Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Gordon]

Vicky, do you have anything to add?

Vicky Tennant: I have nothing to add.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, everyone. My question is to Eleanor. I think we can all agree that prevention is better than cure. In a passing comment just now, you mentioned transparency in supply chains being added into the Bill. As it stands right now, and if no action were taken, are we in a good enough position on transparency to tackle modern slavery in our supply chains?

Eleanor Lyons: The UK imports more than £20 billion-worth of goods every year that are at risk of being produced using forced labour. That is tomatoes you see in a supermarket that say they are from Italy but that are from China, or fish from North Korea. All our G7 partners have either introduced mandatory human rights due diligence or forced labour import bans into their legislation. The requirement in the Bill will ask businesses to report on forced labour in their supply chains, not to take action to prevent the harm from happening. We are hugely behind international partners in this space and we are at risk of becoming a dumping ground for the world’s goods that have been made with forced labour.

There is an opportunity to hugely enhance the measures in clauses 44 to 49 in part 5 of the Bill to turn it more towards mandatory human rights due diligence and to ask businesses to actually take steps to prevent harm from happening in their supply chains. That is something that businesses have been calling for. I worked with FTSE 100 partners last year and submitted work to the Office for Responsible Business Conduct. Businesses want this change, because they are being asked to do these things in other jurisdictions. When it comes to their supply chains, us being hugely behind in what we are asking them to do does not work.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

Q Ms Tennant, I represent Glasgow, which is one of the areas in the country with the highest need for asylum accommodation. We are a welcoming city and are proud of being so, but you can imagine that the welcome is being tested due to the infrastructure stresses that this is placing on us. You have a long and distinguished career in the United Nations and have seen when asylum housing and refugee housing works well and when it does not. Presumably, you feel that the confidence of the host community is in large part a determinant of that. In your assessment of what has been happening in Britain, particularly over the last decade, where do you think that that confidence level lies at the moment? Are you concerned that we are perhaps not in the place we should be in terms of people perceiving the rules-based order to be intact when it comes to asylum?

Vicky Tennant: I would certainly say that the issue of asylum accommodation and the way in which the reception of asylum seekers and support to asylum seekers are managed has contributed to a crisis of confidence. As I said, the objective of restoring public confidence through a fair and efficient system is one that UNHCR absolutely welcomes. A key element is the fact that asylum seekers have been accommodated for very extended periods of time waiting for decisions on their claims. Simply by virtue of that fact, the volume of support and accommodation required while people are not able to work has grown over the years. We are pleased that there is progress in that space. It is a hugely challenging issue to address.

However, alongside the work on how asylum support accommodation is provided in a way that fosters community welcome and community cohesion, the work on the system itself has to continue. That is certainly where UNHCR has brought our international experience to bear: we have really been leaning in and trying to work closely with the Home Office to see how we can have a system that is functioning more efficiently and getting decisions out more quickly, but also getting decisions right first time.

That is where we go back to the discussion around the appeals body. The most important lever that could be pulled is to improve and ensure the quality of first-instance decision making, such as by ensuring that there is a second pair of eyes on those decisions, so that we do not see cases going into the appeals system unnecessarily. At the moment, there is quite a high rate of cases being withdrawn by the Home Office from the appeals system. That should not be the case. There is also quite a high rate of first-instance decisions being overturned. Those are cases that ideally would not be in the appeals system in the first place. That work on efficient, quality decision making in the first instance is also critical, and it then plays into the issue of asylum support and the length of time that asylum seekers are hosted in the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

Q I am not asking for a set of statistics; I am asking whether the NCA saw an increase in trafficking and criminal activity as a result of changes to the routes that asylum seekers, refugees and others could undertake.

Helen Rance: Our work is on serious and organised immigration crime networks. I cannot be led to saying that they have increased due to specific measures, because a whole raft of factors make that happen. I am just not in a position to answer that.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Q The Bill seeks to dramatically increase the reporting by companies and individuals. At the National Crime Agency, you work with a plethora of different organisations across the United Kingdom. Do you believe that that increase in reporting will help you to find the illegal routes that are being used in the United Kingdom?

Helen Rance: Any increase in intelligence will certainly help the intelligence picture. It will allow us to identify vulnerable victims and help with the intelligence on organised crime networks.

[Tom Gordon]

Q Has the NCA ever received any evidence or intelligence? Has information been gathered from these gangs about their seeking to exploit the Government’s having previously changed the system and removed those overseas routes?

