Blake Stephenson
MP for Mid Bedfordshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“New clause 15 would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to prevent information about people identified as potential victims of modern slavery from being shared for the purposes of immigration enforcement or removal. We oppose it.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. New clause 6 would require the Government to start negotiations to join the EU pact on migration and asylum within three months. Committee Members should not be surprised to hear that the official Opposition oppose this new clause. The hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member for Wimbledon has described the real pressures on councils across the country. When people are granted protection and leave asylum accommodation, many present as homeless, and local authorities across the country pick up the cost. However, in our view, a statutory taskforce will not solve that.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We would ban asylum claims by people who enter the country illegally and remove them within a week. We would seek returns agreements with countries of origin, backed by visa sanctions on those that refuse to take their nationals back, and we would support our allies in Europe to stop illegal entry with intelligence, policing and maritime…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 11 would require the Government to restore refugee family reunion within six months, but I understand that it also widens definitions to include children up to the age of 25, which was not in the hon. Member’s opening remarks, so I hope I am not mistaken. We oppose this measure.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This group is about transparency, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon has just explained. New clause 14 would provide for regular statistics on asylum appeals, and new clause 22 for a report on decision making.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
733 held · 691 searchable for Blake Stephenson. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“As I said, that will exempt around 97,500 people for life for the support that they receive, as well as anyone who enters support before a commencement date that nobody has given us. The Opposition’s intention is simple: people already in the system should contribute for the support they receive once the scheme is in force. Amendment 142 would make regulations creating further exemptions under subsection (6)(c) subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government say that the negative procedure is enough because exemptions do not disadvantage the people exempted. That may be the case, but it certainly is not the case for the taxpayer, who is burdened with the cost. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 23(6)(c) will allow the Secretary of State to exempt “any other description” of a person by regulations. The explanatory notes tell us that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure. The Government’s reasoning is that exemptions do not disadvantage the people affected. They may not disadvantage the people exempted, but they certainly affect the taxpayer. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme without a debate in the House. Which further categories do the Government intend to exempt, and why do Ministers not think that Parliament should be able to approve those? Amendment 139 would remove subsection (6)(b), which is the exemption for everyone who started to receive support before clause 23 is fully in force.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is not an exemption for support received before the law changes; it is an exemption for all the support that a person will ever receive before or after commencement. The Government tell us that about 97,500 people are receiving support and, as the Bill is drafted, every single one of them will be exempt for life. Between now and the commencement date, which the Government have not yet given us—with appeals taking over a year, the first charges under this clause may be many years away—how many people will be exempt under subsection (6)(b)? Why not exempt only the support received before commencement, so that people already in the system contribute to the support they receive once the law has changed? When do the Government intend to bring clause 23 fully into force and levy the first charges?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. This group is about who should be exempt from the duty to repay asylum support and when a debt should be cancelled. Five of the grouped amendments—four in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon—would widen the exemptions or write off the debt. The Opposition take the opposite view, unsurprisingly. The exemptions in clause 23 are already too wide, which is why I tabled amendments 139 and 142. Clause 23(6)(b) exempts anyone who “started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 23, page 22, line 13, at end insert— “(7) This section may not be brought fully into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament— (a) a draft of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposes to make under subsection (4), and (b) an estimate, for each of the first five years after this section comes fully into force, of— (i) the number of persons expected to be required to make payments under subsection (3), (ii) the sums expected to be recovered, and (iii) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.” This amendment would require the Government to publish its draft regulations for the asylum support repayment scheme, together with an estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run, before the scheme is brought into force.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Has HMRC agreed to collect the charge? Will collection be through PAYE by default, as it is for student loans, and from what date will it happen?