House of Commons · General Debate
15 October 2026 · 14 other contributors
Opened by Graham Stuart Con Beverley and Holderness
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Graham Stuart raised concerns about immigration and asylum bill - sitting 5 (morning) in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Reminded Members to switch off electronic devices, noted the selection list for today's sittings, and introduced amendments for discussion, including government amendments and amendments focusing on safeguarding checks, affirmative procedure requirements, and appeal rights.
Proposed amendment 130, which is consequential on the repeal of section 12 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2006.
Asked if clause 17 would make it easier for people to come to the UK on an Article 8 basis if the location for sponsor human rights claims is not specified. Questioned who would be eligible to act as a sponsor and inquired about the fee structure.
Expressed confusion about the purpose of the new provision, suggesting it should not give rights to bring in a family member based on the circumstance of living in different countries. Requested clarification on the number of people in the UK with a core cohabiting family member outside the UK.
Asked about the judicialisation of British law and the sovereignty of Parliament. Inquired about safeguarding measures for victims of domestic abuse and domestic violence.
Asked for an explanation of why the amendments and new schedule were tabled at this time and not included in the original Bill.
Asks whether the shadow minister's principal concern is that the clause will result in an increase in overseas human rights claims.
Points out that the Government's intention to introduce safe and legal routes would solve the problem described by the shadow minister.
Questions whether the Opposition's emphasis on leaving the ECHR would terminate part 3 of the UK-EU trade co-operation agreement, risking fair and transparent management of the immigration system.
David Smith intervened to suggest that the concerns raised by Joe Robertson are theoretical, and that the Government has the right to determine the criteria for accepting refugees.
Melanie Onn intervened to remind Joe Robertson that the debate was focused on a specific group of amendments and not on clause 18, and questioned whether he would repeat his comments when discussing the next group of amendments.
Defends the Government's immigration Bill, emphasising the need to codify the right to family life within domestic law to align with international obligations. Acknowledges concerns about the impact on asylum claims and the cost to taxpayers, but argues that the bill will ensure a fairer system that does not over-interpret Strasbourg law. She also addresses specific questions regarding family reunion routes and the suspension of the current system.
Asks whether there are other countries that can be used as a comparison to understand the practical implementation of the new legislation.
Requests data on the number of people in the UK with family members who do not have the right to be in the UK, expressing that if such data does not exist, it would still be an important point to consider.
States that she cannot find the updated impact assessment and expresses a desire to see the new information mentioned by the Minister.