Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Again, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and commend him on the work he did in the Home Office during his time there. He will have known that there was an already existing definition, with which there was an obligation on Government not to engage with certain groups. He will also know that while he was there Sir William Shawcross pointed out that that definition needed to be updated and those engagement principles reinforced. We are simply continuing the work that my right hon. Friend did so diligently and effectively while at the Home Office. Organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, which I mentioned, are ones that I hope no Member of this House would want to deal with. Obviously, however, each individual must look to their own conscience about the organisations with which they engage. This is purely about Government; Parliament is, quite rightly, sovereign.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Following the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), I urge the Secretary of State to be cautious in all of this. Those of us who campaigned against apartheid in the 1970s were often condemned, and although the African National Congress was never banned in Britain, there were calls to ban it. Things change and history moves on; those who marched for peace in Ireland were condemned at the time, and later we had the Good Friday agreement. So I ask the Secretary of State: what is the status of this statement? Does it have legal force? Will it be an instruction to the police? Will it be an instruction to local authorities? Exactly how will it be implemented?

On pages 5 and 6 of the Secretary of State’s statement, he rightly makes the point that we have rights of religious assembly, free speech and organisation. It is important to state those, and they are all enshrined in the European convention on human rights. Will he assure us—because this is not mentioned anywhere in this document— that there is no plan by the Government or the Conservative party to withdraw from the European convention on human rights and therefore from the European Court of Human Rights? For all its failings and inefficiencies, the convention underpins human rights in a very important way.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the points he makes. His question gives me an opportunity to clarify that we will proceed with caution and that this definition governs only Government engagement and funding. Other autonomous organisations must and will make their own judgments; this is simply about what Government and their agencies do. He makes the point that people and organisations can change over time, and that is true. There are people who have been members of extremist organisations and have then changed their view and been invaluable in helping us to challenge the work of extremists: those who were formerly members of Islamist organisations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir have been valuable in countering that hate; and those people who were formerly members of neo-Nazi organisations have been invaluable in making sure that we can police their activities. Of course, it is always within the human heart to have the capacity to change and reform.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; no one could doubt her sincerity or her commitment to making sure that we improve the condition of homes and that we deal with energy efficiency. The first thing to say is that the cost will be determined in the market. The amount that an individual might have to pay can be capped by legislation, but the cost is a function of the market. The second thing that it is important to stress is that the decent homes standard, and indeed the work we are doing on retrofitting overall, will improve, and has improved, energy efficiency, but we need to balance the improvement of energy efficiency against the costs that individual landlords and tenants face in a cost-of-living time that is challenging.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am deeply sorry to hear about the personal tragedy that the hon. Lady’s constituents have suffered—please do pass on my sympathy and condolences. I would say, though, that this Bill leads to the abolition of section 21, and it does so in a way that I believe is right and proportionate. I will explain why I think it is necessary, but before doing so I must give way to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I noted he said that, nationally, around 20% of the population live in the private rented sector. In constituencies such as mine, the figure is 30% to 35%, and many people feel very insecure in their lives. For those on universal credit and housing benefit, the problem is that the local housing allowance does not meet their rent needs. Therefore, they are actually subsidising landlords through their benefits and living in desperate poverty as a result of it. In turn, this forces people in mainly ex-council properties to leave the borough, so we end up with a sort of social cleansing of our inner cities all over the country. Does the Secretary of State understand that we need rent control, so that those people who cannot afford to remain in their own home get some comfort and are allowed to continue being a valuable part of our local communities?

[Michael Gove]

Although the right hon. Gentleman and I have had many disagreements, there is no one who doubts that he is a very assiduous constituency Member, and he is right that the pressures faced by a number of people in the private rented sector are significant. The principal reason for those rental pressures is inflation. We can debate the causes of inflation, but this Government are determined to do everything possible to halve it. and I believe the steps that we are taking have shown progress so far.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I know that my right hon. Friend and other Members of this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), have raised interesting questions about how we can better support families overall. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are absolutely determined to explore what more we can do, but tax changes are, and always have been, above my pay grade. They are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in consultation with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I know better—particularly after recent weeks—than to try to guide their hands.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

I am very happy to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I missed the first two minutes of the speech, and I apologise. Following on from the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), the issue of the private rented sector is devastating in inner-city areas such as mine, where private rents are now going up—the worst I have heard is an 80% increase—because of the end of restrictions on them. Will the Secretary of State take some action to bring about a rent freeze in the private rented sector? It is devastating, particularly for young people looking for flats in London, to try to find anywhere to live. They are spending a vast proportion of their income on rent, which is simply wrong and not fair. We need rent control in the private rented sector.

