Support for University Students: Covid-19

Debate between Steve Double and Michelle Donelan

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

Just to clarify, the hardship funding, at every stage, is applicable to international students, students from Wales who study here in England, and indeed Scottish students studying in England. I am happy to clarify that for all the hon. Lady’s constituents who may be studying at an English university.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]]

I have been seeking to support a number of students in my constituency who are doing as they have been asked and staying at home but find themselves locked into tenancy agreements and paying rent on accommodation they cannot use. While it is welcome that some universities and accommodation providers are providing partial rebates to students, too many still are not. Will the Minister join me in urging all those accommodation providers to show some flexibility and provide a partial rent rebate wherever possible?

School Penalty Fines and Authorised Absence

Debate between Steve Double and Michelle Donelan

Monday 11th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

Again the hon. Lady makes a good point, and one that I have come across as I have tried to follow the chain of responsibility. I have met with headteachers, Ofsted and local authority leaders, and there is a lack of clarity about who is responsible—it is a vicious circle. Sadly, that comes down to the ruling and the situation with the Department for Education, which made the blanket ban, and that is the very point that I am challenging.

The policy undermines the place of family and devalues the importance of family holidays in any child’s upbringing. The policy does not enjoy broad support: parents hate it; many headteachers I talk to dislike it hugely and want it to be changed; and even the Local Government Association does not support it. David Simmonds from the LGA said:

“The increase in fines reflected tighter enforcement by schools that are under pressure from Ofsted to meet attendance targets, as well as a rising school population”.

He called for more flexibility in the rules to allow heads to take account of family circumstances where absence is unavoidable. He said that heads

“should be trusted to make decisions about a child’s absence from school without being forced to issue fines and start prosecutions in situations where they believe the absence is reasonable.”

That is a common-sense approach.

I am sure that we all want a good education for all children in this country, but that is not what we are debating. The Government are trying to reduce truancy, which is a persistent problem for a very small number of students, but this blanket approach is not the way to achieve that; it is a blunt instrument hitting the wrong people. There is a big difference between truancy and parents who simply want to be able to spend a holiday with their children. It should be noted that children who are persistently absent are less likely than other children to go on a family holiday. Before the regulations were introduced, authorised family holidays accounted for 7.5% of all absences from primary schools, dropping to 2.5% of all absences from secondary schools, but absence for family holidays was lower, at 1.9%, for persistently absent pupils, compared with 8.2% for other pupils. The policy is focusing on the wrong families; it is hitting the wrong people.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Given that holidays outside term time are much more expensive, does my hon. Friend accept that children who are restricted from taking time to go on holiday, which can be educational and enriching, tend to be socially deprived and from impoverished backgrounds? We are limiting their life chances with this policy.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are hitting the wrong people with this policy. The children of families who, because of the economics and the price, can afford to take them on holiday only during term time are possibly the ones who need such holidays the most in order to enrich their experience of the world, to strengthen their family relationships and to expand their knowledge and appreciation of the world, but they are the ones who are being excluded from such highly valuable experiences by this policy.

By stating that a family holiday is not a valid reason for an authorised absence from school, we are not addressing the real issue of persistent truancy. The assumption that absence is the main cause of falling attainment is just that—an assumption that has no evidence to support it. Stephen Gorard, professor of education at Durham University, has said:

“There is an association between the proportion of absence and the aggregate level of attainment of students who’ve had that level of absence but it would be wrong to assume that it was necessarily causal. We don’t know that the absences are the reason for the lower attainment. They could both be indicators of something else such as background characteristics and of course it’s also possible that children who aren’t doing well at school after a time begin to drift away and perhaps take time off. It could be that the causal mechanism is the other way around.”

This policy cannot be considered in isolation. We cannot just take a narrow approach that says, “This is the way to ensure that children attend school regularly,” without considering the wider impact on other aspects of family life and society.

Immigration

Debate between Steve Double and Michelle Donelan

Monday 19th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy.

The issue of immigration has been debated in Parliament many times. It feels as though hardly a day has gone by since the summer recess when we have not debated immigration or the refugee situation at least once, but I hope to add my voice to the ongoing debate. As has been pointed out, the debate has come about as a result of almost 200,000 people putting their signatures to the online petition. That is a clear demonstration that the subject continues to be a matter of significance and concern to the British people. It saddens me that such debates often polarise opinion and people take extreme and opposing views. The petition calls for the end of immigration and the closing of our borders.

