Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the speeches that have been made, particularly on kinship care, but recognise the challenges that carers face. I am sure that the debate on remuneration for carer’s leave will continue. I am contributing on this group because of Amendment 81, from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton. I would say that it is quite odd for this to have been grouped alongside the other issues, recognising the very serious situation of pregnancy loss. Before the noble Lord spoke, I was not aware that this was relating to an inquiry at the other end. I have only just started reading aspects of that report, so I am not as fully informed as he was in presenting this. However, there are some issues here that I am concerned about.

Thinking through this, only three other countries in the world include parts of pregnancy loss in terms of being formally considered for bereavement leave. That is not a reason not to do it, but it is important to recognise that we would still be quite a considerable outlier. It needs careful consideration. I am not dismissing it in any way, but I am conscious that the Government responded on 25 March and I am slightly disappointed that we have not yet seen an amendment tabled. I appreciate that some of these things take a bit of time, but I had hoped that in Committee we would be able to consider what the Government were going to table in this regard.

As the Government have set out in their response to the committee and as is set out in ACAS guidance, a number of these issues are already covered in terms of pregnancy or maternity-related illness. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said about this becoming a potential HR issue. It is discriminatory for any such illness in any way, including miscarriage, and molar pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy would be covered very straightforwardly by that.

I have a particular concern about proposed subsection (2B)(a)(iv) in his Amendment 81, which widely casts the net of any medical abortion. It is already recognised that any abortion after 24 weeks is automatically covered in bereavement leave. The same is true of stillbirth, which, in the UK, is considered to be the loss of a pregnancy at 24 weeks and above. The two are not causal or directly related—obviously, there is a correlation in the timing. It just so happens that we have our current abortion limits, with certain exceptions, up to 24 weeks. So I am concerned that, in effect, proactive abortions taken up to 24 weeks would be covered in this amendment. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government in their response, because, as I have said to the House already, I have not yet had the chance to read the entire report from the Women and Equalities Committee.

On proposed subsection (2B)(b), I say that I have had many friends who have, not always successfully, had children through IVF. Thankfully, many people do, but they recognise when they enter into it some of the challenges they definitely will face in trying to have a child by IVF. As it stands, on average, the success rate for a woman below 38 is about 35% for any particular embryo-transfer loss. Once a woman starts to go over the age of 40, that falls—it has gone up from 2012 from an 8% to a 10% success rate in 2022. That careful consideration needs to be thought about by the Government and your Lordships in this House when we decide to extend certain entitlements, while recognising the heartbreak that can happen at certain moments in people’s lives in these particularly sensitive moments. I am conscious that this is a sensitive issue to bring up at this point in the Bill.

I do believe that I would like to understand this in more detail. I will take the time to do some more research myself, but I am very keen to hear from the Government quite where this is stretching. I appreciate they have given a certain kind of wording to the House of Commons Select Committee on this point, but the provision of further details to the Committee here would be very welcome.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all speakers from your Lordships’ House for what has been an excellent debate. It is a genuine pleasure for me to participate, hopefully quite briefly.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, gave a moving speech, which was made more moving by the knowledge that Sarah Owen is at the Bar today, and I thank both of them for their contributions, but especially Sarah.

Amendment 81 has our support, not least as a catalyst to try to have the sort of debate we need and the careful consideration that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also alluded to. I hope it can start to move things forward.

We also support Amendment 134, which was so ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This again is an important issue that we want to have more conversations about following this debate.

My noble friend Lord Palmer gave a very spirited and strong advocacy for kinship care, and that was supported across the House—here is another area where there is an absolutely clear and present need for carers to be officially brought into the carers’ community.

The point on fostering was also well made by my noble friend, as was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about short-term fostering as something we should seek to bring into that. All these amendments are, in a sense, broadening the scope of carers and where we should be considering. For all of them, I hope the Minister will be able to stand up and say “Let’s have a debate following this particular group. Let’s talk with interested parties to see how some or all of this could start to be moved forward”.

I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I focus on paid carer’s leave. I had the great honour of piloting Wendy Chamberlain’s Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House with, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, the strong support of the Conservative Government. During that time, I had a chance to meet a lot of carers and a lot of employers of carers—big companies such as Centrica, which the noble Lord mentioned, and much smaller companies. They all set out the advantages of having a proper, strong relationship with their carers and the starting point, which we established through that Private Member’s Bill, of unpaid carer’s leave.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends on our Front Bench. I have a number of concerns about the guaranteed-hours provisions in the Bill, one of them being that they are drafted almost wholly from the perspective of workers and pay little heed to the needs of employers. I do not believe that is a good way to create employment law to underpin a healthy economy.

