Indefinite Leave to Remain: Healthcare Workers

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I rise to speak for a slightly different reason, which is that I have the honour to be the Chair of the current Petitions Committee and this is its first debate. I thank the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for an excellent contribution. He described a worrying, if not harrowing, situation. I also place on the record my thanks, at this early stage in the life of the Committee, to the Members who have joined it. Their enthusiasm is most encouraging. I cannot continue without saying that we have been hugely impressed by the work put in by the Clerks and all the team who give us the presentations and so on. I will keep my remarks very short, because we want to hear the proper detail about this particularly harrowing issue, but I want to end by saying that to my mind the work of the Petitions Committee is very important, and it has a very high hit rate from members of the public who watch the proceedings and go into Hansard to see what we said. It strikes me that that is an important part of the way we do democracy in this country. I will conclude my remarks with that.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

If Members wish to speak, they have to rise in their place.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on his excellent speech introducing this important debate.

Members will know that before being elected to represent my home constituency of Ashford in July, I had spent the previous 22 years working in the national health service. As someone who also made the journey to work in the NHS from a foreign country, I will draw on my knowledge and set out in my short contribution why I support the e-petition and would back reducing from five years to two the time a foreign healthcare worker has to wait before qualifying for indefinite leave to remain. I would make the point that since I came to the UK in 2001, the rules have changed and people who have the same aspirations as I did now risk finding themselves excluded.

As we all know, the NHS is reliant on overseas workers. In the NHS workforce survey in June of this year, just under 30% of NHS staff in England reported having a non-British nationality. However, without proper incentives to both recruit and retain those workers, the employment deficit is likely to worsen. For example, in the years to June 2022 and June 2023, more nurses from the European Union and the European economic area left the NHS than joined. The picture is similar for healthcare workers from the rest of the world. In the year to June 2022, 4,702 healthcare workers left the UK, and for 2023 it was 6,610. In the year to June 2024, 7,957 workers left the UK.

The cost of recruiting and training an overseas nurse is anywhere between £50,000 and £70,000, while for a doctor it can be roughly £250,000—only for them to be tempted away by other countries with more attractive recruitment and retention policies, such as Australia and Canada. As the cost of living crisis has worsened over the past decade and a half across the country, especially in the south-east, where my Ashford constituency sits, stagnating wages and rising costs have not been a good incentive to keep staff in the NHS workforce.

This issue is also impacting patient care. Losing experienced staff is a big loss for the NHS. It takes 12 to 18 months for managers and matrons to train a newly joined staff member, so losing them in two to three years’ time is a big loss for the hospitals. Given those factors, we must rethink our retention strategy as a whole. Keeping in the United Kingdom skilled workers, especially those who have been the subject of large Government investment, is a vital step towards keeping our NHS alive and making it fit for the future. Therefore, granting healthcare workers indefinite leave to remain after two years rather than five is a necessary measure to solve the retention crisis identified by Lord Darzi in his recent independent report into our NHS.

By making a special case for healthcare workers and allowing them to make this country their permanent home after two years, we would show the importance of their roles in the NHS and our gratitude, as a nation, for their decision to come to the UK to train, learn and work in our healthcare sector.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I should say that it is against the rules to work on a laptop while attending these debates.

Government’s Childcare Expansion

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There are countless millions of free childminders available. The love between a grandparent and a grandchild is the purest love: love without responsibility. I declare a personal interest. Will the Minister assure me that he will incentivise grandparents to look after their grandchildren, and that nothing in the tax or benefits system will discriminate against mothers who want to look after their children full time? Will he build on the Conservatives’ scheme of transferrable allowances?

[Stephen Morgan]

Families have an important role to play in supporting children in the first few years of their life. We are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity for every child, in every part of the country, and our childcare system has a key role to play in that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Final question, Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

For 14 long, weary years I have been arguing for an end of the faith cap, which is preventing the opening of new Catholic schools and has no proper effect. Does the Secretary of State think that I should keep campaigning and be patient for a bit longer?

