Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

Ensuring that schools and colleges have the resources and buildings that they need is key to our mission to break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that every child can succeed and thrive. As always, I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers, as always. The hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) referred to the construction sector. Is it time perhaps to think outside the circle of what we usually do, through deals and partnerships with construction companies? That would give us the opportunity to improve the education and college estate while making people available and knowledgeable for jobs in their future life, whether in construction or otherwise. It is time for partnerships—let us do something perhaps a wee bit different.

[Stephen Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the construction sector is fundamental to the UK economy. That is why the Government’s industrial strategy includes a construction sector deal. We have committed £625 million to supporting construction skills training, and that funding includes capital investment through the establishment of technical excellence colleges and the creation of an employer match funding pot worth £80 million.

Government Support for Ukrainians

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Martin Wrigley]

I absolutely agree, and people in that situation are very worried—I have several in my own constituency. I have spoken to groups of guests in Newton Abbot, and they are mostly working, getting on with integrating into the local community and strongly supporting each other.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. The reason so many of us are here is that it impacts each and every one of us, and I have a very strong Ukrainian contingent in my constituency. Many refugees have made their homes in our constituencies—in Newton Abbot, Strangford and elsewhere. Ukrainian children are being educated in our schools and making lives for themselves, with their parents working, paying tax and spending in the local community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that must continue with as little stress and hassle as possible? The fact is that Ukrainians have become an integral part of all our communities.

[Martin Wrigley]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I absolutely agree.

Ukrainians are scared of what happens next, and we have no answer for them. They see reports of their countrymen being refused asylum in the UK because it is said to be safe to return to Ukraine, even while Putin’s drones explode in Ukraine’s cities in record numbers.

Further Education Institutions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for further education institutions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. Up and down the country, further education institutions are educating and training 1.6 million people, providing them with the skills they need. These colleges are the lifeblood of the British economy, serving as a vital bridge between compulsory schooling and higher education and employment. However, further education was cut to the bone under the previous Conservative Government, and colleges are crying out for more support. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, spending on adult skills and apprenticeships was 23% lower in 2024-25 than it was back in 2009-10. That is a huge cause for concern.

Many of us in this room have seen the great work that these colleges do at first hand, and I am sure we will hear that from colleagues during the debate. I pay tribute to Shipley college in my constituency, and I hope to draw attention to some of the challenges that it and others face, as well as their tremendous contributions. Shipley college is the local lead on health training, and has built a strong relationship with Bradford Royal Infirmary. They have developed a T-level cadetship programme, giving local 16 to 17-year-olds invaluable experience on hospital wards.

I recently visited Shipley college and met students and staff who were training on life-like robots with AI-generated voices to mimic a conversation with a patient. That was clearly giving the students confidence, and preparing them much better than traditional teaching methods. Government funding has enabled the college to invest in such amazing resources as Gaumard human simulators, Anatomage tables for learning anatomy and physiology, and an immersive classroom where students get to prepare to deliver skills in a real-life situation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, who has made a reputation for herself in the Chamber by asking all the questions. I understand this is her first Westminster Hall debate, and I congratulate her on it and wish her well. Last year there were almost 19,000 UCAS applicants who self-identified as young adult carers. That is around 4% of all applicants. I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate; does she agree that more support must be offered in further education settings to those who have caring responsibilities—from caring for a parent or being a parent themselves—so they can achieve educational standards?

[Anna Dixon]

I agree that we must open up access to education for all, including carers. Further education colleges require significant investment to upgrade and maintain their buildings and ensure that they can provide a modern learning environment and access to up-to-date technology. However, staff tell me that their ambitions for further capital investment are limited. Since colleges were brought back into public ownership, their ability to borrow money and invest in capital projects has been removed, and they must now seek permission from the Department for Education to borrow money, which is a slow process. I would appreciate the Minister outlining what the Government are doing to address the capital funding needs of further education colleges.

I would like to move on to some issues around skills training. Every year, 3.8 million people aged 19 and over access skills education in England. That is a critical part of our education system, enabling people to build rewarding careers and fulfil their dreams. Yet, across the country, businesses do not have the right skills available to deliver the services they want and we need. According to the Learning and Work Institute, the UK could face a £120 billion loss by 2030, with a projected shortfall of 2.5 million highly skilled workers.

