The UK Government’s Immigration and Asylum Bill has been introduced in parliament. It includes proposed changes to how Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is applied in immigration and asylum cases.
These changes involve narrowing the definition of family life, with the Government’s own Impact Assessment describing it as “tighten(ing) the application of Article 8”.
What is Article 8?
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act protects our right to private and family life, home and correspondence.
In everyday life, this can include our relationships, community, physical and mental wellbeing, privacy, and ability to make decisions about our own lives.
Article 8 is not an absolute right. Public bodies can make decisions that interfere with it, but only where they can show this is lawful, legitimate and proportionate.
That safeguard matters. It helps to ensure that decisions affecting people’s lives are properly justified.
What does the Bill do?
The Bill seeks to change how Article 8 is applied in immigration and asylum cases, particularly by narrowing the definition of family life.
Under the Bill, family life would normally be limited to a “core cohabiting family”. This means those who live together, including spouses, partners, parents and children under 18.
Other family relationships would have to meet a more restrictive test to be recognised as family for Article 8 purposes. For example, family members who do not live together would need to show a dependency beyond normal emotional ties.
The Bill sets out factors that would not, on their own, usually be enough to show this kind of dependency. These include financial dependence, emotional support, or concern for a relative living in a country affected by war. This means that some established family relationships could face a higher bar before they are recognised under Article 8.
The Bill also sets out changes to how public interest is considered in Article 8 cases. In practice, this appears to be about rebalancing the Article 8 test so greater weight is given to immigration control and other public interest factors, over the rights of the individual and their family.
These factors include a person’s immigration status, financial independence, ability to house themselves without state support, and long-term reliance on public services.
Why are we concerned?
We are concerned about what this means for people and families directly affected by immigration and asylum decisions.
Family life does not always fit neatly into one narrow model. People’s real lives can include support, belonging and relationships that don’t always look like the Government’s definition of family life.
These changes to how Article 8 is applied could affect whether people’s relationships, wellbeing and individual circumstances are properly considered in immigration and asylum decisions.
We are also concerned about what this means more broadly.
Human rights protections are universal safeguards. They do not become conditional because an issue is complex or politically contested.
The Human Rights Act exists to place limits on state power. It is not for the state to decide that someone’s rights count less in response to political pressure.
Article 8 is not a loophole. It does not stop public bodies from making difficult decisions. It simply requires those decisions to be lawful, legitimate and proportionate.
This safeguard is how human rights work in practice. Weakening that safeguard in one policy area is not only of serious concern for those directly affected, but also risks weakening the foundational principle that human rights belong to everyone.
Article 8 is not an abstract legal idea. In BIHR’s work, we see it being used in practical, everyday ways: supporting people to return home after hospital, helping families stay together after domestic abuse, challenging overly restrictive care, and ensuring people are heard in decisions about their lives.
This is why Article 8 matters beyond any one policy debate.
The wider principle at threat here affects us all: human rights are universal protections and must remain so.
Update:
On Monday 13th July, the Immigration and Asylum Bill passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons, with 264 MPs voting for and 90 voting against. The Bill will now move to the Committee stage.
BIHR will continue to follow the Bill and share resources about Article 8, the Human Rights Act and the importance of universal human rights protections.