[Damian Hinds]

I have also had an opportunity to speak to my right hon. Friend on occasions about this. The Catholic Church, the Church of England and other denominations play a central part in our education, typically having high-quality schools and typically being popular with parents. We are keen to extend our academies and free schools programme, which has underpinned the huge rise in quality and children’s results that we have seen since 2010. No doubt, before too long, we may wish to put the two things closer together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

I think the hon. Lady stood on a manifesto to abolish Ofsted in 2019, and now she has said she would remove the grading of schools. I too have a quotation from Sir Michael Wilshaw, who has said:

“This risks lowering standards in schools and is a distraction”.

I would go further, and say that this shows that Labour is happy to prioritise the asks of teaching unions over raising standards and safeguarding our children.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T2. Has the Department had words with the Ministry of Defence about the siting of 2,000 illegal migrants on an RAF base? I ask that question because not 200 yards from where those illegal migrants are to be housed are a nursery school and a primary school, set in a community of 1,000 people in the former married quarters. Should not Ofsted and the Department be taking an interest in this matter, in the context of child protection?

[Gillian Keegan]

Of course we always take the interests of child protection very seriously. The Home Office has confirmed that the proposals for RAF Scampton are based on the accommodation of single adult males, so there will be no children there. We remain constantly in contact with both the Home Office and local councils as these proposals develop, and my focus is on promoting the wellbeing of all children, including those who are refugees.

Religious Education in Modern Britain

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Happy All Saints’ day, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who indeed is a very good friend, on securing this debate.

It is not all doom and gloom. There is an extraordinary, vibrant faith school sector in this country that provides tolerance and superb religious education. Indeed, I was a bit torn over whether to come to this important debate or to the mass at my granddaughter’s primary school this morning; however, I could not miss this debate because the subject is so important. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes made a powerful case in his introduction to the debate. It is extraordinary and, in a way, shocking that one in five schools offers zero hours of religious education. That is around 500 secondary schools. My hon. Friend is therefore right to say that children are subject to a postcode lottery. The entire thrust of our education reform since 2010 has been to drive up standards in all subjects.

It is a fundamental principle that parents are the primary educators of their children; that is in the universal declaration on human rights and the European convention on human rights. The state’s role, then, is to act as the agent of parents and facilitate their role. That we have a diverse ecosystem of schooling in this country reflects that our society is a rich tapestry, rather than a boring grey cloth. Each child is an individual, and finding a school or other educational route that matches and suits the needs and nature of that individual child is the task of their parents.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes that we need a national standard in religious education. I am rather bemused at the decline of religious education and the ability of so many schools to ignore what is in the Butler Education Act and more recent guidance. As I understand it—the Minister can comment on this—it is the duty of schools to provide some religious education.

My hon. Friend, again, is right to say that parents need the tools to challenge poor or non-existent provision. We need to give them the levers that they can pull to raise standards in our schools and hold staff and school leadership to account. The statistics he has cited regarding the number of RE specialists are disconcerting. We know—it is clear from this debate—that the current provision of RE in schools is not enough, but it seems that we also do not have the number of properly trained specialists to meet the existing level of provision. I hope this debate may make a difference.

I am sympathetic to our Education Ministers. I think we have achieved great things since 2010, and the Minister of State, Department for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), has achieved so much himself; I think of him a lot as I try to converse with my granddaughter, who is learning through phonetics, rather than the alphabet that I was brought up on. The Minister has achieved great things, and he and other Ministers have been responsible for the free schools programme that has fundamentally shifted the balance away from a decrepit, left-leaning echo chamber in education provision. Parents have been put in the driver’s seat, and we have greatly lowered the barriers to entry into the education sector for those who wish to start new schools. However, there are still problems that need working out.

In that context, I mention the faith schools admissions cap, which I have campaigned against for many years; the Minister is well aware of my views. I am disappointed that we have not got rid of the totally counterproductive admissions cap for faith-based free schools. It was introduced as a sop to our Liberal coalition partners in the wake of the Trojan horse scandal, when Islamist extremists were infiltrating schools. That policy has been a total failure—it has not achieved what it was supposed to. First, all the schools involved in the Trojan horse scandal were secular, not faith based.

