Immigration and Asylum Bill

Jo White Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Actually, I think we need to focus our efforts in a number of areas. We need to ensure that we are improving the quality and speed of initial decisions, and we have been doing that. However, as my hon. Friend will know and as I have just set out, people make multiple claims, often at the last minute. I raised the example of a foreign national offender who it took us four years to remove from the country after he had served a sentence. That is because he kept putting in appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. These reforms are designed to deal with that problem.

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we need to be able to look at the system in its totality, so we should absolutely look at the quality of initial decisions, but there is no silver bullet here. There is nothing that says, “As long as you fix that one thing, you are not going to have a problem anywhere else.” There will still be claims that are rightly refused both at the initial stage and at appeal stage, and it is imperative that we can remove people from this country as quickly as possible when they have no right to be here.

It is vital that we provide protection to those who are truly in need. Following the devastation of the second world war, this country led the world in promoting human rights to ensure that we learned from the horrors of the past. This Government will always be committed to that internationalist ideal and to the robust human rights laws that underpin it. However, we are also realists, so we admit where noble intentions have been misused and abused. Today, too often, we see well-meaning laws used not to defend a human right, but as a way to frustrate the removal of someone with no right to be in this country, including failed asylum seekers, visa abusers and even foreign criminals.

The British people have a natural sense of fairness. They believe that those who require protection should receive it, but no one should be able to abuse that protection. The abuse of human rights law does not just erode the public’s support for our immigration system; it erodes their support for the very idea of having such laws at all. For those who believe that these laws matter, it is essential that we reform them to end their abuse.

Clauses 17 to 20 reform the domestic application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a family and private life. Article 8 is undoubtedly a vital protection, but it is a qualified right. That means that the rights of individuals must be weighed against the public interest. Over time, the balance between an individual’s family rights and the rights of the wider community has shifted. Without a clear definition from Parliament of how that balance should be struck, the interpretation of article 8 in our domestic courts has expanded beyond the original convention and what Strasbourg case law requires.

To understand how far the balance has shifted, consider just one example. In 2025, an Albanian man jailed for growing cannabis escaped deportation not because he had any right to be here, but because it was deemed unduly harsh on his partner to deport him. She was not his wife or life partner—instead, this relationship began only after a deportation order had been served. Why was the deportation deemed to be unduly harsh? The partner spoke no Albanian and had never visited the country before. While that is just one example, the expansion of article 8 is clear throughout the system. More than half of those who stayed in the UK for family reasons last year did not meet our own rules, relying instead on their article 8 rights, and 71% of those who stay in the UK because of article 8 rights arrived here illegally or overstayed their visa.

The Bill addresses both the definition of family life and the public interest test. Clause 19 tightly defines the public interest. It clarifies that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK, including whether they are able to support their family, and that no weight should be given to an article 8 claim when someone is here illegally.

Clause 20 strengthens the public interest test so that foreign criminals can be removed more easily. It states that the more serious the offending, the greater the public interest in removing them from this country. It also specifically addresses those facing deportation who may be appealing on article 8 grounds. The Bill makes it clear that a deportation should go ahead outside of a limited number of truly exceptional circumstances, as set out in clause 20.

On the subject of deporting foreign criminals, the Government intend to table an amendment to the Bill in response to the widely reported case of the vile grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed. Our amendment will provide the Home Secretary with a new power to disapply section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 for serious criminals. That section provides protections for long-term UK residents, but it clearly should not act as a bar to removal in cases such as that of Shabir Ahmed. The threshold for the power will be tied to the power to deprive citizenship, which applies only in cases of exceptional severity. It is important to note that that does not guarantee his removal from this country, as the Conservatives know all too well from their own experience. The Foreign Secretary and I will continue to work on all avenues to pursue a deportation. I know that the thoughts of everyone here are with the victims and survivors of this vile criminal.

