Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. I am sure the right hon. and hon. Members who put their names to the new clauses will be grateful and will find that useful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 41

Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to UK immigration and asylum legislation

“(1) In respect of any provision of any UK legislation relating to immigration, asylum or deportation—

(a) the Human Rights Act 1998 is of no effect and must be disregarded in the interpretation and application of such legislation;

(b) any such provision must be read and given effect to as if there were no mention of or reference to the Human Rights Act 1998.

(2) Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the exercise of any function under any provision of any UK legislation relating to immigration, asylum or deportation—

(a) a Minister of the Crown will decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure;

(b) no immigration officer, court or tribunal may give any regard to the interim measure unless a Minister of the Crown decides that the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure.”—(Matt Vickers.)

This new clause would disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to UK legislation about immigration, asylum or deportation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 60—Application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—

“In Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Article 8 of the ECHR), after section 117A insert—

‘117AA Relationship with the Human Rights Act 1998

(1) Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to this Part.

(2) A decision of the Secretary of State, or of a court or tribunal, that is made in accordance with this Part is not to be regarded as unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Acts of public authorities) by reason only of incompatibility with Article 8.’”

This new clause would make Part 5A an exclusive code for Article 8 in immigration cases by disapplying the interpretative obligation in section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and providing that decisions taken in accordance with Part 5A are not unlawful under section 6 of that Act.

[Matt Vickers]

The British people are fair, but what they cannot stand is people who break the rules getting the same as or better than people who do not. To be fair to the Home Secretary, there are measures in the Bill that we welcome, but time and again it identifies the right problem but stops short of a solution. Nowhere is that clearer than on human rights law.

New clause 41 says that for immigration, asylum and deportation law, the Human Rights Act 1998 would have no effect. Our laws would mean what Parliament wrote. No officer, court or tribunal could act on a Strasbourg interim measure unless a Minister of the Crown decides that the UK should comply. New clause 60 would make part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—the article 8 code—final. Courts would not be able to reinterpret its words, and a decision made in line with it would not be unlawful just because it clashes with article 8.

Let me say why we tabled the new clauses. This is not about being against human rights. The Conservatives believe in the rule of law and protecting people from persecution, but the rule of law means laws made by this Parliament, applied as this Parliament intended. Over the past 25 years, the Human Rights Act has given the courts the job of reading words into immigration law that Parliament did not put there, and the effect has been to move the most important decision that any country makes—about who gets to stay—away from the people the public can vote out. That matters for democratic consent.

When people see a foreign criminal who abused children remain here because a judge felt that removing him could impact his family, they do not blame the judge; they blame all of us—Members of every party. They conclude that their votes do not change anything and that politicians are powerless or do not care. That corrodes trust in the whole system and hands a gift to those who want to tear it down rather than fix it. Our motivation is to restore the simple principle that Ministers decide, Parliament holds them to account, and the public holds Parliament to account at the ballot box.

There is a fairness point, too. The protections in our law should exist for the people who need them most: the genuine refugee and the victim of trafficking. Every time those protections are stretched to cover a convicted criminal, they lose their legitimacy, and it becomes harder to defend them. Why do we need them? Because of some of the cases we have seen.

In February last year, a Pakistani man convicted of child sex offences was allowed to stay in this country because a tribunal judge decided that deporting him would be unduly harsh on his family, even though the law already restricted his access to them. When the Home Office appealed, the upper tribunal called that ruling contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally insupportable, and sent it back to be heard again. A convicted child sex offender used his own children’s family life as a shield, and it took an appeal just to get the case reheard.

That was not a one-off. A Zimbabwean paedophile was due to be deported in 2021, but a judge blocked it. Why? Because, among other things, his criminal record for child sex offences meant he was likely to face hostility from the authorities if he went home. Let that sink in: the very crimes that should have guaranteed his removal became part of the reason he could stay. Most people in this country would find that not just wrong but upside down. A law that turns a conviction for abusing children into a shield against deportation is a law this Parliament has a duty to change.

