The Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026: cruel, costly, and completely unnecessary

Three aspects of the Bill’s provisions in relation to the IIAA have our caseworkers concerned:

1. Independence in name only. While the IIAA is ostensibly set out as an independent body, the Home Secretary will retain broad powers to expedite certain cases, set deadlines for decisions, and influence the IIAA’s actions and objectives. The Bill’s Impact Assessment highlights the IIAA’s objective to increase removals, raising questions over whether this body is truly independent and neutral in its decision-making, or is another tool to expedite immigration removals. 

2. Adjudicator qualifications.  Except for the highest levels of the IIAA, many decision-making roles will not require a legal background or qualification and will be “trained members of the public”. According to the Bill, such members of the public can preside over life-changing decisions, including granting immigration bail and allowing the deprivation of British citizenship. The case work in the IIAA’s jurisdiction is highly complex and better suited for judicial determinations. Notably, both the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICBI) and National Audit Office (NAO) have warned about the danger of lowering recruitment standards for immigration decision makers, with the risk of negatively affecting the quality of decision-making.

3. Efficiency over justice. Immigration decisions are complex and require thoughtful consideration. The government’s stated intention to cut the backlog is more likely to deliver speedy injustice. Previous attempts to prioritise expedience have historically failed in immigration issues. The ICBI report on asylum casework found that the government’s efforts to clear the ‘legacy’ asylum backlog affected the quality of decision-making. Ironically, this was flagged by Labour MP and previous Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper herself. A similar dynamic characterised attempts to ‘eradicate the backlog’ in the National Referral Mechanism (‘NRM’), which resulted in speedier processing but a higher rate of negative decisions which, upon challenge, were found to be incorrect and had a very high likelihood of a positive decision.

As concerning as delegating the adjudication of immigration appeals is for migrants, there is a darker implication to the government’s enthusiasm for outsourcing complex decision-making to members of the public. We are concerned the IIAA is a trial-run for other vulnerable groups who rely on under-resourced tribunals to deliver justice. Several systems are straining under ballooning backlogs, including Employment Tribunals and social security claims for disabled persons.

Instead of expending resources to erect an entirely new system, the government could invest in accessible and meaningful reforms. As the UNHCR-UK observes, inefficiency does not just reside in sluggish appeals processes, but also comes from poor initial decision-making and inaccessible legal advice, which this Bill entirely overlooks. 

If ministers are intent on establishing the IIAA, UNHCR-UK states, it is not just high standards of accountability and adjudicator qualifications that are critical, but also appellants’ access to “high-quality and timely government-funded legal advice and representation”. We made the same recommendation in our own report flagging Employment Tribunal capacity issues. 

We are deeply worried by how definitively this government is turning away from legal advice, and urge ministers to reconsider. Justice cannot just be about reducing backlog. It is about ensuring correct decisions.

In the context of Article 8 Applications, the current definition of "family" recognises that dependency can exist beyond the nuclear partner-parent-child model and gives judges discretion to grant status when refusal would lead to unjustifiably harsh or disproportionate consequences for the wider family unit.

The Bill would narrow the statutory definition of "family" to a core and generally cohabiting family unit (defined explicitly as spouses, civil partners, parents, and minor children under the age of 18). This is almost certain to exclude some people from protection.

Decision-makers are bound by a framework that balances an individual’s Article 8 right to family or private life against the public interest in maintaining effective immigration controls. 

Currently, the public interest is treated as a heavy, but rebuttable and flexible factor. The law recognises specific indicators of public interest (such as an applicant’s ability to speak English and be financially independent). When evaluating relationships formed while an applicant’s immigration status is precarious or unlawful, current rules state that “little weight” should be given to those ties unless doing so would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences or split up a child from a parent where it is not in the child’s best interests. This caveat leaves room for judges to evaluate whether the state’s interest in enforcement genuinely outweighs the human cost. 

The Bill significantly tightens how courts must weigh public interest considerations when evaluating human rights claims under Article 8. This includes by:

1. Raising the threshold for financial independence and public burden. Under the current text of Section 117B(3), the law simply states that it is in the public interest that persons seeking to enter or remain are "financially independent." The Bill replaces this with a more stringent test that puts the applicant under pressure to prove long-term self-sufficiency. Namely, that they: “Are, and are likely to remain, financially independent"; “Are, and are likely to remain, able to house themselves and any dependants adequately without state support”; and “Are not, and are not likely to become, reliant on public services, in particular health or social care services, in the long-term”.

2. Excluding applicants with any criminal convictions. The Bill would insert a new subsection (3A), declaring it a matter of public interest that applicants: have no criminal convictions (whether in the UK or abroad); have actively co-operated with immigration authorities and administrative processes; and are otherwise of "good character." This effectively means that even minor non-compliance, such as failing to update the Home Office of a change of address within the required timeframe or missing a routine reporting appointment due to illness, could weigh against an individual’s Article 8 application.

