1-20 of 2,116 results for primarymember:"Lord Gove"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.385 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.007 seconds
- Search query
- primarymember:"Lord Gove"
- We searched for
- primaryMember_ses:300863
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who is a brilliant Minister, for her reply. But she erred slightly in blaming the EBacc, which provides no constraint on choice. What supports choice, of course, is the provision of music hubs. Under the coalition Government, Darren Henley’s music review ensured that they are there to provide support for all schools, but sadly, under the latter years of the Conservative Government, and under this Government, there has been no real-terms increase in funding for music hubs. We know that the incoming Prime Minister is a great fan of music and a champion of the Hallé Orchestra. Will the Minister encourage him to show “true faith” in our music hubs, end the “definitely maybe” culture of funding and guarantee a “new order” with a “wonderwall” of funding for them?
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who is a brilliant Minister, for her reply. But she erred slightly in blaming the EBacc, which provides no constraint on choice. What supports choice, of course, is the provision of music hubs. Under the coalition Government, Darren Henley’s music review ensured that they are there to provide support for all schools, but sadly, under the latter years of the Conservative Government, and under this Government, there has been no real-terms increase in funding for music hubs. We know that the incoming Prime Minister is a great fan of music and a champion of the Hallé Orchestra. Will the Minister encourage him to show “true faith” in our music hubs, end the “definitely maybe” culture of funding and guarantee a “new order” with a “wonderwall” of funding for them?
Oh dear. We are definitely investing £76 million annually in music hubs, which of course means that the 43 music hubs can continue their important work to help children, regardless of background, to access musical education, by providing instruments and resources. In addition, we are investing up to £13 million in the national centre for arts and music education, which we intend to establish by September, to provide support for the revised national curriculum, improve the professional development of music teachers and make sure that extracurricular school enrichment and partnerships with music and arts organisations are strengthened.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady MacLeod, has made a vital point. Gaelic as an indigenous language is not just an integral part of the culture of these islands but the means of expression of two of the greatest poets of the 20th century, Sorley MacLean and Iain Crichton Smith. There is a statutory duty on the BBC to fund Welsh, which is quite right, but there is no similar statutory duty for Scots Gaelic. The last Government set up the Islands Forum, to ensure that the voice of Gaelic speakers was heard at the heart of Westminster. This Government abolished it. The Lord Speaker, when he was Scottish Secretary, ensured increased broadcasting funding for Gaelic. This Government have not yet made that commitment. Will the Government stand behind Gaelic speakers, whose contribution to our culture is so important?
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady MacLeod, has made a vital point. Gaelic as an indigenous language is not just an integral part of the culture of these islands but the means of expression of two of the greatest poets of the 20th century, Sorley MacLean and Iain Crichton Smith. There is a statutory duty on the BBC to fund Welsh, which is quite right, but there is no similar statutory duty for Scots Gaelic. The last Government set up the Islands Forum, to ensure that the voice of Gaelic speakers was heard at the heart of Westminster. This Government abolished it. The Lord Speaker, when he was Scottish Secretary, ensured increased broadcasting funding for Gaelic. This Government have not yet made that commitment. Will the Government stand behind Gaelic speakers, whose contribution to our culture is so important?
I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of Gaelic speakers to our national culture. However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to minority-language broadcasting models and how they are funded. The Scottish and UK Governments have a role to play to help ensure that relevant institutions and organisations have adequate funding so that they can deliver for audiences. We are considering, through charter review, how we can provide more certainty to Gaelic broadcasting and MG Alba.
My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister for his lucid and authoritative response. When I was a Minister, I saw how Palantir’s technology helped to save lives in the NHS. I saw how Palantir helped to ensure that those fleeing persecution from the Ukraine war could have a safe home in this country. I also appreciate that Palantir is playing a role in defending democracy, not just in the Middle East but in Ukraine. Is it therefore not a matter of regret to the Minister, as it is to me, that the Mayor of London has specifically ruled out Palantir helping to fight crime on the streets of London when the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has made clear that, as a result of the Mayor of London’s decision, our citizens will be less safe?
My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister for his lucid and authoritative response. When I was a Minister, I saw how Palantir’s technology helped to save lives in the NHS. I saw how Palantir helped to ensure that those fleeing persecution from the Ukraine war could have a safe home in this country. I also appreciate that Palantir is playing a role in defending democracy, not just in the Middle East but in Ukraine. Is it therefore not a matter of regret to the Minister, as it is to me, that the Mayor of London has specifically ruled out Palantir helping to fight crime on the streets of London when the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has made clear that, as a result of the Mayor of London’s decision, our citizens will be less safe?