In Saltaire in my constituency, businesses tell me that they are struggling to recruit people with digital and tech skills locally. Is that any wonder when the Conservatives cut FE funding so significantly? With the right support, FE colleges can drive productivity gains across key sectors, such as engineering, healthcare, digital technology and construction. They can supply skilled technicians and specialists, enabling businesses to expand, innovate and compete.

SEND Provision: South-east England

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on setting the scene so well. My contribution to this debate is to support him in his request to his education authority and to outline some of the concerns we have where we are, which are replicated by him and will be replicated by others.

The situation back home is no better. The Minister has no responsibility for it—I wish her well in her answers. In Northern Ireland, we have incredible problems with the transformation programme. The budget was cut by 50%—an example of the financial restraints that we are all under, which the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells and others referred to. There is a duty of care to children who, due to their educational needs, need that little extra support, and it comes down to money, as most things in the world do. The hon. Gentleman outlined a serious case in his constituency. I have spoken to some of the principals in my constituency of Strangford, who have stated that the current funding is not fit for purpose and that children will be the ones who suffer because of those cuts—a point made by other Members.

One teacher said that

“it is so difficult when you have a passion for supporting and wanting to do your best for SEN children, but it seems impossible to get the tools to do so. It feels like its always budget cuts and reduced staffing, there is never any good news where you feel inspired to do your best.”

That is every teacher who works in the SEND sector. They want to do their best for their children and make sure that the children will be inspired to do their best when they get the opportunity.

The other massive question, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells and will be mentioned by others, is about support for the provision of classroom assistants. One-to-one and small group support is crucial but again, unfortunately, the funding is simply not there to sustain their employment. SEND pupils back home already fall behind their peers in other parts of the UK, so we have a big problem, although the Minister’s response will relate to her responsibilities here.

My last point is about the hundreds—indeed, thousands—of university students out there with a lifelong dream of working with special needs children in schools. How can we tell them that, once they complete their three to four years of education to do that, the funding is simply not there to sustain a job in that field? Can the Minister give us some idea of what we can do for those who are coming through with the potential to help and educate our young people?

We can and must do better. While it is understood that this is a devolved matter for us back home in Northern Ireland, and also for Scotland, our central funding comes from here. I thank the Minister for her contributions and social engagement with the relevant Minister back home. I am very keen to hear what she can do.

British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the implementation of the British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. At the centre of the issue that we are debating today is how successive Governments—Labour, Conservative, Conservative and Lib Dem, and now Labour again—have determined how the issue of nationality in Northern Ireland is dealt with. A consensus has come about, with all the successive Administrations following a series of what have been called internationally binding agreements, including the Anglo-Irish agreement, the Belfast agreement and the St Andrews agreement. They all left successive Governments with the consensus view that people in Northern Ireland who wished to describe themselves as British, Irish or a combination of both could do so. Each successive Government said that they would ensure that they dealt with people impartially and proactively, according to the nationality of their choice—in the constitutional framework of Northern Ireland within the UK, of course.

The consensus emerged, and many people in Northern Ireland expected that to mean—they certainly did not receive any information to the contrary—that whenever a nationality issue arose, there would not be any differentiation or favouritism shown between a person wanting to express an Irish identity and a person wishing to express a British identity, within the context of the United Kingdom. That all came about as a result, as I said, of those successive agreements, but the seeds of the issue in relation to UK passports were sown in 1949, when what is now the Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth.

At that stage, legislation was passed to allow people who previously had lived in what is now the Republic, and had moved to Northern Ireland, to be regarded as British citizens and to acquire a British passport. That worked fine for a number of years, because most of the people who had moved had moved prior to that date. But obviously, as the decades wore on and we got into the 1960s and the troubles in Northern Ireland emerged, more people who had been born after 1949 were moving from the Republic into Northern Ireland.

For example, if we take the beginning of the troubles, the period from 1969 to 1972, people who had moved to Northern Ireland because of disturbances and violence in the Republic were at that stage in their early or mid-20s. They were born in the period from 1950 right up to the mid-1950s. All of them—including their children—were born after 1949 and none of them was able to avail themselves of a British passport, unless they went through the expensive and time-consuming naturalisation process. Therein lay the problem, because as time wore on, more and more people were falling foul of the 1949 process.

