Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Turley]

As I set out at the beginning, it will be those who have a settled status. My understanding is that those that have a settled refugee status will be able to apply. Again, I can get confirmation for my hon. Friend on that point.

Amendments 95 and 96 taken together would mean that sponsor human rights claims can be made inadmissible or certified as clearly unfounded in the same way as other human rights claims. Applying section 80A or section 94(3) of the 2002 Act to sponsor human rights claims would preclude, in many cases, a substantive assessment of the claim if the sponsor were a national of, or able to reside in, any of the safe countries listed in the Act. In most cases, it would not be reasonable to refuse to consider a sponsor human rights claim fully, just because the sponsor making it was able to reside in one of those safe countries. For that reason, the Government cannot accept amendment 95.

As the Committee will be aware, I have tabled amendments to part 3 of the Bill to insert a new schedule that provides greater clarity on the Government’s approach to the core protection model. We will debate those amendments and the new schedule later in Committee.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

As a matter of record, it is important for my right hon. Friend to outline why the amendments and new schedule have been tabled now and why they were not included in the original Bill. I know my constituents take a keen interest in this matter, as my constituency has one of the highest amounts of asylum seeker housing in the country.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that article 8 was never intended to be interpreted as it is now, and therefore that if we do not provide guidance or adjust it, we will further dampen the British public’s confidence and trust in the immigration and asylum system? I can tell her from personal experience that when that happens, it is people from minority communities that are already here, sometimes for many generations, such as my father, who are first in the firing line. Does she therefore agree that if she, like me, wants Britain to be a compassionate, welcoming country, we must acknowledge that those articles are in some cases not being interpreted in the intended manner and that the adjustment is appropriate?

[Siân Berry]

I thank the hon. Member for his perspective. He must appreciate through his constituency casework, as I do, the general principle that article 8 claims need to be assessed on an individual basis. The Bill tries to codify and generalise things in ways that reduce the ability for anyone making decisions to look at the genuine family lives of those making the claims. Bad decisions can result from people misunderstanding different cultures, from unconscious biases and from all kinds of things like that. It is really important that we do not try to prescribe family life under state definitions. I will come on to talk more about that and about the toxic rhetoric and the awful anecdotes, such as the examples we have heard from Ministers, which increase the toxicity of the debate. We can do much better than this Bill to reduce that.

Clause 18 would replace the reality of family relationships with statutory presumptions. Families today come in many forms. We have single-parent households, blended families, grandparents raising children, and parents who do not live under the same roof through circumstance rather than choice. A family does not stop being a family because it fails a cohabitation test. I will always stand up against people trying to define what a normal family is. The Government’s stated objective is to confine family life “normally” to the core cohabiting family unit. A parent who does not live with their child must prove that the relationship is genuine and be judged on how often and how recently they have had contact, even where work, shared care or the immigration system itself has kept them apart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

This is turning into a very broad debate, but I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West.

[Dr Ahmed]

It is the hon. Lady’s contention that those of us on the Government Benches were somehow manipulated by others to arrive at this Bill. Will she at least concede that toxic rhetoric and hatred do not occur in a vacuum, as I know personally, but often exploit structural deficiencies in systems, and that sadly there are structural deficiencies in this system? Is fixing them not therefore the responsible thing to do, so that we can turn the tap off that these haters and racists use to fire abusive language at Members of Parliament and members of the public who do not look like them?

[The Chair]

Order. I have been very lenient, but I gently say that we need to keep interventions sharp and succinct, please.

MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey]

My right hon. Friend has made an excellent point, but it is not just a case of their values being different from ours; it is a case of their taking advantage of our nature, our culture and our values.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady talks about values and culture. She has already mentioned that she served in the last Government. I wonder what the culture of that Government was when boat crossings were at a record high, when the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was opening hotels as though they were going out of season. What was the culture in that Government when it came to attempting to combat this issue?

[Joy Morrissey]

Luckily we are under a new leadership. I am waiting to hear—and I would love to hear from the hon. Gentleman—why not one member of the Labour party has responded to the women of Piddington who have written to them about this issue. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

Can I start by also acknowledging the concerns of the women of Piddington who are viewing this debate today up in the Gallery? Those concerns are not limited, of course, to Piddington. They also include my constituency of Glasgow South West, which has historically had the highest number of asylum applications of anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of record that I have asked the Home Secretary to look at this urgently to see whether my city of Glasgow and my constituency of Glasgow South West can be afforded some extra breathing space as they contend with their own issues of housing and social cohesion. I have made similar pleas to the Scottish Government in relation to priority housing rules and local connection rules.

Both sides in this debate have acknowledged that day zero of this issue is not today and that it did not start two years ago. It started long ago, or perhaps 14 to 20 years earlier. We are not where we would wish to be, but we must be careful about the tenor of the debate, because legitimate concern about safeguarding and about how we tackle asylum and the backlog can quickly bleed into issues of multiculturalism—that has already been spoken about today—of ethnonationalism and of immigration more widely.

