Research and analysis

RPC opinion: impact of Immigration and Asylum Bill

Published 14 August 2026

Lead department: Home Office

Summary of proposal: immigration, asylum and modern slavery measures.

This opinion focuses on the measures identified in the IA as having business impacts:

• measure 11, public interest test
• measure 16, prevention of modern slavery (transparency in supply chains)

Submission type: impact assessment (IA) – submitted 30 June 2026

Legislation type: primary

RPC reference: RPC-HO-26177-IA-(1)

Date of issue: 11 August 2026

RPC opinion rating

Not fit for purpose:

• the impact assessment explains the rationale for measures 11 public interest test and 16 prevention of modern slavery (transparency in supply chains), the only regulatory measures, and identifies the intended policy objectives
• the IA does not provide a sufficient assessment of options, or adequately justify the preferred way forward
• for measure 11, the IA does not demonstrate that credible alternative approaches to the proposed Article 8 reforms were considered, including non regulatory or narrower legislative approaches
• the IA identifies familiarisation costs for legal sector businesses but does not provide a proportionate estimate of those costs
• for measure 16, the IA does not explain adequately whether alternative reporting, registry, implementation or enforcement approaches were considered.
• while the IA monetises familiarisation and administrative costs, it does not provide sufficient evidence to support the assumptions or explain adequately why the preferred approach was selected over alternatives
• the IA must be improved by presenting the long list development process, and setting out the evidence behind the familiarisation assumptions

RPC opinion summary

Rationale: Green

The assessment explains the policy purposes of the measures, and links them to the wider objectives of the bill. The objectives should be improved by being made more measurable and time-specific.

Identification of options: Red

The impact assessment (IA) does not provide a sufficient options assessment. The department states that no longlist was developed because the bill forms part of a published policy commitment. This is insufficient justification for omitting an options assessment.

The IA does not demonstrate how credible options were identified and narrowed to a shortlist using critical success factors. The small and micro business assessment is sufficient: measure 16 applies to businesses with turnover of £36 million or more, while measure 11 is expected to have a small familiarisation impact on legal sector businesses.

Justification for preferred way forward: Red

The IA does not justify the preferred way forward. For measure 11, the assessment identifies familiarisation costs for legal sector businesses but does not provide a proportionate estimate using transparent assumptions on affected firms, familiarisation time and wage costs.

For measure 16, the IA monetises familiarisation and registry upload costs, but does not explain how the underlying assumptions were derived. The IA does not explain sufficiently why the preferred approach was selected over alternative implementation or enforcement designs.

Regulatory scorecard: Weak

Little of the appraisal is quantified and most impacts are recorded as uncertain. The IA should quantify the measure 11 familiarisation costs, estimate the net present social value of measures involving public expenditure and households, draw out the administrative impacts on business, and consider any wider labour-supply and growth impacts.

Monitoring and evaluation: Satisfactory

The IA sets out a proportionate commitment to review the impacts of the legislation and identifies relevant data sources. It would be improved by setting out, for each measure, the metrics to demonstrate progress against the objectives, the relevant data sources and timing, the methodology to determine causal impact, and how unintended consequences will be identified.

Summary of proposal

The Immigration and Asylum Bill contains immigration, asylum and modern slavery measures. This opinion considers the 2 measures identified in the IA as having direct business impacts: pillar 3, measure 11, public interest test; and pillar 4, measure 16, prevention of modern slavery (transparency in supply chains).

Measure 11 would reform the public interest test in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Measure 16 would amend the modern slavery transparency in supply chains framework, including through changes associated with reporting and use of a central registry. The IA states that most measures in the bill are not expected to have business impacts.

Rationale

Problem under consideration

The IA provides a sufficient explanation of the problems that measures 11 and 16 seek to address. For measure 11, the department explains that the proposal forms part of wider Article 8 reform and concerns the public interest test. The problem is that the existing statutory framework does not reflect the government’s intended approach to balancing Article 8 rights with the public interest in immigration and asylum decision making. The IA links the measure to the wider objective of reforming the immigration system.

For measure 16, the IA explains that the measure relates to modern slavery transparency in supply chains and is intended to improve reporting practices. The problem is that current reporting arrangements do not provide the level of transparency, consistency or compliance that the department considers necessary to support effective scrutiny of organisations’ modern slavery statements. The IA identifies the relevant business population as organisations with turnover of £36 million or more.

Argument for intervention

Measure 11 requires primary legislation because it changes the statutory framework relevant to Article 8 decision-making. Measure 16 similarly concerns changes to statutory reporting requirements under the modern slavery transparency in supply chains framework. This supports the case that legislation is an appropriate route for delivering the intended changes.

Objectives and theory of change

The IA sets out the broad objectives of the bill and the policy intent behind the relevant pillars. This is sufficient to understand the intended direction of the measures. However, the objectives are not currently SMART.

For each measure the IA should set out specific, measurable and time-bound objectives — for measure 11, what change in Article 8 decision-making outcomes is sought and over what period; for measure 16, what improvement in reporting compliance and registry usage is targeted and by when. Without this, it will be difficult to assess whether the measures have achieved their intended effects.

The IA would benefit from a theory of change for each measure. For measure 11, this should explain how changes to the public interest test are expected to affect decision-making and legal practice. For measure 16, this should explain how changes to reporting and registry arrangements are expected to improve transparency and compliance.