Let me return to the Bill as drafted and our reforms to the definition of family life in domestic law. Clause 18 tightens the definition of family life. For immigration purposes, a “family” will now normally mean relationships in the immediate family unit. That means a spouse or partner, a parent or a child under the age of 18, apart from in truly exceptional circumstances, such as an incapacitated adult who lives with and is entirely dependent on their sibling.

Clause 19 makes it clear that judges must consider when article 8 rights were established and, in particular, whether that happened after someone entered this country illegally or overstayed their visa. In clause 17, we clarify whose article 8 rights should be considered. This makes it clear that for someone overseas to come to the UK on article 8 grounds, a family life claim must be made by a UK-based sponsor, and cannot be made by family members overseas. That is because our obligations under the ECHR are, rightly, to those who are living in the UK.

In clause 19, as part of our reforms to article 8, we set out where it is unreasonable to expect a child to leave the UK when a member of their family is being removed. Specifically, it is if the child will not receive an education in the other country or will not be able to integrate into that country, or where relocation would have a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect on them. This brings us in line with case law in the European Court. We also set out the limited circumstances in which it may be reasonable to remove a parent where they do not have a genuine and subsisting relationship with the child. In doing so, we once again bring UK law in line with existing Strasbourg case law.

We do so with legitimate cause. As the interpretation of article 8 has widened, we have seen shocking examples of the abuse of parental relationships, including a paedophile who was allowed to stay in this country because his deportation to Pakistan was, under article 8, considered “unduly harsh” on his children. That was despite the fact that his contact with those very same children is restricted by law, in order to protect them from their father. The Home Office appealed the case and eventually won, but only after a lengthy legal battle necessitated by the lack of a clear definition in the law. This Bill rectifies that situation.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these agreements have come about through partnership working with our European partners, and that this has been a central part of the negotiations? There is a unity of purpose among other European countries that want to tighten their borders and prevent people abusing the system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure the Home Secretary has seen the number of people in the Chamber, and will be bringing her remarks to a conclusion shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I will be blunt: my constituents have lost faith in the asylum system. Under the previous Government, they watched borders slide out of control, criminal gangs profit and taxpayers face ever-rising costs while hotel use spiralled. Fairness collapsed and public trust collapsed with it. This Bill is how we earn that trust back.

First, we need control at the border. A fair system needs a firm line. We must stop the boats, target the smugglers and strengthen the checks so we know who is coming, how and why.

Secondly, we need swift decisions and final outcomes. Endless delays destroy confidence. Claims must be processed quickly. Appeals must be heard promptly by independent adjudicators, with decisions enforced. If someone qualifies, they receive protection without unnecessary delay; if they do not, departure should follow swiftly.

Thirdly, fairness means contribution. Those granted protection should work, rebuild their lives, contribute to our society, and help to offset the costs associated with processing their claims. Responsibility must sit alongside rights, and contribution alongside compassion.

Fourthly, protection must remain justified. Refugee status should be reviewed through a clear and streamlined process. If danger remains, protection continues. If circumstances change significantly, the system should respond accordingly. That is how we keep asylum credible.

Fifthly, we need honesty about costs and communities. Hotels are a symptom of a system under strain. By reducing backlogs and speeding up decisions, we can lower costs and ensure that outcomes are delivered. If protected, people move into work; if not, they are removed. Every pound saved can be redirected towards border security and genuine protection.

Sixthly, we need safe and legal routes. If we want people to choose safe routes, these routes must be real, reliable and fast. Clear criteria, rapid processing, UNHCR referrals and community sponsorship can provide a genuine alternative to dangerous crossings. The legal route must always be the better route. That is how the economic model of the people smugglers can be broken.

Those constituents who have lost faith are right to want to control the borders and to want faster decisions, lower costs and rules that are enforced. We need control of the border, compassion where it counts, and contribution and consequences in equal measure. We cannot undo yesterday’s failures, but we can build a system that is fair and credible. That is why I support the Bill.