I can tell you for a fact that after this debate, some very uncharitable comments will be made on my social media because of my background. Therefore, I think it is an important moment to also put on the record that, largely, over the last 100 years, this country has been the most successful at integration and immigration possibly in the history of mankind. I am an example of that. My immigration story began 100 years ago when my grandfather took a boat from Calcutta, went to Hong Kong and became a member of the British Hong Kong police force, and then in 1963, when my dad took a journey by road to come from Pakistan into Glasgow to drive buses and then taxis, and he still does so today in his 80s. We must always remember, once this debate starts to bleed out into other issues, to stand firm against those who would wish to use it as an instrument for championing deplorable ideas like ethnonationalism that, unfortunately, have also been espoused at times by Members of this place, either intentionally or unintentionally.

The issue itself does need to be gripped because when it is not gripped, it is precisely minority communities that are first and foremost in the firing line for abuse and attack.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. He draws attention to the wider issues that result from this debate. Does he agree that it is precisely the current Home Office policies that are creating the environment in which paradoxical effects are being felt? In my constituency there are shortages of labour in fishing, farming, social care and health care, and hospitality? That is exactly the point I think he is trying to make.

[Dr Ahmed]

I am afraid that it is not the point that I was trying to make, but I will take on some of the hon. Member’s arguments. In Scotland, we have some of the highest levels of unemployed young people anywhere in the United Kingdom. We should first and foremost start by addressing their issues and getting them into employment before we start opening up a wider debate about immigration, illegal migration and numbers. I also say to him that in the city of Glasgow, it is bad enough that the right wing manipulates immigration and migration issues to march masked men down the streets of my constituency, but also on the other side, politicians must also take responsibility, including those in the Scottish Government, who pay lip service to social cohesion and anti-racism rhetoric but never follow through by funding the infrastructure that fundamentally relies on social cohesion to be a successful endeavour.

Let me get back to the point I was trying to make. We must address this issue because we are placing minorities in the firing line if we do not. I am so glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is bringing forward a Bill that will do precisely that, because what is missing right now in this debate is trust and confidence in the asylum and immigration system. The Immigration and Asylum Bill, currently in Committee, precisely serves to restore that trust and confidence by ensuring that we can regulate and produce an independent authority that will fast-track asylum applications, and that we can reinterpret components of human rights legislation to make sure that they are fit for the present and not the past.

On that, I must note that the ECHR is not some kind of foreign construct, as some have tried to outline today in this place. It is a British construct. It is a Churchillian construct. It is the fabric of what it means to be British. It is what made my grandfather and my father serve the British and come to this country. It is because of the ECHR that we have freedom of religion. It is because of the ECHR that we have freedom from torture. It is because of the ECHR that we are able now to extricate ourselves from things like corporal punishment. And, actually, it is because of the ECHR—we are talking about women’s safety today, and rightly so—that women who are victims of domestic violence are protected from their housing benefit being cut.

I ask hon. Members from both sides of the House to remember that when we have this debate, it has consequences for people from many communities up and down the country. It has consequences for people who are legitimately here, many for generations, and who are caught in the net by people who wish to exploit this debate and question their legitimacy in this country—and often to question the legitimacy of people like me to be in this place. That is something we must never forget.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid that we have further time constraints. Back Benchers are now on four minutes—and, Mr Jopp, I do not wish to hear you speaking from a sedentary position.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry]

I disagree. I think that the Government are focusing on the wrong part of the system here. As MPs, we are all aware of the processes involved in the initial decision making of the Home Office. The number of similar messes that my caseworkers have had to try to clear up—we often succeed—is absolutely huge, so not to focus on getting that initial decision making right the first time, and instead for the Bill simply to take away people’s rights of appeal, is absolutely the wrong approach.

With all such problems, the people who need asylum also need real knowledge of their rights and real access to people who can support their claims, but all that is really hard to get. Late claims and appeals with new information, when people finally get the right support and legal guidance about the grounds on which they should be making their claim, are all necessary to protect asylum rights. Therefore, judicial processes should not be downgraded and truncated, and people who are not legally qualified should not be hearing those cases.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

I share a lot of the hon. Lady’s concerns about the initial quality of assessment. I have one of the highest burdens of asylum seekers in my constituency in Scotland. Will she concede that the emphasis that the current Home Secretary has put on upgrading the quality of the assessment of those initial appeals since she has been in post is starting to work? I certainly feel that in my casework. Moreover, on the number of people who appeal to the first-tier tribunal at the moment and the current trajectory of the numbers coming in versus the numbers being processed, does the hon. Lady concede at least that the status quo is completely and utterly unsustainable? How we manage that system needs a fresh look.