3. Excluding family and private life established when a person was undocumented in the UK. Previous rules stated that “little weight” should be given to the private life a person established while residing in the UK unlawfully. The Bill expands this restriction, by giving “no weight” to private or family life established by an individual while precariously, or unlawfully, in the UK. Simply put, this means that even if a person lived, worked, and built a complete life in the UK for a decade but were undocumented during that time, they would have no room to argue that removing them would be disproportionate or inhumane.

By the government’s own admission in the Impact Assessment, the cumulative outcome of the Bill’s provisions to limit the application of human rights is to:

• Increase refusal rates. Officials anticipate the Bill to lead to 14,000 more refusals a year.

• Increase the volume and cost of appeals. It is expected that 30% of refusals will result in an appeal, meaning a further 3,400 appeals per year. This is projected to cost taxpayers £80.8 million over the course of 10 years.

• Create an underclass of refused applicants.  Accounting for the fact that some decisions are overturned after an appeal, officials expect a total of 11,700 people will receive a final, post-appeal refusal. More than half of them (55%) are expected to remain in the UK. This is a whole 6,500 people who, as a result of this Bill, are expected to live precariously with no right to work, no right to public support, forced into poverty and at risk of trafficking and labour exploitation.

• Spend £272.4m on forced removals. While officials acknowledge that most people will remain in the UK even after a negative decision, the changes to Article 8 considerations are expected to increase the volume of applicants who are removed or claim asylum by 3,600. This is expected to cost taxpayers £272.4m.

The financial costs

The changes this Bill will introduce are not just cruel. They are also a significant cost to the taxpayer, as refusals push up the cost of appeals and immigration enforcement. The thousands of people who are denied status can no longer legally work and therefore pay income tax. 

Over the 10-year appraisal period, officials anticipate spending £2bn for the Article 8 public interest test. This includes £80.8m in appeals, £272.4m in removal and asylum costs, over £1bn in tax revenue lost, and another £529m in income lost from visa fees.

The Bill will introduce new factors in determining whether an individual is a potential or actual victim of modern slavery. This assessment includes a credibility requirement to be applied at the discretion of the Home Office. This credibility test includes considering delay (in making the claim and providing information), along with ‘material’ inconsistencies, omissions, or similarities with other stories from a modern slavery or trafficking claim, unless there are “good reasons”.

This new requirement ignores the critical evidentiary barrier facing modern slavery and trafficking survivors of how trauma can distort memory. It also overlooks the difficulty in identifying cases of trafficking and labour exploitation due to issues in either recognising signs of trafficking and / or accessing legal assistance. The Home Office’s own Modern Slavery guidance notes that traumatised individuals can struggle to recount facts, and are often reluctant to self-identify as victims of modern slavery. A wealth of literature by civil society experts reaffirms these points. 

The Bill simply ignores this active guidance, proposing instead an approach that punishes survivors for mistakes and delay.

Currently, people who receive a negative Conclusive Grounds decision are still eligible for 14 days of support. This support is extended due to the previous positive Reasonable Grounds decision, indicating there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the person has experienced modern slavery or trafficking.  The Bill will end any recovery period and associated entitlements from the date of the negative conclusive grounds decision. The result will strand potential victims of exploitation without any support, including accommodation.

We are deeply concerned that these provisions ignore the high number of people who only receive a positive conclusive grounds decision following a reconsideration request. Recent research into the NRM shows that requests for a reconsideration of negative decisions resulted in a higher rate of positive decisions than initial grants in the same period. The Bill will likely wrongfully withhold support from victims of modern slavery during this reconsideration period - with no clarity of how support will be provided if or when a positive decision is later granted. Again, this proposed measure is punitive and cruel.

Currently, Section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 provides temporary limited leave to remain for confirmed victims of modern slavery who do not have another valid immigration status or are not British citizens. This is to assist in their recovery, seek compensation and to enable them to support law enforcement. 

Though far from perfect, VTS leave is a concession that antitrafficking campaigners have fought hard for, and is an obligation under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT). Simply put, VTS gives status for people to recover and pursue their exploiters. Though it is not a route to settlement in the UK, VTS is a lifeline because it provides people with the right to work and find some normalcy.

The Bill amends Section 65(2) of the Nationality and Borders Act to completely remove assistance for recovery (psychological support). If the Bill is implemented, VTS leave will only be accessible where a victim is seeking compensation, or to enable cooperation with police.

These changes will make VTS leave almost impossible to obtain. According to the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit (ATLEU) in 2024, just 4% of eligible victims were granted VTS status, and in the vast majority (96% ) of cases, those grants were to assist with recovery. If the Bill is implemented, these people would become ineligible.

Another outcome of removing recovery from the basis of VTS leave, is to reduce protection to  something purely instrumental. In its current formulation, the Bill effectively forces vulnerable people into giving criminal evidence or launching civil cases, regardless of their own physical and mental health.  And in prioritising law enforcement objectives over victims’ recovery, it risks re-traumatising victims with the stroke of a pen.