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. No one can doubt the sincerity of his concern and care for people, both in the private and the social rented sector—standing up for them has been a consistent theme of his time in this House—but I respectfully disagree with him. I think there are legislative changes that we can make in order to help those in the private rented sector, including the abolition of section 21, but if we want to ensure that there is a pipeline of affordable private rented homes for people, there are two things that we need to do. First, we need to improve supply, particularly in London, and to do so in partnership with the Mayor of London, who has not always been as energetic as his predecessor in bringing forward new homes. The other thing we need to do is make sure there is fairness in the tax treatment of landlords and others. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman and others on that. A rent freeze, while often attractive, has the effect, as we have unfortunately seen in Scotland, of reducing the supply of rented homes. Although I know his heart is in the right place on this issue, the methods he proposes run counter to what we both want to see.

I was talking about supply-side reforms earlier, and I briefly mentioned pension reforms. It is important we recognise that the pension reforms unveiled earlier in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been widely welcomed, including by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Surgeons, the leaders of police and crime commissioners everywhere and, most conspicuously, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. He called some time ago for a change. He said that he recognised it may not be “progressive”, but that it was “pragmatic” to introduce a pension change that will see more doctors coming out of retirement and on to the frontline, ensuring that more patients are treated more quickly, that fewer people are in pain and that our NHS is there for those who need it.

This wholly welcome change to pensions was addressed in Treasury questions earlier. Labour Members had an opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with that change, but not a single Labour Back Bencher did so. I know that the measure is a source of synthetic and confected rage from elements of the Labour Front-Bench team, but this initiative will cut waiting lists, has been welcomed everywhere—from the shadow Health Secretary to Labour Back Benchers, and from the BMA to the Royal College of Surgeons—is progressive and is in the country’s best interests.

Other changes made in the Budget also contribute to economic growth and social justice. The full expensing of capital receipts is a way of ensuring that our companies address what is, as the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) rightly pointed out, one of the long-term property problems in this country. We have not always had the level of business investment—this runs across Governments of all colours—that we need to ensure we have high-paying jobs and the capital required to take advantage of the technological changes of the future. The full expensing proposals, amounting to a tax cut of some £9 billion, are a pro-business tax cut, and they also mean we maintain not just one of the most competitive corporation tax regimes, but the most competitive business environment in the G7.

Building Safety

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. We have found that one particular company— I will not name it at the Dispatch Box at this time but I am more than happy to name it in private conversation—has tried to do just that and shift responsibility, and it was directly involved in construction at Grenfell. As a result, we have said that it cannot have access to Government funds through Help to Buy or any other schemes. The whole question of what further action may be taken against companies that knowingly put people’s lives at risk will be a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, following on from the conclusion of the Grenfell inquiry. I know that people have had to wait a long time for justice. I do sympathise with them, but, obviously, I cannot interfere with the independent operation of the justice system.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State will know from my correspondence with him about buildings in Drayton Park and in other parts of my constituency the deep stress and concern that many leaseholders and tenants have had. They have had to pay increased insurance costs and they have had their lives put on hold, as many other colleagues’ constituents have. I think they deserve compensation for the increased payments they have had to make. They also need to know exactly when this work will begin. They have been waiting years for it. I want to be able to go back to them and say that it is going to start—I would like to give them a date.

[Michael Gove]

That is entirely understandable, and once construction companies have signed this contract—and indeed this applies to social landlords too, once they commit to remediation—they should be in touch with the tenants and leaseholders to let them know when that work will be carried out. Again, I want to make sure that everyone is operating as they should. I would be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he could let me know, building by building, scheme by scheme, where people are still in doubt about this, and we will do everything possible to give them the information they deserve.

Social Housing Standards

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement on this awful tragedy and for the way he made it. I hope this will lead to a step change in attitudes and policy towards the housing needs of people across the whole country. I totally agree with him when he says that everyone should have a decent, safe, secure, dry, warm place to live in—absolutely right. It is not happening in my constituency, or in many others, where I come across people living in overcrowded accommodation with damp and all the other issues that go with it. In the now very large private rented sector, tenants are often afraid to complain—they fear eviction if they complain—they have no certainty of a long-term residence. We need tough legislation on the private rented sector, we need more council housing built and we need an attitude from public health inspectors that goes down like a tonne of bricks on any landlord, whoever they are, who fails in their duties to maintain a safe, dry, warm and clean environment.