I have in my hands a British passport and an Irish passport. We expected Governments to treat people who were owners of these passports equitably and not to deal with them in a partisan way that would result in someone saying, “Well, is this because I own an Irish passport?” or “Is this because I own a British passport?” I entered this House in 2001, and in June 2005 I tabled my first written parliamentary question, which was to ask the Secretary of State whether he would

“ensure that people who have resided in Northern Ireland for a certain length of time, but were born in the Irish Republic, can obtain a British passport at the same cost as those who were born in Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 167W.]

The answer was a standard answer about the fee that was payable, and did not distinguish between whether someone was born in the Republic or in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I was minded, when my hon. Friend had a passport in either hand there, to think, “Which one is best?” Well, we know which one is best: the British one. Does he agree that one of the benefits is that people who designate as Irish can and do have the facility to apply for the greatest passport in the world—the United Kingdom one? There are people who want to have the protection of their local British embassy, yet they are being precluded from that due to a delay that is difficult to understand, so does my hon. Friend further agree that those in Ireland who designate as British must be enabled to have that British protection that we take for granted with no further delay?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Indeed, of the passports that I held, the British one was mine. The other one was not—I can reassure him of that. I acquired it temporarily for the purpose of this debate; I will hand it back to its rightful owner. My hon. Friend is right: we have at long last seen an end to the delay, and I will come to that shortly.

In July 2005, immediately after the non-reply that I got in June 2005, I attempted to drill down and ask about the distinction between those who had been born in the Republic and those born in Northern Ireland. The answer came from the then Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office—now Mayor of Greater Manchester, no less—Mr Andy Burnham. He again indicated that the full fee had to be paid in order for someone who had been born in the Republic but moved to live in Northern Ireland in the past 60-odd years to acquire a British passport. That answer was given 20 years ago this month.

I should add at this stage that I live very close to the border—I was born there. I can walk to the Irish Republic. It is within five miles, so on a good, nice day, I can walk there in an hour or an hour and a half, depending on how quickly I walk. There are 280 crossing points along this uncloseable border, which we have debated in other contexts. The relationship between people who live in the Republic, but close to the border, and those who live in Northern Ireland is intense, because there is much that we share. Those who moved from the Republic to Northern Ireland cherish the fact that their Britishness is enshrined deeply within their family, their generations of service in the military and their loyalty to the Crown—to Her Majesty previously and His Majesty now—so they took great offence at having to go through this expensive process to get what they thought would be their right.

After July 2005, when I seemed to be getting nowhere, I succeeded in November 2005 in getting a private Member’s Bill, which ran into the ground, as most of them do. I then embarked upon a whole series of questions. I will not bore Members with them, but I asked a written parliamentary question in November 2006 and I raised the matter in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 2008—from memory, Dr Murrison, you served with me on the Committee when we looked at this issue—in the Chamber in May 2008, in the Northern Ireland Assembly in June 2011, again in the House of Commons in June 2013, July 2013, March 2014, January 2015, March 2018, November 2018 and February 2019, and again in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in October 2019. We were struggling to get through the undergrowth of problems and bureaucracy in sections of the Home Office, to try to convince it that these people were entitled to a British passport.

Then we came to the 2020s. I raised the matter in September 2020, October 2022 and June 2023, and then my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) managed to secure a private Member’s Bill in April 2024, which brought us to where we are today. Thankfully, that got Government support and became law.

Early Years Providers: Government Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for highlighting this issue and setting the scene incredibly well. Early years are the foundational building blocks for our society. I read recently about the Shaping Us campaign, led by the Princess of Wales, which strongly focuses on the need for early years support. The campaign highlights that:

“During early childhood, from pregnancy to the age of five, our brains develop at an amazing rate—faster than at any other times in our lives. Our experiences, relationships, our surroundings at that very young age, shape the rest of our lives.”

I subscribe to that not just because the Shaping Us campaign stated it, but because my youngest son Luke and his wife Rachael are staying with us with their two children—Freya is five, and her birthday was Saturday, a week ago, and Ezra is two and a half—and I can honestly say that the two of them absorb everything that happens around them like a sponge. Ezra is not able to speak yet, but he clearly understands everything said to him; we have to be careful with our language and with what we insinuate and do, because he is watching. Freya is the same.

