Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

Immigration and Asylum Bill - Sitting 6

15 October 2026 · 8 other contributors

Opened by Derek Twigg Lab Halton

ImmigrationAsylum & Refugees

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Derek Twigg raised concerns about immigration and asylum bill - sitting 6 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • Mr Twigg reminded the Committee about amendments 131, 94, and 97 to the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
  • Amendment 99 aims to remove the word 'normally' from section 117AA of the Bill.
  • Amendments 100, 101, and 102 refine the definition of core cohabiting family and Article 8 engagement criteria.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Derek Twigg Lab Halton

Mr Twigg reminded the Committee about the amendments being discussed, including Government amendment 131, amendment 94, which would require the Secretary of State to designate places for sponsor human rights claims through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, and amendment 97, which would confine the right of appeal to claims relating to a core cohabiting family. He also introduced amendment 99, which aims to remove the word 'normally' from section 117AA, and amendments 100, 101, and 102, which further refine the definition of core cohabiting family and the criteria for Article 8 engagement.

Other contributors (8)
  • Blake Stephenson

    Mr Stephenson moved amendment 98, which would require courts and tribunals to decide whether Article 8 is engaged in accordance with new section 117AA.

  • Siân Berry Green Bristol West

    Siân Berry argues against clause 18 and amendments, emphasising the need to protect family life as defined under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. She criticises the Government's impact assessment, which predicts that many thousands of people who would be able to come under current laws will be denied their claims, reducing human rights protections. She highlights the importance of considering individual cases and the need for better processes, information, and support for legal representation rather than codifying it in the Bill. She also addresses interventions from other MPs, discussing the misinterpretation of article 8 and the need for evidence-based reform.

  • Zubir Ahmed

    Asked the hon. Lady if she conceded that toxic rhetoric and hatred do not occur in a vacuum and that fixing structural deficiencies is the responsible thing to do.

  • David Smith

    Asked if there are any specific restrictions the hon. Lady would like to add to the immigration system.

  • Joe Robertson

    Expressed concern that clause 18 could create a new dodgy market of mental health clinics abroad, set up specifically to provide paperwork for an application, making it easier for people to enter the UK. He questioned the Home Office's ability to assess mental illness and the feasibility of clinicians in the UK assessing mental health claims of individuals overseas.

  • Matt Vickers

    Critiqued the drafting of clause 18, arguing that the inclusion of the word “normally” could undermine the clear definition of family life. He proposed amendments to address these issues and ensure the definition is applied consistently by courts.

  • Anna Turley Lab Redcar

    Defends the importance of the Bill, arguing it is necessary to maintain the integrity of the asylum system and to address exploitation by those seeking to abuse it. She notes that while there is support for refugees, there are concerns about individuals taking advantage of the system and the need for a balanced approach.

  • Siân Berry

    Raises several questions regarding the definition of a family and the criteria outlined in the Bill. Queries include the applicability of subsection (4)(b) and the impact on a child whose parent living abroad dies.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy