The Immigration and Asylum Bill risks weakening our right to family life

The Immigration and Asylum Bill is a major new piece of legislation making its way through Parliament, covering everything from asylum appeals to modern slavery. MPs approved its main principles back in July; it’s now at Committee Stage, where a small group of MPs go through it line by line, checking the detail and considering changes. After that it returns to the Commons for further votes, then faces the same process again in the House of Lords – so there’s still time for it to change before it becomes law.

This blog focuses on Part 2 of the Bill, which would rewrite how courts apply Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): the right to private and family life.

Where this came from

Part 2 didn’t come out of nowhere. The Government first introduced these plans in its November 2025 Restoring Order and Control policy statement. In May 2026, the UK and 45 other Council of Europe states signed a political declaration giving states more room to weigh Article 8 family rights against deportation. This Bill brings that agenda home, writing it into UK law.

The UK has a new Prime Minister, but not a new direction on immigration. One of Andy Burnham’s first votes back in Parliament was in favour of this Bill, even after nearly 80 Labour backbenchers wrote urging him to rethink the reforms. As PM, he’s kept the Bill’s architect, Shabana Mahmood, on as Home Secretary – suggesting we shouldn’t expect a major shift on immigration any time soon.

Rewriting a fundamental right

The Government says these reforms will restore public confidence, but we disagree. Article 8 protects families, privacy, and homes far beyond the immigration system, and there’s little proof these changes will even work.

Weakening a fundamental right doesn’t build confidence in it – it just leaves it weaker for everyone. How it’s treated here sets a precedent for how it can be treated elsewhere.

What the Bill would change

The Bill defines “family life”, as partners and children under 18 who live together. Anything else – a grandparent raising a grandchild, an adult caring for an elderly parent – has to prove additional dependency, and the Bill explicitly rules out financial dependence and emotional support as proof on their own. Judges would no longer ask whether separating a family is fair, only whether it fits the definition.

Children will pay the price

The Bill narrows when it’s considered unreasonable to expect a British or settled child to leave the UK, and raises the threshold for keeping a family together when a parent faces removal – requiring proof that separation would cause the child a “very significant and long-lasting adverse effect”. In practice, that means more children being uprooted from their homes, schools and communities, or separated from a parent who provides their care and stability. 

Where’s the evidence that this is necessary?

Article 8 has become one of the most misunderstood rights in public debate. Politicians from across the political spectrum have argued it stops the UK controlling immigration and deporting foreign criminals – but the evidence tells a different story. The Bonavero Institute found that more than 75% of media reports mentioning the ECHR focused on immigration control, with many misreporting the cases they covered. For deportations of foreign national offenders, successful Article 8 appeals amounted to just 2.5% of the number deported over the same period.

The Government’s own impact assessment estimates these changes could cost as much as £46 million over 10 years – driven largely by the cost of appeals, removals and lost visa revenue, before any savings materialise. Any offsetting saving rests largely on a deterrent effect it admits is “unknown and not quantified”, with other impacts “not estimated due to an absence of evidence”.

We are being asked to weaken a fundamental human right on the basis of an argument that the Government’s own analysis can’t support. 

Article 8 protects all of us

Article 8 is not just about immigration. It protects privacy, homes and family relationships across many contexts: keeping families together in care settings, protecting women fleeing domestic violence, safeguarding medical autonomy and personal data. Its strength lies in allowing judges to balance individual circumstances against wider public interests and reach proportionate decisions.

The Immigration and Asylum Bill moves us away from that principle by narrowing who counts as family and narrowing what judges are allowed to consider. We should be deeply cautious about weakening fundamental rights on the basis of myths, political pressure, or uncertain evidence. Human rights must not be conditional protections applied only to those deemed ‘deserving’.

Once a right can be narrowed for one group, any of our rights can be narrowed too, whenever it’s politically convenient. 

The Government must drop these proposals. Protecting Article 8 means protecting the principle that human rights belong to everyone.