Schools: National Curriculum

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, perhaps I may remind my noble friend that this debate is for brief questions to the Minister.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I would be grateful if my noble friend would consider extending the Ofsted inspection to cover citizenship education. If it is not within the compulsory Ofsted inspection, that lowers its status. That is certainly not needed. Finally, I do not see why this subject should not be as necessary, compulsory and essential for non-maintained schools as for maintained schools.

Visas: Student Visa Policy

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Thursday 31st January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should be grateful if he would take a brief question.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I am sorry, but the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, has the right of reply.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Monday 26th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Can I now intervene, as I intended to, before the noble Lord, Lord Flight, sits down?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

It has nothing to do with sitting down.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I thank my noble friend. I withdraw the sedentary remark. The noble Lord is experienced in these affairs, so can he assure the House that the situation will not arise where somebody with no financial sophistication whatever enters into arrangements with one of the agents about whom he is talking—for example, in respect of a pension—only to find 15 years later that there has been a gross failure of propriety?

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Very often a person taking out a pension, in particular, is wholly dependent upon the advice of the financial adviser.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I remind my noble friend that on Report one may speak only once to any amendment.

Media Ownership

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

No, I do not follow that logic at all, I am afraid. The Secretary of State is probably as busy as anything with the Olympics and all the other activities of 2012 that we have been discussing so fully in your Lordships’ Chamber. The communications review is on course. Subject to the legislative programme, the Government hope to introduce new legislation before the end of this Parliament, and of course the Leveson inquiry will influence the contents of that.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My noble friend asked a question of herself as to whether there were media moguls who had been extremely philanthropic. In that category, she may recognise the Scott family and the Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian and the Manchester Evening News. Is she aware of any country in the developed democratic world that is as indifferent about who owns its essential press?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

Well, one can never anticipate the questions in your Lordships’ House but I thank my noble friend for putting me right on kindly media moguls. Regarding his question, I think that that could be a topic of advanced research for some students in one of our splendid universities, making a comparison with other countries.

Education Bill

Debate between Baroness Garden of Frognal and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I apologise for interrupting my noble friend but he will be aware that the convention of the House is that 15 minutes is normally considered the maximum speaking time, and he has now been speaking for 19 minutes. I wonder whether he would be kind enough to wrap up his comments.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I apologise to the House for overrunning the conventional time. I suppose it is because I take such a profoundly serious view of these curtailments of free speech that I have overrun the 15 minutes. However, I will wrap up my remarks quickly. Not one of the statistics to which I referred relates to the subject matter of Clause 13, which is pre-charge publicity—not allegations but pre-charge publicity. As regards allegations, 28 per cent led to disciplinary proceedings, more than 50 per cent had some substance and 18 per cent involved suspensions.

I am grateful to my noble friend for the concessions he has made. He may have had to battle for some of the concessions that he has wrung out of his colleagues. However, he does not accept my Amendment 48, which deals with the raising of the cap on freedom of speech in the case of a teacher who resigns or is dismissed, or Amendment 51, which allows a parent whose child has come home complaining of an assault to at least e-mail the other parents in the class to ask them whether they have had any experience of Mr Jones doing what he ought not to do, or e-mailing the staff, for example. To prohibit that seems to me utterly wrong. I speak to these two amendments in that spirit.