Secondly—this is the key point—the admissions cap only hits schools that are over-subscribed from outside their faith grouping. Whatever their merits or virtues, Islamic-run state schools tend to educate members of their communities and receive very little interest from non-Muslims. Catholic schools, on the other hand, are incredibly popular with non-Catholics, but although Catholic schools educate many non-Catholics, their primary purpose is obviously to provide a Catholic education to Catholic children. For that reason, our Catholic schools have not been able to take part in the free schools programme. In fact, the only practical effect of the cap is to prevent new Catholic schools from being founded. The policy is not even in legislation—all it would take is the Education Secretary’s signature for it to go away. In our 2017 manifesto, we made a promise to parents that we would scrap the counterproductive admissions cap and allow the Catholic schools sector to expand. We have still not fulfilled that promise, and I very much hope that when the Minister sums up the debate, he will deal with that issue.

Returning to general matters, I know—we all know—that Ministers are balancing a wide range of priorities, but our job in this debate is to remind them that RE is important, and needs to be backed up with funding and support. We last had a debate on this subject in 2011, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned. She was far too modest; it was her debate. Since that time, she has been made the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. She made a point that I will repeat, because it is obvious: the fact that we live in a world where persecution of people for their religious beliefs or world view is increasing only reinforces the importance of religious education as a school subject, and religious literacy more broadly. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) spoke powerfully in that respect—I think we all agree with everything he said, and he said it in a very moving way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is right that as Britain becomes more diverse, we face more challenges. There is a danger that Britons know less and less about their own background, and how central Christianity has been to the development of our society—to our family of nations, our monarchy, our democracy and our constitution. Indeed, Christian iconography is all over this building. Meanwhile, Britons from newer communities often have very vibrant and active religious faiths: Christian, Muslim, Hindu and otherwise.

Without sufficient religious education in schools, there is a danger that newcomers will find there is no culture to assimilate or acclimatise to, because the natives have forgotten it themselves. We need a holistic and inclusive approach that teaches pupils about not only their own faith, which is vital, but others; in this country, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism are important. Catholic schools in England and Wales devote at least 10% of their curriculum to RE, which allows them to do preciously that. Pupils in Catholic schools spend more time learning about other faiths and world views than students in most secular schools. Despite over a third of pupils in Catholic schools being non-Catholic, the withdrawal rates are almost non-existent at 0.02%, according to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference survey data. I wonder if the lessons from the model that Catholic schools provide could be deployed in other state schools. This is an excellent and important debate, and I hope it makes a difference.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

We now move on to our last two speakers before I call the Front Benchers at 10.37 am. Perhaps the two gentlemen could split the time between them, so that we can get everybody in—that is about seven or eight minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Gibb]

The hon. Member makes an important point—those are common features of the world’s major religions—but obviously RE and education is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland.

RE is part of each school’s basic or wider curriculum. While academies, free schools and most maintained schools designated as having a religious character may design and follow their own RE curriculum, all other maintained schools must follow their area’s locally agreed syllabus for RE. The locally agreed syllabus specifies details of the RE curriculum that they should deliver and is monitored by the standing advisory council on religious education that is established by each local authority.

I understand the concern raised by several Members that some schools may not be taking their duty to teach RE seriously. I should be clear that all mainstream, state-funded schools are required to teach RE. Schools that are not teaching RE are acting unlawfully or are in breach of their funding agreement. Any concerns that a school may not be complying with the requirement to teach RE should in the first instance be raised via the school’s complaints procedure. If a complaint is not resolved, the issue can be escalated via the Department for Education’s school complaints unit.

Members have cited the figure that one in five schools are not teaching RE—I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made that point. Actually, the Department does not collect data on schools’ level of compliance with the requirement to teach RE, but it does collect data on the hours of RE teaching by teachers. The data cited by my right hon. Friend is drawn from individual schools’ timetabling systems, so it does not really represent a completely accurate picture. For example, it may not pick up instances when RE is taught as part of another subject or under a different title.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the Minister issue general guidance to all schools that they must fulfil their statutory requirements in this area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Gibb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we have clear guidance to schools about mentoring and continuous professional development. The early career framework was implemented to help teachers in the first two years of their career to make sure they have the right mentoring and training so that they can turn into accomplished teachers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes raised the matter of collective worship, which is an important part of school life. It encourages pupils to reflect on the concept of belief and the role it plays in the traditions and values of this country, and equips them with the knowledge they need to interact with other people. It deals with how we live our lives and includes important moral and ethical issues. Any concerns that a school is failing to provide a daily act of collective worship should in the first instance be raised via the school’s complaints unit.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Before the Minister sits down, will he deal with my point about the faith cap, which does not achieve anything?