On our first day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, who is not in his place today, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, both spoke about the work of the Low Pay Commission on zero-hours contracts. I was grateful to them for being pointed in that direction. I have a great deal of time for the work of the Low Pay Commission, which is always balanced and very careful, so I went back and looked at the 2018 report. Unsurprisingly, I found that it does not provide the copper-bottomed support for the Bill that noble Lords opposite have claimed—I should also say that the employment bodies represented on the Low Pay Commission have told us that as well.

The Low Pay Commission did indeed recommend that workers should be offered guaranteed-hours contracts, but, importantly, it also recognised that there would be circumstances in which it would not be reasonable for the employer to have to do that. There is not a trace of that in the Bill. The Low Pay Commission was clear that the Bill should set out specific circumstances in which the employer would not have to offer guaranteed hours. The commission cited with approval some equivalent legislation which was at that stage going through the Irish parliament, which provided, among other things, that adverse changes in the employer’s business or the existence of temporary factors would allow employers not to offer guaranteed hours.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I believe that Amendment 19A is eminently reasonable in that context. It does not give an employer carte blanche to ignore guaranteed hours but allows for some genuine business circumstances to be taken into account by the employer when looking at whether guaranteed-hours contracts should be offered.

At the end of the day, if we do not have successful businesses, there will not be any jobs on any kind of contract available. As I said on our first day in Committee, I am particularly concerned, as is the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, about small and micro-businesses, which really need to be allowed the flexibility if we are to protect the work opportunities of around half the private sector workforce.

Even if those small and micro-businesses survive the incredible bureaucracy associated with these guaranteed hours, they will potentially not survive the substantive impact of the hours if they are required in all circumstances to offer guaranteed-hours contracts. Of course, this is particularly the case in the hospitality sector, the largest user of zero-hours contracts; my noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about the problems in that sector. There are also very large numbers of small and micro-businesses in that sector.

Recognising some very limited flexibility, my noble friend’s Amendment 19A is actually very modest. It would go some way towards making this new requirement to offer guaranteed hours work in the context of businesses that have to face difficult circumstances, and at the moment the Bill pays no attention to that.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friends. I am just thinking of my career. I have had quite a conventional career in many ways, but I have also had many extra roles, particularly when I was a student—I am conscious that we will come to Amendment 19B separately later. It is important to reinforce the challenges in starting up or expanding a particular business. It is well said that a coffee shop will know within the first week whether it will succeed. You could argue that there are different factors, but within the first month a business will certainly know whether the footfall and the sale per customer justify the number of people it is employing and adapt accordingly.

As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral mentioned, there is also this extended element about things such as holidays. It may surprise your Lordships to know quite how many jobs are, frankly, based on whether it rains and people cancelling going out to do different things. That is one of the reasons why, in particular but not exclusively, many hotel chains have started having a price differential: basically, you get a better deal if you book up front, but you cannot cancel or get your money back. Indeed, it is why even more restaurants are, effectively, starting to pre-charge an amount of money that is expected so that people do not cancel. Having lived in touch of the coast for most of my life, I can assure your Lordships that the fluctuation in how many people actually turn up to a resort for the day in a town is real, and what that means for temporary jobs.

That is why I think my noble friend Lord Hunt has found a good way of trying to help the Government to consider some of the everyday decisions that employers have to make as to whether they open up in the first place, whether they try to expand, and whether they try to get the growth. If I go further on to Clause 20, at the same time that the Government are trying to encourage businesses to go into artificial intelligence and see all that can be embraced in that regard, they need to bear in mind that businesses will not invest in such technologies if they are concerned that the other costs will be so detrimental to them.