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How much do the Government realistically expect to recover from refused claimants who stay? Why does the definition in clause 23(2) leave out section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—initial accommodation, including hotels—so that time spent there appears to be free of charge? Subsection (4) allows regulations to provide for HMRC to collect amounts due. We believe that this is the correct model. It is how student loans are recovered—automatically, through the pay packet, once earnings pass a certain threshold. It is the model the Opposition proposed. However, subsection (4) is only an enabling power; it says that regulations “may” provide for HMRC collection. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure, and the Government describe collection as a more technical and administrative matter.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If our new clause 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was not developed enough for primary legislation in March 2025, I invite the Minister to explain what makes clause 23 in this Bill developed enough now. The explanatory notes state that the power applies to those “who have had their case concluded”; but that condition is not in the clause. Can payments be required while a claim or appeal is outstanding from people with savings, for example, and how does that relate to the separate contributions mechanisms announced in November? The Home Office says that the measure will ensure that refused asylum seekers “take responsibility for the financial impact of their presence in this country”, but a refused claimant who remains here unlawfully is not going to be paying through pay-as-you-earn.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It sets out how the charge can reflect support given to dependants, allows His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect it, allows information to be shared with the Home Office for that purpose, and makes unpaid sums recoverable as a debt. Clause 23 is the principle, which we support; clause 24 is where we assess whether any money will actually be collected. We agree with the principle, but the Government have not provided the detail that we expect. There is no amount detailed in the Bill. There is no threshold. There is no repayment period. There is no collection model. All of that is left to regulations that we are yet to see.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft regulations and those estimates before the clause commences? If she does, I will not press the amendment to a vote. Clause 23(1) applies the scheme to anyone who has received asylum support and is not exempt. Subsection (2) defines asylum support. Subsection (3) is the core power: the Secretary of State “may” require payments. Subsection (4) leaves everything else to regulations. Subsection (5) provides that no one can be required to pay if it would make them destitute. Subsection (6) exempts people who were children throughout, anyone who started receiving support before the clause comes fully into force, and anyone else the Secretary of State specifies in regulations. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind clause 23.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 23 gives the Home Secretary a new power to require people who have received asylum support to pay towards its cost once they are able to do so. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind it. The Opposition supports both clauses, so my questions are not about whether clause 23 is right in principle; they are about whether, as drafted, it will recover anything at all—and when. Amendment 140 would mean that clause 23 could not be brought fully into force until the Government have published and laid the draft regulations and a five-year estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run. That is not an obstacle to the scheme—it is the minimum that Parliament needs in order to judge whether it will work effectively.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“7. What assessment the Local Government Boundary Commission for England has made of the potential impact of the pause of local government reorganisation on boundary reviews in the areas involved.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government’s management of local government reorganisation must have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. Can my right hon. and learned Friend advise, if not on the Floor of the House, in writing, whether there is also a financial cost to the Local Government Boundary Commission?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Law Society says that the change “appears to be an attempt to bar a full proportionality assessment”, and sets up a conflict with the duty on the Home Secretary and the courts to “act compatibly with Convention rights under section 6 of the Human Rights Act.””
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“An undefined test is an invitation to future litigation. There is a ready answer, though, to which I shall point the Committee: the good character guidance used in naturalisation decisions, which is detailed and demanding, with periods that taper according to the length of sentence. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will apply that guidance here? Amendment 104 would add that to the Bill. What will count as a failure to co-operate with immigration processes—absconding, the destruction of documents, ignoring a claim notice under clause 11, et cetera? It would be helpful to understand what the Government’s understanding is. On amendments 105 and 106, the explanatory notes accept that courts can depart from the weightings under section 117A(2) of the 2002 Act.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I ask the Minister: what mitigation does the Government propose to avoid that? On good character and amendment 104, subsection (3) sets out a new public interest in people who have not offended, have co-operated with the authorities and are “of good character”. Again, we support the direction of travel, but “good character” is not defined in the Bill or the explanatory notes, which seems an extraordinary gap, though I recognise that it is quite difficult to define it in the Bill. This is another example of the Government potentially setting themselves up for failure in the Bill. The Bar Council says that it hands the Home Office “a general evaluative test that is highly subjective in scope”. The Law Society and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association made similar points in their evidence.