[Nick Gibb]

My right hon. Friend will recall that when that decision was taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), Catholic schools were encouraged to use the voluntary aided route to establish a new school. Of course, we will continue to keep all these issues under review.

I reiterate the Government’s commitment that schools in England should continue to teach religious education. It is mandatory now and we have no plans to change that, but there is scope to work on achieving greater consistency in standards. We will seek to improve that through the work of the Oak National Academy.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank all Members for their important contributions throughout the Bill’s consideration. More than two thirds of the world’s population live in countries where academic freedom is severely limited. For decades, people have travelled across the globe to study in the UK because we are one of the few nations in which free, fair and lawful speech at university is truly valued. It is no coincidence that the most academically free countries in the world are also the most socially progressive, the most democratic, the most peaceful and, of course, the most prosperous.

Free speech is as fundamental to what academics and students do on university campuses as it is to what we do in the House. However, as we saw on Second Reading, the Opposition chose to deny that there is a problem at all, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, since we last debated the Bill, the UK has become the only country in the top tier of academically free countries to be significantly downgraded by the academic freedom index. A report published by the Varieties of Democracy Institute determined that despite the UK’s status as a historic bastion of academic freedom and scientific excellence, not only is academic freedom in the UK declining but that decline appears to be accelerating.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Alliance of Pro-Life Students says that more than 70% of pro-life students face situations in seminars or lectures where they feel unable to speak openly, and one in three students surveyed had seen events cancelled due to the no-platforming of pro-life students and speakers. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that whatever people’s views on pro-life issues, those who take that stance have a right to be heard in our universities?

[Michelle Donelan]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course, they deserve and have a right to be able to air their views and debate that subject.

In oral evidence, Dr Arif Ahmed spoke about how his fellow academics told him that they supported his campaign for free speech but were concerned that their careers would be impacted if they aired that publicly. We also heard from Professor Kathleen Stock, who has been the subject of the most grotesque and sustained campaign of threats and abuse, which compelled her to resign. Is it therefore any wonder that, in 2019, a King’s College London survey found that, chillingly, one in four students believed that physical violence was justified to shut down views that they deemed to be hateful?

The following year, a report by Policy Exchange found widespread self-censorship among university staff, but students and staff did not need to wait for those damning studies or for oral evidence to be published to know that there was a problem. The students forced to self-censor know that there is a problem. The academics bullied off campus, excluded by colleagues or forced to censor their lectures know that there is a problem. Legitimate organisations, speakers and guests who have been no-platformed or physically and verbally abused on campus know that there is a problem. It is just the Opposition who have their heads in the sand.

Budget Resolutions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I hope the House will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) in being relentlessly partisan. We are dealing with enormously complex issues.

I listened to the Chancellor’s peroration—his hymn of praise to a low-tax, deregulated economy—and it brought a tear to the eye of a weary Thatcherite. But having sat through 50 Budgets, because there are sometimes two a year, and having listened to so many Labour and Conservative Chancellors, I know that, when one reads the small print the next day, one tends to find that the Chancellor has taken by stealth what he has given publicly.

I know that we face one of the greatest challenges in our history, with the pandemic, but the truth is that we are now taxing people higher than at any level since the Attlee Government. As we pursue levelling up, are we going to bring in ration cards on eggs and meat, as the Attlee Government did? I am looking now at the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who I hope is listening to every word I am saying. We are—to quote the Prime Minister in another context—at “one minute to midnight” in terms of our future as a tax-cutting Government. With mortgages going up, inflation going up, and a £3,000 increase per household to fund £150 billion of spending, soon we will be paying £1 trillion in tax. Who will pay for this? It will be the people who elect us Conservative MPs and middle earners in middle Britain. Even beer will go up. Inflation may be up to 5% next year, putting at risk the forecasts of the Chancellor. We are breaking the triple lock on pensions, which I think is probably necessary, which might result in another £30 billion being taken out of the hands of pensioners over the next two decades.