I can absolutely understand why the years from pregnancy to the age of five are so important. Because children are by their very nature innocent, whenever we are having a bad day, they manage to cheer us up with a smile, a hug or whatever it may be. Those things mean a lot to their grandad.

The importance of the early years is well documented and accepted, and this House needs to play a greater role in supporting people to provide an environment for children that ensures that we raise a generation of happy children and highly functioning adults. That responsibility is incredibly important.

I am pleased, as always, to see the Minister in his place. The Minister does not have any responsibility for Northern Ireland—he will probably say, “Thank goodness for that”—but he interacts and exchanges ideas with the Minister from the Northern Ireland Executive. This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a wealth of ideas, and it is good that we can exchange them between the different regions.

Childcare costs, particularly for full-time places, have increased significantly, with some providers experiencing a 14% rise since 2021. According to Employers For Childcare, 43% of providers describe their financial situation as “struggling” or “distressed”. It is essential that parents have access not simply to people who watch their children, but to people who help their developmental progress.

In Northern Ireland, approximately 79% of women with dependent children are economically active. That is a good figure—that means that they are employed or actively seeking work. The spin-off of that, which may sometimes be negative, is that they are entrusting their children to other people, who will spend a lot of time with them. The atmosphere needs to be bright, engaging and, above all, safe. In many cases that will be provided by grandparents, family members and those who have available time.

Nurseries are having to take more children to balance the books, and they need greater support. I want to tell Westminster Hall about some of the things we are doing in Northern Ireland. Childcare is one of the most significant bills faced by many families across Northern Ireland. My party, the Democratic Unionist party, saw that—not that we are better than anybody else, by the way—and our Minister acted on it, so some credit can be given to our Minister for doing so. We instigated a survey of 1,000 parents, which found that nearly 85% of people had their return to work impacted by childcare costs. In other words, people go back to work early because they need the money, or they can put it off a bit longer if granny and granda, uncles and aunts, or other family members will help out.

Almost a quarter of parents also say that childcare costs consumed nearly a full wage in the household. Those figures are incredibly scary. The most recent Employers For Childcare survey highlighted an average cost of some £170 a week, which represents a significant financial hurdle, yet Northern Ireland lagged behind other UK regions in supporting working families, so we decided to do something. The DUP was determined to change this situation, and subsequently brought in the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme in September 2024—it will be a year old come this September. It provides a 15% subsidy for childcare costs to support working parents with children who have not yet started primary school. The NICSS is a really good scheme, not because it was introduced by our party, but because it helps everybody, irrespective of whether they vote DUP in Northern Ireland. That is what politics is about: delivering for all, irrespective of whether people vote for us on the ballot paper.

The childcare is delivered by registered childcare providers participating in the tax-free childcare scheme, or TFC scheme, including daycare providers, playgroups, childminders and approved home child carers. The overarching aim of the scheme is to help working parents with the affordability of childcare costs. The Northern Ireland Executive has agreed that the subsidy scheme will target working parents who are eligible for the tax-free childcare and who have children who have not yet started primary school. It is really important that we have that scheme in place.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point with regard to the interventions that have been made. However, returning to SEND growth, in Northern Ireland it is outpacing the growth of the general school population, and I believe that late identification of SEND and delayed support for it is one of the biggest failures right across the United Kingdom. So often, children are not identified as having SEND until they reach school age, by which point their language, social skills and cognitive delays are often entrenched. Therefore, does he agree that there needs to be more investment into funding specialist training for pre-school educators, because often early years is the poor cousin of the education system, despite the fact that, as we have already heard, zero to five is the most important time in a child’s life?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and the words of a mother and the words on behalf of her constituents are well documented; we thank her for that. She has outlined the issues very clearly.

The tax-free childcare scheme will be extended from 1 September 2025 to include provision for school-age children for families registered with the scheme. There is a lot more to do, but that means that from 1 September 2025 working parents of school-age children will be able to receive the 15% subsidy. The scheme started a year ago by focusing on a limited number of children, but it has done more since. This year, the subsidy will embrace even more people, up to the capped amount on their childcare bills.