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have disagreed on many things in this House, but I have to say that I agree with every single word he just said.

Building Safety

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I thank my hon. Friend for his fantastic campaigning on this issue. On the first point, which is linked to his second point, the owners, the freeholders and the responsible figures in charge of these buildings will be held responsible and made responsible for making sure that all the work is done to make these buildings safe. We will table amendments to ensure that, on a statutory basis, we protect leaseholders from having costs passed on unfairly by the owners of the freeholds of these buildings.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

When the horror of Grenfell happened, many local authorities such as mine responded immediately by inspecting all buildings and taking action as appropriate, as they should have done. The private sector did not do that for many of our leasehold properties.

I had a very sad conversation with a group of leaseholders a month ago. They are completely stuck. They cannot sell or move, they have expanding families and they are faced with massive bills. Can I go to them tomorrow and say that the Government will underwrite all the costs that they have been threatened with so that they can get their building brought up to standard and, if they wish, sell and move on? Or will there be months and months of delay until the private sector decides not to pay and the Government intervene? I think those leaseholders, like leaseholders all over the country, deserve an immediate answer. They have been through too much stress.

[Michael Gove]

Perhaps for the first time, I am almost wholly in accord with the right hon. Gentleman. Leaseholders deserve speedy action, but I do not want to overpromise. I believe we can rapidly relieve the difficult situation in which his constituents find themselves. I do not think it can be immediate, but I intend to ensure it is as quick as possible.

Please forgive me for making this point, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that many in local government, across parties, were far quicker to respond to this crisis than some in the private sector, which is shaming.

Ministerial Code

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent apparent breaches of the ministerial code and whether he intends to refer the matter to the Cabinet Office for further investigation.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

On Saturday 29 February, the Cabinet Secretary and head of the civil service received and accepted the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam as permanent secretary at the Home Office. On the same day, the Cabinet Secretary announced that Shona Dunn—then the second permanent secretary at the Home Office, responsible for borders, immigration and citizenship—would become acting permanent secretary with immediate effect.

Allegations have been made that the Home Secretary has breached the ministerial code. The Home Secretary absolutely rejects those allegations. The Prime Minister has expressed his full confidence in her, and having worked closely with the Home Secretary over a number of years, I have the highest regard for her. She is a superb Minister doing a great job.

This Government always take any complaints relating to the ministerial code seriously, and in line with the process set out in the ministerial code, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts. As is usual, the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Sir Alex Allan, is available to provide advice to the Prime Minister.

It is long-standing Government policy not to comment on individual personnel matters, in order to protect the rights of all involved. What I can and will say is that I know that the dedicated ministerial team at the Home Office and their superb civil servants will continue their critical work on the public’s behalf, keeping our country protected from the terror threat, bearing down on criminals who seek to do our communities and our country harm, and delivering a fair, firm immigration system that works in the interests of the British people. The Home Office works tirelessly to keep our citizens safe and our country secure, and we all stand behind the team leading that vital work.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but my question was to the Prime Minister. Could we have an answer as to where the Prime Minister is this afternoon? When an urgent question to the Prime Minister is granted, one would expect the Prime Minister to come to this House to answer the question that has been put to him.

It is the Prime Minister’s job to oversee the ministerial code. If the serious allegations raised by the permanent secretary at the Home Office, Sir Philip Rutnam, about the Home Secretary’s conduct are true—including

“shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands”—

that would clearly constitute a breach of the ministerial code.

The Prime Minister himself, in his foreword to the code, said there must be

“no bullying and no harassment”.

Those are his words in his foreword to the ministerial code, so why, without a proper investigation, has the Prime Minister defended the Home Secretary, calling her “fantastic” and saying he “absolutely” has confidence in her?

It is not enough just to refer this to the Cabinet Office. The Government must now call in an external lawyer, as has quite rightly been suggested by the union of senior civil servants, the First Division Association. A Minister in breach of the ministerial code cannot remain in office and should be dismissed.

