Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Margaret Mullane Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Pete Wishart]

I am a little disconcerted by this new clause. It is disappointing that it was introduced so late in proceedings; it should have been included in the Bill as presented on First Reading. Regardless of that, the new clause seems to fit a trend that I have detected with this Bill: there seems to be a cavalier attitude, approach and relationship with international obligations and some of our human rights commitments. Whereas I think everybody would accept that we want to target high-risk criminals and offenders, and the Government require the necessary powers to do that, they do admit that there are issues to do with the ECHR. I want to hear the Minister explain clearly what she means by high harm and risk. I think she has to give the Committee examples of the type of person who would fall foul of the new clause.

Human rights protections are in place for really good reasons. They have been designed and concocted to ensure that people get the protections regardless of what they may have committed in the past. We muck about with them at our peril. All that this cavalier approach to human rights will do is encourage those who want to get rid of our international obligations and our human rights entirely. I am looking at my Conservative friends; this does nothing other than encourage them and push this Government to go further.

We need to hear from the Government what they actually mean by the new clause. Given this watering-down of our commitments, we need to hear a real commitment from the Government that they stand by our international obligations and everything that is included in human rights for everybody we have a responsibility and obligation for.

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. Given what we have seen play out in the last few weeks, I welcome the measures outlined in the new clause, which answers some of the issues highlighted by new clause 44, which was tabled by the Opposition.

I draw attention to the amendment of section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971, which would put in a place a robust suite of measures to monitor and manage those coming into our country. Let us not forget that the new clause focuses on those who are coming here illegally and who are known to have been involved in criminality. The use of curfews, as well as inclusion and exclusion zones, with the possibility of extending conditions where the Secretary of State sees fit, will be a marked improvement on the incoherent approach currently in use. As we have debated in previous sittings, the provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 are not fit for purpose.

I believe that new clause 30, with greater intelligence and the duties of co-operation outlined in clause 5 relating to the role of the Border Security Commander, will create a foundation for better communication and data sharing between our intelligence agencies and their international counterparts. I feel that it will greatly improve on the current situation, in which, in the past few weeks, criminals and those with links to terrorist organisations have entered the country with limited restriction under the flawed legislation of the previous Government.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham and I welcome the new clause. British citizens must be safe, and they need a Government who act to protect them. I believe that the new clause will give them reassurance that we have the ability to impose tight controls and monitoring of an individual if it is deemed necessary by the authorities. We must have legislation that puts the security of our country at the top of the agenda, and the new clause gives the police the powers to impose electronic monitoring, curfews and movement bans on people who are perceived to be a threat when ECHR obligations are protecting them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Mullane Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

16. What steps she is taking to ensure adequate levels of high needs block funding.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

The Government inherited a “lose, lose, lose” SEND situation. The Tories even described it as such in their own words, with the Deputy Chief Whip saying that they should hang their heads in shame over what they left behind. Since entering government, Labour has restructured the Department to put SEND at its heart. We have invested £1 billion into services, and £740 million to create additional specialist places. But we are under no illusions that reform to the system is desperately needed, and we have brought in expert advisers to help us achieve that.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman described the challenge that resulted from 14 years under the previous Government. We recognise the strain that the rising cost of SEND provision is putting on local government, which is why we will be setting out plans to reform the SEND system, with further details to come this year, including how local authorities will be supported to manage their historical and accruing deficits. Decisions on new school provision and buildings will also be made in due course.

[Margaret Mullane]

Has the Department give due consideration to updating the allocation policy? It is currently based on historical funding, which leaves boroughs such as Barking and Dagenham at a disadvantage for SEN provision compared with inner-London boroughs.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The structure of the high needs funding formula is largely unchanged in 2025-26, as we take time to consider what changes might be necessary to ensure a fair system that directs funding to where it is needed and that will support our future SEND reforms. We will continue to consider where changes to the formula will be required. The Secretary of State visited a school in Dagenham in December and saw at first hand its excellent work and the difference it is making to children with special educational needs in my hon. Friend’s area.