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In its evidence, the Law Society told us: “No detail has been provided on how the elements of this test are to be determined”. Over what period will future reliance be assessed? What evidence will be required, and will guidance be published before commencement? There is a further difficulty, which is whether this subsection will be able to survive the courts. Again, according to the Law Society, “the Government’s human rights memorandum at paragraph 27” acknowledges that the new criteria are “likely to result in discriminatory outcomes for…older or disabled people”. The Bar Council makes the same point. A test that the Government themselves expect to operate unequally is one that will in all likelihood be litigated under the Equality Act 2010 and perhaps article 14—and one that the courts may well soften as a result.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If those figures are correct, the case for this clause is overwhelming and undeniable; however, the Committee has not seen the evidence behind them. If the Government want the House to legislate on the strength of the 71% and the £4.9 billion cost figures, it is our view that they should publish the sample, definitions and method before Report. On financial independence, subsection (2) is, in our view, right in principle. The Library records that the Home Office’s aim is “increased refusals or unsuccessful appeals in cases where applicants impose avoidable burdens on public resources”. I certainly think the public will agree, but the test is a prediction about the future, and the Bill says nothing about how it is to be made.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Subsection (5) extends “little weight” for precarious status to family life as well as private life. Subsections (6) and (7) tighten the rule on parents with qualifying children. There must now be “a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect” on a child who stays, and it is unreasonable “to expect a child to leave the United Kingdom if (and only if)” one of three conditions is met. On the evidence base, the Home Office told the Committee that 71% of those newly granted article 8 leave “had entered illegally or overstayed” –– [ Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 73, Q130.] and that grants made in 2025 cost the taxpayer an incredible £4.9 billion.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Subsection (2) replaces the requirement to be financially independent with a three-part, forward-looking test, which is that a person must be, and is “likely to remain, financially independent…able to house themselves…without reliance on state support” and is not “reliant on public services, in particular health or social care services, in the long-term”. Subsection (3) adds a new public interest in people who have not been convicted of an offence anywhere, have co-operated with the immigration authorities and “are otherwise of good character.” Subsection (4) changes “little weight” to “no weight” being given to a “private or family life established by a person” who is here without leave, or with leave obtained by deception, or who is in “serious breach” of its conditions.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Opposition support the broad direction of travel in which the Government are going with the clause; however, to our reading, much of it is unfortunately drafted in a way that means it will be all too easy for the courts to set aside. Furthermore, the evidence behind the clause has not yet been published. I will take the Committee through both aspects. First, clause 19 amends section 117B of the 2002 Act, which deals with the public interest considerations that apply in every article 8 case.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. As we discussed in the last sitting, clause 18 asks who counts as family, but clause 19 asks what weight that family should carry against the public interest. The clause goes to the heart of public concern, as it considers people who build a life here, while they have no right to be here, only to rely on that recently constructed life as a reason to stay in the UK indefinitely. I will speak to amendments 104 to 106, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West and I, as well as amendment 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, and clause 19.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to press that point. If the Minister’s position is that she wants the starting point for tribunals to be “no weight”, then what is the harm in adding “must” to make it absolutely clear that the House expects tribunals to apply “no weight”? But then she says that she wants tribunals to have flexibility, so which one is it?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In that case, if “serious” is to remain in the Bill, will the Minister help the Committee to understand what types of scenarios might constitute serious or not serious?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 20, page 18, line 13, at end insert— “(3A) Where a person has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least four years— (a) the first and second sets of exceptional circumstances do not apply, and (b) the third set of exceptional circumstances applies only where there are very compelling circumstances over and above those described in subsections (4) and (5).” This amendment would restore the current rule that a foreign national sentenced to four years or more cannot resist deportation by relying on the long-residence or “unduly harsh” exceptions and must show very compelling circumstances over and above them.