These are just the latest in a series of allegations that suggest an unacceptable pattern of behaviour. According to reports in our media, a number of the Home Office clashes have involved demands from the Home Secretary some of which were considered illegal by officials—illegal by officials. Most disturbingly, the Home Secretary reportedly asked officials to reverse a court ruling halting the deportation of 25 individuals to Jamaica last month. If that is the case, was the Home Secretary not trying to push officials into breaching a ruling by the Court of Appeal?

Is it now this Government’s policy to bully officials into flouting court rulings? Is it not the truth that this is a Government led by bullies, presided over by a part-time Prime Minister, who not only cannot be bothered to turn up, but simply will not take the vital action required when the very integrity and credibility of the Government are on the line?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his questions. The Prime Minister is of course in Downing Street, leading our response to the coronavirus, implementing the people’s priorities and making sure that the manifesto promises at the general election are delivered. He is governing in the national interest, delivering for the British people. As the Minister responsible for the civil service, I am pleased to be here in order to be able to uphold the ministerial code and to underline our thanks to our superb civil service for the work it does every day, implementing the manifesto commitments on which we were elected.

The Leader of the Opposition asks if this investigation is robust and fit for purpose. Of course it is. The ministerial code is absolutely clear, and the Cabinet Secretary, who polices it alongside the Prime Minister, also has access to Sir Alex Allan to ensure that every part of the ministerial code is adhered to. One of the things that is clear about this Government is that we believe that Ministers, special advisers and civil servants need to work together with confidence, with clarity and in a co-ordinated fashion to ensure that our priorities are delivered.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to media reports. I would have thought that he of all people would be wary of believing what he reads in the newspaper. We make no apology for having strong Ministers in place to ensure the effective delivery of public priorities. There is a stark contrast between the actions that the Home Secretary and her colleagues are taking to keep this country safe, and the danger in which our country would have been placed if he had won the general election and his approach towards national security had been followed.

The final thing that many will reflect on is that it is vitally important that all of us in this House uphold the highest standards of civility and respect for others. However, many people will look at the Opposition Front Bench and reflect on the fact that Labour MPs required armed police protection at their own party conference, and that the shadow Chancellor spoke of lynching Members of this House, and they will draw the conclusion that all of us need to reflect on the importance of restoring civility to public life before we throw around allegations like that.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

So far, the Prime Minister has only doubled down on her own defeated deal, saying at last week’s Prime Minister’s Question Time that her deal delivers

“the benefits of a customs union and the benefits of our own trade policy.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 237.]

It does no such thing. The political declaration fails to deliver on the Chequers promise of frictionless trade—it does not even guarantee tariff-free trade. It means that we lose the 40 to 50 trade agreements we have through the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)]

Why is the right hon. Gentleman scared to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), a member of the Labour party for 37 years?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for his intervention and his brief statement of his leadership intentions.

As I was saying—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Few people know more about, or are more committed to, the welfare of the Rwandan people than my right hon. Friend, and few Members of this House are more committed to due process and human rights, so I take very seriously the points that he raises. I will look very closely at this case and report back to him.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

T4. Could the Secretary of State explain exactly what is his policy towards the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights? On the one hand, he says that he supports the convention; on the other, he says that all decisions must be made in British courts. If all decisions are made in British courts, then the role of the European Court of Human Rights will be an utter irrelevance to Britain, and British people will therefore be denied the right of access to a treaty obligation that we signed in 1948.

[Michael Gove]

May I, on behalf of everyone on the Government Benches, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making it on to the ballot for the Labour leadership? Had he required any more signatures, I would have been happy to defect in order to ensure that a full spectrum of views was behind him. He makes a very important point. We want to ensure that people’s access to human rights is enhanced as a result of legislative changes that we make.

Free Schools (Funding)

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am always grateful for my hon. Friend’s interventions. He, of course, was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee when it pointed out that, under the last Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme, we had a degree of profligacy and waste that was a genuine scandal. My hon. Friend will know that it is not just Conservative voters who find free schools attractive. Like so many free schools opening in Labour areas, the Derby Pride free school, an alternative provision free school backed by Derby County football club—congratulations to them on making it to the play-offs—is outstanding in its provision for disadvantaged children in a Labour area, despite the fact that the Labour local authority did not want it to open. The truth about free schools is that they provide high standards for children who have been failed in the past.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May I take the Secretary of State back to the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)? If a free school is lamentably not performing—failing its children and failing the community—does he agree that it would be much better if that free school were within the orbit of the local authority, which could observe and spot what was going on, give the necessary support and bring the school back into the accountable public sector?

