Brexit: Crime Prevention

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kinnock

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right. It is in the spirit of the improved technologies and improved sharing of data that we enter into co-operation around all these areas as we exit the EU and enter a new phase in this country’s journey.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

Will the Minister, in the service of the House, read the two sentences in the letter before the one that she selectively read out? Those sentences make it absolutely clear that the Government’s intention and the implied threat is that unless there is agreement on trade—a “comprehensive agreement” as they have called it—there will not be an agreement on security. By that means, they would imperil not only our economic capability but, even more seriously, our security capability.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is quite wrong. The letter says that both sides would cope, but our co-operation would be weakened. We want, and we believe that the EU wants, security to be part of the new partnership. That is why it will be part of the negotiation. That is the right way forward.

Police: Pension Rights

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kinnock

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords, may I recommend to the Minister the principle of “When the facts change, I change my mind” as wise guidance in issues like this? Does she accept from me that the principle of no retrospection, although applicable in many circumstances, simply does not meet the moral obligations that arise from cases like those which have been raised properly by my noble friend?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord that, when the facts change, the Government change their mind. That is why in 2016, after decades of widows who remarry not being able to claim the survivor’s pension, the Government did indeed change their mind. The issue of retrospection is something about which no Government have changed their mind.

Brexit: Hate Crimes

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kinnock

Thursday 19th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord that there is a distinction. How the police operate is of course up to the police, but we certainly support them.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

Is the Minister satisfied with the level of punishment of perpetrators of hate crime and with the provision for education of such people? Is it not clear that, unless and until those guilty of hate crime are taught a lesson in both senses of the term, they are likely to continue with their poisonous attitude?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am satisfied with the level of punishment. The noble Lord raises a point that was mentioned in previous Questions today—that is, education. We engage the Anne Frank Trust in going into schools, which is an incredibly important initiative. It is essential not to forget what happened in the past. We always say that it will never happen again but it does, and for children to have at the forefront of their minds man’s inhumanity to man in the past helps us in the future.

Orgreave

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kinnock

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As always, my noble friend makes precise points. He also underlines the fact that this is a very emotive subject, with strong views on either side, but he is absolutely right. Thirty-two years have elapsed since Orgreave and no Government up to now have made a decision on it.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords, should not a Government who promise to govern in the interests of the whole country try to ensure maximum transparency and accountability for the whole country? Is the Minister aware that the refusal of an inquiry into the battle of Orgreave deepens the justified sense of injustice right across coalfield communities, especially when there are substantiated claims that there was politicised policing and tampering with evidence in the wake of the conflict?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this is a very serious decision and I hope that in no way does anyone feel that this decision has been politicised. Transparency is at the heart of the process; that is why the Home Secretary has taken so much time to look at various documents in carefully considering her conclusion.

Women in the Workplace

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kinnock

Thursday 9th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right that methodologies vary in different analyses. His comment also touches on the fact that these figures are quite often old ones. Those referred to in the noble Baroness’s Question go back to 2012, and much progress has been made since then.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

In introducing the new living wage, the Chancellor referred to the Resolution Foundation with commendation, and rightly so. Is the Minister aware that the Resolution Foundation made it clear that the living wage could be £9 an hour if working tax credits were maintained, but that without working tax credits it would need to be £12? Are we going to hear an announcement to that effect?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Chancellor said yesterday that the living wage should mitigate the reduction in tax credits.

Greater Manchester: New Deal

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Kinnock

Monday 8th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right on one measure: referenda were held for city mayors and in the main they were rejected. They were an entirely different proposition from what we have now, which involves real transfer of powers.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

If the Government’s commitment to Greater Manchester and its constituent parts is to be meaningful, are they about to reverse the 40% budget cuts inflicted upon Manchester and the surrounding areas?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Greater Manchester has come forward with a proposal that is fiscally neutral; the plan uses the money that government currently puts into certain services, and Greater Manchester plans to use that money more efficiently and to engender growth in the process. Greater Manchester has not asked for additional money.