We keep having this Catch-22 situation: if the Government want growth, they need to recognise the success where employers have been given the chance to scope and to be flexible, although I understand entirely the Government’s intent that the employer should be reasonable with the people that they take on. It is for these reasons—and I will speak more in the next group—that I believe that the Government should seriously consider how they operationalise this. We keep hearing about more and more consultations. We have heard people from the British Retail Consortium, from retailers and from hospitality saying that these are the real issues. We are almost doing their consultation for them by putting forward these amendments, so I hope that the Minister will look on them carefully in his consideration.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall make four short points on these amendments, all of which I oppose. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that employers would get locked into guaranteed hours. I remind him that all contracts of employment may be varied by mutual agreement or, if not, they can be terminated and there can be re-engagement on fresh terms.

Secondly, the noble Lord mentioned the industrial reality. The industrial reality of zero-hours contracts is a complete disparity of power: 80% of those on zero-hours contracts would prefer a permanent contract, but those on zero-hours contracts are completely at the mercy of the employer. They do not know how many hours they are going to work tomorrow, let alone next week, and they do not know how much income they will make at the end of any week. Therefore, a worker on a zero-hours contract does not want an argument, to fall out or have a disagreement with the employer. That is a vital component of the legislation my noble friend proposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I may also go down memory lane about aspects of employment—it was a variety of activities. Where I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Hunt, who moved the amendment, is that I expect the Minister will simply say that students are not required to accept a guaranteed-hours contract. She is absolutely right about that. However, if I were in a situation as a student getting a guaranteed-hours contract, happy days. I would lap them up wherever I could. I am trying to think back to my time doing my PhD. I think I worked for the university in two different jobs. I also managed to use some of my holiday to get extra work. It was a mixture of things, and we are seeing this trend increase. With the cost of living challenge that people across the country face, we are seeing a significant increase in students starting to take on quite long working hours, which is somewhat detrimental to their learning progress.

Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on the success of her private Member’s Bill, and I am delighted to join colleagues from across the House in speaking in favour of its provisions. The United Kingdom is a nation that likes to support our national teams and our chosen football teams. For any sporting or ceremonial event, whether the Olympics, the Paralympics, the football World cup, the Euros, the Ashes, coronations or royal weddings—I could go on —when our teams, our sportspeople and our royalty are doing well, we want to support them. And where better to support them and celebrate than in our local pub or sports or social club? These are venues where we want to share our joys and woes, often with like-minded people. That is why this Bill to provide a blanket extension of licensing hours makes sense—to allow people to gather to mark an occasion of exceptional international, national or local significance.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about moments of celebration in pubs. She represents the Cities of London and Westminster, and I expect that she has the most pubs in any single constituency. While it may be unfair for her to single out just one, I wonder whether there is a particular sporting occasion, or other occasion of joy, where she has—certainly—enjoyed that in a pub locally.

[Nickie Aiken]

There have actually been far too many to be able to name them. As my right hon. Friend says, there are so many amazing venues in my constituency. I think that, at my last count, we had 13,000 licensed premises in Westminster alone, and as a former licensing chair of Westminster Council, the largest licensing authority in the country, I can say with some authority that we have amazing licensed premises here.

As the hon. Member for South Shields says, the alternative to this Bill is to go with temporary event notices, which are used for individual businesses looking to extend their hours. I know, from my experience as a licensing chair, that those are a bureaucratic nightmare for licensing authorities—especially for a city centre such as Westminster, central Manchester, Birmingham or wherever—and the £21 charge never matches the cost of the administration of those temporary event notices. This Bill will do away with that time-consuming bureaucracy.

In practice, the blanket extension orders go unopposed, and the public are often in favour of proposed licensing hours extensions. Some 85% of respondents to the consultation were in favour of an extension for this year’s Euros, and 77% were in favour of one during the King’s coronation.

Another important point to make is that there is a massive, vital economic benefit from this Bill. Pubs and late-night venues in my constituency employ more than 22,000 people and turn over £1 billion each year; it is the No. 1 constituency for turnover, and economic value, from the hospitality industry in the UK. That is just in central London, but pubs and other venues play a vital role in the local economy of every part of the United Kingdom. The Bill will support them. We know the hospitality industry has had a tough time over the past five years.

While I welcome making the process to extend opening hours easier, it is important to remember that such extensions will see an increase in the consumption of alcohol. Sadly, often, that will result in an increase in antisocial behaviour and disturbances for residents. The extension order for the 2020 Euros final allowed for an extra 45 minutes of serving time. However, for the 2024 Euros, the Government consultation proposed extending licensing hours by two hours, meaning many pubs will close at 1 am.