Although we might not agree with the wording or even the sentiments contained in the petition, it is a clear sign of the deep frustration and, at times, anger that many people continue to feel about the issue. Much of that comes from the perceived lack of progress in addressing the matter. I am sure we would all agree that the issue of immigration is far more complex than how it is presented in the petition. I am also sure that, as politicians and parliamentarians, we will not be fulfilling our duty to the British public if we do not continue to address the matter. That is why I welcome the debate. It is absolutely right that, in response to the petition, we debate some of the issues raised and address the inaccuracies it contains.

I represent the constituency of St Austell and Newquay in mid-Cornwall. Cornwall is not renowned for its ethnic diversity or its multiculturalism. Indeed, there are people in Cornwall who might view people from Devon as immigrants. We do not have many permanent migrants resident in Cornwall, yet all my fellow Cornish MPs would confirm that, while we were knocking on doors in the run-up to the election, immigration remained one of the most regularly raised issues that people were concerned about. There is clearly a perception that many of the challenges that our nation faces are a direct result of immigration. It is certainly true that in some communities the number of migrants who have moved in has had a significant and disproportionate impact. The danger as I see it is that we will become polarised as either for or against immigration. In part, I support both views, because we need managed immigration—a term I prefer to “controlled immigration”. We need to be able to manage immigration to our country in a way that is right and beneficial to our country.

The open-door policy of the last Labour Government has already been mentioned; I believe that, coupled with unlimited migration from inside the EU, it is largely responsible for many of people’s concerns today. There is no doubt in my mind that, historically, immigration has brought many benefits to this country. People have come here and contributed to our economy, our culture and our wider society—from the thousands of people who now work in our NHS and other public services, and the many business people who have come here to start a business and now provide significant employment, to those who have contributed to our national arts, media and sports.

In Cornwall, we can have anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 migrant workers—or even more—at any one time. Those people supply a vital workforce to many of our core Cornish sectors—agriculture, food processing, hospitality and tourism—as well as health and care workers. It is simple: without those workers, Cornwall would grind to a halt. They are vital for Cornwall to function. Equally, the number of migrants who have moved into some communities and the speed of migration have created significant challenges and tensions. There are difficulties with integration when so many people move so quickly into a community. There is an impact on some schools when many children do not speak English as a first language. There can be issues of segregation when people try to keep themselves separate. All those things can create huge challenges. We have to face the fact that a situation has been created in which some people no longer feel at home in the place where they were born and raised. The number of immigrants has also placed a burden on some public services.

We have seen thousands of people move from other parts of the country to live in Cornwall. When I speak to them, they openly state that one reason they moved was the negative impact of immigration where they previously lived. They choose to move to Cornwall because they see it as somewhere with low immigration. Some will argue that that is a warped view of reality; quite possibly it is, but no matter how true or untrue we think such people’s perception is, we owe it to them not to ignore but to address their concerns. As politicians, we ignore them at our peril.

The challenge is how we embrace the positives that immigration can bring while managing the negatives. As the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said, it is vital that we keep the concepts of economic migration and of refugees as two separate issues in our minds and, as much as possible, in the mind of the British people. One of the sad consequences of the debate in recent months has been the blurring of the line between immigrants and refugees. Genuine refugees deserve all the compassion, help and support that we are able to provide as a country. That needs to be real help that is carefully considered and planned. As the Prime Minister said, we need to respond with our heads as well as our hearts. It is right that we continue to support the refugee camps and provide help there, and that we bring the right number of refugees to this country so that we can genuinely help and support them.

When it comes to migrants, the vast majority of whom are economic, we simply need to be able to take control and manage who can to come into the country. We need to allow, and indeed welcome, those who will meet the needs of the country, contribute to our economy and society, and embrace our nation, values, heritage and culture. I wholeheartedly support what the Government have been doing to deal with the issues, but although much has been done, much more must be done to address non-EU migration.

We all know that some parts of the country experience significant problems that are at least partly the result of EU migration. We simply cannot continue to allow the number of EU migrants to this country that we have had in recent years. We understand that the number is largely a direct result of the fact that our economy is growing far quicker than the economies of all other EU countries.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are always going to need and rely on immigration until we address the bigger issue: the gap in our skills market? Until we do so, we will not be able to cut back on immigration. Addressing the skills gap is the way to grow the economy.

[Steve Double]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The immigration we need is that which will continue to grow our economy and fill the skills gaps. We need to welcome those who will come and meet those needs. Nevertheless, it is clear that unmanaged immigration from inside the EU is partly responsible for keeping wages and productivity low and for taking jobs from young people. We must stand up to and address that. If we do not, we will continue to face the challenge of low productivity and a limited future for some young people.

It is clear that immigration is going to be a key issue in the debate on the upcoming EU referendum, because it worries many people who live here. If the EU wants us to stay in, it needs to give some ground and allow the UK to manage its borders better. If it does not, it should not be surprised if the British people vote to leave the EU.

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]