Immigration and Asylum Bill

Sarah Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will focus in the short time that I have on part 1 of the Bill on immigration appeals reform and specifically on whether it will cut the appeals backlog.

I start by making the point that Home Office decision making is a significant driver of appeal numbers. The Home Office’s internal quality checks show an error rate of around 48% in the most recently published figures, and around 45% of Home Office refusals were overturned on appeal, according to MOJ statistics for the year ending March 2025. It is important to make the point that if those decisions were right first time, there would be substantially less pressure on the appeals system.

I fundamentally agree with the Government that the asylum appeal backlog must be addressed urgently. They were right to enact a six-month target for asylum appeals in accommodated cases in section 49 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. Since then, around 70 first-tier tribunal judges have been recruited. My first question for the Minister is this: given the increase in FTT numbers, the increase in sitting days and the impact of section 49 and other measures, where can we find the Ministry of Justice and Home Office assessment that explains why the FTT is unable to clear the backlog? Without that kind of assessment, and in particular an estimate of how much it will cost, it is impossible to understand why these far-reaching reforms are better than improving the existing system.

My second question is, why are the Government bringing forward a new model for appeals, when the Home Office’s impact assessment says that it will have an “uncertain” effect on the appeal backlog, with no evidence that the appeal reforms will actually work?

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is incredibly important that there is certainty that the reforms we are making will create a better system, rather than risk making things worse?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree. Another hon. Member referred to the importance of evidence-based policymaking. When I look at the impact assessment, it is not clear to me that the case has been made. I think it fair to say that the only evidential basis for these reforms is a hope that they will be better than the current system, but that, I suggest, is not a basis on which to abolish an arm of the judiciary of this country and undertake major structural changes to a key part of our asylum system.

There is evidence to suggest that a lay adjudicator system will not work. Last week the Justice Committee heard evidence that Denmark tried to bring in lay adjudicators about 15 years ago, but, as non-lawyers, they struggled to apply the law to the facts. They made numerous errors and ended up being either too sympathetic or too harsh, and they were got rid of. Danish asylum appeals are now heard by a judge, a lawyer and a civil servant. As another Member pointed out, Australia tried the same system some years ago, but it too was got rid of because it increased the backlog.

That brings me to my third question to the Minister: what assessment has been made of the impact of this new system on the upper tribunal? I believe that the new appeals body will simply shift the backlog, or a major part of it, from the first-tier tribunal to the upper tribunal, because lay judges will make more legal errors that will have to be corrected on appeal to the upper tribunal. I say that on the basis of 18 years of full-time practice in the courts and tribunals of this country, when I appealed against decisions made by both lay decision makers and judges. However, that is not just my view but the view of witnesses who came before the Justice Committee last week, including a former judge of the upper tribunal itself.

Let me add that the way in which the Bill has been sold—for example, its purpose is said to be to crack down on abuse of appeals—is incorrect, given that about half those appeals are allowed. The idea that all unsuccessful appeals are abusive, as was suggested at the outset of the debate, is wrong. A case that was clearly unfounded would not go to appeal. We already have a filter to get rid of weak cases before they start.

To end, I quickly point out that in respect of every element of the reforms, the Home Office’s own impact assessment says that the effects are uncertain. There is, I suggest, scant evidential basis for believing that these measures will actually work.