Helen Rance: I am sorry, but I just do not have that sort of information. You can rephrase the question again, but I am not clear that that is a matter for the NCA.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Ahmed]

I think it was either yourself or Professor Singer—

Jacqui McKenzie: Oh, the numbers—sorry. The number that I referred to as being small is the number of cases that the Home Office say will be refused under this new system, which I think is 11,700.

Professor Singer: It is 11,700, and the Home Office impact assessment estimates that 55% of those will, in any case, remain in the UK, because it is not possible to remove them back to their home country due to legal or logistical challenges. It is anticipated to have quite minimal impact in practice, so it is quite a significant legislative change to make for quite a limited impact overall.

Most of the public attention is focused on the issue of foreign criminals, for example, but the House of Commons Library briefing for the Bill indicates that, at present, only 3% of foreign criminal appeals are allowed on a human rights basis, whether under article 8 or otherwise. Again, the impact is quite minimal. The most significant impact that the changes to article 8 will have is on children and families. We will see more children without their parents and more separated families, and I think in quite unconscionable ways that will actually be quite upsetting for the public.

For me, setting out an interpretation of article 8 in domestic legislation does not change the meaning of article 8 as a matter of international law, and it does not change what the UK’s obligations are. Decisions are either in line with the UK’s obligations, in which case the legislation is not necessary, because the courts are already doing article 8 determinations themselves and doing their own balancing exercise on the basis of the existing legislation that we have, or they are more restrictive than the UK’s current legislation, which puts the UK at risk of not complying with its obligations under the European convention on human rights and the convention on the rights of the child.

Jacqui McKenzie: I agree with that. I think you are aware that the figure I referred to as being small was not the overall 77,000. What we think of the 77,000 is another matter; some of us might say even that is not a huge number of people, especially when we look at how long some of those families have been settled in the UK, and the reasons why some of them are still in the immigration system, when their parents and grandparents may well have been settled. It is this point about redefining what a family is and breaking families up that concerns me more than anything.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Q One of the issues on which I think everyone will agree is the fact that we need to have a confidence-based immigration and asylum system. We need to have the public’s full support to ensure that it can continue. At the same time, we need a fair system—a system that supports those going through the actual application system or appellate system so that they feel like they are getting their fair day in court at the same time.

However, one of the issues that both of you have raised is backlogs, which we have seen increase under the Rwanda scheme and others. One of the concerns that many people have, especially my South Norfolk constituents, will be that the courts simply do not have the ability to keep up with the amount of casework coming to them. That is because we have a system that does not have enough clarity, especially on article 8. The Bill obviously has a goal and ambition to give clarity to the courts on that issue. Is that something to be welcomed?

Jacqui McKenzie: Possibly, but you are conflating some issues. The numbers for Rwanda are tiny, as most of the people who were carded for Rwanda have been granted asylum, so are not in the backlog at all. Article 8 will not really affect those sorts of people; it will affect families, and children, many of them born in the UK—as you know, under the British Nationality Act 1981, since 1 January 1983, you do not automatically become British by being born here.

There are people here in this country without any status whose families go back decades, for example families from the Commonwealth territories. That has happened for all sorts of odd reasons, usually because parents left children behind and brought them to the UK when they were over 18, so they had no status, and they then had children who have no status. In my practice, and those of many of the people in my jurisdiction who I have networked with, those are the sorts of cases we use article 8 for, and for which we see article 8 being successful. I do not think that anybody would want to see those families being removed from the UK.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Q Do you not believe that any clarity needs to be introduced in article 8? We have seen a number of cases where it should not have been applied, but because Parliament has not set out with clarity a legal structure to the judiciary, there can be some perambulation or wandering on what the interpretation should be. Is it not in the interest of such cases as those you highlighted, which you took forward and which needed to be covered by article 8, that the article has the full confidence of the public because they know it is being used for the right reasons?

Jacqui McKenzie: The Bill does not do that, though. If that is what you want to see happen, the Bill will not do that. Instead, we have this popular culture, mainly perpetuated through the media, around article 8. Every now and again, you get a story about somebody and their cat, or somebody who did not like chicken nuggets in Albania. First, those are very minor cases, and secondly, they are never the whole story. That is usually just one feature of a number of grounds on which someone has been granted leave to remain under article 8, but that is the one that the journalist sat in the back of the court decides to write about. Because that is happening, the public have a concept of article 8, but they do not understand it. It is our job, and the job of parliamentarians, to try to educate them.

Professor Singer: We already have quite a detailed domestic legislative framework around article 8, introduced in the Immigration Act 2014. That is very detailed and sets out in statute the different factors the courts should take into account. This Bill adds further complexity to that, and in many senses is more restrictive on interpretation. It does not add any clarity, as such. As I mentioned, according to the Home Office’s impact assessment, the impacts are expected to be minimal.

