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.

Death of Ann Widdecombe

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman has shared with the House some lovely memories of his dear friend. As he was making his contribution, I thought I would follow what he said about Counter Terrorism Policing, and place on the record my gratitude for our counter-terrorism police across the country. We have a world-leading counter-terror policing operation in this country. We are very lucky to have them, and they do a great job keeping all of us safe. I know I speak on behalf of the whole House when I place those remarks on the record.

The right hon. Gentleman is right, and many Members have made the point today about the unaccountability of social media platforms for their algorithms and for the type of content they host on their platforms. The Government have already done some work in this area, but I am sure we will have to go further. As I have committed before, I will make sure the House is updated in due course.

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

I speak on behalf of my party, Plaid Cymru. I think all of us will remember where we were when we heard the news that once again somebody—in this case, a former Member of Parliament—who lives the same lives as ourselves had died in such a hideous, shocking way with the murder. Of course, the work of the police and the justice system that must now come first and foremost.

I was with North Wales police in training many of their officers on Operation Bridger only on Friday afternoon, just before this happened. I do commend the police, but also I think we really need to know how difficult it is for them, because Operation Bridger has to go down to the frontline and those on the frontline need to be alert to that. I must also mention the importance of Operation Ford for Senedd Members in Wales and other national Parliaments elsewhere, and also for councillors.

The ability of elected representatives—all of us—to do our job by being available to meet constituents and speak directly to them is precious, and we need to be alert to keeping that. The trust that goes with being able to meet people is precious, so does the Home Secretary agree that we are not just talking about protection for ourselves for this year or for a few years to come, but that what we are endeavouring to do here is safeguard the values of democratic debate over violence?

Police Federation

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Police Federation.

I am pleased to speak under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will start by briefly sharing some of my experiences as a police officer, so brace yourselves because some of it is not very nice. In my time in policing, I was the first to arrive at a triple homicide scene. It was a mother who had killed her own three children. I saw people take their last breaths on Earth at road accidents; I pulled a suicidal man down from a road bridge; I knocked on people’s doors to tell them that their loved ones had passed away; and I was called to mentally ill people self-harming down to the bone with a razor. I was spat at by the people I was arresting and, of course, subject to the most disgusting verbal abuse from the people I was looking after in custody inside the police station. That is the reality of policing. If only it were just about catching criminals, but it never has been and it never will be.

I mention those incidents not because my experience was particularly notable; it was precisely the opposite. That is the reality of being a frontline police officer. They see all of that; in one minute they have to be physically tough in the face of aggression, and in the next they have to be emotionally sensitive with a victim of serious crime. That is what our police officers do day in, day out, working earlies, lates and nights on the public’s behalf. We owe them so much for doing the essential work that most people would not have the guts to even consider.

Being a police officer is mostly a thankless job. They get to the end of a long shift doing their bit for society and they feel that the politicians, the media and the courts do not back them up. Perhaps that is an issue for another day, but in the meantime, we have to ask who is looking out for the interests of our police officers. That brings me to the Police Federation.

The Police Act 1919 stated that, given their unique role in society, police officers could not join an ordinary trade union or take strike action. To be clear, I am not seeking to question that today. However, in recognising the need for representation, that legislation established one staff association to represent police officers: the Police Federation. That was reaffirmed in the Police Act 1996. I want to pay tribute to the many hard-working federation representatives over the decades, including those serving in forces across the country today, for the work they have done representing their local members. I do not diminish their work in supporting individual police officers in their time of need, but I am afraid that the national leadership of the Police Federation is rotten. It is not right that 140,000 frontline officers have to pay their subscriptions and put up with that because it is the only staff association that they are legally allowed to join.

Over the last two years, the unelected chief executive of the Police Federation has paid himself £1.4 million in salary and bonuses. That is paid through the monthly subscriptions from police officers’ wages. That fact alone is shocking, but it is the culmination of years of failure. Most recently, senior members of the federation who asked questions about its governance were purged from the organisation. Elected representatives who reflected the legitimate concerns of frontline police officers on policing issues were also purged. How can there ever be reform if those who ask questions and could have helped build a better federation are seen as the problem?

This issue goes back even further. There was the disastrous handling of the changes to police pensions, where it was found that the federation misled its own members, failed to communicate with them, and victimised officers who were forced to take action on their own. Cultural change was promised after the scathing Normington review of 2014, but a decade later things were still so bad that another report, the Bousted review, which was completed just last year, described

“an arrogant and inward-looking culture born of a centralist mindset and”—

crucially—

“a feeling that the interests and views of rank-and-file members do not matter.”