[Siân Berry]

As I am sure the hon. Member will have imagined, I cannot agree, given the number of cases overturned. We have had some data from the Minister in her letter of 6 October, and 44% of human rights appeals are being allowed. Those are appeals where the initial decision was wrong. Emphasis needs to be on clearer processes, in which people can truly participate and get their information to the Home Office the first time, with the Home Office not losing it or reading it mistakenly, or any of the other problems. That is so important. These changes to the judicial process are the wrong solution to the wrong diagnosis, as with those in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, everyone. My question is to Eleanor. I think we can all agree that prevention is better than cure. In a passing comment just now, you mentioned transparency in supply chains being added into the Bill. As it stands right now, and if no action were taken, are we in a good enough position on transparency to tackle modern slavery in our supply chains?

Eleanor Lyons: The UK imports more than £20 billion-worth of goods every year that are at risk of being produced using forced labour. That is tomatoes you see in a supermarket that say they are from Italy but that are from China, or fish from North Korea. All our G7 partners have either introduced mandatory human rights due diligence or forced labour import bans into their legislation. The requirement in the Bill will ask businesses to report on forced labour in their supply chains, not to take action to prevent the harm from happening. We are hugely behind international partners in this space and we are at risk of becoming a dumping ground for the world’s goods that have been made with forced labour.

There is an opportunity to hugely enhance the measures in clauses 44 to 49 in part 5 of the Bill to turn it more towards mandatory human rights due diligence and to ask businesses to actually take steps to prevent harm from happening in their supply chains. That is something that businesses have been calling for. I worked with FTSE 100 partners last year and submitted work to the Office for Responsible Business Conduct. Businesses want this change, because they are being asked to do these things in other jurisdictions. When it comes to their supply chains, us being hugely behind in what we are asking them to do does not work.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

Q Ms Tennant, I represent Glasgow, which is one of the areas in the country with the highest need for asylum accommodation. We are a welcoming city and are proud of being so, but you can imagine that the welcome is being tested due to the infrastructure stresses that this is placing on us. You have a long and distinguished career in the United Nations and have seen when asylum housing and refugee housing works well and when it does not. Presumably, you feel that the confidence of the host community is in large part a determinant of that. In your assessment of what has been happening in Britain, particularly over the last decade, where do you think that that confidence level lies at the moment? Are you concerned that we are perhaps not in the place we should be in terms of people perceiving the rules-based order to be intact when it comes to asylum?

Vicky Tennant: I would certainly say that the issue of asylum accommodation and the way in which the reception of asylum seekers and support to asylum seekers are managed has contributed to a crisis of confidence. As I said, the objective of restoring public confidence through a fair and efficient system is one that UNHCR absolutely welcomes. A key element is the fact that asylum seekers have been accommodated for very extended periods of time waiting for decisions on their claims. Simply by virtue of that fact, the volume of support and accommodation required while people are not able to work has grown over the years. We are pleased that there is progress in that space. It is a hugely challenging issue to address.

However, alongside the work on how asylum support accommodation is provided in a way that fosters community welcome and community cohesion, the work on the system itself has to continue. That is certainly where UNHCR has brought our international experience to bear: we have really been leaning in and trying to work closely with the Home Office to see how we can have a system that is functioning more efficiently and getting decisions out more quickly, but also getting decisions right first time.

That is where we go back to the discussion around the appeals body. The most important lever that could be pulled is to improve and ensure the quality of first-instance decision making, such as by ensuring that there is a second pair of eyes on those decisions, so that we do not see cases going into the appeals system unnecessarily. At the moment, there is quite a high rate of cases being withdrawn by the Home Office from the appeals system. That should not be the case. There is also quite a high rate of first-instance decisions being overturned. Those are cases that ideally would not be in the appeals system in the first place. That work on efficient, quality decision making in the first instance is also critical, and it then plays into the issue of asylum support and the length of time that asylum seekers are hosted in the community.

[The Chair]

This is our final question of the session. I ask our witnesses to bear in mind that we have a hard stop at 10.10 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

Q What are your views on article 8 specifically? We know that the majority of our article 8 grantees have a history of immigration breaches. How can we best protect the immigration system while safeguarding family rights?

Jon Featonby: There is only so much that I can say on this, with my particular focus being on the people we support at the Refugee Council. The previous panel mentioned that, with article 8 rights, there has to be a balance between having a controlled immigration system and a focus on individual cases. From the Refugee Council’s point of view, we will continue to support the individual application interpretation of article 8. We see that in our work with refugee families: for a family that has been forced to displace, it is very much not one size fits all; these families can look like all sorts of different things.