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Justice, which, I should say, supports the change for very different reasons, describes the effect precisely in its evidence, stating that the Bill “flattens out the application of the exceptions, so that all three apply, regardless of the length of a person’s sentence.” The House of Commons Library briefing says that it is “not clear” how the new rules are stricter for people sentenced to more than four years.. Does the Minister accept that under clause 20, the most serious offenders gain access to exceptions one and two? If so, why? What reasons could the Government have for loosening the rules for the worst-offending foreign criminals? Presumably, the Government are trying to achieve the opposite.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On Dr Rowe’s own analysis, clause 20 brings domestic law back to what the Strasbourg case law requires, but does not go beyond it, and for the most serious offenders, the clause appears to move in the wrong direction. Under the current law, someone sentenced to four years or more cannot rely on the long residence or unduly harsh exceptions on their own; they must show very compelling circumstances over and above them. Clause 20 removes the sentence thresholds altogether.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a reasonable legal argument that the new structure restores the balance test that the courts took away. Dr Chris Rowe of Swansea University argues that after the Supreme Court’s decision in KO (Nigeria) v . Secretary of State for the Home Department, the unduly harsh exception came to operate as an unqualified right, which we heard about in earlier Committee sittings. If the effect on the family was harsh enough, the strength of the public interest did not matter. He argued that clause 20(3) would be effective in restoring a balance against the public interest. If that is correct, it is a real improvement for so-called medium offenders. Once again, however, I cannot help but notice what kind of improvement this is.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thirdly, it replaces the sentence length threshold of 12 months and four years with a sliding scale: the more serious the offending and its impact on society, the greater the public interest in deportation. Fourthly, it provides that deportation will be disproportionate if, and only if, one of three sets of exceptional circumstances applies: long residence and integration, an unduly harsh effect on a partner or child, or other very compelling circumstances, and the interference cannot be justified by the public interest. I turn first to what the clause gets right, because I want to be fair to the Government in this Committee. Extending the rules to all deportation cases is a genuine tightening, and for that reason the Opposition support it.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My case is that, although the clause contains real improvements, which we support, it also makes the position easier for the most serious offenders. Either way, it leaves the final word where it is today: with the judge’s assessment of proportionality. The clause does four things. First, it extends the deportation rules in section 117C of the 2002 Act from foreign criminals to everyone liable to deportation, including those deported because it is conducive to the public good. Secondly, it replaces the current structure of a single rule, that deportation is required unless its effect on the person or their family would be disproportionate.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On Thursday 15 October, the Government were kind enough to accept Opposition amendment 96 to clause 17; I hope the Minister will look at these amendments with the same open mind, because of all the clauses in part 2, this is the one that the public care the most deeply about. People expect that foreign nationals who commit serious crimes in this country will be deported, and they do not understand why family life—often family life formed while the offender was here—so frequently stands in the way. It is frankly unacceptable. Our reasoned amendment on Second Reading made the point that this Bill “does not ensure all foreign criminals and illegal immigrants will be deported”. —[ Official Report , 13 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 679.] . Clause 20 is where that concern is tested.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for supporting the general thrust of what we are trying to achieve with the amendments, and I accept his point. By having a narrow list, we may constrain future opportunities and changes, and we need to be flexible. However, it is important that the Committee expresses its view that these crimes are abhorrent. Although it is a narrow list, this place can of course legislate further in the future, as life changes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general support and I understand his point, but given the gravity of these crimes, it is important that this Committee is very clear that they are totally unacceptable.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Extending these rules to all deportation cases and restoring the balance against the public interest are steps in the right direction that we support. However, the clause removes the clear lines that protected the public from the most serious offenders, and it gives these criminals access to exceptions that cannot be used today. We will seek to press amendments 107 and 108 to a vote, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers to the various questions I have asked.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Indeed, when the Bill fails to enable the Government to address the extensive range of grounds for resisting removal that flow from the ECHR, will the Minister finally accept that—as we have long argued—the real problem lies outside the drafting of the legislation, however robust it might be, and however robust the Government intend it to be today? As I have already noted, the Minister described discussions about leaving the ECHR last week as unnecessary and counterproductive. If she genuinely believes that deterrence must sit at the heart of the response to these challenges, I struggle to see how removing the ability of foreign criminals to rely on the convention to delay or prevent their removal could reasonably be considered as either unnecessary or counterproductive. The Opposition will not oppose clause 20.