Police: Pension Rights

Debate between Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a current police pensioner. I have often heard Ministers both in this House and in the other place, and indeed at conferences, committing the Government to giving priority to the victims of crime. Does the Minister agree that in homicide cases the definition of victim by necessity applies to the spouses and partners, in this case of police officers who have died in the line of duty? Is there not therefore a justified need to reflect that in the pension arrangements for those officers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly recognise the difficulties faced by the families of members of the Armed Forces, the police service and the fire service and how they could be seen as the indirect victims of crime themselves. The noble Lord talks about provisions for death in the line of duty. There most certainly are awards under the police injury benefit arrangements which ensure that higher benefits are payable when an officer is killed in certain circumstances. These are broadly if death resulted while seeking to apprehend a suspect, protecting life, or if the officer was targeted for the reason of being a police officer. I take this opportunity to recognise the incredible public service that police officers, fire officers and our Armed Forces make to public life.

National Identity Cards

Debate between Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

One of the reasons why the Conservative Party opposed identity cards was because of the civil liberties issue which the noble Lord outlined. However, he is absolutely right to point out that the Government should also always be mindful of privacy versus the advances in technology that such information can give us.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given that most terrorists and professional criminals use multiple identities in committing crime, is it not self-evident that a biometric identity card would be an advantage in changing policy?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the biometric card would not be any more robust than some of the systems which we have in place. In fact, there is evidence that it is just as liable to counterfeiting as other methods.

Police National Database: Facial Images

Debate between Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend talks about privacy. If everybody was required to put their passport photographs towards a national database there might be a real issue with privacy. What the Government are trying to do, and my noble friend alluded to it, is to have images on record of people previously convicted of a crime. The custody image review is attempting to get rid of the facial images of those who are not convicted—and I include myself in that. If you have a passport but have not been convicted, I am not sure what benefit your photograph could be to the police national database.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

Is this not a matter of balance? Does the Minister agree that the keeping of an innocent person’s image on a database is of far less consequence than being the innocent victim of a violent crime?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is a question of balance. It is a balance between enabling the police to do their job and to have a good database of criminals and those who have been convicted but also, as he says, if you are an innocent person, of not having your face on the database.

Passport Applications: Digitisation

Debate between Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, a dodgy selfie is one that does not meet the rigorous requirements of a passport photo.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, with the increasing threats of terrorism and of identity theft, does the Minister agree that the Question highlights the need for a proper biometric identity card?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Government have rejected the idea of an identity card, but noble Lords will notice that when they go through passport gates now their face is compared with the photograph on the passport. The machines that do the face recognition, which is a form of biometrics, are very accurate indeed.

Hate Crime

Debate between Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord, as I often do, that religious literacy in all aspects of society—particularly through the media—is incredibly important and something that schools can promote through PSHE. The Government have made a number of funding streams available in order for people to not only discuss what unites them in terms of their religions but celebrate what is different about them. That celebration is a good thing.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one action the Government could take to possibly reduce hate crime is to make an early announcement that all those who were lawfully living here before Brexit are allowed to remain?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think the Government have made that quite clear: people who live here are quite welcome in this country and we will abide by our obligations, unless other EU states change their position.