One area where we focus a bit more on article 8, particularly around how the UK defines the core family, is the future system for refugee families to be able to safely reunite. We have shared our concerns around the suspension of that route. By our estimate, there are probably 20,000 people who have not been able to apply to be reunited safely through that route since it was suspended just over a year ago. For us, the important thing to remember about that route is that, for many years, nine in 10 of the visas granted to people on it were for women and children. In terms of family reunion in the future, we see it as important that some of the most vulnerable people who have been displaced from their homes and who are in danger have access to that safe route.

[Dr Ahmed]

Q Mr Featonby, thank you, and your counterparts at the Scottish Refugee Council, for the work you do to look after the vulnerable; we are very grateful. Of course, that work can go on only if there is public confidence in the system. As you know, applications have risen steadily since 2021. From your perspective, what is the urgency for a change in the legislation to return the trust and confidence in the system that have been eroded over the last few years?

Jon Featonby: There are definitely some positive signs that the Government should be quite proud of. Around the time of the election, we published a report that looked at the state of the asylum system. We described it as a “system in meltdown”, largely caused by the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which had seen productivity in the Home Office drop to its lowest level since the height of the covid pandemic. Since then, the Home Office has done a much better job of being able to make decisions quickly. The latest statistics we have show that about 75% of initial decisions are made within six months of somebody making an application. That is a good thing.

We think some Government priority should be given to how you make sure that people have confidence in the asylum system. That system needs to be doing its basics right: making decisions as quickly as it can that are right the first time; supporting refugees who are found to be in need of protection to get on with their lives, rebuild their lives and contribute fully to UK communities; and providing a way for people who are found to be not in need of protection to be removed safely and humanely. That is where we see some challenges in the Bill. We do not think it addresses some of that context.

The previous panels touched on how the backlog in the asylum system is now at the appeals stage, which is an almost inevitable consequence of dealing with the initial decision backlog. There will be more decisions and therefore more refusals, and therefore more people will go into that appeals process. There are probably three times as many people in the appeals backlog as in the asylum backlog itself. Some of that will work its way through the system as the Government get more on top of the asylum system—what officials refer to as having friction within the asylum system—where the number of decisions they are making is roughly the same as the number of people entering the system.

As a result of the speeding-up of decision making in recent years, we have also seen a reduction in the quality of some decisions, which we think has put unnecessary pressure on the tribunal and left people stuck in the asylum system, and in accommodation, for longer than they should be, at cost to the taxpayer and to those individuals. That is borne out by the appeals statistics that we now get from the first-tier tribunal, which show that in the last year, in two thirds of appeals that were disposed of, either the tribunal granted the appeal or—as is increasingly the case—the initial decision was withdrawn by the Home Office, because once the appeal got towards the tribunal hearing the Home Office found that it was not going to be able to defend the decision. That is why we think there should be a laser focus on initial decision making and on what else can be done to reduce the appeals backlog.

One of our concerns around the IIAA is that the appeals backlog is an urgent problem that needs to be dealt with now, but the best case scenario is probably that the IIAA starts to hear some cases at the back end of next year. It may well be the next election before the IIAA is really up and running. We think that more urgent things could be done without having to rip up the entire tribunal system as it currently is.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q Clause 23 would empower the Secretary of State to require successful asylum seekers to pay costs for the support that they had during their passage through the system. To what extent might asylum seekers factor that into their decision making?

Jon Featonby: I will take that decision making in a few stages. In terms of whether that measure will deter people from coming to the UK, I do not think it will have any real impact at all. A previous panel touched on how complicated this body of law is. For those who have engaged with successive immigration Bills, it is quite complex. To expect somebody who is seeking protection to follow it, and to expect Parliament or even organisations such as the Refugee Council to be the main place that those people get their information, does not reflect reality.

We are concerned about the potential impact on decision making because it is important to remember that asylum support is available only to those asylum applicants who would otherwise be destitute. The Home Office puts in place quite a high bar for someone to even access support. Our concern is that if people are aware that they may be faced with debts of around £10,000, that will prevent them from accessing support. Their alternative then is to remain destitute. That is obviously very bad for those individuals and families, but it is also well established that putting people in destitution has negative consequences from a public health point of view and for wider communities.

We are also concerned by that provision because, although it applies to anybody who receives asylum support, with some minor exemptions, the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection. We are concerned that that will take money away from people who probably have very little in the first place and that, because not having paid back that money could be a bar on settlement in the future, it could lead to people looking to borrow the money from quite dangerous moneylenders, putting people at risk of exploitation at that point.

It is quite hard to work out exactly what this will look like because there is not much detail in the Bill, but there are potentially disincentives for refugees to work. In our work at the Refugee Council, we see that people want to be able to work—they want to contribute—and the people who we support into employment, including employment in the NHS, are contributing. We think a far better use of time and resources would be to help refugees to overcome some of the barriers that they face, particularly in employment. That would allow them to contribute far more to the UK, including from tax receipts.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Q My question is for you, Alp, picking up on some of the earlier commentary. You made reference to Australia, Denmark, the USA and Greece, which have reduced numbers applying for asylum through measures that bear no resemblance to the Bill. What should we put in the Bill to replicate the success of those countries?