My understanding is that the mayor and the commissioner have now reached an arrangement with respect to the activity of Palantir within the Metropolitan Police, where there will be a 12-month period to establish a proof of concept as to whether Palantir can move forward. The mayor and the Metropolitan Police commissioner have agreed that because, as the noble Lord says, the commissioner believes it will help fight crime. It is a matter for them to resolve that, but it seems they have found a way in which both are happy to try to take it forward.
I do not want to underestimate the moral questions that Governments sometimes have to answer. The noble Lord knows the issue of education particularly well, but let us look at the issue with respect to health: 41 ICBs and 171 trusts have signed up to use the NHS federated data platform; more than 100,000 extra patients have been seen; hundreds of thousands of patients have been safely removed from the waiting list; and nearly 94,000 patients have been supported on their cancer journey. That is the sort of dilemma that Governments need to resolve to try to find the best way forward.
My Lords, whatever improvements might be made in dealing with the consequences of extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea in environmental terms, it is undoubtedly the case that the environmental and economic benefits are greater if we extract from our own native resources than if the resources are extracted from Russia and refined in a third country. Yet this Government have decided to relax sanctions on Putin’s Russia, to accept Russian oil refined in third countries and to acquiesce in the loss of jobs and investment in Aberdeen and the North Sea. How can it possibly make sense to strengthen Putin during a war against Ukraine and to leave people in Scotland jobless as a result?
My Lords, whatever improvements might be made in dealing with the consequences of extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea in environmental terms, it is undoubtedly the case that the environmental and economic benefits are greater if we extract from our own native resources than if the resources are extracted from Russia and refined in a third country. Yet this Government have decided to relax sanctions on Putin’s Russia, to accept Russian oil refined in third countries and to acquiesce in the loss of jobs and investment in Aberdeen and the North Sea. How can it possibly make sense to strengthen Putin during a war against Ukraine and to leave people in Scotland jobless as a result?
No, the Government have not relaxed sanctions against Putin and Russia. I believe the noble Lord is referring to recent decisions about how to phase in new sanctions as far as Russia is concerned, particularly concerning third-party products which arise not from crude oil itself but from the refining of it, particularly in circumstances where the UK does not have that refining capacity at home. The decisions that have been taken very recently relate only to that and not to the ongoing and increased sanctions as far as Putin is concerned.
My Lords, if this policy is such a good idea, why was the Whip removed from seven Labour MPs in the other place when they voted in favour of it last year?
My Lords, if this policy is such a good idea, why was the Whip removed from seven Labour MPs in the other place when they voted in favour of it last year?
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord knows more than I do about the state of the economy that this party inherited when we came into government. We have dealt with all the challenges that his Government left behind. Chief among those was the state of—not just support for children—the welfare state. We had huge numbers of people who had been abandoned. Under the last Government, the bill went up by £88 billion. This Government came in with a budget. We invested £1.5 billion in employment support; we have reformed Motability and universal credit. We are going to make a difference. We care about children.
My Lords, the Government pledged at the last election that this tax increase would pay for 6,500 new teachers in state schools. Over the past year, this Government have seen the number of teachers in state schools drop by more than 400. How can minus 400 be an addition, even in the crazy mathematics of His Majesty’s Treasury?
My Lords, the Government pledged at the last election that this tax increase would pay for 6,500 new teachers in state schools. Over the past year, this Government have seen the number of teachers in state schools drop by more than 400. How can minus 400 be an addition, even in the crazy mathematics of His Majesty’s Treasury?
The noble Lord mentions crazy mathematics—I think he was one of the leading proponents of Brexit, so he would know all about crazy mathematics. This measure raises £1.7 billion to spend on state schools. He will have seen in the previous SR settlement for schools that, to raise school standards for every child and break down barriers to opportunity, the Government are increasing the core schools budget by £4.7 billion per year by 2028-29. This is a real-terms increase of 1.1% on average each year, on a per-pupil basis, taking per-pupil funding to a new record high.
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and take this opportunity to associate these Benches with the earlier comments and expressions of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for his ministerial service— proof, if it were needed, of the invaluable role hereditary members continue to play in this House.
The Grenfell inquiry report made it clear that Arconic, Saint-Gobain and Kingspan all had a direct responsibility for the death of the victims in that horrendous tragedy. Can the Minister assure us that the Government have no commercial relationship with any of those firms, government agencies will not enter into commercial relationships with any of those firms, and Ministers will not appear at events sponsored by those firms complicit in murder?