[Mr Foster]

Q On that point, this morning, the Committee heard evidence from a KC, whose name I cannot recall, who said that the Strasbourg court has indicated that it thinks that the UK is not applying article 8 correctly, and is applying it too liberally—that was not his language; that is just the language I am using. He said Strasbourg thinks that the UK courts have gone too far with their application of article 8. You can see how confusing the issue is. Do you agree that there is great confusion around the application of article 8, and recognise that Strasbourg has indicated that the UK courts might not be doing so correctly?

Jacqui McKenzie: I have not heard the Strasbourg courts say that; I have no idea why they would be saying that.

Professor Singer: I have not heard that either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ahmed]

Q On the spectrum of complexity in these cases, clearly, many of them are straightforward—like the one I was involved in—but there are others that have elements of complexity that are sometimes apparent, sometimes not. For the benefit of the Committee, could you lay out some of the safeguards that are in place to manage that complexity?

Daniel Flury: It is principally the judge’s role to manage the complexity of a case, obviously supported by legal representatives. In terms of the support that HMCTS can offer, we have a programme, which applies to all courts and tribunals, of reasonable adjustments that we offer appellants, claimants, defendants and so on. The rest is primarily provided through legal aid, legal representation and the judge safeguarding them in that case.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Q Many people have heard the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. That is very obviously a situation that we are currently in within the asylum process, with the backlog having grown to the size that it has. In your view, do you believe that the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority will help us with that backlog and move that concentration away from, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, some very qualified people—overqualified for what is needed—and into the hands of those who can efficiently deal with cases as and when they come up?

Daniel Flury: Well, it is certainly the intention that the new body will speed up appeals through the system, but I could not say. As Neal said, you would need to ask a Minister, or maybe the Home Office would like to offer a view.

Neal Barcoe: My short answer is yes—that is absolutely the intention and the systems are being designed to deliver it in that way. I do not know whether my Home Office colleague wants to add anything more.

Alison Hewett: Clearly, my responsibility here is to support the delivery, as laid out in the Bill. The IIAA will have ownership of its own procedural frameworks. Those will be set in train. We have quite a large transformation programme, and we are working very closely together, as my colleagues have indicated, because this is a whole-of-system effort. We will put mechanisms in place and, because it is an independent authority, the transformation programme will transfer its responsibility over to the chair at a certain point, once it is set up. From then on, the authority will establish its own detailed practices and processes.

I can say a little more about the statutory roles that will support that. There is a lot on the face of the Bill that is hardwired to protect the integrity of the overall system, provide justice and address, at pace, some of the issues that colleagues have already referred to.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Q That is brilliant, and it leads to the next part of my question. As you say, it is all well and good having speed and accuracy, but we also need to ensure that the systems are independent and have the ability to manage themselves without too much political interference. Could you expand a little on that? Schedule 2 to the Bill goes into greater detail on how much independence is afforded to the chair and other appointees, so could you expand on what, within the Bill, would achieve that independence when needed?

Alison Hewett: You mentioned the chair, and of the four statutory roles—the chair, the chief executive, the chief appeals officer and the PSO—the chair and the PSO will be independently appointed through the public appointments process. As the Committee will be aware, that is a standard process, and it will be the Home Secretary who makes the initial appointment.

It is important to note that the chief executive and the chief appeals officer are independent from the Crown, and that is hardwired into the Bill. They are employees of the IIAA, and the chief executive will be responsible and accountable for achieving the goal and aim of the IIAA, which is, as we have said, to increase efficiency while protecting the integrity of the decisions being taken through the adjudicators. He will be accountable to the chair and will ultimately be required to present annual reports to Parliament, and the IIAA will have to go through an annual review process undertaken by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. There are a number of mechanisms throughout the Bill that allow for that independence.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Brilliant.

Alison Hewett: Forgive me—the PSO is the professional standards office. My colleagues will be cringing as they listen to this.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Q That is always the way. It goes out of your head when you need it most.

You just raised an interesting point about parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. Comparing and contrasting the system we live under now with the proposed system under the Bill, would you say that it will give Parliament more tools to scrutinise the effectiveness of the system, in terms of reporting?

Alison Hewett: I am probably not best placed to comment from a delivery perspective. I can say that under the Bill, as the SRO, I will be required to deliver a programme that gives effect to these changes and requirements. It is probably for our policy colleagues and, potentially, Ministers to opine on that.