I am sure everyone in the House agrees that we do not want to see a repeat of what happened during the 2020 Euros, when Trafalgar Square, in my constituency, was the scene of some very unruly behaviour, including excess drinking and revellers climbing on buildings and buses. It was an absolute nightmare. I am aware of residents’ concerns about the current licensing application for the fanzone for this year’s Champions League final, which will allow up to 20,000 people to gather in Trafalgar Square and a further 30,000 in Victoria Embankment Gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to stand in support of the Bill on Third Reading. I commend and congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who has navigated this important Bill, which, though small, will have a significant impact on the wellness and joy of people throughout England and Wales. She came into the House in a by-election in 2013 and has always made a positive impact. She has, of course, been diligent in her constituency work, but I hope she will be toasted in every pub the next time a licence is used in the way introduced by this change in law.

The Licensing Act 2003 was important legislation. The reason for that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) set out, is that while we want hospitality to thrive in many ways, for people living very near a pub or other venues, those venues can have a big impact on their lives. That is why the processes that are gone through are important. I do not know the rationale for deciding, more than 20 years ago, that it was important to make this particular legislation via the affirmative resolution procedure, but it is sensible and pragmatic streamlining to switch to the negative resolution procedure.

This simple legislative change will not make bureaucracy a thing of the past; it is important that the appropriate procedures go through. However, we often think about how Parliament needs to be in touch with the challenges that people have. It may not be the greatest challenge in the world that a pub cannot open longer for a particular event, but when we try to explain to people that the reason such a change cannot be made is that Parliament is not sitting because it is having a summer break, there is an element of, “Let’s look at that again.” That is why the hon. Member for South Shields was wise to pick up and work with the Government on this modest change.

On the negative resolution procedure more broadly, within Parliament, and in particular the other House, I would say there has been an anti-negative resolutions revolution in the passing of secondary legislation. About 80% of our regulations are made through the negative route. There will be a variety of reasons as to why it is unpopular for certain aspects, partly because, if people object to those statutory instruments, although there is quite a systematic process, it is not always easy to get a particular vote on it, particularly in this House. One thing it has done is to clog up a lot of parliamentary activity, with more and more time being spent on modest pieces of legislation that really do not need further consideration, apart from the wisdom of discussions or debates that could be had outside of what is quite a formal parliamentary process. That is why I think this matters.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster might not want to single one pub out in her constituency. For what it is worth, I live in her constituency when I am carrying out my parliamentary duties, and I go to the White Swan on Vauxhall Bridge Road to watch sport. I think it is really good. It has a fantastic TikTok account. Don’t worry, I am not expecting a free Guinness—I would not abuse my position in that way. I had hoped to be having moments of joy this Sunday, with Liverpool winning the Premier League. Sadly, that is not going to be the case, and I expect we will end up third, but I am going to a Liverpool fans’ pub in London in the afternoon with some friends. It is that sense of community and of coming together that really matters.

Covid has had so many impacts on our country: not just the huge amount of investment that was put in, which we are now paying for across the UK, but what it did to community and the anxious generation we now have of people who interact solely on something like this phone—I am using it to look at the legislation today. For me, what is critical is not just drowning our sorrows by going to a pub, but that sense of occasion. I remember the joy of some of the sporting events I have been lucky enough to go to in person. That sort of joy can be replicated, and it need not necessarily be in a pub; it can be in a community hall or at other sorts of temporary events. However, it is vital, not only for economic reasons, but for genuine societal reasons, that we make it as straightforward as possible for Parliament to allow these things to happen. While we still have a moderate amount of regulation in recognising what licensing conditions may apply and what concerns local residents or businesses may have, I come back to my original point: this simple change, meaning that it does not matter whether Parliament is sitting, is the key element of this legislation.

I am going to be shameless and name a few more pubs in my constituency. I forgot to do so in discussing previous bits of legislation. I even served on the hon. Member for South Shields’ Bill Committee and did not do it. I cannot name them all, but I have been to every single pub in my constituency; that is the reason I won the beer parliamentarian of the year award over a decade ago, and still have the mug to prove it—though I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no beer in the Chamber today. But who knows? We might crack on over in the Strangers Bar if it is open later, to toast the hon. Lady’s success in getting the Bill through this House.

