Brexit: Security

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, it is a good question, and it is going to get an answer, if I can get a word in edgeways.

We have to work very hard to make sure that there are no gaps in capability and that, if we leave the European Union without a deal, some of the alternative mechanisms and instruments are in place.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that there has been great success in co-operation between the United Kingdom and European forces? Can she assure the House that the same systems, under another name, will still prevail and be as efficient as previously?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Under a deal situation, the political declaration has provisions for Eurojust, Europol, Prüm and PNR. Leaving without a deal would necessitate us relying on other mechanisms to fulfil those obligations.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st October 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and my noble friend Lord Faulks for moving the amendment. In your Lordships’ House, every day is an education. My noble friend Lord Howe informs me that William Joyce was an Irishman falsely using a British passport, so perhaps the Irish among us should feel—

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

He was an American.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

He was an American who took a German passport in 1940 but was nevertheless convicted when he was a German citizen.

Amesbury Update

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

Is there any prospect whatever that this nerve agent could have come to Salisbury other than from a state source, and does the finger of blame seem to point very clearly at the Russian state in this matter?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will remember that back in March we were sure that the incident bore all the hallmarks of a Russian state-type poisoning. We have no evidence that it came from another source, so I think that at this stage we can be fairly sure that the source is the Russian state.

Home Office: Data Breaches

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think the noble Baroness will recognise that for the last few weeks we have recognised some of the problems faced by people who came here before 1973 but for whom there is no formal documentation. She talked about certain individuals—indeed, she mentioned a whole host of cases—but I hope that she will recognise from the statutory instrument that the Home Secretary laid last Friday that on the issue of the Windrush generation and all those individuals who were here before 1973, every effort is now being made to regularise their status. As for her assertion of ILR, I cannot comment on the case, but if she would like me to write to her on a particular case, I will certainly look into it.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, is there any reason why the ordinary law of the land should not apply here? Could not proof of the contents of a lost document be established by way of affidavit or statutory declaration?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord goes a bit above my pay grade, but I am sure that he is right. The Question today refers to lost documents—that is, documents that are sent in good faith and then lost, and then the individual who has sent the document has great difficulty in obtaining whatever service it is that they wish to complete. As I say, the presence of a data protection officer and some of the digitisation that the Home Office is undertaking should help to alleviate this.

Incident in Salisbury

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Thursday 8th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can confirm to my noble friend that all matters surrounding this will be investigated thoroughly. I cannot stress that enough, actually. On the question of Litvinenko and lessons learned, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was a blatant and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenets of international law and civilised behaviour. At the time, the Government responded robustly and, following the publication of the report, we made representations in the strongest possible terms to the Russian Government and put in place asset freezes against the main suspects. For my noble friend’s information, we have demanded and continue to demand that the Russian Government account for the role of the FSB in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, while appreciating that the circumstances are very similar to—indeed, a carbon copy of—what occurred in the case of Litvinenko, does the Minister agree that, if that be the case, it is not just an attack on a person, but an attack on the sovereignty of this land?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I have said on quite a few occasions this morning, that is jumping the gun as to the conclusion of the police, and I will not do that, as this is an ongoing investigation. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot answer his question fully.

Modern Slavery: Indian Supply Chains

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, because two noble Lords were speaking I did not hear my noble friend’s question.

Psychoactive Substances Act 2016

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I wish that I had been there for the passage of the Psychoactive Substances Act now. It would have benefited me greatly, although some people seem to have scars on their backs from it. We have been talking about nitrous oxide, which has a medicinal benefit. However, in this case it was clearly used for recreation.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

May I observe that the Act is not working quite as well as it might, and that in its Section 3 there is a specific reference to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs? I urge the Government to have discussions with that body, which has performed so well and served the public so well since the passing of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Again, I wish I had been present for the debates that took place. I certainly take on board what the noble Lord said. I have not got an answer for him today, but I will look into the question that he asked.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 21st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the noble Lord’s second point, the entire point of the inquiry is that it is a full and proper inquiry into what happened in the past, both in Scotland and in England and Wales. I am sure there will be sharing of information across the piece. I am pleased he mentioned Professor Jay because she has shown in her past work into Rotherham what an outstanding chairman she is and how she got to the heart of what was a very difficult, complex issue. I am pleased to hear the noble Lord make that point. The Government also have full confidence in her.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, will the review direct itself to seek to set a target no later than five years from now for the publication of the final report? Failure to do this may well place a very great strain on human memory. Witnesses will die; others will fail to give coherent evidence.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. On the current chairman’s intentions, she has said she will operate with pace but also with clarity. The longer time goes on, the harder these things become. We will not press the inquiry to a timetable, but the chairman has laid out quite clearly that she intends to do it with clarity and pace.

Brexit: EU Citizens

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I cannot say any more than I said in response to the first Question, which is that the Prime Minister has made her position absolutely clear, and unless the rights of our citizens and other EU countries change, that position remains.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

Is not the blunt reality of the situation that those people who have settled in the United Kingdom, as well as our people who have settled in the 27 other countries, did so on the unequivocal understanding that their rights would be respected in perpetuity, and that to allow dubiety to exist now is both a breach of a solemn word of honour and indeed conduct unworthy of the highest standards of international comity?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I apologise, but I really have nothing further to add. The same question has been asked in different ways and, while the Prime Minister has made her intentions very clear, everything is part of the renegotiation process, because things have changed.

Higher Education: Funding

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Thursday 8th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord may be aware that the Chancellor recently announced that, from 2016, postgraduate students will be able to get a loan of up to £10,000 for their studies.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, is it not the case that Her Majesty’s Government have made an assessment of what proportion of student loans are likely to be recoverable? Will the noble Baroness tell the House what that figure is?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that figure varies—I think that my noble friend is referring to the RAB charge—because of macroeconomic factors such as earning potential and, therefore, the ability to repay. It is currently estimated to be around 45%.

Alcohol: Sale to Children

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that it might have been a better hallmark of responsibility and of trust towards young people had there been an investigation by health authorities of the possible injurious effect of the ingestion of alcohol in any form on young people; and that that would have been much better than surrendering to the blandishments of business, which might not be entirely free of self-interest?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is my understanding that concerns were not raised by any health bodies on the matters that we are discussing today.

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, to answer my noble friend’s question last, and hopefully throw light on my other noble friend’s question: a “territory” is a geographical concept, the land and sea over which a state has jurisdiction. A country’s land mass may be divided into several territories, so the state of a country may also have jurisdiction over far-flung territories. For example, the state of the country of the United Kingdom has jurisdiction over various overseas territories, such as the British Virgin Islands. However, it is a matter for each state to determine, subject to the 12-mile limit. I hope I have not further confused the House.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I hope to make a marginally relevant point. Is it not the case that by now the whole concept of a belt of territorial jurisdiction, 12 miles out from land, has been outdistanced by the realities of time? Grotius, I believe, was the international lawyer, who, many centuries ago, advocated a three-mile limit. Why? Because that was the range of a powerful cannon in those days. Then, ordnance became more and more powerful. Today, 12 miles is nothing in relation to the power of ordnance. Should not the whole question of the 12 miles therefore be eradicated?