In 2014, this House put part 5A into law to stop exactly that sort of outcome; 12 years later, the Government are back amending the same sections through clauses 18 to 20 of this Bill. Why? Because the courts keep reading our laws through the Human Rights Act and finding exceptions that Parliament never meant. The Law Society told this Committee that the Government’s new definition of family life is a big narrowing of article 8. Fine, but if the Minister wants those words to survive their first trip to court, she needs new clause 60.

Look at Rochdale. Adil Khan and Qari Abdul Rauf were members of the grooming gang convicted in 2012 of sexual offences against young girls. Rauf trafficked a 15-year-old girl for sex. They were stripped of their British citizenship. Then they spent seven years fighting deportation on article 8 grounds, while living in Rochdale near their victims. They finally lost in 2022. This summer, the Government were still in talks with Pakistan about removing them, and the Home Office has not said whether either has gone. Seven years of article 8 litigation for men who did that to children just is not acceptable.

Look at Reading. Khairi Saadallah’s asylum claim was refused. He had a string of convictions. The inquest heard that he had killed people in Libya before he came here, yet for years he was in limbo, refused but not removed, because of the risk on return to Libya. In June 2020, he murdered three men. The coroner found their deaths were “probably avoidable”.

Remember, too, June 2022, when a rule 39 indication issued late in the evening by a judge whose name was not then disclosed grounded a removal flight already on the runway. Under new clause 41, that decision would rest with a Minister, answerable to this House.

None of this is new to the House. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 said that it was for a Minister of the Crown, not the courts, to decide whether to comply with a Strasbourg interim measure. Parliament passed it. This Government repealed it in full through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which received Royal Assent last December.

The question for the Minister is not whether this can be done; it is why her Government chose to undo it. Meanwhile, at the end of June, 21,294 foreign offenders due for deportation were living in our communities, up more than 2,000 in a year. If the Minister agrees that Parliament should decide who stays in this country, she should support the new clauses, and I commend them to the Committee.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling the new clauses, which would require the Government to limit the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 in immigration decisions.

Both new clauses seek to give greater weight to the wording of our domestic immigration legislation and would provide less scope for human rights challenges in UK immigration cases. However, they are likely to result in our domestic immigration legislation, and action taken under it, being found to be incompatible with the ECHR. The changes could reduce the ability of UK decision makers, including the courts, to resolve human rights issues, and they would increase the number of cases going to Strasbourg. They would undoubtedly create greater uncertainty in the relationship between domestic law and the UK’s convention obligations.

I do not want to relitigate all the discussions we have had over many days in Committee, but hon. Members will not be surprised that our position remains unchanged. We are clear that we are fully committed to the European convention on human rights. That commitment includes respect for our obligations under international law. We do not have to withdraw from the convention or disapply the Human Rights Act to deliver meaningful reform and ensure that we have an immigration system that has the consent of the British people.

Removing the duties and protections provided by the Human Rights Act would create greater confusion and inconsistency in decision making while reducing the UK’s ability to resolve human rights issues domestically. The Human Rights Act remains an important part of our constitutional arrangement and reflects the UK’s long tradition of protecting fundamental rights, enshrining those set out in the ECHR—which we helped to establish—while preserving parliamentary sovereignty. Courts cannot strike down primary legislation, and Parliament retains the final authority to determine how any incompatibility is addressed. Within that system, our separation of powers also recognises the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary in determining the application of rights or laws, including remedies available through judicial review.

As set out in the Government’s “Restoring Order and Control” statement, the balance between the individual’s article 8 rights and the public interest needs to be fundamentally reset, and that is part of the key principles of the Bill. The proposals set out in the Bill will help deliver that reset. We will make the fundamental changes that the immigration system requires to restore control at the borders and restore public confidence. We will clarify and tighten the application of article 8 to put more emphasis on compliance with the rules and contribution to the economy and society. That can be done while ensuring that article 8 protections remain available to those who genuinely need them.

The Government played a leading role in securing the Chişinău political declaration, which was agreed by consensus by all 46 Council of Europe member states on 15 May 2026. The declaration recognised the need to ensure that the convention remains effective in the face of modern migration challenges, and reaffirmed the importance of maintaining public confidence in the system. Together, all 46 member states supported a clearer, shared approach to applying the convention in line with established European Court of Human Rights case law. At its heart, the declaration recognised that national Governments and courts are usually best placed to assess the facts before them, including the application of article 3 protections and the balancing of article 8 rights against the public interest. That is how this Government are delivering reform: strengthening the system domestically while helping shape its operation internationally. We are addressing modern migration challenges by improving how the system operates in practice, not by stepping away from it. We need a seat at the table.

