Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

New clause 67 would treat any conviction under the National Security Act 2023, which includes espionage, sabotage and foreign interference, as a particularly serious crime. Those offenders fall within article 33(2) of the refugee convention. Will the Government support new clauses 66 and 67? If not, will the Minister confirm whether the Government believe that there is a case for a person convicted of forcing someone into marriage relying on family life to stay in the country? How many foreign national offenders liable to national deportation are living in the community today?

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I completely understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument and the good intentions behind it. We do not want those who seek to harm our nation or our citizens to have leave to remain. However, my concern regarding the Opposition amendments, which have been tabled with those good intentions, is that they come with such a prescriptive list. Over time, different crimes and offences will evolve that we want to include, so is there not a fear that such a prescriptive list will not protect us in the long term, as opposed to leaving the Bill with a slightly wider scope, as was intended?

--- Later in debate ---

Secondly, does the Minister not think that putting in reference to the word “deemed”, through reference to the 1971 Act in subsection (4)(a), is wrong in principle? Is it not wrong in principle for such decisions and elevated thresholds to be applied purely on the basis of the Home Secretary’s subjective decision on whether deportation is conducive to the public good? In theory, that could be applied for any reason the Home Secretary has in mind in future. Is that not dangerous for civil liberties?

[Ben Goldsborough]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Siân Berry]

I am asking the Minister these questions, so it would be marvellous if we could wait to see how she answers them.

Thirdly, does that approach not allow the Home Secretary to unilaterally stack the deck against an appellant in an appeal, on an arbitrary basis? Does that take away from the objective seriousness of the offence that they have committed? Does the approach therefore impermissibly limit the ability of the appellate body to decide an article 8 ECHR claim on its merits, as is required under the Human Rights Act 1998?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

We are saying that the Bill puts in place choices based on how long someone has been sentenced. We are saying that if someone is sentenced to more than four years, they should not be eligible. If someone commits specific offences, such as sexual offences against a child, they should not be able to rely on the exceptions. That is exactly where we are at.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Would the hon. Gentleman’s amendment not have the unintended consequence of creating a ranking system? Many of my constituents are concerned about the extremely high-level crimes that the Opposition rightly note, but an individual may commit a series of low-level crimes. This ranking proposal may have the unintended consequence of that not being considered and the individual getting let off the hook.

[Matt Vickers]

The other provisions in the Bill make the case that people can be sent down, depending on the harshness of the sentence. We are saying that if it is over four years, or if someone commits a sexual act against a child or a terrorist act, there will be no ifs or buts, and those exceptions will not apply. There will still be space under the other provisions of the Bill to take action.

An attempt to deport a Sri Lankan paedophile convicted of assaulting three teenage boys was delayed over claims that it would breach his human rights. People look at such cases and wonder whose side the system is on. On Second Reading, the Government cited the case of grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed. If they accept the principle there, they should accept it here.

Last year, I tabled a new clause to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to stop the Human Rights Act 1998 being used to frustrate deportations. The Government voted it down, 14 votes to two. Today, we are asking for far less: simply that they do not make the current law weaker.

The Government say they want deportation to be the rule. Our amendments would make it the rule. An immigration system must rest on public consent. Every time a serious offender stays because the law gave them one more argument, that consent wears thinner. Lose it, and the system loses legitimacy. Every member of the Committee has constituents who have lost faith that the system is on their side. They are not asking for a finely balanced weighing exercise; they are asking for their safety and that of their children to come first. This group of amendments does exactly that, and I commend them to the Committee.