[Michael Gove]

First, there is an area of consensus between the hon. Gentleman and me about the fact that there are good local authority schools and good local authorities that provide appropriate support and challenge for their schools. I absolutely accept that, but it is important to recognise that there are many underperforming local authority schools, and local authority oversight is very far from a panacea for school failure. As I pointed out earlier, every day that schools are open, two local authority schools and others go into special measures. It is also the case that so far, according to the tough new Ofsted criteria that we have set up, free schools outperform other schools. Furthermore, my Department has I think been faster in dealing with school failure, whether it be in Derby or Crawley, than many local authorities have, and I think it right to bear down on failure wherever it occurs.

Public Disorder

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The point was made constructively, and I hope to respond in a constructive fashion. I will not rule anything out at this stage. We are still in the middle of restoring order. It is vital and appropriate that we show ourselves open to learning lessons, but I absolutely have confidence in the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). The Home Affairs Committee has done a great job in the past 15 months, and he will do a superb job. The terms of reference of his inquiry seem to be broad and comprehensive. But, of course, lessons will need to be learned, and while we are in the process of restoring order it would be premature for any of us to say that our minds are closed to any constructive suggestion about what we can learn.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

Not yet.

I should like briefly to refer to four particularly outstanding speeches that were made during the debate, the first of which came from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). The points that he made resonated. From the moment that Mark Duggan’s tragic death came on to our television screens through to the horrific scenes that we saw over the weekend, the right hon. Gentleman’s voice has been one of common sense and moral clarity at a difficult time. His speech again today was superb, when he pointed out that the vast majority of young men did indeed show respect and restraint through the past week because they have grown up with a male role model, a moral code and a recognition of boundaries. He made the critical point that our great cities of course rely on our police forces, but ultimately order is policed by individuals who show pride, shame and responsibility to others. I could not have put it better myself.

I also agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). I share her sorrow at having to come back to this House from her honeymoon, but I have to say that, even though her husband may be disappointed, her constituents should be proud of her for the speech she made today. She pointed out that the riots are a result of disaffected and marginalised youth who have grown up in households where no one gives a damn, where violence is glamorised and where there is real poverty, particularly of responsibility and aspiration. It was a superb speech and she has done a great job for her constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) drew a vivid and affecting picture of how one of London’s most attractive suburbs could be convulsed by violence, as individuals intent on wrongdoing took to the streets in the most wicked of ways. He asked detailed and constructive questions about the roles that the local authority, schools and TFL can play in making sure that our response to future events is sharper. We will write to him to ensure that his constituents’ concerns are addressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) made a brilliant speech, in which she spoke up with passion on behalf of her constituents, pointing out that, for all those young people who picked up a brick in anger or greed on the night that violence gripped her constituency, there were many, many more who picked up a broom in optimism and hope the next morning. That underlines what the past week has shown: both the worst and the best of our country.

We see the worst when a 31-year-old man who is a learning mentor in a primary school, whose job is to inspire the young, is found guilty of burglary. We see it when a daughter of a millionaire couple who had the best education the state can provide becomes, it is alleged, a getaway driver for two other young criminals. When we watch the video of a young boy, who travelled across the world from Malaysia to study in this country because he saw us as a civilised community and a place of hope and learning, apparently being helped up, only to be robbed, all of us are sickened and ask: how can this happen in our country? When we think about the Sri Lankan couple, who fled civil strife in their own country to come here and build a life and a business, only to see their business trashed by criminals, or when we think of Salford town centre, which has been regenerated by an imaginative town council and a great MP, sent back a generation in one night by the violence of thugs, we all ask ourselves: why has a culture of greed and instant gratification, rootless hedonism and amoral violence taken hold in parts of our society?

Even as we despair, we can hope, because we have also seen the best of Britain this week, such as the volunteers mentioned by many today who took part in the clean-up operation immediately afterward. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made the vital point that local authority officials, officers and workers have done an exemplary job, not least in her own constituency, where the mayor of Hackney, Jules Pipe, has shown real civic leadership. The way in which people who take pride in their community worked hard the next day to clean up the mess that had been created by an amoral minority was, to my mind, the very exemplar of public service. Also, let us not forget the work of the fire and ambulance services, who, alongside the police, risked life and limb to restore order and to ensure that people were safe.