The UK is committed to complying with international law, including by implementing judgments of the ECHR and complying when it indicates binding interim measures in pending cases. Members should not forget that the European Court does not find against the UK routinely; indeed, in the last 10 years there has only been one immigration-related judgment concerning article 8. Other cases have been to secure protections for important issues on justice, such as police data and surveillance, as well as family court procedure. The Court has also reformed and improved its approach to interim measures, including by making it clear that they should be used only where there is evidence of an imminent risk of irreparable harm, which I welcome.

For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clauses. I respectfully invite the shadow Minister to withdraw them.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 43—Disregard of certain claims, applications etc—

“(1) The duty in section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) applies in relation to a person who meets the three conditions of that section regardless of whether the person—

(a) makes a protection claim,

(b) makes a human rights claim,

(c) claims to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking as defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 69 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, or

(d) makes an application for judicial review in relation to their removal from the United Kingdom under this Act.

(2) If a person who meets the three conditions of section (Duty to remove persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) makes a protection claim or a human rights claim within subsection (4), the Secretary of State must declare the claim inadmissible.

(3) A declaration under subsection (2) that a protection claim or a human rights claim is inadmissible is not a decision to refuse the claim and no right of appeal under section 82(1)(a) or (b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (right of appeal to the Tribunal) therefore arises.

(4) A human rights claim is within this subsection if it is a claim that removal of a person from the United Kingdom to—

(a) a country of which the person is a national, or

(b) a country or territory in which the person has obtained a passport or other document of identity,

would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities).

(5) In this section—

‘application for judicial review’ means—

(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, an application to the High Court for judicial review,

(b) in Scotland, an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and

(c) any other application to a court or tribunal which is required by an enactment to be determined by applying the principles that would be applied by a court on an application within paragraph (a) or (b).

(6) References to a claim include a claim—

(a) that was made on or after the day on which this Act is passed, and

(b) that has not been decided by the Secretary of State on the date on which this section comes into force.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove people who have entered the UK without leave under NC42 even where a person makes a protection or human rights claim, claims to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking, or seeks judicial review.

New clause 55—Entry into and settlement in the United Kingdom—

“(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 8(1) (exceptions for seamen, aircrews and other special cases), after paragraph (c) insert

‘or—

(d) the person has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2027;’

(3) After section 8A, insert—

‘8AA Persons ineligible for leave to enter and remain, entry clearance or ETA

No person who has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2027 may—

(a) be given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;

(b) be granted an entry clearance; or

(c) be granted an electronic travel authorisation.’”

This new clause would prevent any person who has ever met the three conditions specified in NC42 from being able to enter the UK.

New clause 56—Limits on grants of British citizenship—

“(1) For the purposes of this section, an ‘ineligible person’ is a person who has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave).

(2) An ineligible person is not entitled to be registered as a British citizen, British subject or British overseas territories citizen under any of the following sections of the British Nationality Act 1981—

(a) section 3(2) or (5) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: minors);

(b) section 4(2) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: British overseas territories citizens etc);

(c) section 5 (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: British overseas territories citizens having connection with Gibraltar);

(d) section 10(1) (registration as British citizen following renunciation of citizenship of UK etc);

(e) section 13(1) (resumption of British citizenship);

(f) section 17(2) or (5) (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by registration: minors);

(g) section 22(1) (right to registration as British overseas territories citizen replacing right to resume citizenship of UK etc);

(h) section 13(1), as applied by section 24 of that Act (resumption of British overseas territories citizenship);

(i) section 27(1) (registration of minors as British overseas citizens);

(j) section 32 (registration of minors as British subjects).