Alp Mehmet: We could start by declaring our intention to come out of the ECHR. Human rights can be dealt with perfectly well by a country like ours without our having to be signed up to the ECHR. We could also pull out of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. We should announce that the Human Rights Act 1998 will be repealed. All of that would allow us to deal with the sort of people who are, understandably, looking for a better life. I have no problem with that, but are we really saying that anyone and everyone of 118 million will be able to come here?

This may sound relatively minor, but the other thing I would do is put the onus on arrivals—we used to call them passengers in the old days. We should put the onus on the migrants arriving to satisfy the immigration official dealing with them of their bona fides. That is what used to happen. Our courts have pushed us in the opposite direction: we now have to disprove. If we do not have any evidence to back that up, we are effectively saying, “Okay, we can’t prove it otherwise. We don’t know who you are. You haven’t got a passport, but we’re going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because the Home Office can’t provide the evidence to do otherwise.” That is absurd. It is also dangerous.

Those are the things that I would include in the Bill. Perhaps you would expect me to say a lot of that. Look at what the Americans have done. Whatever anyone feels about some politicians in the United States, they have nevertheless been successful in closing the southern border to illegal immigration. We should put in place effective measures to stop those coming across the channel not just in boats, but in other ways. If the French were sensible and serious enough to stop the whole thing, they should volunteer to take the migrants who make their way to us from there, as should the EU. That is not going to happen anytime soon, I suspect. All in all, I am a little disheartened by the Bill, the measures in it and what is likely to happen.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

Q Mr Mehmet, you made some initial commentary about welcoming the Bill but suggested that it is not sufficient to reduce the small boat crossings. Why, then, are small boat crossings already down 41% even before the Bill has been enacted? Where does this legislation intersect with the need for further law enforcement across borders? Does it intersect with the fact that small boat crossings rose after we left the European Union and we have had less of an armoury and less flexibility to deal with them? You highlighted the American experience of reducing immigration and returns, but presumably you are not advocating a model with the level of aggressive behaviour of ICE agents. American citizens are being shot dead in the streets.

Alp Mehmet: I am not quite sure how you link what is going on at the border and Americans being shot in the street.

[Dr Ahmed]

Q You are suggesting that the Americans have been very successful, and I am politely retorting that the overall model being used there does not seem very British.

Alp Mehmet: Well, I think securing your borders is totally British, frankly. We have been doing it for millennia. We seem to have forgotten that we are a sovereign state and can decide who can enter our country and who cannot. That aside, the Americans have certainly locked the border. Anyone who makes their way into the United States via the southern border is returned. I am not suggesting that we put a massive wall on the south coast and just let them get on with it. However, I believe that detaining people on arrival, dealing with them quickly and returning them to France or wherever they have come from is doing something similar—in other words, stopping people from entering the country illegally.

The Danes have also introduced measures that I do not think we ever will. For example, if people arrive with money or luxury goods, those are confiscated. The Greeks are not admitting to it, but we know from reports that they are pushing boats back to Turkey. If we were to do all those things, I have no doubt that we would stop the boats coming over. The only reason the people arriving on them increased from 299 in 2018 to 41,000 last year and 18,000 so far this year—which is still massive, frankly—with over 210,000 arriving since 2018, is that they can and that, having arrived here, they get to stay. That is what we have to address, and that is what the Bill does not address.

[Dr Ahmed]

Q Something else has changed since 2018, which was part of my first question. How do you reconcile our reduced flexibility to deal with European nations outside the European Union in relation to this issue?

Alp Mehmet: I am sorry, Dr Ahmed, but that is just not so. I dealt with the European Union and worked in it many years ago before I retired, and I also monitored the exchanges on the Dublin agreement and the various incarnations of it: it did not work. Very few people went in either direction, and it took aeons—months and months—to arrange everything. It was no deterrent.

[The Chair]

Order. I am sorry, but that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask this panel questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witness

Tony Smith CBE gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

Q Jacqui, you also raised something that I like, because it is Green party policy—though I should not be bringing that up here—which is breaking up the Home Office. In the discussions and the evidence we have heard, other people have said that it is a huge amount of work to set up the new tribunal service. Would it be easier to just start again with the Home Office and create a new branch of it that does immigration versus and police and enforcement, or is that for the future?

Jacqui McKenzie: Maybe for the future, because I totally accept Professor Singer’s point: one of the issues about the new authority—I keep getting its name wrong, because it has changed its name three times—is that it is going to be expensive and unwieldy. For much less money, we could probably make the current system work. I know that these are difficult times for the country with budgets and so forth, so I do not necessarily want to propose something that is going to be very expensive. However, in the long term, the bit of the Home Office that makes these sorts of decisions probably needs to be a separate entity.

