The Immigration and Asylum Bill, a government bill sponsored by the Home Office, was introduced in the House of Commons on 30 June 2026 and given its second reading on 13 July. Its Public Bill Committee sat from 15 September to 3 November 2026, and the bill as amended in committee was published on 4 November as Bill 153. Its next stage is report stage in the Commons, after which it goes to the House of Lords. It is not law.
Source: Parliament’s record of the bill and its stages, read 8 November 2026
The bill covers immigration, asylum and modern slavery. This article deals with the parts that bear on people who say they would be harmed if they were sent back: the protection they are granted, and the appeal that stands between a refusal and a removal.
What the government says the bill does
The Home Office’s factsheet on what it calls core protection, published on 8 October 2026, says that the bill will replace the present framework, in which refugee status and humanitarian protection are separate, with a single form of protection:
Home Office, Immigration and Asylum Bill: Core protection, factsheet, 8 October 2026. “We will never remove anyone to a country where they will be at risk of serious harm.” … “The bill will replace the existing legal framework with a single protection decision and a single protection status. This means each claim will be assessed once, with one outcome, removing the need for separate decisions on asylum and humanitarian protection. It will also remove the right to bring ‘upgrade appeals’ and establish a clearer, simpler case-working process. In addition, the bill will introduce powers to vary entitlements in certain circumstances such as for serious criminals where the government may wish to grant leave with more restrictive conditions, allowing a more tailored approach where appropriate.”
The same factsheet says the bill will “give the Home Office greater flexibility to manage entitlements in certain cases, such as for serious criminals who cannot be removed due to human rights obligations”. In the year ending June 2026, it records, there were 37,003 grants of refugee status and 3,490 grants of humanitarian protection.
What UNHCR told the committee
UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency, submitted written evidence to the committee, published by Parliament on 15 September 2026. It summarised the bill as one that would, among other things, “establish a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA); introduce reforms designed to accelerate the determination of appeals and facilitate removals”, and “create a single form of protection status in place of the current distinction between refugee status and humanitarian protection”.
On appeals, UNHCR set out why it regards them as a safeguard against refoulement:
UNHCR, written evidence to the Public Bill Committee (IAB30), paragraph 5. “The importance of this safeguard is underscored by the significant proportion of protection refusals overturned on appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).” … “These figures demonstrate the critical role of an effective and independent appeals mechanism in identifying and correcting errors in first-instance decision-making. Without meaningful independent review, there would be a substantial risk that individuals entitled to international protection would be wrongly refused and exposed to refoulement.”
The figures it gives are for the year from April 2025 to March 2026: in each quarter, between 36% and 40% of first-instance refusals or revocations of protection were overturned on appeal.
It does not oppose the new body as such. The authority, it wrote, “is not in itself problematic, provided that it preserves an effective remedy for individuals seeking international protection whose claims have been refused at first instance”. Nor does it oppose a single status: merging refugee status and humanitarian protection “is not inherently problematic”, but “it is vital that the creation of a single form of protection does not obscure the fact that an individual has been recognised as a refugee”. It asked that the bill require the Home Secretary to tell each person in writing on which basis protection is granted.
UNHCR also quoted the government’s explanatory notes, which describe the reform as a shift “away from an assumption of offering permanent protection, and towards a more basic, and temporary protection”, and recorded that permission to stay would be reduced from five years to 30 months. And it noted that what the new status will carry is left to regulations, which must be made within one year of the provision coming into force, so that “it is not possible to ascertain from the Bill whether the status afforded those who would currently receive refugee status or humanitarian protection would change qualitatively”.
The exception in the Refugee Convention, and the prohibition that has none
A further clause, UNHCR explains, would amend the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to define when a refugee is not “lawfully staying” in the United Kingdom, by reference to Article 33(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention: where the refugee is a danger to the security of the country, or has been convicted of a particularly serious crime and is a danger to the community. Article 33(2) is the Refugee Convention’s exception to non-refoulement. UNHCR notes that a decision to return a refugee under it “does not, of itself, terminate refugee status”.
The Refugee Convention’s exception does not reach the prohibition of torture. Article 3 of the Convention against Torture forbids sending anyone to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being tortured, and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights forbids removal to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Neither admits an exception for security or for crime. The government’s factsheet speaks of “serious criminals who cannot be removed due to human rights obligations”, and of powers to grant them leave on more restrictive conditions. Among the people who cannot be removed because of human rights obligations are those whom that prohibition protects. The laws that protect people from torture are set out on The Law.
The committee’s votes of 3 November 2026 on the Human Rights Act, and what the minister said about returning people to torture, are reported in A Commons Committee Rejected Plans to Disapply the Human Rights Act in Removal Cases.
What is still being investigated, as of 8 November 2026
The text of the bill as amended in committee, Bill 153. UNHCR commented on the bill as introduced, and the bill as amended in committee may differ. The Coalition will quote the bill’s own words before describing any clause in more detail.
What the Home Office’s human rights memorandum of 30 June 2026, and its supplementary memorandum of 12 October 2026, say about Article 3. The Coalition has not yet read them.
What the regulations on protection status will provide. They have not been made.
Sources: Immigration and Asylum Bill, Parliament’s record of stages and publications · Home Office, Immigration and Asylum Bill: Core protection, 8 October 2026 · Home Office, overarching factsheet, 8 October 2026 · UNHCR, written evidence to the Public Bill Committee (IAB30), published 15 September 2026. The Coalition’s page on the United Kingdom.