[Matt Vickers]

Q The Government say that the reforms will make the system go faster. What is the current average time from an unsuccessful claim, through appeal to final resolution, and what do the Government expect the average to be once these changes have been implemented?

Daniel Flury: It currently takes about 56 weeks for an appeal to clear the system in the first-tier tribunal, which is only going to worsen in the years ahead as more of the claims that have been sitting in the backlog for some time are concluded. It is even longer for appeals —that 56 weeks is all appeals. As to where we think it could get to, I do not think any of us could say yet, unless the Home Office wants to offer something. I think we can all agree that it needs to improve substantially, because 56 weeks is unacceptable in any jurisdiction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

Q Do you have routes through to the people affected so that you could ask about the Bill’s provisions?

Bas Javid: Yes. On when we pick up feedback from people, particularly around the system, for example, one of the things that we recently rolled out is different apps and communication systems that we did not have before. We are much more on the front foot about contacting people at an early stage of a removals process, rather than later. When we do that, we feed back to our asylum colleagues any information or feedback relevant to assisting them to improve the process.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Q One piece of evidence that we were given earlier was that, as much as modern slavery legislation is a good thing for the United Kingdom, we have not necessarily been pulling our weight as we go forward. I am interested to hear from the panel, perhaps starting with the Minister, what progress you believe will be made by this Bill becoming law.

Anna Turley: It is good to have the opportunity to talk about the modern slavery aspect because it is something we are obviously proud of in this country. It is important to us and we are committed to ending modern slavery. As a Government, it is really important to us, but we want to ensure that we support and protect the processes that support and identify modern slavery victims. The number of modern slavery referrals has increased by more than 900% since 2014, which shows us not only the growing scale of identification, but its growing application in immigration processes.

We are very concerned about the number of late claims—it feels deliberately used to thwart returns. As we heard, a third of the failed removals involved modern slavery referral. Three quarters of those were raised between 3 pm on the day before removal and 6 am. We are keen that we give people the opportunity all the way through their experience to raise such concerns with us. Sometimes trauma and experience lead to a delay in reporting, but individuals going through this process have multiple opportunities to disclose exploitation from the moment they arrive, such as through contact with first responders—we have heard about them, and they are highly trained in identifying modern slavery—immigration enforcement, police, local authorities and NGOs. Those people come into contact with a vast range of individuals. We always encourage people to identify; we want people to identify the issue earlier in the process, as soon as possible, so that we can deal with it and not have it thrown in at the last minute as a means to thwart removal.

As I said, just to conclude, I am very proud of our record on modern slavery, but something definitely does not quite stack up for me when I read that the UK refers more victims than the whole of the rest of Europe combined. In 2023, the UK referred 17,000 victims of modern slavery, compared with 10,907 for the rest of Europe. That says to me that we care very passionately about this—we want to get it right—but that we must also ensure that we protect the integrity of the process as well.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Q Any thoughts from the rest of the panel at all.

Bas Javid: My starting point is, first of all, just to acknowledge that the national referral mechanism plays a vital role in safeguarding and supporting victims. That, even in an operational sense, is right at the forefront of my team’s training and focus. What we have seen increasingly, year by year, is what the Minister just referred to: some of the timings of the late claims. The statistic that I would share—I mentioned it before, but I will reiterate it—is that if we take just the year 2025 and all our charter operations, which is up to nearly 100 that year, one third of all the people we had to remove from flights were because of late claims. To give the context of an average case—I have case studies that I can speak to—there are a number of first responders, both statutory and non-statutory, with whom people have the opportunity to raise their claims, but they just do not do it. They do not do it for one simple reason: doing it late will absolutely thwart the process.

We have to make a very quick judgment on reasonable grounds, which in itself means you have to remove people from the process and obviously consider their grounds and case. More often than not, the reasonable grounds are not met, so you then go back and it is a waste of effort and cost. Operational dysfunction could be avoided by the improvements that are being made through the Bill.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Q I think that just follows on into my next point. Obviously the Bill is not just focusing on the individual; it is also taking action on businesses. This is quite important for South Norfolk, because we are a part of the country that is currently seeing a lot of speculation over solar farms, for example, and we know that we do not have domestic production of solar panels within the United Kingdom. There is huge concern in my constituency about modern slavery in the supply chains. What action in the Bill do you believe will help us to tackle that by introducing more accountability, responsibility and financial penalties for corporations that might have modern slavery in their supply chains?