[Dr Ahmed]

Q Good afternoon. I just wanted to pick up on the point about those invocating article 8 of the European convention on human rights. You said that the number was small, but I understand that around 77,000 people end up caught in those crosshairs. From your experience and perspective, what guidance do judges need, if you do not believe that a change in the law on article 8 is necessary? More widely, where do you believe the country is? The prerequisite of a functional asylum system is that it needs to command the confidence of the vast majority of the public, but in relation to article 8, do you think that criterion is met currently?

Jacqui McKenzie: Sorry, can you just repeat the first part of the question?

[Dr Ahmed]

I think it was either yourself or Professor Singer—

Jacqui McKenzie: Oh, the numbers—sorry. The number that I referred to as being small is the number of cases that the Home Office say will be refused under this new system, which I think is 11,700.

Professor Singer: It is 11,700, and the Home Office impact assessment estimates that 55% of those will, in any case, remain in the UK, because it is not possible to remove them back to their home country due to legal or logistical challenges. It is anticipated to have quite minimal impact in practice, so it is quite a significant legislative change to make for quite a limited impact overall.

Most of the public attention is focused on the issue of foreign criminals, for example, but the House of Commons Library briefing for the Bill indicates that, at present, only 3% of foreign criminal appeals are allowed on a human rights basis, whether under article 8 or otherwise. Again, the impact is quite minimal. The most significant impact that the changes to article 8 will have is on children and families. We will see more children without their parents and more separated families, and I think in quite unconscionable ways that will actually be quite upsetting for the public.

For me, setting out an interpretation of article 8 in domestic legislation does not change the meaning of article 8 as a matter of international law, and it does not change what the UK’s obligations are. Decisions are either in line with the UK’s obligations, in which case the legislation is not necessary, because the courts are already doing article 8 determinations themselves and doing their own balancing exercise on the basis of the existing legislation that we have, or they are more restrictive than the UK’s current legislation, which puts the UK at risk of not complying with its obligations under the European convention on human rights and the convention on the rights of the child.

Jacqui McKenzie: I agree with that. I think you are aware that the figure I referred to as being small was not the overall 77,000. What we think of the 77,000 is another matter; some of us might say even that is not a huge number of people, especially when we look at how long some of those families have been settled in the UK, and the reasons why some of them are still in the immigration system, when their parents and grandparents may well have been settled. It is this point about redefining what a family is and breaking families up that concerns me more than anything.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Q One of the issues on which I think everyone will agree is the fact that we need to have a confidence-based immigration and asylum system. We need to have the public’s full support to ensure that it can continue. At the same time, we need a fair system—a system that supports those going through the actual application system or appellate system so that they feel like they are getting their fair day in court at the same time.

However, one of the issues that both of you have raised is backlogs, which we have seen increase under the Rwanda scheme and others. One of the concerns that many people have, especially my South Norfolk constituents, will be that the courts simply do not have the ability to keep up with the amount of casework coming to them. That is because we have a system that does not have enough clarity, especially on article 8. The Bill obviously has a goal and ambition to give clarity to the courts on that issue. Is that something to be welcomed?

Jacqui McKenzie: Possibly, but you are conflating some issues. The numbers for Rwanda are tiny, as most of the people who were carded for Rwanda have been granted asylum, so are not in the backlog at all. Article 8 will not really affect those sorts of people; it will affect families, and children, many of them born in the UK—as you know, under the British Nationality Act 1981, since 1 January 1983, you do not automatically become British by being born here.

There are people here in this country without any status whose families go back decades, for example families from the Commonwealth territories. That has happened for all sorts of odd reasons, usually because parents left children behind and brought them to the UK when they were over 18, so they had no status, and they then had children who have no status. In my practice, and those of many of the people in my jurisdiction who I have networked with, those are the sorts of cases we use article 8 for, and for which we see article 8 being successful. I do not think that anybody would want to see those families being removed from the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

Can or does? Is it an objective or a political assessment?

Neal Barcoe: If done well, it can absolutely improve. If we can ensure that the quality is there, that it is staffed up properly and that we have the right levels of independence, as set out in the Bill, I think it would be an improvement on the current system. I recognise what underlies your question—we have had a lot of immigration and asylum bills, and that change of perspective is difficult for people in the system, which it undoubtedly is—but I think there are very sensible things in the Bill that seek to improve the current situation. One of the things—the Public Accounts Committee has spoken on this, and the NAO—is about how Departments come together and co-operate more effectively in this space, looking at the whole system. I think that that is what the Bill is about; it is about trying to look at the whole system as one. As I say, at an official level, we are doing that much more than we were before.