We should take pride in the way in which multicultural Britain rose to this unique challenge: the Turkish citizens of Dalston who defended their families and businesses; the Sikh citizens of Southall who defended their gurdwara and their families; and the British Muslim citizens of Birmingham who sought to defend their communities. When three of them were mown down by one evil individual, we saw the best and the worst of Britain clash in one moment. All of us were moved beyond words by what Tariq Jahan said about the death of his son and the lesson that we should learn. We have seen modern Britons across this country stand up for old-fashioned British values of decency, solidarity and a determination to protect the vulnerable. If there are examples that we should bear in mind in this House and in our work in the weeks ahead, it is the leadership that those individuals have shown.

As well as seeing the best and the worst, we have witnessed a conflict on our streets between right and wrong. Those who have been committing these acts are individuals without boundaries, respect for others, or any moral sense. Those who were standing out against them and protecting us were the police. Let me pay tribute to the courage that has been shown by ordinary officers in the course of this week. Their leave was cancelled. Many of them have been working with very little sleep, facing the prospect of real violence and damage to life and limb, yet have uncomplainingly gone out there to protect us. We can be proud of those officers and the commanders, who have had to take terrible risks but who have ensured that for the moment order has been restored.

We heard how borough commanders from Hackney to Wandsworth and Ealing to Redbridge have ensured that the reputation of the Met, having taken a battering in recent months, is once again restored as a force that we can all take pride in. The chief constables of west midlands and Greater Manchester, faced with tremendous challenges, have also shown courage and imagination. We should applaud their bravery. Yes, there will be lessons to be learned. Yes, inevitably, in a difficult situation, when there was no intelligence of what was going to happen, mistakes will have been made, but how many of us could show the same degree of courage and resolution, faced with young men bent on violence and determined to cause havoc, when we knew that if we stepped out of line or transgressed the rules, we could find that our own life, livelihood and reputation were gone? Let us remember just how difficult modern policing is, before any of us casts a rhetorical stone at any of those individuals.

There were, across the House, widespread expressions of support for the police and for a more robust stance in the future. Having talked to a variety of police officers over the past week, I know that the sentiments expressed in the House go with the grain of policing opinion. My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and for Ilford North (Mr Scott), the hon. Member for Lewisham East and the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), all of whom encouraged the police to take a more robust stance, will find and have found a willing audience in those who are responsible for deploying the forces that maintain order.

Both my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary agree. I have been privileged to spend time attending the Cobra briefing meetings over the past week, and I have seen the degree of willing co-operation, energy, imagination and determination on the part of both the civil powers and the police to deal with the situation that we faced.

Of course there are suggestions from hon. Members about things that we might consider in the future. I was particularly struck by the powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) who, speaking as a special constable, made a strong case for the deployment, if necessary, of water cannon. Let me underline to the House that the operational requirements of the police will be met in full by the Government. If they need support or help, they will get it. Yes, it is the Home Secretary’s ultimate decision whether a police force can use water cannon, but if any chief constable considers it appropriate to deal with any aspect of civil disorder, this Home Secretary has made it clear that she is on their side, and I hope the whole House will be. Mercifully, those steps have not needed to be taken, and our tradition of community-based policing by consent has seen our police force restore order to our streets with the help of our communities.

As we look at the way in which the police operate, it is important that we do not back-pedal on reform. Our police are still held back by a legacy of bureaucracy that I know all of us on both sides of the House want to tackle. There are still 1,000 process steps and 70 forms to get through when they are dealing with a simple burglary. Twenty-two per cent. of police time is spent on paperwork. Jan Berry, the former head of the Police Federation, has pointed out that one third of police effort is over-engineered, duplicated or adds no value. We can reform our police force in order to ensure that the officers we have are there on the streets where we need them, and this should be a cause that unites us across the House in a determination to ensure that police professionalism is respected.

