1-20 of 1,201 results for askedby:"Lord Walney"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.398 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.007 seconds
- Search query
- askedby:"Lord Walney"
- We searched for
- tablingMember_ses:304478 OR askingMember_ses:304478
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Is the Minister open-minded about the huge potential that the UK embracing an open-source AI model alongside allies may accrue to the country to put us back in the premier league rather than needing to be reliant on America and overseas?
Is the Minister open-minded about the huge potential that the UK embracing an open-source AI model alongside allies may accrue to the country to put us back in the premier league rather than needing to be reliant on America and overseas?
It is not an area on which I feel I can definitively give an opinion on the view of the Government. I know from the cyber security point of view that there are many merits and disbenefits of open-weight models in terms of their cyber security credentials, and that is something that we are working on very carefully.
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the UN Human Rights Council has placed a disproportionate focus on Israel over the years? If she does accept that, what will the Government do to genuinely combat the institutional antisemitism that that can entrench?
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the UN Human Rights Council has placed a disproportionate focus on Israel over the years? If she does accept that, what will the Government do to genuinely combat the institutional antisemitism that that can entrench?
As my friend the noble Lord will know, we are opposed to item 7 in the Human Rights Council, and we will use our leadership to try to persuade others that that is not an appropriate item to have. That is probably what he is getting at, and I suspect we probably agree.
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is further to go to ensure that our democracy can be strong and resilient in the political leadership of the Government and others in showing where the line is between legitimate protest and illegitimate intimidation? The measures on protecting the homes of parliamentarians are welcome, but we have a situation where parliamentarians are sometimes having to wade through highly aggressive and intimidating so-called anti-Zionist protests outside, as are Jewish staff members, to get to work, and council chambers are regularly being hijacked by aggressive protesters. The Government must send a signal that this is completely unacceptable.
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is further to go to ensure that our democracy can be strong and resilient in the political leadership of the Government and others in showing where the line is between legitimate protest and illegitimate intimidation? The measures on protecting the homes of parliamentarians are welcome, but we have a situation where parliamentarians are sometimes having to wade through highly aggressive and intimidating so-called anti-Zionist protests outside, as are Jewish staff members, to get to work, and council chambers are regularly being hijacked by aggressive protesters. The Government must send a signal that this is completely unacceptable.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The right to peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy. It is a long-standing tradition in the UK, of which we are justifiably proud, that people should be free to gather and express their views, provided that they do so within the law. Peaceful protest does not extend to unlawful behaviour. This includes actions that are violent or which cause harassment, alarm or distress to others. With regard to the noble Lord’s comments about antisemitism, we on these Benches and noble Lords across the House entirely denounce antisemitism and all its consequences. We believe that there is a leadership responsibility, not just for the Government but for all involved in politics, to conduct our discourse in a respectful and responsible way. Surely that is not beyond our rhetorical abilities.
To ask His Majesty's Government what funding per student is provided in England for specialist provision for students with education, health and care plans, broken down by local education authority.
To ask His Majesty's Government what funding per student is provided in England for specialist provision for students with education, health and care plans, broken down by local education authority.
Although funding allocated to local authorities through the high needs block of their dedicated schools grant is mainly for specialist provision, a significant proportion is allocated locally to schools outside their area who have students with education, health and care (EHC) plans, to mainstream provision for those students with EHC plans and for those without EHC plans who require special educational needs support. It is therefore impossible to compare local authorities’ per-student funding for specialist provision on any like-for-like measure using the data available.
To ask His Majesty's Government what funding per student is provided in Cumbria for specialist provision for students with education, health and care plans, broken down by local education authority.
To ask His Majesty's Government what funding per student is provided in Cumbria for specialist provision for students with education, health and care plans, broken down by local education authority.
Although funding allocated to local authorities through the high needs block of their dedicated schools grant is mainly for specialist provision, a significant proportion is allocated locally to schools outside their area who have students with education, health and care (EHC) plans, to mainstream provision for those students with EHC plans and for those without EHC plans who require special educational needs support. It is therefore impossible to compare local authorities’ per-student funding for specialist provision on any like-for-like measure using the data available.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of variations between local education authorities in England in the levels of funding per student for specialist provision for students with education, health and care plans.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of variations between local education authorities in England in the levels of funding per student for specialist provision for students with education, health and care plans.
