to be resolved and questioned the expected improvement under the new system, pointing out that the current average time is 56 weeks, which is unacceptable according to Flury. Vickers also asked for a quantifiable target for additional removals as a result of the changes.
Stephen Webb, director of programmes for Fix Britain, stated that the Bill mainly addresses the stock rather than the flow of asylum seekers. He suggested that the Bill is silent on article 3 claims, which he believes should be reformed to deter people from starting the journey. Webb also noted that the proposed article 8 changes might be toughened but questioned how decision makers and those on appeal would interpret them.
Anna Turley asked about the impact of the IIAA on improving public confidence in the appeals process. Webb responded that the problem with the immigration tribunals is the lack of transparency and reporting on judgments. He welcomed the opportunity to reset the process with clear rules about impartiality and to speed up the process, which would be helpful.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Stated that the Bill aims to address illegal immigration and improve border security. Emphasised that the current asylum system is overly permissive and acts as a pull factor for illegal immigrants. Cited statistics showing a decrease in small boat crossings and removals of foreign national offenders. Mentioned the need to tackle late claim mechanisms and appeals delays.
Dan Hobbs
Home Office
Introduced himself as the director general for migration, borders and international policy and programmes in the Home Office.
Bas Javid
Home Office
Introduced himself as the director general for immigration enforcement at the Home Office. Provided an example of a case where the Bill would prevent someone from resisting removal on article 8 grounds. Highlighted the cost to the taxpayer of article 8 rights granted in 2025.
Asked the Minister for measurable differences the Bill would make, the number of additional removals it would deliver, and how much faster cases would be resolved. Questioned the Minister about concrete examples of cases where the Bill would prevent someone from resisting removal on article 8 grounds.
Asked about the insurance policies in place to ensure the complexity of cases is matched by the level of adjudication. Also questioned the Minister about the necessity of measures in the Bill and their impact on social cohesion.
Joe Robertson questioned the effectiveness of the Bill and its potential to cause institutional upheaval and unintended consequences. He raised concerns about the Home Office's poor record in decision-making and the potential for the new system to exacerbate these issues.
Dan Hobbs
16:17:00
Dan Hobbs discussed the Bill's efforts to define Article 8 more closely to Strasbourg jurisprudence, aimed at reducing the use of Article 8 by those who arrived illegally or overstayed. He emphasised the need for a fair and efficient appeals process with safeguards, including regulatory and procedural training for adjudicators.
Leigh Ingham highlighted the lack of confidence in the current system and questioned how the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority would address these concerns, emphasising the importance of accountability and transparency.
Asked about the potential for tighter article 8 provisions to drive up article 3 claims and inquired about the purpose of clause 1(8) as an ouster provision, suggesting it may be poorly drafted.
Dan Hobbs
16:17:00
Clarified the purpose of clause 1(8) as setting out the procedure for appeals against decisions of the new authority on the basis of law going to the upper tribunal, and stated the Government would review concerns about the drafting of the provision.
Bas Javid
16:17:00
Added that the act of removal, when done properly and legitimately, acts as a deterrent to illegal immigration.
Asked about the modelling done to estimate the effect of the Bill on reducing illegal immigrants in communities.
Requested more detailed data on human rights claims, asylum support, and the regulations that will follow the legislation, and inquired about engagement with asylum seekers on their views and experiences.
Described the national framework of stakeholder engagement, highlighting the role of advocacy groups and organisations like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Refugee Council. Emphasised the importance of the lived experience expressed through these groups and the information gathered by the community engagement team.
Described two distinct elements of engagement: a national community engagement team and a new command called returns assistance and engagement operations focused on failed asylum seekers. Highlighted the importance of voluntary returns over enforced ones, citing safety, cost, and dignity as reasons.
Asked about routes through which the panel could ask about the Bill’s provisions.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Discussed the modern slavery aspect, noting the increase in modern slavery referrals by more than 900% since 2014. Highlighted concerns about late claims being used to thwart returns and mentioned the need for individuals to disclose exploitation earlier in the process. Also noted that the UK referred more victims of modern slavery than the rest of Europe combined in 2023.
Asked about the progress expected from the Bill and the impact of the Bill on businesses, particularly regarding supply chain modern slavery. Followed up with a question about the compliance with existing modern slavery legislation due to the additional measures in the Bill.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Asked Members to be brief to ensure everyone has a chance to speak, noting the short time remaining.
Asked about the compatibility of the Bill with the EU victims’ directive in Northern Ireland and the applicability of the European convention on human rights.
Responded to Tom Gordon’s questions, noting that there is case law on this issue and that the immigration legislation applies right across the United Kingdom.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Responded to Matt Vickers’ question about the effectiveness of the measures around article 8 by promising to provide a figure for applications granted on article 8 grounds last year that would have been refused under the measures being put forward in the Bill.
Anna Turley
Lab
Redcar
Provided statistics from the impact assessment, stating that the article 8 reforms will result in an additional 3,600 people per year being removed from the UK. She noted that 31% of people refused article 8 applications were removed or claimed asylum, leading to the estimate of 3,600 people being removed annually due to the measures in the Bill.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Thanked the witnesses for their evidence and concluded the session, scheduling the next meeting for 9:25 am on Tuesday 13 October to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Government Response
Responded to questions about the Bill's measures, emphasising its importance in tackling illegal immigration and improving border security. Provided statistics showing the number of removals and stopped crossings, and highlighted the need to address the permissive nature of the current asylum system. Anna Turley responded to concerns about the Bill's effectiveness and emphasised the need for a professional and independent appeals process to restore faith in the system. She detailed the independence of the proposed authority, including its statutory reporting to Parliament and accountability mechanisms. Emphasised that the Bill aims to reduce illegal immigration, provide a fair and efficient system, and ensure that people cannot exploit the system. She committed to providing more information on human rights claims, asylum support, and engagement with service users, including those who have lived experience of the asylum process. Discussed the increase in modern slavery referrals, the importance of early disclosure of exploitation, and the introduction of financial penalties for non-compliance with transparency requirements in supply chains. Also mentioned a review of responsible business conduct to drive out modern slavery from supply chains.
▸
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.