But as the right hon. Member for Tottenham pointed out earlier, when we want our streets policed, we need them to be policed as much by the moral self-restraint of individuals as the uniformed presence of officers, and that means that we need to affirm at this time the values that we all know have been overlooked or neglected in the past. We all know that a culture of dutiless rights has led to a generation of parentless children. Being a father means taking on the most important job in the world, and those who are there when a child is conceived should be there when a child is raised. We need to remember: I am my brother’s keeper. We have a responsibility to others, and all of us find a fulfilment in service that is greater than anything that can be found in shallow hedonism or instant gratification. We need to say to the young people of this country—and the overwhelming majority know it and want to hear it affirmed—that hard work, self-discipline, aspiration, respectability and respect for others, the values by which they lead their lives, are the values that we will defend whenever and wherever they come under attack. I am so grateful that so many Members from both sides of the House have affirmed those principles tonight—

School Closures (Thursday)

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There has been misinformation and propaganda about this dispute, and it is important that the facts are known—and that they are known by every Member. It will be the case at the end of this process that all public sector pensions will be among the best available. In particular, teachers’ pensions will remain strong because we recognise the importance of ensuring that those who work in our classrooms are well protected. Because discussions are ongoing and because they are based on Lord Hutton’s report, I think it quite wrong to prejudice those discussions by pre-empting them and stating what an end-point should be. By their very definition, discussions allow for both sides to make constructive suggestions, which is why it is such a pity that the trade unions have deliberately chosen to pre-empt that process.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State understand the degree of anger and frustration among so many teachers who have given years to their profession and feel that they have been forced into taking strike action, thus losing a day’s pay, in order to try to protect the pension for themselves and for a future generation of teachers? Instead of trying to work out cockamamie schemes to keep schools open, why does he not deal with the issue, retain the pension and support the teaching profession?

[Michael Gove]

I understand that there will be anger and frustration on Thursday: anger from parents whose child care arrangements have been disrupted, and frustration about the fact that schools remain closed. The question for all of us is: why is this reform necessary? I am afraid that the answer is: because of the dire economic situation that we inherited from the Labour Government. We are pledged to negotiate openly, honestly and constructively, but that negotiation has been pre-empted by the unions, and the hon. Gentleman’s responsibility is to ensure that schools in his constituency stay open.

Post-16 Education Funding

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I should be delighted to visit Harlow at some point to see what we can do to advance the very exciting plans for a university technical college. I am also happy to confirm that the flexibility of the new scheme will enable college principals to tailor it to the specific needs of students. It is true that the old EMA provided an incentive for attendance, but this scheme could help college principals to give more support to the very poorest students who put in the most impressive performances and whose learning needs to be supported most strongly.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State explain how the money enabling the college principals to give discretionary awards will be drawn down? Will there not be a perverse incentive for colleges not to take on pupils from poorer backgrounds because they are more likely to demand more money? Would it not be better for us to have a national scheme based on rights, with national application and national distribution? Such a scheme was pretty successful under EMA, resulting in more young people staying on at college and going to university.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman and I disagree on many matters of principle, but he is absolutely right to say that we must support the very poorest. That has been a consistent theme of his political career. The new scheme will allow the very poorest to receive more than they did under the previous scheme, and will enable college principals to target their resources on those who are most in need. I believe that those college principals, rather than the hon. Gentleman or me, are best placed to identify the needs of students.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Debate between Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I suspect they won’t if a Labour council takes power, but if people are wise enough to vote Liberal Democrat at the next local election in Hull—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”]—or for the Conservatives in any seat where we are well placed to defeat Labour, they will have a council that is fulfilling its statutory duty. It is no surprise that there are Liberal Democrat and Conservative councils that ensure that all students receive the support they deserve. It is striking that that is in addition to EMA.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Transport costs are obviously a major factor for students all over the country. Can the Secretary of State explain why under the Transport for London fares rise approved by Boris Johnson, EMA-receiving students are charged 65p per bus fare, whereas under the previous Ken Livingstone regime they all had free bus travel to encourage young people in London to stay on in education? Will the Secretary of State have a word with his friend the Mayor of London?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that opening salvo in the Re-elect Ken campaign. Behind it, there is an important point, which is that in London transport and travel costs are significantly less—whoever the Mayor is—than those faced by people in rural constituencies. I was particularly struck by the testimony of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) that students in his constituency may need to undertake a round trip of two hours a day to reach a further education college. In constituencies such as those represented by the hon. Members for Wells (Tessa Munt) or for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), significant journeys have to be undertaken. I am also aware that because of the nature of sixth-form and FE college provision, many students will travel further for their sixth-form education than they would for school education. That is why the statutory duty exists. I am grateful that the Local Government Association has been so positive about so many coalition policies, and I shall work with local authorities to ensure that we can continue to provide that support. Let us be clear: EMA was designed and implemented to augment an existing statutory duty, not to replace it.