Immigration and Asylum Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

As my hon. and learned Friend will know, 50% of a 150,000 backlog is still 75,000 cases. He will also know that the multiple appeals made to delay and frustrate legitimate removal from the country are a real problem in the system. That is why our proposals include a single appeal route. With the new authority, we are seeking to change the totality of the behaviours that are designed to frustrate lawful, legitimate removal from this country.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will make more progress and I will come back to the right hon. Lady.

As anyone who knows these tribunals can attest, most immigration and asylum appeals turn on the facts. That requires careful, impartial and well-trained decision makers. Our adjudicators will be paid professionals who are trained to make robust, defensible decisions. Where specific legal expertise is required, we will have on hand a smaller cohort of legally trained adjudicators, who must have been a barrister or solicitor or have similar legal experience. Decisions taken in the new authority will be appealable to the upper tribunal, which will continue to sit before a judge. As today, the appeals will be only on a point of law; they will not be an opportunity to rehear full cases.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

On the independent immigration appeals authority, I wonder whether hon. Members will be concerned, given the political nature of the decisions made here, that the Home Secretary’s proposals involve a blurring of the line between the Executive and the judiciary.

[Shabana Mahmood]

As the right hon. Lady will see, the authority will be fully independent, and the impartiality of this new authority is vital. As clause 1 makes clear, its decisions will be entirely independent of Government, with every Minister of the Crown compelled to uphold the independence of the authority. As is often the case with establishing a new body, the first chief executive and chief appeals officer will be appointed by the Home Secretary, but appointments thereafter will be made by the chair of the authority, as set out in clause 2. These will be made on merit and on the basis of fair and open competition.

The authority’s operations and performance will also be subject to external scrutiny, and it will be placed under the remit of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

There are several reasons why my Plaid Cymru colleagues, along with hon. Members from the Scottish National party, the Greens and others, have tabled a reasoned amendment to oppose this Bill. The Bill does not fix the problems in the UK asylum system; nor does it deliver the controlled and compassionate system we need. It sees political heavy-handedness creeping into an area where there should be clear division between the Executive and the rightful domain of the judiciary, with the creation of the independent immigration appeals authority. It also sees the creation of a non-judicial body for immigration appeals, as well as high-handed use of Henry VIII powers in clause 16, whereby the IIAA replaces any reference to tribunals in previous law, including devolved legislation.

The Bill avoids the roots of real problems while creating others, and the level of detail in some of its measures is scant at best. There is little information on how the core protection status provision will work, or on the requirements for asylum support contributions. I understand that more detail will be provided elsewhere, but when we have had announcement after announcement —often directly to the press rather than here in this House—how can the Government expect the public to keep track of which proposals are in motion as we all endlessly wait for further details? This creates complexity and confusion, which does nothing to address the dangerous narratives about people fleeing war and persecution who are genuinely seeking safety through asylum. All the while, people’s rights under the international order, including the rights of innocent children, are further undermined. Is this truly what Labour wants as its legacy? Apparently the Prime Minister-in-waiting is happy with this approach.

Last month, Plaid Cymru colleagues in the Senedd stood in defence of the nation of sanctuary scheme in Wales, when all it does is help people already living there to become a part of our communities. That is the reality of where we really are. This is the performative nature of politics and how it plays out in our communities. In the age of misinformation, surely it is the UK Government’s duty not to harm our communities further by brushing over the real problems in our asylum system. Such problems include the Home Office’s poor initial decision making, limited safe routes, and further demonising individuals, all while shifting away from long-held principles of needs-based and rights-based protection. With this in mind, and given the concerns we have heard today from both sides of this House about the detail and the principles of this legislation, I call on the Home Secretary to consider the arguments in the reasoned amendment tabled by the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru. The Bill as it stands should not proceed.