If so, what is the federation really for?

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

I am very interested in hearing the hon. Member’s evident experience. I would like to put on record that I am the chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. It is extremely important that police officers have representation. In only the last three years, we have heard about tragic cases of suicides and hundreds of attempted suicides. It is also evident that the governance of the Police Federation has to be adapted and improved immensely.

[Jonathan Hinder]

I would not dispute that one jot. The present national leadership say that

“a transformed Federation is the best way to deliver effective representation”

but I am afraid that officers have heard it all before. I dare say they will hear it again unless radical action is taken. It is because of this repeated systemic and cultural failure that I have come to the conclusion that only if police officers are given the freedom to establish and join an alternative will they get the representation they need and deserve.

The Police Federation has very few advocates within policing. I thank the many officers who have contacted me to say how pleased they are to see this campaign getting attention, with many confirming that only the monopoly and fear of being without representation when they really need it keeps them subscribing.

Immigration Policy

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. With regard to family returns, I hear from Conservative Members that they would rather pay a family with no prospect of staying in the country an average of £158,000 to stay in a hotel, rather than pay that £40,000. There are 150 families in the pilot; if we were to be successful with all of them, that would save the British taxpayer £20 million. I think we would be doing right by them in doing so.

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

Yesterday we marked International Women’s Day with the statistic that women hold fewer than two thirds of the rights enjoyed by men globally. Afghan women are already barred from secondary and higher education, and they now face further violence and discrimination under the Taliban’s new criminal regulations. What is the Secretary of State doing? She is stopping them from applying to study at our universities. Does the Minister not agree that the aim of ending violence against women and girls extends beyond borders, and that his Government have a moral duty to help women fulfil their potential in safety?

[Alex Norris]

I totally agree, which is why we have offered sanctuary to over 37,000 Afghans via resettlement schemes since 2021, as well as those who have come via the asylum system. I do not think that the point of difference between the right hon. Lady and me is about the substance; it is about whether those sorts of routes to provide sanctuary to people who want to study and have their protection needs met should be run by universities on our behalf, without the scrutiny of Parliament, or by the Government themselves. I cannot agree with her on that.

Police Reform White Paper

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that accountability at both national and local level is critical to these reforms. Once the review has reported on what the shape of those new regional forces should be, we will be able to say more on the exact relationship between areas where there is a crossover of mayoralties, as well as for local policing and crime boards. It is absolutely the intention that, at every level, there will be obvious accountability for local responsiveness and performance. That goes right up to the national level, where the Home Secretary will have new powers going forward.

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

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—specifically, my role as the co-chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group.

The White Paper recognises that changes to policing governance and crime prevention in Wales will have to reflect the existence of more than a quarter of a century of devolution. Meanwhile, three independent commissions have recommended that justice and policing be devolved to Wales. Considering that around 56% of our police funding in Wales already comes from devolved sources, does the Home Secretary not agree that this package of radical changes is exactly the right time for the devolution of policing to Wales?

[Shabana Mahmood]

No, I do not.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that guarantee. For too long women have had to take all of the responsibility in this area, and frankly they have done most of the labour for free—whether they are victims or not. It is important to include men, because the labour needs to be shared. We also cannot arrest our way out of a volume crime like this, which is growing among younger people. We have to look at what interventions we are putting in place for men and boys to make sure that they do not suffer from this as well—not just as victims but as perpetrators, because it is a suffering life to be a perpetrator.

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

I welcome the advance notice of the publication of the strategy on Thursday, after months of delay, and I welcome the Minister’s candour, but this chronic uncertainty has undermined services already struggling with chronic underfunding. Some, such as Chwarae Teg, have already closed due to a perfect storm of financial challenges. Can the Minister commit to long-term funding for organisations such as Welsh Women’s Aid, so that the promise to halve violence against women and girls can be commissioned effectively in the devolved environment of Wales?

[Jess Phillips]

I cannot say which organisations will get the funding, but I can absolutely commit to there being long-term funding.

Asylum Policy

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Stoking fear and division through the kind of performative cruelty trailed in the media this weekend has consequences. We saw that in Caerphilly last month in that where Reform UK spread information, Ukrainians spoke of intimidation. When the Home Secretary speaks of unity, surely the lesson from Caerphilly is that imitating Reform does not create unity and does not win trust, but that standing firm on values does.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sorry, but that is just unserious from the right hon. Lady. I am sorry to find that the Reform party is living rent free in so many people’s heads, but I can assure hon. Members that it is living nowhere near mine.