On inheritance tax, we are freezing the band, so more and more people with modest homes are being brought into inheritance tax. On the health and social care levy, we might be taking up to £85 billion off older people. With the fiscal drag on income tax, we are bringing another million people into the higher tax level—and this is a Conservative Government. This is what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury must do: every time his colleagues beg him for more money for this and more money for that, he has to say no.

We should bear in mind what happened in 1945. The coalition Government during the war were the highest-taxing Government in history and the most regulating Government in history—we regulated people’s private lives more than we have ever done in the past 70 years, including during the pandemic. What was the result? It was a Labour Government. People looked at the coalition Government and they turned to what they thought would be the real McCoy, namely, a Labour Government. So get a grip. I know that we have these challenges. I probably could not do any better, but we have to get a grip now.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, because I am only allowed six minutes.

I use the NHS. I do not have private health insurance. I do not use private health. I rely totally on the NHS. Fantastic care has been given to me by nurses and doctors, but it is a bottomless pit. The more we increase funding of the NHS above inflation, the lower the productivity. We saw that in the Labour Government under Blair and Brown and it is happening now. We are even seeing it now with GPs quite disgracefully refusing to see people. So we must grip the NHS. We heard the Education Secretary half an hour ago. His own budget now is being squeezed because of the huge increases in health spending. If we are to match the Chancellor’s wonderful peroration to create a low-tax, deregulated economy, the most important Minister from now on is the procurement Minister—the Minister who has the courage to say no.

I do not wish to sound relentlessly critical. I do not pretend that any of us could do any better, but we have to be honest and true to our Conservative instincts and tell people that they should not always rely on the state. We should help them to get out of the clutches of the state. To tackle health spending and to relieve pressure on the NHS, the Major Government allowed people of pensionable age to claim tax relief on private health insurance. That was fiercely opposed by the Labour Government. Mr Major is hardly a right-wing extremist. He was prepared to do it. He was prepared to take millions out of relying on the NHS by giving tax relief. It was a bold Conservative idea to wean people off the state.

Why are we a property-owning democracy? It is because, for many years, we gave tax relief on people’s mortgages. Families who before could only leave a few sticks of furniture to their children became property owners. As they became property owners, they became Conservatives. That is why these planning reforms are so important. That is why it is important for my children, who are in their 20s and 30s, to be allowed to get on the property ladder. By easing planning controls, we can build more and get people on the property ladder. That is a true Conservative idea. We have to have the courage to propel that view forward, whatever people might argue from a nimby point of view. I am probably as good a nimby as anyone else. We are all nimbys when it comes to our personal lives and people who want to build around us, but we have to build more. We have to help our young people—a strong Conservative idea.

Look at our tax system. We have the longest tax code in the world after India. Look at the poisoned chalice that Gordon Brown left us in the 45% tax increase. We have never had the courage to get rid of that. People are driving themselves up companies and creating wealth, but instead of flattening out taxes, which is what Nigel Lawson did, we have not yet had the courage to get rid of that higher tax burden.

When it comes to levelling up, Gainsborough South West ward is the 27th most deprived ward in the country. I am very proud of the fact that we have achieved some levelling-up funds, but the process was directed not at endless schemes or at consultants, but just at infrastructure —on repairing the historic houses in the marketplace, which is something that we could control.

As I end my speech and obey your summons, Mr Deputy Speaker, to speak for fewer than six minutes, let me say to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury: be bold, be Conservative and get people out of the clutches of the state.

Covid-19: Education Settings

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady might not have heard my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). We are looking at giving further guidance and information to schools imminently, and we are very much looking at putting in place mitigation measures there, while recognising that the best form of assessment is always examination.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for putting children first. In the last year, the education of children has been trashed. Although every death of a child is tragic, we have to understand that there are 12.7 million children in this country and, sadly, every year 6,000 die. Can we have a sense of proportion? Will the Secretary of State reassure parents that the chances of any child falling seriously ill from covid are “vanishingly small” and there is no risk to children from what he has announced today?