Although funding allocated to local authorities through the high needs block of their dedicated schools grant is mainly for specialist provision, a significant proportion is allocated locally to schools outside their area who have students with education, health and care (EHC) plans, to mainstream provision for those students with EHC plans and for those without EHC plans who require special educational needs support. It is therefore impossible to compare local authorities’ per-student funding for specialist provision on any like-for-like measure using the data available.
My Lords, the Minister is to be commended for not giving concessions to those who have refused food in this instance. Does he not think that, rather than expressing sympathy for or condoning the behaviour of these individuals, the Government’s sympathy ought to be with the working people who have been terrorised by Palestine Action—which the people on remand and facing charges are linked to—including a security guard who was attacked with a sledgehammer? Is it not more important to protect their welfare than to eulogise this behaviour?
My Lords, the Minister is to be commended for not giving concessions to those who have refused food in this instance. Does he not think that, rather than expressing sympathy for or condoning the behaviour of these individuals, the Government’s sympathy ought to be with the working people who have been terrorised by Palestine Action—which the people on remand and facing charges are linked to—including a security guard who was attacked with a sledgehammer? Is it not more important to protect their welfare than to eulogise this behaviour?
Our prison and probation staff do an incredible job in dealing with some of the most complicated people in this country. When they turn up to work, they turn up to help people turn their lives around, not to get assaulted or be, as has happened recently, hospitalised as a result. It is our job to make sure that we keep our prisons safe not just for those people who live and work in them but also for people who are going into and out of work.
My Lords, with that in mind, will the Government think very carefully about regulating social media, as is a big concern for the Government and the House at the moment? Will they acknowledge the danger of setting up a system which could lock out innovation from precisely those smaller companies in favour of the giants in the States which can find their way through the regulatory system and get the exemptions that are being talked about in this House?
My Lords, with that in mind, will the Government think very carefully about regulating social media, as is a big concern for the Government and the House at the moment? Will they acknowledge the danger of setting up a system which could lock out innovation from precisely those smaller companies in favour of the giants in the States which can find their way through the regulatory system and get the exemptions that are being talked about in this House?
The noble Lord highlights a couple of issues. I mentioned earlier that we are investing to develop our own sovereign AI capability. We are setting up investment zones across the country, working with UK-based companies to scale up. As the noble Lord will know, AI has different stacks—the infrastructure layer, the data layer and the model layer. We must work with each level and steer the course between extremes. We must ensure that AI becomes an engine of national renewal, rather than the author of our own demise.
My Lords, we rightly talk about the submarine programme as a national endeavour. We know that every corner of the United Kingdom is required to be part of the supply chain to build the submarine programme, which is both an opportunity and a challenge. Will the Minister ask the Ministry of Defence to work with the prime contractors—and with us in the All-Party Group on AUKUS, ably led by my successor in the Commons, Michelle Scrogham—to make available the details of the companies that are, now or in the future, part of the supply chain, so that we can all work together and engage local MPs on that?
My Lords, we rightly talk about the submarine programme as a national endeavour. We know that every corner of the United Kingdom is required to be part of the supply chain to build the submarine programme, which is both an opportunity and a challenge. Will the Minister ask the Ministry of Defence to work with the prime contractors—and with us in the All-Party Group on AUKUS, ably led by my successor in the Commons, Michelle Scrogham—to make available the details of the companies that are, now or in the future, part of the supply chain, so that we can all work together and engage local MPs on that?
From his previous incarnation as the MP for Barrow and Furness, the noble Lord knows a significant amount about the nuclear programme. He is right to highlight the important work around not only the major companies and big primes but the smaller companies and the supply chain right across the UK. As my noble friend Lord Spellar often says—quite rightly—we need to make sure that as much of that industrial capability as possible is developed within our own country. I am happy to meet the All-Party Group on AUKUS to discuss how we take this forward.