[Dr Ahmed]

Q I must declare that I was once involved in a first-tier tribunal. Obviously, as parliamentarians, we are sometimes heavily involved in such matters on behalf of constituents. In the case I was involved in, it could be seen from space that there was going to be only one decision, yet it took a long time to get there. The persons present in that case seemed to be, let us say, overqualified. From your perspective, how will the IIAA affect the workload of the first-tier tribunal?

Daniel Flury: Clearly, as the IIAA grows, the expectation is that the work of the first-tier tribunal will decline. I am the senior responsible officer for a programme that is essentially managing that decommissioning process—that decline. As Neal says, there is still a pretty significant backlog of just under 152,000 appeals sitting in the system. There is still quite a bit of work to be done. The current approach in HMCTS and the judiciary is simply business as usual until further notice. We are striving to sit more and be more productive. We are striving for output, and I feel that we are partially succeeding this year. Over time, in the years ahead, that work will decline and we will eventually wind up the operations.

[Dr Ahmed]

Q By what order of magnitude do you think that could happen, and in what timeframe?

Daniel Flury: In terms of how quickly it could happen, I think the expectation is that this should all happen as quickly as possible. We are working with the Home Office on a number of assumptions around its expansion and our contraction. It is quite difficult to put a timescale on it just yet, but I think the expectation, certainly from the Home Office, is that it should happen pretty quickly. Our overall planning assumption is that we expect it to be somewhere between one and three years.

[Dr Ahmed]

Q On the spectrum of complexity in these cases, clearly, many of them are straightforward—like the one I was involved in—but there are others that have elements of complexity that are sometimes apparent, sometimes not. For the benefit of the Committee, could you lay out some of the safeguards that are in place to manage that complexity?

Daniel Flury: It is principally the judge’s role to manage the complexity of a case, obviously supported by legal representatives. In terms of the support that HMCTS can offer, we have a programme, which applies to all courts and tribunals, of reasonable adjustments that we offer appellants, claimants, defendants and so on. The rest is primarily provided through legal aid, legal representation and the judge safeguarding them in that case.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Q Many people have heard the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. That is very obviously a situation that we are currently in within the asylum process, with the backlog having grown to the size that it has. In your view, do you believe that the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority will help us with that backlog and move that concentration away from, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, some very qualified people—overqualified for what is needed—and into the hands of those who can efficiently deal with cases as and when they come up?

Daniel Flury: Well, it is certainly the intention that the new body will speed up appeals through the system, but I could not say. As Neal said, you would need to ask a Minister, or maybe the Home Office would like to offer a view.

Neal Barcoe: My short answer is yes—that is absolutely the intention and the systems are being designed to deliver it in that way. I do not know whether my Home Office colleague wants to add anything more.

Alison Hewett: Clearly, my responsibility here is to support the delivery, as laid out in the Bill. The IIAA will have ownership of its own procedural frameworks. Those will be set in train. We have quite a large transformation programme, and we are working very closely together, as my colleagues have indicated, because this is a whole-of-system effort. We will put mechanisms in place and, because it is an independent authority, the transformation programme will transfer its responsibility over to the chair at a certain point, once it is set up. From then on, the authority will establish its own detailed practices and processes.

I can say a little more about the statutory roles that will support that. There is a lot on the face of the Bill that is hardwired to protect the integrity of the overall system, provide justice and address, at pace, some of the issues that colleagues have already referred to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Q How many people are currently in the UK who have exhausted their appeal rights and have no lawful right to remain, and what is the single biggest barrier preventing immigration enforcement from removing more of them?

Bas Javid: I do not have an exact number on the total. When we look at it in individual categories, such as people in the appeal system where the appeals right is exhausted, that is in the thousands—tens of thousands in many cases. In terms of individuals in particular cohorts or groups, we can break that down. I can get those figures for you—I do not have them to hand—but it is several thousand.

Anna Turley: I have one figure to add to the point on article 8. For those who were granted an article 8 right to remain in 2025, the cost to the taxpayer is £4.9 billion. That again shows the scale and the impact on the British taxpayer.

[Dr Ahmed]

Q I have a couple of questions. The IIAA is a big change. It is causing a lot of anxiety, understandably, because of the spectre of the complexity of cases. From your perspective, what insurance policies are there to make sure that the complexity is matched by the level of adjudication?

Bas Javid: Everything we do within my team and the wider system, we do with compassion, respect and dignity. For every person we come across, whether that is a voluntary return or an enforced return or a foreign national offender, we follow the rules of policy and law. Our strapline is stop, manage, remove and protect; safeguarding and vulnerability form a huge component part of what we do, day to day, and how we run and manage our operations.

On the benefits that the IIAA will bring in terms of speeding up and discontinuing successive claims, it will obviously allow us to manage and process people much quicker, and it will certainly separate the people who have legitimate claims from those who potentially do not.

