UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Michael Gove and Emma Reynolds

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

No.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

If the Government are serious about engaging with alternatives to the deal that we voted on last night and serious about listening, why will they not grant a series of indicative votes, as recommended by the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I serve and which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), to determine the will of the House?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Depending on how the House votes today, we may have an opportunity to vote on that proposition tomorrow. It is important is that we find consensus as quickly as we possibly can.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Michael Gove and Emma Reynolds

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I have read that letter. It has been sent to every Member, and I would ask every Member to give it close attention. Our farming communities, like our country, were split over whether to leave. A majority of farmers voted to leave, recognising the opportunities that being outside the CAP would present, but I have yet to meet a single farmer who believes that a no-deal Brexit would be the right option for this country when the withdrawal agreement in front of us provides the opportunity for tariff-free and quota-free access for agricultural products to the EU.

I will say a bit more about the specific challenges of a no-deal Brexit. It is an intellectually consistent position, but it is important, even as we apprise it and pay respect to its advocates, that we also recognise the real turbulence that would be caused, at least in the short and medium term, to many of our farmers and food producers.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I find myself in agreement with the Secretary of State about the risks and dangers of a no-deal Brexit, but his claim that people will be better off flies in the face of the Government’s own economic analysis, which suggests that people will be poorer, the economy smaller and economic growth slower. How can he stand at the Dispatch Box and say something the Government have found to be otherwise?

[Michael Gove]

The report emphatically does not say that people will be poorer. It is important to pay proper respect to projections while also applying the appropriate analytical tools. Some of the economic projections for no deal and Brexit have proved to be unfounded. Projections have been wrong in the past and may well be wrong in the future, but it is the case—here I do agree with the hon. Lady—that, irrespective of projections for different paths, there are certain brute and unalterable facts about no deal, including the imposition of tariffs by the EU, that would create friction and costs, and that would mean, at least in the short term, economic turbulence for parts of the UK economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has been speaking for 50 minutes now and has just said he wants to talk to people to convince them to vote for the Government’s withdrawal agreement. Can we hear a little bit about that, please?

[Michael Gove]

I have in response to questions from a number of colleagues pointed out the many advantages that the withdrawal agreement secures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Emma Reynolds

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said last week that poor children who do not have their own room to do their homework in do not achieve their full potential. Can he explain the policy implications of that statement, and can we assume that he will be arguing against the bedroom tax?

[Michael Gove]

The policy implications are clear: every Member of this House should support the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), in his planning reforms, which will ensure that the price of houses falls and that more big family houses are built. It is shameful that the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has taken the Labour party into a position where it is the party of nimbys, the party opposed to opportunity and the party opposed to growth and development. That is an example of how weak the Labour party is: it blows with every wind instead of standing up for the next generation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Emma Reynolds

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

9. What plans he has for the future of GCSEs; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The coalition Government will shortly announce their proposals for the future of exams at 16; we hope to ensure that future examinations work in the interests of all young people. We need exams that will keep pace with the best in the world and meet the demands of children, teachers and employers.

[Emma Reynolds]

Today is the start of the new school year. Thousands of 16-year-olds in my constituency and across the country have had their hopes dashed and their plans devastated by this summer’s grading fiasco. When will the Secretary of State accept that it is his responsibility to tackle this injustice, and call for a regrading?

[Michael Gove]

I quite agree that it is appropriate that we should tackle the problem, which arises from the structure of the GCSE examination. That is why we are removing modules and reforming examinations. For years, under Labour, Ministers sat idly by as we endured grade inflation and dumbing down. At last the tide is turning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

T6. We should be incredibly proud of Team GB’s Olympic success, including that of my constituent, gymnast and bronze medallist Kristian Thomas. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Government’s own school sports adviser, Dame Kelly Holmes, that two hours of PE per week should be compulsory in schools?

[Michael Gove]

Let me congratulate the hon. Lady’s constituents on their achievements. I know that Wolverhampton, which I think held a marathon only this weekend, is a place of sporting excellence. Dame Kelly Holmes has done a fantastic job as adviser and continues to help us in every way, but although we should do everything possible to encourage the maximum participation in and enjoyment of sporting and physical education, compulsion of the kind that she has called for is not something I believe in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Emma Reynolds

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

T8. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Wolverhampton will be one of the biggest losers from the Government’s new national funding formula. Schools in my constituency stand to lose 10% of their funding, whereas schools in Buckinghamshire will gain 10%. Why is the Secretary of State so determined to take from the poor to give to the rich?

[Michael Gove]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies projections were based on its guesses. However, something it has said about reality rather than the future is that, at the moment, this Government are ensuring that schools educating the poorest receive the most, because our pupil premium will be worth £2.5 billion by the end of this Parliament. That is something the Government the hon. Lady supported last time round never did.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Emma Reynolds

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Can the Education Secretary confirm that the objective of his schools reforms, particularly the introduction of free schools, is to provide an over-supply of schools, thereby inevitably setting some schools up for failure? Has he made an assessment of the costs and upheaval that that will generate?