To assist with the early years development of their children, parents need to have reliable and affordable childcare. I believe that this House needs to look at providing such childcare for working families, for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to. As I said earlier, I know that the Minister has regular contact with the Northern Ireland Executive and with the relevant Northern Ireland Minister in particular. I would just be interested to know what ideas have been swapped and how we can do things better together. I know that he will see the benefits of the Democratic Unionist party scheme, for instance, and hopefully there can be funding for more schemes that offer such practical help across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

There is nothing more important than looking after our children. As a grandfather of six, I understand the importance of schooling, as the ages of my grandchildren vary from two and a half right up to 16 and they are going through the system. I can see the improvement that we have made in Northern Ireland. I believe that improvement can be made elsewhere, and I know that this House and the Minister in particular will do their best to make sure that they deliver the best for all children across this great United Kingdom.

Generative Artificial Intelligence: Schools

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for leading the debate.

I have to confess that I do not understand all about AI, but I do understand the need for it and that the technology is changing. Modern society has a new way of doing things, and I am not against the idea of doing that; it may just not be for me. But I do have children, and grandchildren in particular, who are so technically minded at a very young age. The knowledge they have absolutely overwhelms me, as they look to a society in which they want to play their full part.

I was just sitting here thinking about an Adjournment debate in the main Chamber a couple of years ago. Kevin Brennan, now in the House of Lords, gave a speech, and he never let on till the end of it, when he said, “That speech was written by AI.” Kevin was sitting behind me; I said, “Kevin, what do you mean?”, and he told me what he had done. His speech was a normal speech, except for one thing: it did not have the characteristics of Kevin Brennan. Those of us who know him know that Kevin is quite a witty guy, and his humour and other characteristics were not present in that speech. But it was a speech, done by AI, and he did that, not because he was committing himself to doing all his speeches with AI; he did it because he wanted to show the potential of AI. I always remember that. I said to him afterwards, “Kevin, I’ll always be writing my speeches. I’ll never be doing what you’re doing,” but that is just me talking personally.

We are seeing a progression within our schools, which must be used safely and appropriately, so it is great to be here to discuss this. My key issues are the very issues of protection, safeguards and using AI as we can, with the good potential that the right hon. Member referred to, but, at the same time perhaps, with that wee question mark in my mind. To give the Northern Ireland perspective, as I always do, only last month in Northern Ireland—just four weeks ago, to be precise—Ulster University, in conjunction with the Education Authority, launched a study whereby 100 teachers would trial Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini in the classroom. So, it is part of life—and I suspect it will become a big part as we move forward. The study indicated that teachers themselves reported time management benefits, especially in admin and planning, but they also referred to a strong need for professional and thorough training. In a way, it was perhaps very much a first experience—or maybe not for them all, in all honesty. They outlined that this is something that needs to be done very thoroughly, with great protections and safeguards.

My colleague the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland, Paul Givan MLA, has announced a literacy programme in which 15,000 pupils will use the Amira Learning AI tutor to assess how AI can support literacy training, especially with disadvantaged children and SEND children. This is an area where we can potentially do better, and AI could be the means to ensure that SEND children and disadvantaged children have that opportunity. Again, the potential benefits are there.

Although the prospects of benefiting children with this sound wonderful, and while Northern Ireland very much seems to be taking a giant step in this transition, there are undoubtedly concerns that teachers, parents and, indeed, pupils may have. For example, staff have raised concerns about accessibility for them personally in their job. For teachers from other generations, such as my own, AI is a minefield. I suppose what I am really saying is that we need to be taking small steps, maybe not giant steps, to make sure that the way forward is measured carefully, in the way that I would like it to be. In addition, I am sure parents want reassurance that their children are being taught properly and that a computer program is not their only source of learning. We need to make sure that does not happen and that if children need personal support from a teacher, they are still able to get it. Although AI will undoubtedly take steps forward, the old way of social interaction and being taught by teachers, and classroom assistants for those with special needs, must also be there.

We had a discussion with some American students recently about the use of AI. It was clear that, although AI can prepare a great briefing, it does not give one the knowledge found in reading and in finding pertinent reports. The hard graft of investigation and studying that we do for our speeches is an example. Although AI could give me a speech for this Chamber, it could not give me the secondary knowledge that I have gained in preparing for the debate. AI has a role, but it can never be a stand-alone role.