Anna Turley: I am pleased that the Bill introduces financial penalties for people if they fail to comply with transparency requirements in their supply chains. For me, that is just one step, and I know that the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade is in the process of conducting a review of responsible business conduct, of which modern slavery in supply chains is a key part. I look forward to seeing the evidence, and I hope that there will then be a strong lead on actions to drive out modern slavery from supply chains around the world.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Q Just to follow up on that, do you believe that compliance with existing modern slavery legislation will also improve because of the additional measures in the Bill?

Anna Turley: Yes. I noted that one of the witnesses said that compliance and enforcement was an issue, so I undertake to take that issue away and have a look at it. For me, the key thing is introducing the legislative framework so that we can then start with the implementation. It is important to get these measures through, working with DBIST, and to ensure that we are not only introducing the legislative framework, but enforcing it.

[The Chair]

I ask Members to be brief so that we can get everyone in, because we are running very short of time.

Immigration Policy

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

On the deterrence point, as I have said, we are receiving applications at an unprecedented level, and at a time when our European Union counterparts are seeing fewer applications. There is an attractiveness to this country, which is why we are changing the protection package and carrying out record levels of enforcement against illegal working. Those are the changes we are making to break those pull factors to this country.

Turning to announcements, we would of course mean no discourtesy to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman will have heard the apology I made at the outset. However, we stated our policy in November, and what we are now doing is building it out.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

South Norfolk expects our immigration system to be fair, open and transparent. The one problem we have come across, unfortunately, is that there is a lot of confusion online, as has been expertly shown by the shadow Home Secretary today. Can the Minister clarify that the process we are looking at will save the taxpayer £20 million, instead of spending money to keep open asylum hotels?

[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.

Firearms Licensing

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 750236 relating to section 1 and 2 firearms licensing.

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In preparing for today’s debate, I spoke with experts on both sides of this issue. I thank everyone who took the time to speak with me, including the petition creator, Lisa, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Association of Professional Shooting Instructors, the Gun Control Network and a professor of criminology. I also thank everyone who took the time to meet me, and I thank the excellent staff of the Petitions Committee for their support.

Colleagues will be unsurprised to hear that strong views were expressed on both sides of the issue, but what impressed me most was the broad agreement that I found on the need for legislative reform and the need to ensure safety. I know that some hon. Members here today represent constituencies that have been touched by gun violence tragedies in recent years. I trust that everyone here will agree that we must be in full listening mode when hearing from those colleagues. We all want the best for our constituents; we all want to ensure that they are kept safe, and it is crucial that even when Members disagree, today’s debate is kept respectful.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we consult fully the farming community? Shotguns are not just a sporting accessory; to farmers, they are an essential aspect of their life in order to control vermin, so will he ensure that the debate carries on? The last Government wisely decided not to proceed with this proposal. We have had separate legislation for shotguns and other firearms since 1920. That is really important for farmers, so the current Government should be very wary about proceeding with the proposal.

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I will be addressing those issues in my speech.

We need to be clear on what today’s debate is about. We are discussing a specific policy point: a proposal to merge sections 1 and 2 of the Firearms Act 1968—in other words, to align licensing controls on shotguns with those that already apply to rifles. In introducing this debate, I will do my utmost to explore how we can protect the shooting industry and rural economy, tidy up and update the legislative framework, and ensure the safety of all our constituents. At its heart, the debate is about balance. It is about recognising the legitimacy of lawful shooting and the economic and cultural contribution that it makes.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I want to pay tribute to a stalwart of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, Christopher Graffius, who died in his sleep last week. There were many issues on which we had different views, but he was extremely kind and helpful to me when I was a shadow Minister. He had a huge depth of knowledge and passion for the countryside and would have been following this debate closely. He was a true gentleman, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that we will all miss his kindness, integrity and fellowship.

[Ben Goldsborough]

That was excellently put by my hon. Friend. All of us who had the pleasure of spending time with Christopher send our heartfelt condolences to his family, because he was, as my hon. Friend rightly says, a gent.

We also need to ensure that we respond to the risk, protect the vulnerable and ensure that our laws reflect the reality of the world that we live in today, not the world as it was 60 years ago.

Let me begin by setting out clearly where we are. In the United Kingdom, there are about half a million gun owners—they are roughly 1% of the population—and about 90% use their firearms for leisure, for sport or for legitimate countryside management. The overwhelming majority of owners are responsible. The National Crime Agency has said that firearms certificate holders are highly unlikely to be involved in serious and organised crime. That important fact deserves to be stated clearly in this House.

