Police: Pension Rights

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Harris of Richmond

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his Question, for the way in which he has always constructively engaged with me, and for coming to see me this morning. I pay tribute to him as Parliament’s only PCC. Without talking about individual cases, I say that it is absolutely tragic that police officers are killed in the line of public duty. When it happens, we should honour the officers’ memory and sacrifice. That is why this Government have changed the rules so that all survivors of police officers who die on duty do not now face the prospect of losing their pension on remarriage. That is a change that no previous Government have felt able to make. However, we must continue to have regard to the wider implications of a change to public service pensions. It is the duty of government to ensure that any policy changes are legally and financially sound. I do not pretend that the judgment is always easy but it is one that we must make. Successive Governments have maintained a general presumption against retrospective changes to public service pensions, and I am afraid that that remains in place.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an honorary member of the National Association of Retired Police Officers, which has been instrumental in championing this campaign. Should the Government not recognise the principle that the widows and widowers of police officers who have given their lives in service to the community should receive pensions for life no matter when their partners were killed?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Baroness that the Government recognise the principle and that is why we made these changes back in 2016, to be applied from 2015. But as I have said, the retrospective judgment is not one that is made across the public service.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Harris of Richmond

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a very good point, and there are in fact other reasons outside the police’s control why 28 days might prove difficult. It is for that reason that we will not only keep it under review but look at any blockages to the 28 days being fulfilled that are outside the police’s control.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendments. I guarantee to the Government that the exercise of this will be far more burdensome than they expect and that we will come back to this. These ideas will haunt the Government, because—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, may I be completely rude and intervene on the noble Baroness? I completely forgot to speak to government Amendment 116. Will she indulge me, while I outline that amendment very briefly?

Amendment 116 responds to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Marlesford in Committee, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, alluded, when he argued that written notification should be given in all cases where the police decide to take no further action. Amendment 116 complements Clauses 65 and 66, ensuring that notification of a decision to take no further action is always given, whatever the circumstances of a case. I commend the government amendment to the House and apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, it is quite all right.

I want to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blair. Have the Government taken into account what will happen if the 28-day period falls over Diwali, Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, the Sabbath, Ramadan, Eid or other religious festivals? This will cause real concern as there is no flexibility to respect these dates.

What about medical appointments, pre-arranged holidays, job interviews, caring responsibilities, academic examinations, funerals? The list is endless. There may be a case for a breach of human rights; certainly it could cause a corrosive relationship between the police and the public because of the length of time and the lack of flexibility. I hope that the Government will look again very closely at what many noble Lords have been proposing. At this stage there does not seem much point in dividing the House, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Religion: Advertisements

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Harris of Richmond

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, if there is a choice, I think I would go with the former. It is often shown that giving to others makes you far happier than thinking about me, me, me.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether there were any representations from the Church of England to other faiths before it made the decision to launch this campaign?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have absolutely no idea. I will find out from my colleagues on the Bishops’ Benches and let the noble Baroness know.

Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Harris of Richmond

Monday 7th September 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there are two points here. First, it is imperative to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords who will not meet their obligations. Secondly, in the theoretical situation set out by my noble friend, if on day two—2 October—a landlord was in breach, that landlord would have 28 days to comply, so the date we are talking about is more like six weeks from now.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond) (LD)]

The Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say “Content”; to the contrary, “Not content”.