Identification of options

Identification of long-list options

A prior policy commitment does not remove the requirement to longlist. Even where the broad solution was settled, other dimensions — scope, delivery, implementation and funding — remained open, and the IA itself records live design choices (for example the £36 million threshold and a recovery mechanism are still under development). The Better Regulation Framework requires the rationale and evidence for discarded choices to be recorded.

Consideration of alternative options to regulation

For measure 11, the IA does not assess whether non-regulatory approaches such as guidance, or narrower legislative reforms, could meet the policy objectives while reducing familiarisation burdens. For measure 16, the IA does not explain whether alternative reporting, registry, implementation or enforcement approaches were considered.

Justification for short-listed options

The IA does not explain how options were discounted or shortlisted. The assessment therefore does not provide a clear line of sight between the problem identified, the options considered and the eventual preferred approach. This is particularly important given that the department has identified 2 measures with direct business impacts and therefore needs to demonstrate why those chosen approaches are preferable to credible alternatives.

The assessment must be improved by using critical success factors to show why options were discounted, and why the short-listed options were considered most likely to meet the policy objectives. The IA does not need to provide extensive appraisal of every option, given the expected scale of the direct impacts from measures 11 and 16. Where the shortlist is limited to the do-nothing option and the preferred approach, the department should explain why other credible options were not suitable for further appraisal.

Small and micro business assessment

The assessment is sufficient. For measure 16, the IA states that the policy will affect businesses with turnover of £36 million or more, meaning that small and micro businesses are not expected to be directly in scope. For measure 11, the IA states that there will be familiarisation costs across the legal sector and that these will have a small impact on small and medium-sized businesses.

Justification for preferred way forward

Identifying impacts and scale

The IA identifies familiarisation costs for legal sector businesses but does not quantify them, stating that familiarisation time is unknown. This cost can and should be estimated using the standard approach — hours of familiarisation multiplied by the median hourly wage for legal professionals plus on-costs — as the IA already applies to familiarisation elsewhere.

The department should provide a proportionate estimate on this basis, setting out how the affected population was derived and how far existing familiarity with the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 reduces the incremental burden.

The IA monetises business costs associated with familiarisation and uploading documents to a central registry, using assumptions of one hour per firm in the first year, reducing to 30 minutes afterwards. The IA does not explain how these estimates were derived. The department should provide evidence to support these assumptions — for example, by reference to other initiatives imposing similar requirements — and set out the affected business population, time assumptions, wage assumptions and calculation steps.

Counterfactual and baseline

For measure 11, the counterfactual is that the current Article 8 public interest test would continue to apply without the legislative changes proposed in the bill. For measure 16, the counterfactual is that the existing modern slavery transparency in supply chains framework would continue without the proposed changes to reporting practices and registry requirements. This is a reasonable baseline against which to assess the preferred approaches.

Evidence and data

For measure 11, the IA identifies familiarisation requirements for private sector legal firms, but does not set out the source and reasoning for the affected population and familiarisation activity, or whether these rest on internal analysis, stakeholder knowledge, administrative data or professional judgement.

For measure 16, the IA provides monetised estimates but does not adequately explain the number of affected organisations, wage assumptions, time assumptions and frequency of ongoing activity.

Uncertainty and risk

The IA recognises uncertainty in the appraisal, particularly around familiarisation assumptions and compliance-related impacts. The IA would be improved by linking uncertainty more clearly to implementation and monitoring. For example, the department could explain whether businesses in scope of measure 16 experience higher or lower administrative burdens than estimated. This would support both the appraisal and the monitoring and evaluation plan.

Selection of the preferred option

The IA does not explain sufficiently why the preferred approaches were selected over credible alternatives. For measure 11, it does not demonstrate why the chosen Article 8 reforms are preferable to other legislative or non-legislative approaches. For measure 16, it does not explain why the preferred reporting and registry design was selected over alternative implementation or enforcement approaches.

The assessment therefore presents the preferred approach rather than justifying it. In addition, while the wider effects of immigration policy fall outside the business-impact assessment, the IA should still consider the indirect impacts of the two regulatory measures — including effects on labour supply, wages and growth, most relevant for measure 11 — rather than limiting the analysis to the fiscal impact.

Regulatory scorecard

Part A

The business-impact estimates are not adequately supported: familiarisation costs for measure 11 are not quantified and the assumptions behind measure 16’s costs are not sufficiently explained. More widely, little of the appraisal is quantified and most impacts are recorded as uncertain. The department should quantify the measure 11 familiarisation costs, and estimate the net present social value of measures involving public expenditure and impacts on households, where proportionate.

The IA could also draw out the estimated administrative impacts on business more clearly within the discussion in section 9. The IA should go beyond the fiscal impact, particularly for measure 11, to reflect any wider labour-supply and growth impacts.

Part B

The measures within scope are not expected to have significant direct effects on competition, innovation, international trade and investment, or natural capital and decarbonisation. For measure 11, the IA could discuss whether there are any implications for the legal services market.

Monitoring and evaluation

The IA sets out a commitment to review the impacts of the legislation. For measure 11, the plan should enable the department to understand whether implementation has been clear to legal practitioners and whether any familiarisation burden was proportionate.

For measure 16, the plan should enable the department to monitor registry usage, reporting compliance and whether the measure improves reporting practices. The plan would be improved by setting out, for each measure, the metrics that will demonstrate progress against the objectives — drawing on the indicators of success already identified — the relevant data sources and when they will be collected, the methodology to determine causal impact, and how enforcement issues and unintended consequences will be identified.