[Gavin Williamson]

My right hon. Friend is right to point out, as Professor Chris Whitty has done so many times, that children have very few adverse effects from covid, if they are unfortunate enough to get it. That is why, combined with the vaccination programme that we are rolling out right across the country, we think it is right to take this next cautious but important step forward, in the light of the scientific, medical and health evidence.

A Brighter Future for the Next Generation

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

We should never accept less than the highest standards for young people in this country. I will compromise with nobody on being ambitious to deliver a world-class education and achieve world-class standards for our young people, but let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the progress that we made under Labour between 1997 and 2010. In London, for example, we massively narrowed the gap in attainment. Will he acknowledge that what we are seeing now, under his party’s Government, is the attainment gap once again widening? Our young people deserve better than that.

There are so many measures that I believe the Government could and should have included in the Queen’s Speech. Ministers could have gone beyond the platitudes on early years that we heard a few minutes ago and set out a plan to reverse the damage their decade of cuts has produced and to ensure affordable, accessible, high-quality early years education and childcare for all children. They could have set out how they will transform the national tutoring programme, creating the space for children to socialise and recover the time they need to develop and grow, and ensuring that no child loses out because of the damage that Ministers’ failure to manage the pandemic has created. They could have addressed the horrifying rise in child poverty—not mentioned once in the Queen’s Speech, although it is the driving cause of the widening attainment gap. They could have ensured that education professionals’ and school and college leaders’ expertise and hard work during the pandemic were recognised with a fair pay rise.

Instead, the Secretary of State has decided that it is more important to focus on free speech on university campuses. Free speech and academic freedom are important, but suggesting that we should use up valuable legislative time while the employment Bill has been quietly dropped and while, nearly two years after the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street telling us that he had plans for social care ready to go, nothing has appeared, will make people up and down the country think that this is the wrong priority.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

I will not at the moment, if the right hon. Member will forgive me. I wish to make some progress.

We need to get this in perspective. Only six out of 10,000 events on campus—I repeat: 10,000—were cancelled, four of them simply because of lack of paperwork. One was a pyramid scheme. Now, I do understand that Conservatives responsible for a decade of economic mismanagement may struggle to recognise a pyramid scheme when they see one, but I am surprised that the Secretary of State wants to protect the ability to promote such schemes on our university campuses.

Much more concerning, though, is that the Minister for Universities was forced to admit on radio yesterday that this flawed legislation could have dangerous and troubling consequences, including potentially protecting holocaust deniers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on the passion with which she speaks on behalf of early learning.

I feel a bit bereft by this Government, because normally I like to make constructive criticism of my own side, but I have to say that there is very little in this Queen’s Speech that I disagree with—perhaps I had better sit down straight away, but you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I say a few words.

To compare that with previous Governments, I found it very difficult to agree with a single thing that the Government of David Cameron were doing. He took the view—some in the Labour party may take it now—that his party was unelectable and he had to veer towards a kind of liberal agenda. He did do one thing right, which was calling a referendum on Europe, although of course he never thought for a moment that it would ever happen. He thought that he would still be in coalition with the Liberals and that if it did happen, there would be just a few right wingers, as he would have termed them, arguing for Brexit and he would win easily—but Brexit has changed everything. That is now the problem for the Labour party in reconnecting with its voters in northern and midlands seats such as Gainsborough, which I represent.

The Government are in a strong position, but I counsel against hubris. If we are to hold on to our gains in areas such as I represent, we must not just talk the talk but walk the walk and take the action. That applies particularly to immigration and housing. Brexit was won not because people like me were wittering on about parliamentary sovereignty for many years, but on the issue of immigration, and people in the midlands and the north of England feeling that their Government were out of touch on immigration.

I welcome the new Bill that is being promoted. The fact is, though, that there are perhaps a million people in this country whom we do not know about who are here illegally. That is a real issue and of real concern. What really angers people is seeing these daily pictures of illegal crossings on the channel. I believe that the only way to stop that is to make it a criminal offence to try to enter this country illegally—one that, if proven, would entail a custodial sentence and deportation. If we do not take action, this trade will continue; it will get worse and worse, and sooner or later there will be a horrible tragedy in the channel and people will drown and they will die. The Bill is welcome, but we have to be robust on this. We cannot protect ourselves simply by creating a wall around the country.