The shooting sector is also economically significant. It contributes £3.3 billion a year in gross value added to the UK economy, generates £9.3 billion in wider economic activity and supports an estimated 67,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Those jobs are not abstract; they are jobs in rural pubs, hotels, small family-run retailers, manufacturing, tourism, land management and pest control. They are jobs that sustain rural communities and working people across our country. In my constituency of South Norfolk and those of many across the House, the leisure sector is not a lifestyle choice, but the backbone of the local economy. We must always be mindful that decisions taken in Westminster have real-world consequences in such communities.

At the same time, our legislative framework is undeniably outdated. Much of it dates back to the 1960s and, while amendments made since then, in particular after tragedies such as Dunblane, have strengthened safety, the overall framework has evolved in a piecemeal way. Such reforms, including the ban on handguns, were necessary and proportionate responses to unimaginable horror. They reflected the will of the public and the duty of Parliament to act in the interests of safety. I do not believe that anyone serious about public safety would suggest reversing those protections, but it is equally true that legislation cannot stand still, because the world does not.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making some important points, but did he note that the Law Commission, in its 2015 report on firearms, did not recommend moving section 2 licences into the section 1 system? He references the points made to do with previous incidents, but the Law Commission was very clear in its 2015 recommendations to the Government of the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough]

Later in my speech, I will address some of the reforms that I think are needed. There are pressures on 3D-printed firearms, amendments and adaptions; those sorts of issues are more pressing matters that we need to address, but I will come to them later.

In existing law, the distinction between sections 1 and 2 is clear. Under section 2, an individual may obtain a shotgun certificate and, once it is granted, may own multiple shotguns without specifying each individual firearm in advance. Under section 1, the process is more restrictive: applicants must demonstrate a good reason for owning each firearm; each weapon must be individually authorised; and use is generally restricted to specific land and subject to police oversight. That distinction reflects differences in use, tradition and lethality.

Fortunately, gun violence in the United Kingdom remains rare by international standards. In the year ending September 2025, 4,851 firearms offences were recorded in England and Wales, a 9% decrease on the previous year. That is welcome progress, but behind the numbers are still lives lost, families grieving and communities changed forever.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I will continue a little.

In the year ending March 2025, 32 people were killed by shooting. When we look more closely at the figures, we see deeply troubling patterns. More than 60% of women killed with guns were shot using a licensed firearm. That statistic should give pause to everyone in the Chamber. It reminds us that the greatest risks often arise not from organised crime, but from breakdowns in systems that are supposed to protect people. Domestic abuse featured prominently in many of the conversations I had ahead of this debate. Firearms in the home can be used not only as weapons, but as tools of coercion and control. Their presence can deepen fear, make escape feel impossible and turn moments of crisis into irreversible tragedy.

We must also recognise the wider context. Mental health challenges are particularly acute in rural communities, and isolation, financial pressure and barriers to accessing services all play a role. Access to a lethal means during moments of acute distress can turn temporary despair into permanent loss.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I should alert Members that I am the chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council. On that point about mental health issues, does the hon. Gentleman agree that medical markers on doctors’ records would be a perfect solution to that problem, rather than necessarily doing what is proposed in the petition?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I think he has read a bit of my speech.

Technological change is introducing new risks. The conversion of blank-firing weapons and imitation firearms, and emerging technologies such as 3D printing, are changing the landscape of firearms crime. Such developments do not respect the boundaries of legislation written decades ago. We face a dual responsibility: we must protect public safety, and we must do so in a way that is fair, proportionate and grounded in evidence.

The petition before us, signed by more than 121,000 people, reflects genuine concern. Many petitioners fear that merging section 1 and section 2 licensing would increase bureaucracy, create delays and impose additional costs without delivering meaningful safety benefits. Those concerns are not just abstract; they reflect real frustrations with an already stretched licensing system. Many applicants experience long waits and many police forces face a capacity challenge. Will the Minister ensure that any proposed changes are accompanied by robust economic modelling, including of the potential impact on rural businesses, on employment and on participation?

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I can say that the hon. Gentleman is doing a damn good job of opening the debate. The Father of the House referred to farmers needing shotguns to control vermin. The crofters in my constituency have huge trouble with hooded crows, who come to peck out the eyes of lambs—no wonder they need their guns. I wish that Members from the Scottish National party were here today, because policing in the north of Scotland is a shadow of what it was, and the proposals would put an additional strain on those cops. They have not got the time to do all this.

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I am going to make some progress.

We must never fall into the trap of believing that good intentions alone are sufficient. Policy must be judged on outcomes. We must also recognise the distinct nature of different firearms. Shotguns and rifles serve different purposes, they have different characteristics and they are used in different contexts. Farmers and pest controllers rely on shotguns as tools of their trade. Any reform must recognise that reality and ensure that legitimate working use is protected.