My Lords, there are indeed horrifying examples of abuse being directed at elected representatives. I was pleased last month to have been elected as co-chair of the All-party Parliamentary Group for Defending Democracy, and I urge everyone in this House, particularly the noble Baroness, to join and play an active role. Will the Minister pledge that he and his colleagues, particularly the Security Minister, will use the new APPG as a way of engaging with parliamentarians across the House on these vital issues?
My Lords, there are indeed horrifying examples of abuse being directed at elected representatives. I was pleased last month to have been elected as co-chair of the All-party Parliamentary Group for Defending Democracy, and I urge everyone in this House, particularly the noble Baroness, to join and play an active role. Will the Minister pledge that he and his colleagues, particularly the Security Minister, will use the new APPG as a way of engaging with parliamentarians across the House on these vital issues?
I welcome the all-party parliamentary group and the fact that the noble Lord is one of the officers, along with Nick Timothy, Member of Parliament for West Suffolk, and John Slinger, who is a Labour Back-Bench Member of Parliament. It is extremely important that the all-party group contributes to the debate, looks at where the Government need to improve performance and holds them to account for their performance on these areas. We have a common interest in protecting the security of Members and protecting electoral processes.
What the Minister says on proscription is of course understandable; it has long been the practice not to comment before it is done. But will he reassure the House that the Government recognise the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood and related organisations pose to this country, not least in the way in which they have long sought systematically to undermine our democratic institutions in favour of their overall goal of replacing democracy with a caliphate?
What the Minister says on proscription is of course understandable; it has long been the practice not to comment before it is done. But will he reassure the House that the Government recognise the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood and related organisations pose to this country, not least in the way in which they have long sought systematically to undermine our democratic institutions in favour of their overall goal of replacing democracy with a caliphate?
Again, I say to the noble Lord that a wide range of offences and powers can be used to counter the threat from extremism, including any attempts by the Muslim Brotherhood to take action that is against the interests of the United Kingdom. That includes powers to regulate charities and to look at broadcasting, education and immigration. It also includes other offences, such as the encouragement of terrorism and public order offences. We will continue to monitor that and, if required, the appropriate authorities—the police or the security services—will take action.
To ask His Majesty's Government what criteria and standards BBC Arabic is subject to for its receipt of (1) Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office grant funding, and (2) World2020 programme funding.
To ask His Majesty's Government what criteria and standards BBC Arabic is subject to for its receipt of (1) Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office grant funding, and (2) World2020 programme funding.
All BBC World Service language services are governed by the standards set in the BBC Charter, the Framework Agreement with HMG, and the World Service licence. The licence states that all BBC World Service output must meet the BBC's editorial standards as set out in the Editorial Guidelines agreed by the BBC Board. As part of the grant funding made to the World Service through the World2025 programme, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office agrees Objectives, Priorities and Targets for the World Service, covering audience reach, quality, impact, and value for money.
I of course accept what the Minister says, but there can be a dialogue with the Government. We saw that last year in Southport, where the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister
worked with the prosecution system to ensure that a message was getting through that crimes would have quick consequences to deter further action. Is there not a case for doing this with politically motivated crimes, such as Palestine Action and other politically motivated areas, where the lack of deterrence is increasing the prospect of the ringleaders being able to recruit more people into the net?
I of course accept what the Minister says, but there can be a dialogue with the Government. We saw that last year in Southport, where the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister
worked with the prosecution system to ensure that a message was getting through that crimes would have quick consequences to deter further action. Is there not a case for doing this with politically motivated crimes, such as Palestine Action and other politically motivated areas, where the lack of deterrence is increasing the prospect of the ringleaders being able to recruit more people into the net?
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. I can understand why it could be seen that the responses to the riots had been prioritised, but there are many reasons why those prosecutions took place very quickly. The first is that many of the cases were straightforward and could be dealt with in a magistrates’ court; the second is that, in relation to many of them, the evidence was very strong and people pleaded guilty; and the third is that the decisions involved were made by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the independent judiciary. The Government made sure that they had the resources if they needed them, but no pressure was put on them to decide how to do it.
