Shabana Mahmood introduced the Immigration and Asylum Bill to parliament on Tuesday, setting out the most sweeping changes to Britain’s refugee system in years. The package includes new legal routes for genuine refugees, tighter restrictions on human rights claims used to block deportations, and a crackdown on modern slavery applications made at the last minute before removal. The politics are as complicated as the policy.
Shabana Mahmood did not mince words when she stood up to introduce the bill. “Britain has always offered sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution,” she told the House of Commons. “But this system only survives if the public trusts that it is fair, controlled, and not open to abuse.” Her goal, she said, was simple: to ensure Britain has an asylum system not just today, but for generations to come.
What she laid out is anything but simple. The Immigration and Asylum Bill reaches across almost every part of the current system, from the legal rights used to challenge deportations to the way modern slavery protections are being used, to the courts that hear appeals, to the routes through which refugees can legally enter the country in the first place.
The opening offer in the package is a new community sponsorship scheme. From the autumn, local communities will be able to apply to sponsor refugees to resettle in their area, taking on responsibility for housing, helping people find work and supporting their integration into local life. The Home Office says it will maintain full control over who can act as a sponsor and that every arrival will go through biometric, criminal record and health checks. Refugee status will be determined in partnership with the United Nations refugee agency.
The model builds on the Homes for Ukraine programme, which brought more than 270,000 Ukrainians into British communities after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Mahmood presented that experience as proof that public willingness to help people fleeing danger exists, provided confidence in the system is maintained.
The bill’s most contentious element for human rights organisations is its treatment of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 protects the right to private and family life. Migrants and asylum seekers have been able to use it to argue that removing them from the UK would separate them from family members here.
The legislation would narrow how Article 8 is applied in immigration cases, defining family for these purposes as an immediate member only: a parent, a spouse or a child under 18. Wider family relationships would only count in exceptional circumstances. Applicants claiming the right to stay in order to be with their child would also be required to prove they actually live with that child. If they do not, they would need to demonstrate a genuine parental relationship.
The government argues this aligns British courts more closely with how the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg actually interprets the convention, after years in which domestic courts expanded its scope considerably further than was originally intended. Human rights lawyers and refugee organisations dispute that framing, saying the change would push the UK in a more restrictive direction than comparable European countries.
See Also: Britain’s Next Prime Minister Built His Reputation Fighting Westminster. Now He Has to Run It.
The modern slavery section of the bill is where the numbers are hardest to ignore. Home Office data, drawn from a sample of deportation flights operated in 2025, found that 76 per cent of modern slavery claims made by people due to be removed from the country were filed in the hours immediately before their departure. The implication the government draws from that figure is stark: the protections designed for victims of trafficking and exploitation are being used in a significant number of cases as a last-minute legal tool to delay or prevent removal.
The bill would not remove modern slavery protections. Genuine victims, including trafficked children, would receive stronger support under the new rules. Every trafficked or exploited child would be given a dedicated independent guardian to help with their recovery. Businesses and public bodies would face fines of up to one million pounds if they fail to identify and address abuse in their supply chains. Civil orders would be strengthened so that law enforcement can place tighter restrictions on the movements and activities of offenders.
Alongside that, however, the bill creates a fast-track process for legal challenges raised at the last minute before a scheduled deportation, making it harder to use claims as a delaying tactic. Claims accompanied by false documentation or filed only after removal proceedings have already begun would be rejected.
The bill also replaces immigration judges with a new institution called the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. Under the current system, failed asylum seekers can appeal to immigration tribunals and pursue further legal challenges through the courts, a process that can take years and consume significant public resources. Under the new system, applicants would get one appeal, heard by trained adjudicators, some of them senior lawyers. After that, the decision stands.
Mahmood is operating in a moment of acute political pressure on immigration. Reform UK finished second in the Makerfield by-election last week and is rising sharply in national polls. Labour lost control of 35 councils in May, partly on voter dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of public services and migration. The bill is designed to give the government a visible answer to those concerns before a new prime minister takes over.
Critics from the left argue that restricting Article 8 and tightening modern slavery rules risks harming genuine victims to score political points. Critics from the right argue the measures do not go far enough to bring Channel crossings under control. Mahmood’s position is that both arguments miss the point: a system without public trust does not protect anyone, including the refugees it was built to help.
Whether this bill, likely to be debated for months and amended substantially before it passes, delivers that trust is the question that will follow it through parliament and beyond.