At the same time, we can take clear and practical steps to strengthen safety without imposing unnecessary burdens. We can ensure that licensing decisions are informed by the fullest possible information, including appropriate engagement with medical professionals. We can strengthen safeguards in cases involving domestic abuse. We can modernise licensing systems, embracing digital technology to reduce delays, improve consistency and free up police time.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I am going to make some progress.

We can ensure that legislation keeps pace with technological change, closing loopholes before they can be exploited, and we can ensure that our approach is coherent, joined up and fit for the 21st century. Ultimately, this is not about choosing between safety and the rural economy; it is about recognising that both matter and deserve our attention, and that good legislation must deliver both.

In my constituency and constituencies across the country, people expect us to get this right. They expect us to listen carefully, act responsibly and put safety first while respecting lawful activity and rural livelihoods. This debate is not about ideology; it is about responsibility to victims, rural communities and the many thousands of people who participate in shooting safely and lawfully. Let us approach the issue in that spirit, seeking not easy answers but the right ones, not driven by fear but guided by evidence, and not choosing between safety and prosperity but delivering both. When we get legislation right, listen, and act thoughtfully and carefully, we strengthen not only public safety but public trust. That is our most important duty of all.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough]

This has been a brilliant debate, which is what our constituents cry out for. It has been measured in tone, with solutions and not just mud-slinging. A fair amount of social media clips will have been thrown in here and there, but that is just the nature of the beast.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Speak for yourself.

[Ben Goldsborough]

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) always needs to have the final word.

It is really helpful that we have put forward pragmatic solutions to an issue that we all care about deeply: the safety of our constituents and the United Kingdom. They are not just throwaway suggestions; they are grounded in facts and evidence, to protect both the rural economy and the lives of our rural constituents. I look forward to working closely with the Minister in the months ahead, when the review comes forward—in due course—to make sure that the policy lands in the best place possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 750236 relating to section 1 and 2 firearms licensing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

18. What recent steps her Department has taken to help tackle rural crime.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

23. What recent steps her Department has taken to help tackle rural crime.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Rural crime is a scourge on our communities, and this Government are taking action to tackle it. We are improving the safety of rural communities through tougher measures on equipment theft and a crackdown on antisocial behaviour, farm theft and fly-tipping, backed by over £800,000 of funding for the specialist national rural and wildlife crime policing units.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend speaks about a very serious crime, and we must go further. Last year, the Government announced a huge crackdown on cowboy waste operators in order to tackle fly-tipping. To support local authorities, our Crime and Policing Bill will introduce a power to issue statutory guidance on fly-tipping enforcement, and there will be a new five-year prison term for waste cowboys. We need to crack down on that crime.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Heritage crime is a huge issue in rural communities like mine. My constituency boast some of the jewels in England’s crown—Roman town Venta Icenorum, Wyndham Abbey and the wooden henge in Arminghall—which puts us more at risk of heritage crime. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can train scrap metal dealers to be more aware of the damage that it does, and how might we record the statistics more appropriately so that we can give police the resources they need?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is lucky to have such wonderful places in his constituency. Of course I will meet him—this is a very important matter. We are supporting the work of Historic England on a number of issues to tackle heritage crime, but I am sure that we can go further, and I look forward to talking to him about it.

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate.

I think there is wide agreement across the House that our current immigration system is broken. It is inconsistent, confusing and, far too often, inhumane. It is right that it falls to a Labour Government to fix it and to build a system grounded in our values of fairness, transparency and humanity. At present, the system does the very opposite.

I will specifically speak about Hongkongers who settled in the UK through the British national overseas visa scheme, many of whom have become proud and valued members of my constituency. We estimate that about 400 BNO status holders now call South Norfolk home. They enrich our towns and villages through work, volunteering, culture and the arts, and they have shown extraordinary resilience after fleeing political persecution.

Following Beijing’s imposition of the national security law and its severe crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong, all parties in this House supported the launch of the BNO pathway in 2021. Over 200,000 Hongkongers have since arrived in the UK, rebuilding their lives under the terms we set out. In September, concern filled this Chamber during the debate I led on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The consultation launched on 20 November has exposed new risks that could inadvertently undermine the BNO scheme’s very humanitarian purpose. Let me be clear: if applied to BNO applicants for indefinite leave to remain, an income requirement would disproportionately disadvantage BNO families.