To ask His Majesty’s Government on what grounds they have barred officers from the Israel Defense Forces from participating in the Royal College of Defence Studies, and whether they apply the same criteria to other countries.
To ask His Majesty’s Government on what grounds they have barred officers from the Israel Defense Forces from participating in the Royal College of Defence Studies, and whether they apply the same criteria to other countries.
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has decided to pause future Israeli participation in UK training courses, given our concerns regarding the Israel Defense Forces’ conduct in Gaza, particularly the decision to further escalate their offensive in Gaza City.
I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but I must say that, even in the current context of destructive tokenism from the United Kingdom Government over Israel, this decision or gesture seems particularly depressing and particularly likely to strike at the relationship between our countries, which I hope she will accept is vital for our long-term security and that of the British people. As she appears to be speaking for the Ministry of Defence here, can she say how these criteria have been applied, for example, to Qatar, which continues to sponsor Islamist terrorism, and China, whose treatment of the Uyghur people is an international scandal and which poses a clear risk to global security with its attitude towards Taiwan?
I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but I must say that, even in the current context of destructive tokenism from the United Kingdom Government over Israel, this decision or gesture seems particularly depressing and particularly likely to strike at the relationship between our countries, which I hope she will accept is vital for our long-term security and that of the British people. As she appears to be speaking for the Ministry of Defence here, can she say how these criteria have been applied, for example, to Qatar, which continues to sponsor Islamist terrorism, and China, whose treatment of the Uyghur people is an international scandal and which poses a clear risk to global security with its attitude towards Taiwan?
I am not speaking for the MoD; I am speaking for the Government. But I respect the noble Lord’s position on this. He clearly disagrees with the decision that the Government have taken, and that is absolutely his right. We understand, and this is not a decision that we have taken lightly.
The noble Lord asked about criteria; there is not a set criteria for this decision. It is an unusual position that we have had to take, but we are in an unusual situation. Israel, as he quite rightly reminds us, is a long-standing friend and ally; we have close links with Israel, through many historical ties, people-to-people ties and business ties. I very much hope that we can restore the arrangement as it was, because I think it is good for the United Kingdom, and for Israel too, but, as things are at the moment, the things that are happening on the ground in Gaza and the unwillingness of the Government of Israel to engage, listen and change course have led us to take this regrettable decision.
My Lords, it is welcome to hear what the Minister has said about the importance of the defence industry. Does he share my view that it is completely unacceptable for anyone who says that they support working people in industrial settings and, most of all, those who claim to represent working people to seek to excuse and underplay the level of intimidation and fear caused to workers in defence factories, who have been terrorised for many years? Those people who defend that should have no place in the Labour movement. Is that not right?
My Lords, it is welcome to hear what the Minister has said about the importance of the defence industry. Does he share my view that it is completely unacceptable for anyone who says that they support working people in industrial settings and, most of all, those who claim to represent working people to seek to excuse and underplay the level of intimidation and fear caused to workers in defence factories, who have been terrorised for many years? Those people who defend that should have no place in the Labour movement. Is that not right?
I know the point that the noble Lord is making, but the general point is that nobody should face intimidation for going to work. That is a completely unacceptable way of behaving. The noble Lord has done a lot of work in this area and has defended the right to protest and the right for people to make their views known, but to do so in a way that is acceptable and according to the law. It does not matter what hat people have on when they speak about this; we all need to encourage people to behave appropriately and properly when it comes to protest.
My Lords, if it was illegal noisily to call Israel’s actions a genocide then I suggest that many Members of this House and the other place would currently be serving time. It is not, as the Minister has said. He knows that I have supported the proscription of Palestine Action, but will he meet me to discuss my recommendation in the recent review that he is considering that much of this controversy could have been lessened if the Government and the police had had a mechanism to restrict the activities of this organisation, which was wilfully breaking the law and boasting about doing so, before it reached the terrorism threshold?