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and take this opportunity to associate these Benches with the earlier comments and expressions of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for his ministerial service— proof, if it were needed, of the invaluable role hereditary members continue to play in this House.
The Grenfell inquiry report made it clear that Arconic, Saint-Gobain and Kingspan all had a direct responsibility for the death of the victims in that horrendous tragedy. Can the Minister assure us that the Government have no commercial relationship with any of those firms, government agencies will not enter into commercial relationships with any of those firms, and Ministers will not appear at events sponsored by those firms complicit in murder?
Before I answer the noble Lord’s question, I thank him for his comments about my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, but I point out to him that my noble friend is in fact a life Peer. We truly value his service.
In response to the question about public contracts, we are, of course, absolutely committed to exploring all available options to take action to hold to account those companies which were criticised by the inquiry. In that spirit, the Cabinet Office said it would launch investigations into seven organisations, using the new debarment powers that came in the Procurement Act 2023. I have to say, however, that the Met Police and the Crown Prosecution Service informed the Cabinet Office that debarment investigations might unintentionally prejudice the criminal investigation, so the Cabinet Office then concluded that it was right to pause the debarment investigations while the criminal investigation was going on. However, I completely understand the noble Lord’s point, and we will do all we can to make sure that those who are responsible are brought to account.
Statement on the next steps in the Government's strategy to counter extremism and to build greater national resilience and social cohesion.
Statement on the next steps in the Government's strategy to counter extremism and to build greater national resilience and social cohesion.
Third reading. King's consent signified. Amendment negatived on division (228 to 284). Main question agreed to on division (282 to 235). Bill read the third time and passed.
Third reading. King's consent signified. Amendment negatived on division (228 to 284). Main question agreed to on division (282 to 235). Bill read the third time and passed.
Second reading agreed to on question; Programme motion agreed to on question. King's recommendation signified. Money resolution agreed to. Ways and Means resolution agreed to.
Second reading agreed to on question; Programme motion agreed to on question. King's recommendation signified. Money resolution agreed to. Ways and Means resolution agreed to.
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Bill 5). First reading, second reading.
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Bill 5). First reading, second reading.
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Bill 7). First reading, second reading.
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Bill 7). First reading, second reading.
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Bill 4). First reading, second reading, Bill committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Bill 4). First reading, second reading, Bill committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Report stage. New clause 1 discussed with new clauses and amendments. New clause 1 withdrawn. Clause 3 amendment 14 negatived on division (200 to 273). Clause 3 amendment 13 negatived on division (197 to 276). Clause 3 amendment 7 negatived on division (207 to 269). Clause 4 amendment 28 negatived on division (197 to 275). Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.
Report stage. New clause 1 discussed with new clauses and amendments. New clause 1 withdrawn. Clause 3 amendment 14 negatived on division (200 to 273). Clause 3 amendment 13 negatived on division (197 to 276). Clause 3 amendment 7 negatived on division (207 to 269). Clause 4 amendment 28 negatived...
Second reading. Agreed to on question. Programme motion on committal, proceedings in Public Bill Committee, consideration, third reading and other proceedings. Agreed to on question. Money resolution and King's recommendation signified. Agreed to on question. Ways and means resolution. Agreed to on question. Carry-over motion. Agreed to on question.
Second reading. Agreed to on question. Programme motion on committal, proceedings in Public Bill Committee, consideration, third reading and other proceedings. Agreed to on question. Money resolution and King's recommendation signified. Agreed to on question. Ways and means resolution. Agreed to on question. Carry-over motion. Agreed to on question.
Statement on Birmingham City Council.
Statement on Birmingham City Council.
Motion that this House has considered building safety and social housing. Agreed to on question.
Motion that this House has considered building safety and social housing. Agreed to on question.
Second reading. Amendment negatived on division (212 votes to 272). Motion on second reading agreed to on division (268 votes to 70). Programme motion agreed to. King's recommendation signified. Money resolution agreed to.
Second reading. Amendment negatived on division (212 votes to 272). Motion on second reading agreed to on division (268 votes to 70). Programme motion agreed to. King's recommendation signified. Money resolution agreed to.
Second reading. Reasoned amendment debated and withdrawn. Main question agreed to on question. Money resolution. King's recommendation signified. Business motion agreed to.
Second reading. Reasoned amendment debated and withdrawn. Main question agreed to on question. Money resolution. King's recommendation signified. Business motion agreed to.
Presentation and first reading (Bill 325).
Presentation and first reading (Bill 325).