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are here to legislate, so I do not think it is unreasonable for us to be defining what is right and wrong. Perhaps we can leave it to the Minister to respond. The unfortunate reality is that, with this Bill, the Government are falling into the very same trap that the previous Government fell into. The legislation may be designed to work around the constraints imposed by the ECHR, but it will ultimately run up against the very same problems. The courts will default to the positions that they have consistently taken, enabling individuals with no right to remain in this country to delay or prevent their removal.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is nothing in the evidence, nor in what the Minister said in her opening remarks, to convince me that that concern was misplaced, so I have a few points to go through, if I may.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They cannot be declared inadmissible under section 80A of the 2002 Act; they cannot be certified as clearly unfounded under section 94; they sit outside the statutory timeframe in section 86B—I suspect that the civil servants might be looking those up now for the Minister—and there are bespoke rules on pending and abandoned appeals. The Government are presenting these changes as a tightening of the rules: overseas family members may not claim, because the sponsor must. However, our reasoned amendment on Second Reading set out our concern that the Bill would allow sponsor human rights claims and so enable people outside the UK to enter on human rights grounds.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Such a claim would assert that refusing a member of their family entry to the UK would breach article 8. Subsection (1)(d) then brings those sponsor claims within the scope of the human rights appeals framework set out in part 5 of the 2002 Act. As the explanatory notes confirm, the effect is that the UK-based sponsor becomes the claimant, with the right to appeal. As the Minister went through, subsections (3) to (7) then carve out sponsor claims from the provisions that apply to other human rights claims in the 2002 Act.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Committee decides to keep the clause, we submit that our amendments would limit the damage that it will cause. Clause 17 is the first clause of part 2 of the Bill, which the Government believe is the answer on article 8 of the ECHR. That makes this the right place to ask the question on which the whole debate on part 2 will turn: does the Bill change what a court must do when someone says that article 8 prevents their removal, or does it simply change what the court should have regard to? I will deal first with clause 17 itself and then with what it tells us about the Bill as a whole. The clause creates a new statutory category of “sponsor human rights claim”. This would enable someone already situated in the UK to submit an application directly to the Secretary of State, at a location designated by the Secretary of State.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks, and indeed for pre-empting and answering some of the questions that I have in my speech. It is almost as if she might have had a spy in my team, looking at the questions that I might ask. For these debates on the ECHR, we perhaps had a dry run yesterday in the first Opposition day debate. Let me start by saying that the Opposition oppose clause 17—perhaps not a surprise to Members, as we said so in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading—and we will vote against its standing part of the Bill. Our amendments are tabled to test the Government’s reasoning. Some of our points have already been answered by the Minister, but I will go through them for the record.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The British Red Cross highlights that 12,888 family reunion visas were granted in the year to June 2026, and that the core protection status of cause 21 is expected to carry “no family reunion rights” at all. Although I draw different conclusions, the dedicated route has been suspended, and the clause creates a statutory sponsor claim with a right to appeal and without safe country filters. The people with expertise in this field who gave evidence expect that it will become the main entry route, so are the Government not simply closing one back door and opening another? What assessment has the Home Office made of those numbers?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ms Tennant told us that the Bill’s presumption of cohabitation “is a difficult threshold to make” –– [ Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 9, Q7.] in the refugee context, particularly given the suspension of the refugee family reunion route. Mr Featonby estimated that probably 20,000 people have been unable to apply since that route was suspended just over a year ago. Ms Afzal warned that families could be encouraged to resort to smugglers to reunite. The written evidence goes a bit further. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association tells us that the human rights claim “may be the only realistic remaining path” for refugee families while the dedicated route is suspended. The Bar Council told us that it will be the “only practical gateway”.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister may not have the answers to a complicated drafting question, but perhaps during the course of today’s debate, her civil servants might provide an answer. I note that section 50 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act is not yet in force, and that schedule 1 to this Bill would repeal it. Would the Minister explain how clause 17(5) is meant to commence? If there is an error in drafting, will it be corrected? I will move on to the interaction with family reunion. Three witnesses in our oral evidence sessions—Vicky Tennant of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Jon Featonby of the Refugee Council and Angela Afzal of the International Rescue Committee—took views very different from the Opposition on the Bill, but their evidence is relevant as we scrutinise the clause.