My Lords, if it was illegal noisily to call Israel’s actions a genocide then I suggest that many Members of this House and the other place would currently be serving time. It is not, as the Minister has said. He knows that I have supported the proscription of Palestine Action, but will he meet me to discuss my recommendation in the recent review that he is considering that much of this controversy could have been lessened if the Government and the police had had a mechanism to restrict the activities of this organisation, which was wilfully breaking the law and boasting about doing so, before it reached the terrorism threshold?
I will happily meet the noble Lord to discuss his report and recommendations. What Palestine Action is doing now has reached a threshold. Its actions before were criminal; they could have resulted in, and are resulting in, prosecutions, which may or may not result in convictions downstream. The assessment that we have had to make, based on evidence that we have been given, is that Palestine Action has crossed that threshold. He makes a valuable point about how we examine the development of
organisations, but the key issue for this House is that there is a threshold in the 2000 Act, which he mentioned, and the neutral assessment is that Palestine Action has crossed it. Therefore, as a Government, we have to take cognisance of that. If we did not and it took actions that caused significant damage or harm to individuals and/or property, which is very possible, we would be culpable for allowing that to happen. I will certainly meet the noble Lord and reflect on his points in due course.
My Lords, Palestine Action was proscribed after a five-year-long campaign of criminal sabotage and violence against working people. There is a deliberate and deceitful attempt to conflate the protests about what is happening in Gaza with support for a proscribed group. It is a curious conception of peaceful protest where people are clearly expressing support for a proscribed organisation.
Why has no one yet been charged, when many hundreds have been arrested? Do these decisions have to be approved by the Attorney-General? Is the Minister talking to the Metropolitan Police and asking for those files to come through to restore the deterrent effect, which is at risk of not working?
My Lords, Palestine Action was proscribed after a five-year-long campaign of criminal sabotage and violence against working people. There is a deliberate and deceitful attempt to conflate the protests about what is happening in Gaza with support for a proscribed group. It is a curious conception of peaceful protest where people are clearly expressing support for a proscribed organisation.
Why has no one yet been charged, when many hundreds have been arrested? Do these decisions have to be approved by the Attorney-General? Is the Minister talking to the Metropolitan Police and asking for those files to come through to restore the deterrent effect, which is at risk of not working?
The terms of the proscription order are clear and were passed by the House of Commons and this House. However, ultimately, the charging decisions and whether to seek permission from the Attorney-General remain the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is not for me to direct it or to comment on that—but the terms of the proscription order are clear, and it does not include legitimate protest in a free, fair and peaceful way around the issue of Palestine.
My Lords, it is helpful that the Minister acknowledges that the convention needs to evolve and that there are issues with it. However, given the truth of what was just said about the difficulty and slowness of achieving unanimity in any negotiation, and if the Minister accepts that there is a significant problem, should not the Government reserve the right to withdraw if a negotiation cannot achieve what is needed for the country?
My Lords, it is helpful that the Minister acknowledges that the convention needs to evolve and that there are issues with it. However, given the truth of what was just said about the difficulty and slowness of achieving unanimity in any negotiation, and if the Minister accepts that there is a significant problem, should not the Government reserve the right to withdraw if a negotiation cannot achieve what is needed for the country?
I just do not think we are in that position at present. We can amend our own legislation regarding Article 8. There is the margin of appreciation which noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to. As I said earlier, there is more discretion within that than is widely acknowledged or used—within not just the UK but Europe as a whole.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the state of social cohesion and societal and democratic resilience in the UK; and what indicators they are using to measure cohesion and resilience.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the state of social cohesion and societal and democratic resilience in the UK; and what indicators they are using to measure cohesion and resilience.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is leading cross-Government efforts to develop a longer-term, more strategic approach to social cohesion - working in partnership with communities and local stakeholders to rebuild, renew and address the deep-seated issues. This will include further consideration of how to effectively measure social cohesion.
The Defending Democracy Taskforce, chaired by the Security Minister, has a mandate to safeguard our democratic institutions and processes from the full range of threats, and the Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit is an enduring function that coordinates election security efforts across Government.