[Dr Ahmed]

Q Minister, you heard me earlier mentioning my home city of Glasgow and my constituency of Glasgow South West, which has the highest number of asylum seekers. There is real pressure on local infrastructure and housing, compounded by some ill-advised housing policies from the Scottish Government. Can you provide some reflection on why the measures in the Bill are necessary, and what impact it will have, not only on restoring trust and public confidence in the immigration and asylum system, but on social cohesion more widely?

Anna Turley: I think you are absolutely right. This is such an important issue to all of our constituents across the country; it is one of the biggest things that comes up on the doorsteps in all the conversations we have. Everything is seen through the prism of fairness in this country, and rightly so. That is what the Bill is aiming for, through a number of measures, such as repayment of support and so on.

This is about fairness; if people come here, we want them to integrate and to settle. If they have a genuine right to be here, we will always provide that, but we also have to be conscious that, in a country where our resources are not infinite, we have to have a managed system, where we remove those who have no right to be here and ensure that we support people in a way that is compliant with our international obligations, but does not go over and above them, which perhaps in the past we have done too much.

In 2024-25, for example, the entire cost of asylum was £4 billion. At a time when our public purse is under strain, that is a challenge. We are working hard to do everything we can, all the way up to the source, to prevent the illegal movement of people across this country—the people trafficking that we have seen—and to disrupt the industrial network of gangs that exploit desperate people who wish to come to this country. We are doing that through doubling our investment in the National Crime Agency, working with the French to reduce the number of boat crossings, and processing and removing people.

The key part of the Bill is the speeding up of appeals. That is one of the most important ways that we can accelerate the process. Nobody should have to wait 72 weeks for an asylum appeal. No one should be able draw things out and exploit the system through last-minute loopholes, using provisions that are designed genuinely to protect people but that are being exploited to draw out cases.

This is a matter of fairness and due process, and of making a system that is fair and well managed so that it is fair both on the taxpayer and on those who are here genuinely fleeing persecution.

[Joe Robertson]

Q Minister, I am sure you want to tackle the immigration issues and asylum problem that we have. However, are you concerned that the provisions in the Bill, to the extent that they are beneficial at all, could be quite limited, as balanced against the potential upheaval of institutional changes in the way that asylum applications are dealt with, or that they have the potential to create all sorts of unintended consequences and issues due to the way the Bill is drafted? Given the evidence you have heard in this session, does any of that cause you concern?

Anna Turley: I think my biggest cause of concern is that things cannot go on the way that they are. We want to make sure that we introduce legislation that deals with that. Of course there will be things that we will, with the due process of Parliament, continue to work on as the Bill progresses. But the reality, particularly when it comes to the appeals process, is that the system as it stands is falling over and not serving anyone.

It is important that we build a new structure, which I believe is more flexible and swift, and which has all the right safeguards. We have not had a chance to discuss some of those safeguards. Some of the witnesses were critical of the process, but we are talking about building into the system a high degree of training and legal support, high professional standards, numerous levels of oversight, and the opportunity to go on to a tribunal appeal. We have great civil servants, who are not legally trained, but who manage the process. We want to build a body, and do it carefully and do it right, in a way that means that we no longer rely on the judicial capacity, which is falling over. We can then make those decisions swiftly, but with a properly, professionally trained body. That will enable us to make good, swift decisions on those appeals and then refer to tribunals as and when that is needed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Zubir Ahmed Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of court delays. We have a whole strategy, led through the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that we speed up those court cases. He is right to highlight the particular impact for abuse cases. We are ramping up the support that we give to victims and making sure that we are helping people and trying to give them information about what is happening, even when there are delays. We will listen carefully to the points he raises.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to close asylum hotels.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

Before I answer the question, may I briefly say what is on the minds of many in this House and pay tribute to Ann Widdecombe? She was a true public servant, and I will shortly make a statement about Ann and the ongoing police investigation.

This Government committed to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament, and we are on track to deliver just that. We have brought the number of hotels down from 213 in July 2024 to fewer than 170 today, meaning that one in five hotels open at the election are now closed. We continue to move people into more basic accommodation, speed up caseworking and remove record numbers of people from this country.

[Dr Ahmed]

I commend my right hon. Friend for how she has gone about reducing the use of asylum hotels in this country, after the shocking legacy left behind by 14 years of the last Government. She will know that these hotels have unfortunately become a source of right-wing intimidation and violence, affecting community cohesion and creating tension. Can she reassure me that as families are moved out of these hotels, particularly in Scotland, they are put in accommodation that is appropriate not only for them, but for the communities in which they are housed?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we work closely with local authorities, accommodation providers and safeguarding partners to ensure that families and vulnerable individuals receive the support they need throughout any move, and that is true across the whole UK. We understand that hotels can impact community tensions, and although people have a right to protest peacefully, nobody has the right to intimidate communities or vulnerable families.