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure that they did so for their own good reasons, not just to copy and paste an Opposition amendment. Those amendments were tabled to remove those exemptions. They were probing amendments, but let us assume that amendment 96 probed sufficiently for it to be taken on board by the Government. If the Minister cannot explain to the Committee for what reason a sponsor claim would be treated more favourably than any other human rights claim, the exemptions should go. Perhaps she could address that point on amendment 95 in more detail. There is a point of drafting to consider in whether the clause actually works at all. Clause 52(5) ties the commencement of clause 17(3) to section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and clause 17(5) to section 50 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 when it comes fully into force.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In written evidence submitted to the Committee, the Bar Council stated: “Until now, an application for entry clearance to come to the UK had to be made by the person overseas and any appeal against refusal had to be brought by them.” Clause 17 would now give the UK-based sponsor an appeal of their own. Does the Minister accept that clause 17 introduces a right of appeal that currently does not exist today? If so, how is clause 17 in any way, as she says, tightening the rules? Secondly, I want to discuss the exemptions. Clause 17 leaves inadmissibility and certification in place for other human rights claims. Why should a sponsor claim be exempt from both? On amendments 95 and 96, I note that the Government have adopted our amendment 96, for which I am grateful.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, and fundamentally I think the clause is tinkering around the edges with the application of the ECHR. We have been here before; I will come on to this later in my speech. Successive Governments have tried to do this, but my fundamental concern is that the clause will not work. Let me turn first to the drafting. The explanatory notes say that overseas article 8 applications must be made by the sponsor, but the clause defines a claim as made “at a place designated by the Secretary of State”. As the House of Commons Library points out, it deals with the appeal stage; it does not say how claims are lodged in the first place. Minister, where in the Bill is the provision that stops an overseas family member applying? Which places will be designated and by what regulations, rules or guidance? Who holds the right of appeal today?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Professor Singer—who, it is worth noting, is opposed to the Bill—told us that the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in IA and others “was a very restrictive interpretation of article 8…I do not see the courts taking a particularly liberal approach to article 8.” –– [ Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 61, Q99.] If that is right, what is the mischief that clause 17 addresses? Is it meant to reverse the Court of Appeal in IA, to codify it, or to do something else? I know that the Minister referred to that particular Court of Appeal case, but I would be grateful if those specific questions could be answered.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford, will be implemented in a way that works in practice, if it is not on the face of the Bill. I ask that for a particular reason. The Minister knows that I have been asking the Home Office quite a lot of written parliamentary questions in recent months, particularly about legal immigration and visa controls. Given the responses that I have been getting, I seriously question whether the systems that the Home Office has in place to monitor, track and oversee the compliance of visa sponsors are fit for purpose. It would be prudent for the Minister to provide comfort to this Committee that there will be better controls for sponsors who use this route.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Such checks would include whether the sponsor has convictions, protective orders or findings for domestic abuse, stalking, sexual offending or forced marriage, or a history of immigration decisions in which those matters were material. It would also require a consideration of the weight of any risk to the family member, the children or others. If the Government are to create a statutory route in which the sponsor drives the claim, the least they should do is check who the sponsor is. I thank the Minister for supporting the amendment in principle. She described some of the existing safeguarding measures, which will be strengthened, but I would be grateful if she unpacked that somewhat more to demonstrate the Government’s clear commitment to ensuring that the spirit of the amendment, tabled by my hon.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 97 would at least confine the new right of appeal to the family, which is what the Government say article 8 is about. An appeal against a refused sponsor claim would stand only where the family member was part of the claimant’s core cohabiting family under proposed new section 117AA—that would be a spouse, civil partner, partner, minor child, or the parent of a child sponsor. If the Government truly believe in their own definition in clause 18, why will they not accept that the sponsor’s right of appeal should be limited to that definition? Amendment 112, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford, would require the Home Secretary to carry out safeguarding checks before deciding a sponsor claim.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