Many will share concerns similar to mine. We should be proud of the fact that we are able to progress digitally but also safely. The Minister is a good man, and he understands this issue much better than me, but I hope he can understand my concerns about safeguards, protections and the ability for the right information to feed into the process. I seek that assurance from him, especially in relation to educational settings across the United Kingdom.

We are doing some things on AI in education in Northern Ireland through Paul Givan. I know that the Minister talks to Paul Givan on a regular basis, but I think it is important in any debate on any subject that the interaction between the four regions is constructive and positive. I have to say—I am not being disrespectful—that I find the Minister is all here, and I wish to see more engagement with Northern Ireland Ministers from him.

Children need to be equipped for an AI world, but also for the real world. Face-to-face interaction and the need to think outside the scope of a question is simply non-negotiable, and I am pretty sure that the Minister will agree with me on that.

SEND Provision: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

I have secured this Adjournment debate to discuss the provision of special educational needs and disabilities in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, an area that I am honoured to partially represent alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan). The backdrop to this debate is multifaceted, but my focus this evening is specifically on the pressure facing provision for children and young people.

There are currently over 5,500 children and young people in Barking and Dagenham schools who require SEN support. As of January 2025, 3,111 of these young people had an education, health and care plan—or EHCP, as they are more commonly referred to—with the following breakdown: 12 at nursery level; 1,350 at primary; 946 at secondary; 480 post-16; and 323 post-19. This clearly highlights that present pressures are felt most acutely across primary and secondary schools in Barking and Dagenham.

In 2022, requests for EHCP assessments saw a rise of 100%, an increase four times the national average, and in April 2025 there were 1,000 more children with EHCPs in the borough compared with January 2023, which is a 50% increase over 15 months. Since these spikes, the level of demand has remained high, with 500 to 600 new requests every year. This is partly due to population growth and churn, with about 26,000 additional residents since 2014, and a similar number of about 18% churn.

It is also worth noting that Barking and Dagenham still offers some of the cheapest housing options in London, which accounts for the sheer scale of the population growth. In 2024, 150 children and young people with existing EHCPs moved into, or were placed in, Barking and Dagenham from other boroughs, with around 40% requiring a specialist placement. Staff working in the education, health and care team at Barking and Dagenham council are recording caseloads of 200 to 300 per staff member, which is just not sustainable as a working model.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward; she is right to do so. Does she agree that the progress on SEN action has shown how early intervention with a classroom assistant can make all the difference for many children, and that it is essential that the funding for teaching assistants is retained to ensure that the children in both St Joseph’s primary school in Dagenham and St Finian’s primary school in Newtownards have access to early intervention support and a bright future?

[Margaret Mullane]

The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. The Minister was discussing that issue this afternoon and tomorrow my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) will have a debate on that very point.

Alongside that, the growing pressures in the health system and the shortages of educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and occupational therapists all serve to make the issue worse. As it currently stands, there is very little likelihood that the EHC teams will be able to meet the demand in Barking and Dagenham.

Refugee Citizenship Rights

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, for what I think is the second time today. It is, and always will be, a pleasure.

I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). In the short time that he has been here, he has made a reputation for himself as a fighter and a person who speaks up for his constituents. I sit straight across the Chamber from him and I am always impressed by him. We do not agree on everything but today, on this subject matter, he and I agree. This is one thing we can definitely agree on, and well done to him.

I am grateful to address this House on an issue that tests not only our policies but our principles, and that is how we treat those who come seeking refuge and hope. Today I speak on refugee and citizen rights in the United Kingdom, a subject of both legal importance and moral imperative. This March, the Government imposed a blanket ban on citizenship for individuals who entered the UK irregularly, even if they have been granted asylum and have lived here for years. The Refugee Council estimates that some 71,000 refugees who have already been granted asylum may now be blocked from ever obtaining British citizenship. I ask the Minister, who as she knows I respect immensely, to answer the question of those 71,000 who have lived here for a number of years: will they have the opportunity of getting British citizenship?

This week, Parliament will be considering crucial legislation, including the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill and the ongoing Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. This moment offers a real opportunity to safeguard the future of those who have made the UK their home. I love the diversity that I have in Newtownards. It is not as big as in London, but there are people from Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ukraine and all over eastern Europe. They bring history, culture, friendship and social engagement and they enrich us as a society. I believe we should try to maintain that.