(3) In relation to an application made by or in relation to an ineligible person, the Secretary of State may not—

(a) cause the person to be registered as a British citizen or a British overseas territories citizen under any of the following provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981—

(i) section 3(1) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: minors);

(ii) section 4A (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: further provision for British overseas territories citizens);

(iii) section 10(2) (registration as British citizen following renunciation of citizenship of UK etc);

(iv) section 13(3) (resumption of British citizenship);

(v) section 17(1) (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by registration: minors);

(vi) section 22(2) (right to registration as British overseas territories citizen replacing right to resume citizenship of UK etc);

(vii) section 13(3), as applied by section 24 of that Act (resumption of British overseas territories citizenship);

(b) grant to the person a certificate of naturalisation as a—

(i) British citizen under section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (acquisition of British citizenship by naturalisation);

(ii) British overseas territories citizen under section 18 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by naturalisation).”

[Matt Vickers]

Together, these four clauses would mean that people who come here illegally are removed, cannot block that removal with last-minute claims, can never come back lawfully, and can never become British citizens. Take a man who lands on a beach in Kent on 1 December 2026, having paid a smuggling gang with no visa and no permission, and having come from France, a safe country. Under new clause 42, he meets all three conditions. He needed leave and did not have it; he entered without permission; and he arrived after 30 June 2026, the day this Bill was introduced. The Home Secretary had to remove him to his own country or a safe third country. He claimed asylum; under new clause 43, that claim would be inadmissible, there would be no appeal and a modern slavery claim or judicial review would not stop the duty either. If he later applied for a visa, new clause 55 would say never, and new clause 56 would say that he could never become a British citizen. The message to the next person on the beach in northern France would change from, “Get across, and you will probably stay,” to, “Get across, and you will be sent back for good.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Does the Minister think that fewer than one in 10 of those people who arrive illegally being removed is the right thing? Does she believe that people who arrive illegally should be able to go on to become British citizens?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have made substantial improvements on the removals, which are up more than 50%. Our intention is clear. I hope he has heard our announcements, here and yesterday, that mean that people who arrive on that route will face an extra penalty. They will not be able to settle within five years, as they would have been able to under his Government; they will now have to wait approximately 30 years to be able to settle in this country.

In the year ending July 2026, there were 12,412 voluntary and enforced asylum-related returns, 10% more than in the previous year. In support of those outcomes, between July 2024 and July 2026, the Home Office operated 167 charter flights, alongside the tens of thousands of returns made on scheduled commercial flights. Removing those with no right to be here is a key pillar of the work of the Home Office to tackle illegal migration. The crux of the argument set out in the new clauses comes through with the drafting set out in new clause 43. It states that all forms of protection, human rights and modern slavery claims should be declared inadmissible without any suggestion of where the claimants could be safely and lawfully returned.

As hon. Members opposite will know, many individuals come to this country seeking refuge from torture, degrading treatment, exploitation, political persecution and death. This country has never turned its back on those who genuinely need our help, and under this Government, it is not about to start doing so. It is also interesting that the new clauses are essentially copied and pasted from the Illegal Migration Act. If this scheme was such a deterrent, how come despite that threat, small boat arrivals were higher in the first half of 2024 in the run up to their scheme than in the first half of 2026? The reality is that any third country scheme needs to be feasible and in collaboration with other international bodies and partners, because a scheme that will not work is no deterrent at all.

New clause 55 is another copy and paste from the Illegal Migration Act. It seeks to amend the Immigration Act 1971 to disallow anyone from entering the UK who has met three conditions. This would prevent anyone who had ever met the conditions in new clause 42 from ever entering the UK—whatever the circumstances. This completely removes the discretion of the Secretary of State from granting leave to enter. Additionally, new clause 56 would place limits on the ability to grant forms of British nationality to those entering the UK without leave.

I recognise that we are in familiar territory here. These new clauses mirror in part similar provisions that were placed into the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and apply them to a wider cohort. The House will recall that on taking office in 2024, steps were taken first to suspend the operation of the Illegal Migration Act and then to repeal it completely last year in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.

It will be no surprise to say that, having already taken such steps, we cannot accept this clause which would reverse the position again while extending its principles to even more people. That does not mean that we do not recognise the concerns that these measures might be said to address and the need to confront attempts to circumvent immigration control. However, rather than rely solely on statute, we have already made substantial changes to the good character guidance in this area and have also successfully defended those changes when challenged in court. We have made it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally or arrives without the required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused. That approach sends out a strong message that arriving unlawfully will not result in citizenship for the vast majority of individuals, while still retaining an essential element of flexibility for the rare deserving case.

