This Bill removes the Human Rights Act 1998 from the operation of core immigration, asylum and deportation legislation, pushes the minimum qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) to ten years for a defined set of visa categories and partners of British citizens, and creates grounds to revoke ILR for foreign criminals, benefit receipt, or sustained falls in income. It also requires the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on all non‑visitor visa entries (with possible per‑route limits), limits partner routes with a per‑country quota and eligibility tests, and introduces statutory exemptions from the UK GDPR for people who entered illegally and for “foreign criminals.”
At a Glance
What It Does
The Bill requires immigration legislation to be read 'disregarding' the Human Rights Act and restricts ILR and visa eligibility through new income and benefit‑receipt tests and a 10‑year qualifying period for several visa classes. It mandates an annual total cap on non‑visitor visa entries, allows per‑route quotas (including a 7% per‑country limit for spouse/civil partner entries), and carves out GDPR protections for illegal entrants and foreign criminals.
Who It Affects
The Home Office, immigration lawyers and tribunals, employers who sponsor overseas staff, local authorities that provide housing and social protection, data controllers handling immigration data, and migrants (including partners and skilled workers) whose routes, rights and data protections are altered.
Why It Matters
The Bill substitutes political control and administrative limits for statutory human‑rights safeguards and broadens grounds for removal and loss of status—shifting legal risk from courts to Ministers, raising compliance costs for sponsors and public bodies, and creating new legal flashpoints around data, age assessment science, and international human‑rights obligations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Part 1 requires immigration statutes and related rules to be interpreted 'disregarding' the Human Rights Act 1998 and removes or amends specific provisions in existing immigration statutes. The measure also says that where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure, only a Minister may decide whether the UK will comply and courts, tribunals and immigration officers must not have regard to that measure.
Practically, the clause replaces judicially enforceable human‑rights considerations in immigration decision‑making with ministerial and statutory controls.
Part 2 raises the baseline for applying for ILR to ten years for named routes (several skilled and highly skilled visas, certain entrepreneur/investor categories, UK Ancestry, and partners of British citizens). It creates express grounds for revoking ILR: classification as a 'foreign criminal', having been granted ILR after the Act but not meeting the new eligibility rules, receipt of defined "social protection" from central or local government, or having annual income under £38,700 for six months in aggregate.
The Bill limits the income measure to earnings lawfully reported to HMRC and permits the Secretary of State to adjust thresholds and other technical rules by immigration rules.Part 3 gives the Secretary of State six months to lay regulations setting an annual cap on the total number of entrants via non‑visitor visa routes (a draft SI implementing the overall cap must be approved by both Houses). The Secretary may set per‑route caps and must revoke any visas issued in excess of the statutory total.
The Bill also compels visa grants to be conditional on a promise that the applicant and dependents will not apply for prescribed forms of social protection and that the applicant maintains the income threshold; breach renders a visa void. For partner routes it requires a separate cap, consultation with devolved and local authorities before initial regulations, a 7% per‑country limit, and specific substantive eligibility tests (two‑year marriage/civil partnership, sponsor income of at least £38,700, minimum ages and a ban on first‑cousin applications).Part 4 and related amendments tighten removal powers for foreign national offenders by altering statutory definitions and by aligning the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the UK Borders Act 2007 with the Bill's HRA disapplication.
It also removes the mental‑state word “knowingly” from a key immigration offence provision, expanding the scope of liability. Part 5 amends the Data Protection Act 2018 and Schedule 2 to state that UK GDPR provisions do not apply to persons who entered the UK illegally or who are 'foreign criminals' as defined in statute.
Part 6 requires the Secretary of State to lay regulations specifying which scientific methods may be used for immigration age assessments and to make regulations about the consequences of refusing to consent to those methods. The Bill uses secondary legislation powers widely and distinguishes between instruments subject to affirmative approval (the overall visa cap) and those subject to annulment by either House.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Bill directs that immigration statutes must be read 'disregarding' the Human Rights Act 1998 and prevents courts, tribunals and immigration officers from having regard to ECtHR interim measures—leaving compliance with such measures to a Minister's discretion.
It makes ten years the minimum qualifying period for ILR for named skilled, investor/entrepreneur and partner routes and bars people who do not meet those route‑based criteria from applying even after ten years' residence.
ILR can be revoked (or refused) if the person is a 'foreign criminal', has received 'social protection' from central or local government, or has an annual income below £38,700 for six months in aggregate; that income measure applies only to earnings reported to HMRC and will be uprated by immigration rules.
Within six months the Secretary of State must propose regulations setting a total annual cap on non‑visitor visa entries (a draft instrument requires affirmative approval by both Houses); visas issued over the cap must be revoked.
The Bill inserts a Schedule‑level exemption into the Data Protection Act 2018 so GDPR provisions 'do not apply' to persons who entered illegally or to defined foreign criminals, limiting controllers' GDPR obligations in those cases.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Disapply the Human Rights Act for immigration law
This part directs that legislation relating to immigration, deportation and asylum must be read and given effect to without regard to the Human Rights Act 1998. It also amends and omits specified provisions in existing immigration statutes and says ECtHR interim measures are for Ministers alone to accept or reject; courts and officers must not consider them. That combination removes a line of judicial review grounded in the HRA and concentrates decisions about international obligations and interim relief in the political executive.
Ten‑year ILR baseline and new revocation grounds
This part sets a 10‑year qualifying period for ILR but limits who can use that route to enumerated visa classes and partners of British citizens; other long‑residence migrants are excluded. It creates explicit revocation or ineligibility triggers—foreign criminality, benefit receipt defined against Treasury PESAs, and sustained income under £38,700—while carving out specified resettlement cohorts (Ukraine, Afghan schemes, and BNO visa holders). The income test is confined to HMRC‑reported earnings and may be uprated or varied by immigration rules, giving the Secretary of State rule‑making flexibility on operational detail.