The UK has a long history of standing shoulder to shoulder with those fleeing conflict, persecution and violence. We have honoured our international obligations under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. Yet recent policy changes may have the unintended consequence—I believe it would be unintended; I do not believe it is a policy of Government—of leaving some recognised refugees without a clear pathway to fully participate in society. I want to see them having that right. It is vital that we ensure that those who have been granted asylum are not left in long-term uncertainty.

A clear and fair pathway to citizenship is an important part of helping individuals to put down roots, contribute fully and feel a genuine sense of belonging in the communities that they now call home. Citizenship is more than just paperwork; it represents civic responsibility, stability and inclusion. As Parliament continues to examine the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we must be mindful of our humanitarian responsibilities. That includes ensuring timely decisions on asylum claims, restoring service standards that offer clarity and dignity, and protecting the right to family reunion, which means so much to all of us here. Such steps are not just compassionate; they are also practical and necessary for social cohesion.

Furthermore, we must take care to ensure that assessments of good character do not rest solely on whether someone arrived through irregular routes, which is often a last resort for those fleeing persecution. Each case should be looked at individually, with a recognition of context and care, not with a one-size-fits-all approach that risks deepening hardship for those already in vulnerable situations.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I see the consequences of exclusion every day—not because I am better than anybody else, but because I focus on that and I see more of it happening. That is why it is important to me. Forced statelessness or permanent limbo adversely affect mental health, community cohesion and integration. We must speak not with condemnation, but with compassion and reason. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and I share those personal beliefs.

I always try to leave these things with a Bible quotation. The Bible reminds us in Hebrews 13:2:

“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

That verse speaks to the heart of our shared humanity. It is a reminder that how we treat the stranger, the refugee and the vulnerable reflects the depth of our national character as individuals. This House has long stood as a voice for those in need, and we must continue in that tradition. Let us show leadership not only in lawmaking, but in compassion. Let us ensure that our policies uphold both justice and mercy, and let us do so with humility, conviction and care. In defending the rights of refugees, we reaffirm the values that have long made the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a place of refuge, opportunity and hope.

Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this statement on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on legislative scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I also thank my fellow members of the Committee, Lord Alton, who is the Chair, and the staff, who worked very hard in the production of the report.

The Bill is intended to prevent loss of life at sea and to deter and disrupt organised immigration crime. The Committee welcomes that intention. The Bill introduces a number of new offences targeted at organised criminal gangs facilitating unlawful migration, but the Committee is concerned that the new offences are drafted excessively broadly and pose a serious risk of criminalising refugees and other vulnerable groups. It recommends some changes to address that issue.

Clauses 13 to 17 create three new precursor offences. Those measures are intended to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs that look to profit from organised immigration crime. The provisions engage rights under the refugee convention—in particular, article 31, which prohibits the general imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their unlawful entry or presence in the country where they claim asylum. Those offences could potentially also interfere in some cases with rights under the European convention on human rights—notably, article 5, the right to liberty and security, and article 1 of protocol 1, on peaceful enjoyment of possessions—which are incorporated in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Committee supports the Government’s intention to disrupt and deter organised immigration crime and to safeguard life. However, the Committee is concerned that, as drafted, the precursor offences create uncertainty, extend beyond the Government’s stated legitimate aim and risk inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty. The scope is broad, the thresholds are low and the penalties are high. In its report, the Committee proposes a series of amendments to deal with those issues.

Clause 18 makes it an offence for a person, while journeying by water to the UK from France, Belgium or the Netherlands, to have done an act that

“caused, or created a risk of, the death of, or serious personal injury”—

physical or psychological—

“to, another person.”

The Government should ensure that that clause is sufficiently clear and defined, reflects the legitimate aim that it is intended to achieve and is proportionate to that aim. In particular, the Committee believes that a mental element should be introduced to ensure that only conduct that is intentional or reckless is criminalised.

The Bill will repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 in its entirety, as well as certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Repealing the 2024 Act removes the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. However, certain provisions of the 2023 Act have been kept, which raises human rights concerns. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act modifies the common-law position such that it is for the Secretary of State, not the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period of detention. The Committee agrees with its predecessor Committee and recommends repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act broadens the public order disqualification in section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The Committee believes that that provision is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and article 4 of the ECHR, on prohibition of slavery and forced labour. The Committee recommends repeal of the provision.