These policy proposals are designed to fix what we all know to be true, which is that we have a broken system that is driving division across our country. I see that in my own constituency, and I hope the right hon. Lady is not suggesting otherwise. I have seen that with my own eyes and it is my own experience in my own constituency, where over 70% of people are not white and most of them have a migration story just like my own. These are matters of great interest across our country—across every type of community in our country—and it is incumbent on any Government who want to make sure we can run a decent system and not fuel division in our country to pursue the sorts of reforms that we are talking about. They are underpinned by what I would have hoped were values her party could have signed up to as well—that is, fairness and contribution.

Knife Crime

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lee Anderson]

Of course, we welcome any sort of policy in the capital city and Ashfield that reduces knife crime, so I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

We are all legislators, and if we cannot reduce knife crime and save lives, there is not much point in us being in this place. Some will say that we are doing enough.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate, because it is immensely important. Of course, we sympathise with the families who have had these awful experiences. As he rightly says, we have to look at what we, as legislators, can do to make a difference. I point to two instances in Wales, the Dyfed-Powys and the North Wales police, where the rates are so much lower: 30 per 100,000 of population in Dyfed and Powys, where the police and crime commissioner is Plaid Cymru’s Dafydd Llywelyn; and 49 per 100,000 in north Wales. Both forces have maintained school officers who talk face to face with children and young people about the reality of crime, such as knife crime, and violence. It is to be hoped that that makes something of a real difference.

[Lee Anderson]

Education can play an important part in the reduction of knife crime, and deterrence should too. Some will say that we do enough and that action is being taken, such as the use of metal detectors or knife arches, which are being installed in schools and colleges, but how did we get to the point where knife arches are being installed in the buildings where we send our children to learn how to read and write?

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

On the measures on cumulative impact, yes, they do apply to both static protest and marches. That is why they are measures aimed at both sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act. As I said earlier in my statement, I am very clear that the online space is not going to be a free space for antisemitism, which presents itself both on the left and the right and everything in between of the political spectrum. I will discuss these matters with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

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

I echo comments across the House and extend Plaid Cymru’s sympathies to the families of everyone affected. We as MPs and other commentators in the public sphere need to be vigilant and alert to the potential consequences of inflammatory language as we recall what happened on 2 October. I thank the Antisemitism Policy Trust for its work showing how utterly unacceptable it is that antisemitic tropes place Jewish people in peril. Does the Home Secretary agree that with free speech, which we rightly treasure, comes responsibility?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Yes, I do. That is why I described the protests in the immediate aftermath of the attacks as un-British. We have our rights and we can choose when to use them. We can choose whether we wish to cause pain to people or not. I wish that those individuals who were involved in the protests in the immediate aftermath had chosen to show a sense of British generosity of spirit, rather than go on those marches that day.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I understand why my hon. Friend has asked me that question. I hope that he will understand that he is asking me about matters for which I do not have ministerial responsibility. He will also understand that the Government receive a range of legal advice across a range of different Departments. The purpose of this particular response today is to look at the issue of proscription and the recent protest activity. I can give him and the House an absolute assurance that this is a Government who believe in upholding the law. This is a Government who believe in the importance of international law, and we will work with our allies and partners to ensure that international law and domestic law are upheld.

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

On this day 89 years ago, three founding members of Plaid Cymru handed themselves in after burning the RAF bombing school at Penyberth. Today, they and all their supporters would likely be branded terrorists for non-violent direct action. Lumping Palestine Action with Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement was calculated, cynical and disproportionate. It has led to the arrest of hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters. What does the Minister think will be the consequences now that his Government look more interested in silencing protest than maintaining policing by consent?

[Dan Jarvis]

I struggle to follow the logic of the right hon. Lady’s question, given that tens of thousands of people were absolutely able to express their democratic right to protest over the course of this weekend. I am sure she would have seen that. I hope she will understand that this Government have not done anything that interferes with anybody’s lawful right to express their concern about an issue. Just to pick up on one other point that she made, let me give her an absolute assurance that we did not group the three proscribed organisations together for the reasons she—[Interruption.] She is completely mistaken. She has asked me a question, and she might want to listen to the answer. There were two reasons why that decision was taken. Frankly, the first is that this is a Government with a busy legislative agenda, and we need to be efficient with precious parliamentary time. The second and perhaps more important reason is that this Government do not look at the ideological origin of the threat: we will do what we need to do to keep the public safe, regardless of where the threat comes from. That is the right approach, it is even-handed, and it was on that basis that we proceeded.