The Committee will forgive me for saying that it is disappointing that in the two and a half years that they have been out of government, the Members opposite seem to have no new solutions to the problems of illegal migration in this country, and instead wish to reheat an idea that so spectacularly failed the first time around. The Government reject these new clauses, and will instead get on with the job of bringing down the number of small boat arrivals, removing those with no right to be here, and delivering value for money for taxpayers in our asylum system.

Our collective efforts on both sides of the channel are having an impact but we are not complacent. We know that there is more to do. There is no single intervention that would stop all small boats, and that is why we will be relentless in bringing the criminal gangs to justice, reducing the incentives to make these crossings, strengthening international co-operation against people smugglers and ensuring the swift return of those with no right to be here.

It is pertinent at this point to remember the goals of this Bill in the light of the inheritance that this Government received. The goals of this Bill are simple: to ensure that decisions and appeals are fast and fair; to provide protection to genuine refugees and to offer protections under human rights law for those who are in genuine need and close loopholes that have too often been abused so as to ensure that the generosity of the British people is not forgotten and that people can contribute when they are in a position to do so.

This is a Bill that will provide fairness for genuine refugees, but also fairness for local communities and make sure that we secure our asylum system for generations to come. For the reasons outlined, I invite Members to withdraw the new clauses.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We can pass all the laws we like, but if nobody carries out the removals, nothing changes. New clause 44 would require the Home Secretary to set up a dedicated UK removals force within six months. Its job would be clear: remove foreign offenders, illegal entrants, visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and illegal workers and return them to their home country or a safe third country, and work with the police and use facial recognition and shared biometric data to find people with no right to be here.

I will give the Government credit: returns have gone up, but let us be clear where much of that capacity came from. Most returns of small boat arrivals since 2018 have been to Albania under the returns arrangement the last Government agreed. The Government inherited that and built on it, which is fair enough, but let us look under the bonnet. In the year to June 2026, there were 9,669 enforced returns. Voluntary returns passed 30,000, many paid up to £3,000 to go, and nearly half of those who took up the scheme last year were Brazilians. Would the Committee believe it? How many of those people would have gone anyway? Paying people to leave is not enforcement. Now look at the size of the job. The Home Office made 116,000 initial asylum decisions last year, with a grant rate of 38%—tens of thousands of refusals. More than 21,000 foreign offenders are living in the community awaiting deportation, and fewer than 6,000 foreign offenders were returned in the year.

Failure to remove has a human cost. Emad al-Swealmeen had his asylum appeal dismissed in 2015, and he was not removed. Six years later, he detonated a home-made bomb in a taxi outside Liverpool women’s hospital. Khairi Saadallah was refused, convicted, and left in limbo for years before he murdered three men in Reading. Ahmed Alid’s claim was refused, and three years later, he was still in Home Office housing in Hartlepool when he killed Terence Carney.

Why have we tabled the new clause? Because a law that is not enforced is worse than no law at all. It tells people that the rules are for show. Every time a refused asylum seeker, a visa overstayer or a foreign offender stays on with no consequences, it sends a signal around the world that the UK is a soft touch and it tells the public at home that the system has given up. We want enforcement to be a priority, with its own leadership, budget and accountability to this House, so that Ministers can be asked a straight question, “How many have they removed?”, and they have to give a straight answer. Right now, removals are spread across immigration enforcement, escort contractors and the police, who all have other priorities. The new clause would create one body with one mission and the resources and powers to do the job. That is how we would stop a refused claim turning into permanent residence by default. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling new clause 44, but I do not agree that it is necessary. The functions and powers of the removal force proposed in new clause 44 already exist within Immigration Enforcement and Border Force, which are directly accountable to the Home Secretary.

Most of the functions set out for this proposed new removals force are functions that law enforcement agencies already carry out. Without wishing to repeat myself, I reminded the Committee earlier that we have carried out over 80,000 returns, which is a 52% increase, as the hon. Member was generous enough to acknowledge. We have done so at a time when similar duties were already in place under the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

I will highlight again that we are taking pragmatic steps to develop returns agreements with countries, which has delivered clear results. In October 2025, we signed an agreement with Vietnam to crack down on illegal migration and to increase returns. In August, we signed a migration partnership with Egypt, which will continue to bear down on illegal migration and cut the time required to return Egyptian nationals with no right to be in the UK by 90%. They are just a couple of examples.