Visa caps, conditional grants and partner‑route limits
The Secretary of State must draft regulations within six months setting an overall non‑visitor visa cap (a draft SI needs affirmative approval by both Houses) and may also set per‑route caps. The Bill makes any visa issued above the statutory total void and requires revocation. It forces visa grants to be conditional on commitments not to seek prescribed 'social protection' and on maintaining the income threshold; breaches void the visa. For partner visas it creates a separate quota, requires pre‑regulation consultation with devolved and local authorities (unless urgent), caps entries from any one country at 7% of the partner quota, and prescribes substantive eligibility tests including a two‑year marriage requirement, sponsor income and an explicit prohibition on first‑cousin admissions.
Tougher rules on foreign national offenders and deportation
The Bill tightens the statutory definition of foreign criminals in the UK Borders Act 2007 and amends the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to exclude the HRA in its operation, widening the legal basis for deportation and removal. It removes the word 'knowingly' from a key offence in the Immigration Act 1971, lowering the mental‑state threshold and broadening prosecutorial reach. These changes reduce litigation levers for affected non‑citizens and streamline removal pathways, but they also increase the stakes of initial criminal‑justice and immigration decisions.
Data‑protection carve‑outs for illegal entrants and foreign criminals
Amendments to the Data Protection Act 2018 add a Schedule provision stating that GDPR provisions 'do not apply' where a data subject entered the UK illegally or is a foreign criminal. The Bill defines 'entered illegally' by lack of leave to enter or entry obtained by deception, and cross‑references the foreign‑criminal definition. That change narrows controllers' GDPR duties (rights of access, erasure, certain processing limits) in those cases and could affect data sharing between the Home Office, law‑enforcement and third parties.
Compulsory regulations on scientific age assessments
The Secretary of State must lay regulations specifying which scientific methods may be used for age assessments and must also make provision about the legal consequences of refusing consent to those methods. By putting scientific techniques on a statutory footing the Bill aims to standardise practice, but it delegates choices about acceptable methods and consent consequences to secondary legislation, where technical, ethical and evidential standards will determine practical impact.
Delegated powers, parliamentary scrutiny and commencement
The Bill relies heavily on secondary legislation: immigration rules for eligibility thresholds, statutory instruments to set caps and to specify age‑assessment methods, and regulations for consequential and transitional provisions. It distinguishes between instruments requiring affirmative approval (the overall visa cap SI) and those that are negative/annulment instruments, concentrating a mixture of high‑impact policy changes into delegated forms that vary in parliamentary oversight.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Home Office / Secretary of State — gains expanded statutory tools (HRA disapplication, visa caps, revocation grounds) and greater discretion to set and adjust numerical limits and operational thresholds by secondary legislation.
- Central government finances and certain local authorities — the Bill targets entitlement to 'social protection' as a ground of ineligibility or revocation, which could reduce future claimant liabilities for some benefits and housing costs if effectively enforced.
- Agencies charged with removals and criminal justice partners — clearer statutory grounds for deportation and a lower mental‑state threshold for certain offences may accelerate removal processes and reduce litigation risk around detention and deportation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Migrants and family members on lower or fluctuating incomes — skilled workers who fall temporarily below the £38,700 threshold, and partners unable to meet the two‑year marriage, age and sponsor‑income tests, face new barriers to settlement and risks of revocation.
- Employers that sponsor mid‑level skilled migrants — firms that rely on workers paid below the threshold may face recruitment constraints, higher compliance costs and uncertainty from caps or retrospective visa revocations.
- Local authorities and social‑care providers — despite the Bill seeking to disincentivise benefit claims, councils will likely carry practical burdens (age assessments, family and homelessness cases, and dealing with voided-status individuals) and legal challenges.
- Data controllers and third‑party organisations — the GDPR carve‑out raises complex operational questions about lawful processing, retention and sharing of personal data for people classed as illegal entrants or foreign criminals, and may increase litigation risk over misuse or over‑broad processing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between maximising ministerial and fiscal control over immigration (through HRA disapplication, caps, income tests and data carve‑outs) and protecting individual legal rights, international obligations and administrative feasibility; the Bill prioritises swift, numerically controlled policy levers at the cost of legal certainty, human‑rights safeguards and complex operational burdens on public bodies.
The Bill bundles sweeping policy choices into statutory and delegated instruments in ways that create several implementation headaches. Disapplying the HRA for immigration matters collides with the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and will generate immediate litigation over compatibility and the proper scope of ‘disregarding’ the HRA, particularly where deportation engages Article 3 (risk of torture or inhuman treatment).
Giving Ministers sole discretion over ECtHR interim measures substitutes executive judgment for judicial risk‑management and raises separation‑of‑powers and treaty‑compliance questions.
Operationally, the Bill relies on contested definitions (for example, 'social protection' drawn from Treasury PESAs) and on HMRC‑reported earnings as the only measured income. That excludes informal or cash‑in‑hand earnings and creates incentives for under‑the‑radar work or complex eligibility disputes.
Revoking ILR retroactively for people who were lawfully granted status could produce legal limbo, deportation challenges and human‑rights claims under international law. The GDPR carve‑out creates practical friction: data controllers will lack clear standards for processing migrants' information in borderline cases, hampering safeguarding, benefits verification and local‑authority duties.
Finally, mandating 'scientific' age assessments and regulating consent raises evidential, ethical and accuracy concerns — scientific techniques (radiography, dental scans, etc.) have known margins of error and significant medical and consent‑related implications.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.