Section 59 of the IMA amends section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that asylum claims and human rights claims from nationals of listed states must be declared inadmissible. The Committee believes that it must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution on return to make a protection or human rights claim, which must be considered on its merits, in order to guard against the risk of refoulement. If the Government choose to bring section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into force, they should, at the very least, periodically review the list of safe countries, with particular consideration of the rights of minority groups. In 2023, Georgia, India and Albania were added to the list of safe states to speed up the process of returning people who have travelled from those countries illegally, but we understand those states to be high risk in particular for LGBTQI+ people. It is therefore important that the Government take notice of the universal periodic review by the United Nations Human Rights Council of states listed, as well as other assessments, in order to judge their safety for specific groups, particularly those from the LGBTQI community.

Section 62 of the IMA means that if a person making a human rights or asylum claim does not allow the Home Office to look at everything, including private information, on their phone, then the Home Office shall take that into account as damaging the person’s credibility when deciding whether to believe the person. The Committee believes that this provision should be amended to make it clear that the credibility of a claimant who has provided a reasonable excuse for their failure to provide a password or other method of access requested by the Home Office will not be affected.

Clauses 19 to 26 introduce new search, seizure and retention powers in relation to electronic devices. The Committee is concerned that there is a risk that the new powers of search, seizure and retention may in practice lead to a blanket policy to search and possibly seize and retain items such as mobile phones from asylum seekers, victims of trafficking and children. The Committee recommends that the Government clarify in the Bill how these invasive powers will be used, in order to guard against the risk of indiscriminate searches. The Committee also recommends that guidance clearly sets out that in circumstances where electronic devices are confiscated the authorities must facilitate the contact of individuals with their close family members.

The Committee is concerned that clause 35(7) and (8), deeming transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations to be necessary for important reasons of public interest, inappropriately disapplies the normal safeguards in data protection legislation when data is transferred to third countries. The Committee recommends the removal of those provisions.

Clause 41 amends the current powers contained in paragraph 2(2) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to detain individuals liable to deportation on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good. The Government state that the clause is intended to clarify that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves notification that deportation is being considered. However, the operational effect would appear to amount to retrospectively making it lawful to have detained persons liable to deportation. This does not comply with article 5 of the ECHR, which requires a lawful basis for detention, and article 13 of the ECHR, which guarantees an effective remedy. The Committee recommends the repeal of this clause.

The Committee believes that the requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions and curfews should be expressly limited to cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. The Committee proposes an amendment to deal with this point.

The Committee acknowledges that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important issue, and supports the Government’s intent to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot benefit from the protections of the refugee convention. Individuals will be able to argue against the presumptions made by the state regarding the seriousness of their offence and the danger that they pose to the community. This is important to give refugees the opportunity to argue against the seriousness of their offence and the danger they pose to the community.

Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the Committee believes that the threshold test for electronic monitoring should be one of necessity and proportionality, not whether it is appropriate. Clause 52 should be amended accordingly.

Overall, the Committee welcomes the Government’s intentions in bringing forward this legislation but would like to see changes to ensure that the legislation is more tightly focused on criminalising those who exploit refugees and other vulnerable groups.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for making that statement. As everyone will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. It is one of the issues that I am really concerned about, in this country and across the world, and I always speak about asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and human rights abuses. Has the Committee been able to ascertain whether there has been an increase in the numbers of those seeking asylum who are religiously disenfranchised and have suffered human rights abuses? Is that something that the Government need to address?

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to address that, as I did not include those who have come to this country to seek asylum due to an impingement of their right to practise their faith or religious belief in their home country. We have seen an increase in asylum claims—I do not have the figures to hand—but the Committee’s consideration of that area in its inquiry on the Bill was in relation to the list of safe countries. Countries might be broadly safe, but not safe for individuals who are practising certain beliefs. I mentioned three countries, and of those the one where there are issues in that regard is India.

The Government should review the list of safe countries and have regard for the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review in terms of the ability of an individual to practise their religion or belief in safety. That is an important consideration that the Government should take into account.