As Members will be aware, we have also leveraged our visa system to positive effect. Earlier this year, after threatening Namibia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo with visa penalties, the Home Secretary secured returns co-operation from all three countries. Restructuring the work of law enforcement agencies, which are already seeing a large increase in the number of returns, into one organisation would also be a costly distraction—a shifting of the deckchairs—from the effective work that is already being carried out.

I have said previously that there is plenty more work to do and that the Government are not complacent. The measures in clause 20, which has already been debated, demonstrate a real and material way in which the Government can increase the volume of returns of foreign national offenders. Simply moving around powers and creating new organisations at great public expense is not a credible way to achieve that. For those reasons, I reject the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 54—Finality of decisions—

“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State has made a decision in respect of a protection claim or immigration claim.

(2) Any decisions or conclusions of the Secretary of State are final and are not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court or tribunal.

(3) In particular—

(a) the decision maker is not to be regarded as having exceeded its powers by reason of any error made in reaching the decision;

(b) the supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to, and no application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to, the decision.

(4) The court of supervisory jurisdiction is not to entertain any application or petition for judicial review in respect of a decision relating to a protection claim or an immigration claim that it would not entertain (whether as a matter of law or discretion) in the absence of this section.

(5) In this section—

‘decision’ includes any purported decision;

‘first-instance decision’ means the decision in relation to which permission (or leave) to appeal is being sought;

‘the supervisory jurisdiction’ means the supervisory jurisdiction of—

(a) the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or

(b) the Court of Session, in Scotland,

and “the court of supervisory jurisdiction” is to be read accordingly.”

This new clause would prohibit judicial review for all immigration decisions except on vires grounds (where the Secretary of State has exceeded their statutory powers).

[Matt Vickers]

This group of new clauses is about ending the endless cycle of claims, appeals and challenges. New clause 46 would set four simple rules: someone should make all their claims at once; they should back them with real, checkable evidence; they should not contradict what they have said; and there is only one appeal. Later claims are inadmissible unless something has genuinely changed in someone’s home country, and claims based on how someone has behaved since arriving are disregarded.

New clause 54 makes the Home Secretary’s decision final, with no possibility for judicial review, except where she has acted outside her legal powers. That builds on what Parliament has already done. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 introduced evidence notices and told decision makers to give minimal weight to evidence produced late without good reason. This Government kept that Act. New clause 46 takes the same principle to its logical conclusion: if something was not raised at the start, and nothing has changed at home, it does not get raised at all.

Three cases show why that should be so. Abdul Ezedi raised his conversion to Christianity only on his third attempt. The Home Office warned he was using religion for his own ends; he could not answer basic questions about the faith. A judge granted him asylum anyway. In January ’24, he attacked a mother and two little girls with a corrosive substance in Clapham.

Emad al-Swealmeen came here on a visit visa claiming he wanted a holiday, and then claimed asylum as a Syrian. The judge rejected his account in its entirety in 2015. He converted after his appeal rights were exhausted, made a fresh claim under a different name and had yet another appeal outstanding on the day he set off a bomb outside Liverpool Women’s hospital—more than six years after he first lost his case.

Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai arrived in 2019 claiming to be a 14-year-old orphan. He was in fact an adult who had murdered two people in Serbia with a Kalashnikov on his way here. He was placed with a foster carer and given a place at a school. In March ’22, he stabbed a 21-year-old to death.

Under new clause 46, a claim built on a false identity, a false age, a new name or a conversion after arrival would not get off the ground. Under new clause 54, a decision made would stick. That is not harsh; it is how most people assume the system already works.

Jamil Ahmed is a Pakistani national living in Scotland. He was convicted in 2008 of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16. In 2013, he was convicted again for the same offence against another girl and for sexually assaulting a teenager, and jailed for three and a half years. He was made subject to a deportation order and lost his appeals twice. After a legal fight lasting the best part of a decade, he finally won at the upper tribunal—on the basis that the reporting of his crimes would put him at risk if he went home. That took nearly 10 years of litigation, but under new clause 54 a decision would have been made. It would have been final, and he would have gone.

