Bar Council warns against Government plan to replace judge-led immigration appeals system as Immigration Bill passes second reading

In a statement and briefing published yesterday, the Bar Council has urged MPs to reconsider Government proposals to replace judge-led first-tier immigration tribunals with a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA) made up of trained lay adjudicators.

The intervention came as the House of Commons debated the second reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill yesterday evening. Under the Bill's proposed reforms, the IIAA would take over the role currently performed by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) and allow adjudicators without formal legal qualifications to determine appeals.

The Bar Council, which represents more than 18,000 barristers in England and Wales, said immigration appeals involving issues such as refugee protection, human rights, and citizenship should continue to be decided by people who are legally qualified.

The Council's briefing stated: "The proposal to remove the requirement for persons deciding appeals to be legally qualified lacks any convincing justification. Appeals ought to be decided by legally qualified persons. The judicial branch of government in its various iterations in courts and tribunals makes use of qualified lawyers to decide cases. That ensures high quality and legally sound dispute resolution. There is no good reason to depart from that approach. The proposed adjudicators ought to be required to hold the same minimum legal qualification as FTT judges. To have adjudicators with no legal qualification deciding appeals increases the risk of material legal error in the decisions made, with attendant practical and cost implications occasioned by the need to rectify or otherwise overcome them."

Further concerns were raised about judicial independence. The Bar Council objected to proposals for the Home Secretary to appoint the first chair of the IIAA and for appointments to be made by a body accountable to the Home Office, rather than through the existing judicial appointments process overseen by the Lord Chancellor. The Bar Council argued that this could create an appearance of bias, given that the Home Secretary is a party to all immigration appeals.

It said: "There is no case for the Home Secretary or body charged with furthering the immigration and asylum system to appoint the persons who decide appeals to which they are a party. Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the need to defend the independence of the judiciary, as well as to the need for the public interest in regard to matters relating to the judiciary or otherwise to the administration of justice to be properly represented in decisions affecting those matters. By such existing means, the public interest is protected in all its variety. There is no cogent case made to take away the Lord Chancellor's role."

Last week, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) published a detailed 35-page briefing ahead of the Bill's second reading. ILPA said it opposed the Immigration and Asylum Bill "in its entirety", arguing that it would fail to tackle the causes of asylum delays while weakening legal safeguards.

On the Bill's proposal to create a new appeals body, ILPA warned: "It dismantles a working tribunal system, with established judicial independence and a functioning route to judicial review and replaces it with an expensive new body that requires no legal qualification of several of its decision-makers and is appointed through a chain that begins with the Secretary of State."

Beyond the appeals system, ILPA warned the Bill would punishes people for seeking sanctuary, make it harder for families to reunite, weaken protections for refugees and trafficking survivors, and leave key elements of the new immigration system to be set out in regulations that have yet to be published. It also challenged the Government's justification for the reforms, saying claims of widespread abuse were supported by little or no evidence and pointing instead to official figures showing high rates of errors in asylum decision-making and limited access to legal aid.

ILPA stated: "The Government has justified the Bill by asserting that people are 'gaming the system, lodging vexatious appeals to frustrate their removal.' ILPA has seen no evidence for this claim. The evidence consistently identifies two primary drivers of delay: the poor quality of initial Home Office decision-making, and the severe shortage of immigration and asylum legal aid provision."

The organisation called for improved access to legal aid, rather than restructuring the appeals system, to reducing delays. It said applicants needed properly funded legal representation to gather evidence and present their cases effectively, warning that unrepresented people often struggled to explain the issues decision-makers needed to consider. While welcoming a 30% increase in legal aid fees introduced in December 2025, ILPA said the uplift applied only to new cases and did not address what it described as an underlying funding deficit of at least 57%. Without further investment, it warned that "advice deserts" would persist, more appellants would go unrepresented, and the Bill would fail to achieve its stated objectives.

In the Bill's second reading in the Commons yesterday, the Home Secretary said the Bill's reforms were needed to restore fairness to the asylum system.

She told MPs: "The Bill focuses on how we reduce the numbers arriving unsafely and illegally in this country and on reducing the burden placed on local communities. It is designed to be fair to genuine refugees and fair to British citizens. It will ensure that asylum claims are fair and fast, with legitimate claimants not stuck in limbo, and ensure the swift removal of those with no right to be here. It will ensure that human rights protections remain robust where they must be, but are also tightened where necessary to eradicate the abuse that has crept into our system. Finally, the measures in the Bill ensure that we support those in their hour of need while making it clear that, although this may be a right, it comes with responsibilities. When the recipients of public support are in a position to contribute to their costs, they should do so."

Responding to criticism that appeals should only be decided by legally qualified judges, Mahmood noted that many important public decisions were already made by non-lawyers, citing magistrates, parole board members, ombudsmen and planning inspectors. "A person does not have to be a judge to have good judgment," she commented.

She continued: "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."

The Bill comfortably passed its second reading, with MPs voting by 264 votes to 90 in favour of the legislation.