Why do people come here? These are not bad people; they are good people. They just want a better future. They come here because their own countries are in chaos. Therefore, we have to commit ourselves to international aid and overseas development. I will not labour the point, but I have been critical of the way the budget has been cut. We have promised to restore it, but we have to concentrate aid in a practical way, on the poverty that is motivating this mass migration. Immigration is a vital issue.

The next issue is housing. Some of my colleagues who represent prosperous seats in the south-east are rightly worried about the planning Bill. Personally, I see no point in encouraging developers to build on green-belt land. They always want to build executive housing on green land; we want to build housing in the cities, the towns, the north of England and the midlands. I think we should reconnect with people by committing ourselves to a Macmillan Government-type programme of building 300,000 houses a year. His mistake, perhaps, was to build council houses. I want to build housing for young people that they can afford so that they can convert rent into purchase. That will really connect with young people, who, in places such as the south-east, simply cannot get on the property ladder. That is how this Government will be a success—by giving people a stake in their own society, so that they are not just renters. That is a true levelling-up agenda.

I am also grateful to the Government for taking on the issue of free speech in universities. It is none of my business, really, but if the Labour party is to reconnect with so many of its natural supporters in the north, it has to turn its back on this woke, politically correct agenda of denigrating our past. The past is the past. I understand that, on my mother’s side, my grandfather was born in Barbados—he was the son of a missionary—but it is quite probable that his grandfather and great-grandfather were involved in the slave trade and may even have owned slaves. Am I to denounce my own family? The fact is that the slave trade was so endemic in the 18th century that there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are descended from slave owners. Slavery is wrong. It was wrong; it is wrong. We led the world in abolishing it, but the history is as it is.

Similarly, when I go up to the Committee corridor, I see a picture of Queen Elizabeth I—a glorious picture of Gloriana. She ensured that my ancestor Richard Leigh was hung, drawn and quartered for no other reason than that he was a Catholic priest. But do I condemn Elizabeth I? No; it is part of our history. We have to be proud of Britain. We have to stop tearing down statues, stop denigrating our past, and accept that the past is the past, with all its benefits and regrettable occurrences.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I agree with the right hon. Member on some level about the need to protect our nation’s history. If he is so concerned about ensuring that the nation’s history is protected, will he condemn the comments made by the Minister for Universities on Radio 4 yesterday about holocaust deniers and people who wish to debate the facts of the holocaust being protected under the new free speech in universities legislation that his Government are bringing forward?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I did not hear the interview. All I can say is that antisemitism, like Islamophobia and all the isms, is completely wrong, regrettable and horrible. I would have hoped that it would not have not been necessary to bring in such a Bill because there will be all sorts of unintended consequences. I heard a university vice-chancellor say yesterday, “How are we going to police it?” I understand all this. Therefore, it is down to the leadership of the universities and the schools to ensure free speech, within reason.

Free speech should be governed by good manners. It should not be governed by laws. We should therefore protect free speech, and it is down to headteachers and vice-chancellors to ensure that this ridiculous no-platforming stops. I do not want to get into the whole transgender issue, but a well-known feminist writer should not be barred from speaking in a university just because she has made a few comments on transgender issues.

Finally, I want to talk about the Union, which is the single most important issue we have to deal with—even more important than immigration and housing. We have to fight for the Union. I counsel the Government in saying that it is just an economic issue. Of course, we have to take on the SNP on the economic issues, but we must not make the mistake of the remainers in the EU referendum by saying it is all about money. We must not play Project Fear. We must say, “We love being together with Scotland. We love the Scottish people. We love the Union. We have achieved so much together. Let’s keep it going.”

Special Educational Needs

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate.

I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in the Boothroyd Room, and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, I am afraid, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room—so you are on “Candid Camera”, but you are all very good looking.

If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks email address. Members attending physically should clean the spaces before they use them and when they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.