These new clauses are motivated by a simple belief that a fair system is a final system. Endless litigation does not serve genuine refugees. It leaves them waiting in the same queue as those gaming the process, sometimes for years, unable to get on with their lives. It also does not serve the taxpayer, who picks up the bill for the hotel, the support, the lawyers and the tribunal, and it does not serve justice, because a decision that can be reopened again and again is not really a decision at all.

We should get it right first time, give people one fair appeal, and then let the answer stand. That is how every other part of public life works, and asylum should be no different. The system is drowning. More than 90,000 asylum appeals are waiting, each taking around 61 weeks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that there were nearly 330,000 open cases across our tribunals earlier this year.

Furthermore, the Government already accept the principle of finality. Clause 1 has an ouster clause for the new appeals body. If finality is right for that body, will the Minister tell the Committee why it is wrong for the Home Secretary? I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South and the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling these new clauses. The Government are committed to an asylum system where claims are considered promptly and fairly, and where any abuse is investigated and swiftly dealt with. The core issue that new clause 46 seeks to address—that all claims related to an asylum case should be made at the same time—is already well covered in existing policy and legislation.

Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 sets out that an asylum claimant’s credibility will be damaged if they make a claim late. Similarly, verifiable and objective evidence clearly describes the kind of supporting evidence that we would expect to see where reasonably available.

I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Stockton West with stories of asylum abuse—many of which he has detailed—such as claims being made on the steps of charter flights, but we cannot support the new clause. It would substantially restrict our ability to consider the full circumstances of an individual case. As he will be able to imagine, there are good reasons why relevant information or evidence might become available only after an initial application has been made, and it is important that it be considered.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 47 is one line long, and would abolish legal aid for applications or claims about a person’s immigration status or right to be in the UK. Immigration and asylum legal aid cost £59 million in 2024-25, which paid for more than 64,000 pieces of work. The Government have since added a £20 million-a-year uplift to the fees. Under this Government, more taxpayer money goes to immigration litigation, not less.

Let me put it simply: a family in Stockton who cannot get legal aid for a dispute with their employer or for most family court cases are entitled to ask why it is there for someone who came here illegally to fight their removal. Since 2012, legal aid has been taken away from large parts of civil law for British citizens, and immigration should not be the exception. It shapes behaviour: more than 90,000 asylum appeals are waiting, and more than a third of asylum appeals are withdrawn before they are even heard. When someone else is paying, there is very little cost to having a go. We have already heard about what endless rounds of claims and appeals can lead to.

Our motivation is about priorities. Every pound of public money has to be justified. Right now, families across the country are being asked to tighten their belts. When budgets are stretched, the public expect legal aid to go first to British citizens who are facing eviction, domestic abuse or the loss of their children before it goes to funding challenge after challenge against removal.

This is not about denying anyone their day in court, but about deciding who the taxpayer should pay for and being honest about it. This new clause would save money, cut last-minute challenges and put the British taxpayer first. I think most people would say that that is not an unreasonable expectation. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

[Anna Turley]

New clause 47 seeks to remove the availability of legal aid for immigration cases. As hon. Members know, legal aid is available for asylum cases and certain immigration matters involving vulnerable individuals, including victims of domestic abuse or modern slavery, and separated migrant children. Legal aid is not granted automatically, and applications remain subject to both a means test and a merits test. Legal aid is available for asylum cases and for immigration advice for victims of domestic abuse or modern slavery, separated migrant children, and those challenging immigration detention decisions.

Removing legal aid from all immigration and asylum matters would risk reducing access to justice for individuals facing complex immigration and asylum proceedings. Legal aid helps to ensure that those seeking protection can access justice and supports the effective operation of the asylum system, which is fundamentally central to an open, independent and fair justice system. The UK also has obligations under the UN refugee convention to provide access to justice for those seeking asylum.

The hon. Member for Stockton West asked why we continue to fund legal aid for immigration matters specifically. As I said, legal aid is available for asylum cases and certain immigration matters, particularly for those involving vulnerable individuals, victims of domestic abuse—