[Michael Gove]

That is an interesting ideological take, but I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong. If she wants to talk about setting schools up for failure, she should look at the at east 200 underperforming primary schools that we were discussing earlier. Free schools will introduce innovation and higher standards to some of the areas that are desperately in need of new schools. They will also ensure that the growth in pupil population at primary, for which the previous Government failed to prepare adequately, is at last addressed with innovative new schools in the places that count.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Emma Reynolds

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with head teachers, teachers and governors of educational establishments on the implementation of any replacement for education maintenance allowance.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

We are currently working with representatives of schools, colleges and training providers to finalise the arrangements for the enhanced discretionary learner support fund, including how the funding will flow from local authorities to institutions and what guidance is required to administer the fund effectively.

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Some 4,000 young people in Wolverhampton benefited from the education maintenance allowance last year and, as my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) have said, the Institute for Fiscal Studies demonstrates that the EMA is cost-effective. Has there been a cost-benefit analysis of the EMA’s replacement and will the loss of productivity of the young people whom the replacement will fail to support be taken into account?

[Michael Gove]

There was a cost-benefit analysis under the previous Government of the EMA by the NFER—that is enough initials—which pointed out that it would be more beneficial and would cost less to target funds on the learners who are in the most need.

Funding and Schools Reform

Debate between Michael Gove and Emma Reynolds

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman has been a consistent proponent of better sex and relationship education, but I have to tell him that it is a statutory part of the present curriculum. The critical question is how we can improve the quality of guidance and the quality of teaching. The hon. Gentleman is passionate, and in this respect his passion is in a good cause, but I fear that he has got his facts wrong. Sex and relationship education is already compulsory; personal, social and health education, which is a broader issue, is not yet compulsory in the national curriculum. Now that I have cleared up that confusion on the hon. Gentleman’s part, I hope that we can work together to ensure that our sex and relationship education reflects 21st-century values. I have been delighted to work with Liberal Democrat colleagues to achieve just that.

I have quoted politicians who back our reforms, but it is important for us to hear from teachers as well. I mentioned head teachers earlier, but let me run through what some are saying about coalition policies. These are head teachers who have taken advantage of the changes that we have made: changes that the right hon. Member for Leigh said had been introduced in a rush, and were ill-conceived and ideological.

Headmistress Lesley Grace, of Seaton primary school in Cumbria, says that as a result of our changes

“we can be totally focused on our age group and our community… we can target resources to employ specialist staff, such as speech and language therapists or reading intervention specialists.”

The school could not do that before.

At Durand primary school in Stockwell, London, 52% of pupils are eligible for free school meals. What does the head teacher say when he thinks about how to improve outcomes for those poor children? He says:

“Academy status does give us greater freedom to deliver an even more bespoke education, tailoring it to the needs of our specific intake.”

He says that the school is giving more

“time and space in the curriculum back to subjects like sport and music, the importance of which have been lost over recent years.”

What about Patricia Sowter, headmistress of Cuckoo Hall school in Enfield, whom I mentioned earlier? She says that academy status enables her to invest more in

“training, development and non-contact time for senior teachers.”

Jonathan Bishop, headmaster of Broadclyst primary school in Devon, says that academy freedoms give him the opportunity

“to deliver an outstanding environment”

for his students, adding

“I don't understand why anyone would not want to do it.”

As a result of academy status, the headmaster of the Premier academy in Milton Keynes can

“employ two or three more teachers to cut class sizes.”

While we are talking about smaller class sizes, let me cite Paul Gazzard, head teacher of St Buryan school in Penzance, who has been able to bring the average class size in his school down to 18 by introducing academy reforms.

The question for the right hon. Member for Leigh is this: will he reverse these changes? He opposed them, which is fair enough. It is understandable. A new, keen, young Opposition spokesman is entirely entitled to fly an opportunist flag, but now that real schools and real pupils are benefiting, the question for him is this: will he turn the clock back?

I have more confidence in the right hon. Gentleman than in his predecessor. I think he will see that our changes are bringing real improvements, and I do not think he wants to turn the clock back. However, that is the test for Labour Members. Are they ready to embrace reform and to acknowledge that it is now the coalition Government who are delivering improvements in state education, or do they want to go back to where they were in the 1980s? Do they want to go back to being the voice of the conservative teaching establishment? Do they want to be the voice of those individuals in trade unions who are opposed to reform and opposed to change?

We should bear in mind the words of Tony Blair. When he was introducing his reforms, there were Labour Members—although not many—who opposed them. He said:

“Parts of the left will say we are privatising public services and giving too much to the middle class.”

That is broadly the case made by the right hon. Member for Leigh; but Blair continued:

“both criticisms are wrong and simply a version of the old ‘levelling down’ mentality that kept us in Opposition for so long.”

If we are to extend opportunity more widely, we need to ensure that the head teachers whom I have cited, and the others who are anxious to take advantage of these reforms—to invest in improving teacher quality, to invest in better discipline and behaviour, and to invest in higher academic standards—are given the freedom to do so.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has spoken passionately about extending opportunities for the poorest children in our country, but let me tell him something. On Friday I shall be meeting the head teacher of Our Lady and St Chad Catholic sports college in my constituency. She is deeply concerned about what we suspect is the Secretary of State’s intention to withdraw the specific budget for specialist sports schools. That school is in a deprived area of my constituency, and it has both raised educational standards and improved health conditions for young people in the area. Will the Secretary of State reconsider?