The visa route is fundamentally different from a work visa. It was never designed around employment. People came here as families with stay-at-home parents, part-time workers, students and retirees. Their eligibility depended on need, not on earning power. Many of them face systemic barriers to having their professional qualifications recognised, preventing them from securing jobs that reflect their skills immediately upon arrival. They are not failing the system; the system is failing them. To require three to five years of earnings above £12,570 would not reflect their reality. Many BNO households are income-poor but savings-rich. They moved here under the explicit promise that no financial conditions would be attached to this humanitarian route.

The proposed increase from B1 to B2 English has caused deep worry among BNOs, particularly those nearing retirement or who have already earned their B1 qualification and are months away from eligibility for settlement. B2 is effectively A-level proficiency. For many, achieving it with only months’ notice is unrealistic, and I hazard a guess that it would be unrealistic for many Members of this House as well. We must be cautious not to retroactively impose standards that people could never reasonably meet in that time.

Above all, BNOs are not economic migrants; they made an irreversible decision to come to the UK to escape political repression. For many, returning to Hong Kong is not an option. If we were to shift the goalposts now, we would risk placing them in an impossible position —unable to settle here or return home. That would be a betrayal not only of policy, but of principle. I urge the Minister to listen to the speeches today and to make the progressive changes we need in the immigration system.

Asylum Policy

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have set out, we will seek to encourage those on the core protection route to move on to the protection work and study route so that they can start to contribute and integrate more effectively into this country. That will also get them to a slightly earlier settlement period. The bulk of these reforms will focus on safe and legal routes, which will be the most privileged route to settlement in this country. It is right that that is the case; it is the best way to integrate people into this country. The community sponsorship model is the way forward. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others in the House as we design that and move forward.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

South Norfolk expects to have a robust and compassionate asylum process. I welcome this statement. One of the aspects that I am most interested in is the penultimate paragraph on page 28 of the document, which states:

“The new model will give greater say to communities and support refugees”

to settle and become self-sufficient. Will the Home Secretary expand on the mechanisms that could be put in place to ensure that that happens?

Police Reform

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Norfolk, which is already progressing through local government reorganisation and devolution, has several existing partnerships working to protect and support victims of crime. Will the Minister meet me and Sarah Taylor, Norfolk’s police and crime commissioner, to discuss how we can ensure that these arrangements continue to serve the people of Norfolk? There are worrying signs that some partners are withdrawing services because of these reorganisations.

[Sarah Jones]

I am always happy to meet and talk about these issues. The transition will happen in 2027, and we need to ensure that we learn from previous transitions and that we do not drop any balls with regard to the services we are providing to local people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend’s police and crime commissioner is not doing what is needed. We need to empower the police to be out doing what they do best, not creating barriers for them to do so.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle shoplifting.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Shop theft hit a record high in the last year of the previous Government, but our Crime and Policing Bill will remove the effective immunity for shop thefts under £200. We are investing over £7 million to support police efforts against retail crime over the next three years, including supporting a specialist team to target organised gangs and offenders. We also back the Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy, in which industry and police are collaborating to better target perpetrators.

[Ben Goldsborough]

As a proud member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and formerly the youngest deputy store manager for Halford’s in the east of England, I know at first hand the fear that shoplifting causes to retail workers. What action is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that the police have the powers they need to use the full force of the law to tackle those who steal from our shops?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every Member of Parliament hears about this issue, and knows how distressing it is. The intimidation of shop workers must stop, and the thieves who target shops and are stealing to order must be targeted. We are repealing the legislation that makes shop theft of and below £200 a summary-only offence, which will send a clear message that we will not tolerate this crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Spiking is a terrible crime, it is extremely dangerous and too often it is not taken seriously enough. We will work with anyone and everyone to tackle this appalling crime, so that not only is more work done to prevent spiking in the first place, but, when it does take place, the perpetrators feel the full force of the law.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

T8. Under the Conservatives, rural crime rocketed by 22%, costing our economy an estimated £49.5 million—those are National Farmers Union figures, so hon. Members can question the NFU if they are not convinced. What action will the Minister take to ensure that this Tory mess is sorted and that our country lanes are protected from crimes such as heating oil theft, machinery theft and livestock theft?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The Government recognise the importance of tackling rural crime. We are committed to safeguarding rural communities with tougher measures to clamp down on antisocial behaviour and strengthen neighbourhood policing and stronger laws to prevent farm theft and fly-tipping. The national rural crime unit provides police forces with specialist operational support in respect of the theft of farming or construction machinery, livestock theft, fly-tipping, fuel theft and equine crime.