We undoubtedly have a lot of events in Europe coming up, but it is important to recognise our international community here in this country and people’s desire not only to watch sports here, of course, but to watch sporting events with their home teams in different parts of the world. I had better not get into too much trouble by naming loads of pubs, but—

[Nickie Aiken]

My right hon. Friend is making a very excellent speech. She asked me for my favourite watering hole in my constituency. I think it is only fair, surely, that she names one pub that she went to.

[Dr Coffey]

Of course there is the Felixstowe Conservative Club, which is very good in that regard, but I must admit that when I go to watch sports, I have been to the Douglas Bader in Martlesham Heath and I love going to the Anchor in Woodbridge. My first home was in a village called Westleton, where I used to go to the White Horse Inn a lot. There are just so many. Not all of them show football, and I must do better in ensuring that I get down to many more pubs in Felixstowe, where that does seem to happen.

However, I will continue to champion and go around pubs, and I now have a great excuse, with the hon. Member for South Shields’ Bill, to explain why Parliament is going to make life for our hospitality sector a lot easier. We have a great brewery and pub chain called Adnams in Southwold in my constituency. Adnams still owns a lot of pubs, some managed, some tenanted, and I hope it will take full advantage of this great opportunity. So without further ado, I am really pleased to be here on a Friday to support this legislation, I am sure the Lords will toast it as well, and I look forward to sharing a glass or two in the Strangers Bar later today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am afraid the Strangers Bar is closed. I am sorry to bring such bad news, but I think the House of Lords bar may be open—you never know. I am a former president of the all-party parliamentary group on beer, so I do not think we could have a more appropriate Chair for this particular debate.

Assisted Dying

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Living with terminal illness is distressing and difficult for the person involved and for their family and friends. The cases we regularly hear about are truly moving and evoke the highest degree of compassion. When and how someone passes from this life is challenging and a very emotional topic.

When I raised this issue in Parliament back in 2011, I expressed my concern about how the practice of withholding water and food in order to accelerate someone’s death had been deemed lawful in court, although I was relieved that after the Neuberger review that was effectively stopped across the country. Assisting or encouraging suicide is a criminal offence under section 2 of the 1961 Act. That Act was updated by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and there was an attempt then to change the law to make assisted suicide legal in this country.

I was not in the House at the time of the 2009 Act’s passage, but fortunately that attempt failed. What did come, though, were guidelines for the Crown Prosecution Service, put in place by the then Director of Public Prosecutions—now the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition —which seem to have stood the test of time. Back in March 2012, when this House debated those rules, it voted against the proposal to make them statutory guidance while adding its support for palliative care and hospital provision.

There has been a lot of talk about how somebody comes to the end of their life, but there is an overwhelming difference between clinicians knowingly giving medication to help accelerate someone’s death—mindfully setting out to kill—and giving something that may help deal with the pain. However, I think such ethical issues need to be considered as stand-alone Bills. Unfortunately, there are too many attempts to make quite significant changes to ethical issues through Government Bills that are often rushed through, and so significant changes happen with very little debate, if any at all.

On 11 December 2015, 330 MPs voted against changing the law, which is three quarters of the MPs who voted that day. That was not an insignificant debate, and 70% of the House participated in that Division. Since then, no Member of Parliament has come forward with a Bill for the House to consider, either through the ballot or by presenting a Bill. While I know that a lot of constituents would like a change in the law, I still think that the House would not make one. We have seen the issues that have put doubt into people’s minds.

Many Members have talked about the experiences of other countries. The evidence of the acceleration that has happened around the world shows exactly why we should not change the law. In Washington state in 2009, a quarter of people applied because they thought they were a burden. That rose to 59%.

[Fiona Bruce]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the same time that this country’s Parliament voted against legalising assisted suicide, a different decision was made in Canada? In 2016, the first year of medically assisted deaths, 1,000 people chose to have one. By 2022, more than 13,000 people had availed themselves of that law, representing a 30% year-on-year increase.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend points out how this starts to increase quite significantly. It was also in Canada that a distinguished Paralympian who was looking for help with their disability was offered assisted dying as an alternative to adaptation of their home.

There has been a lot of discussion today about elderly people, but we are not just talking about elderly people. We are talking about vulnerable people. We are talking about people with disability. We are talking about people who could be taken advantage of to end their lives early and who may have that element of being considered a burden. People in this House have put forward the view of Matthew Parris that it is perfectly rational to say that you are a burden, and that you should potentially end your life. No one should feel such a burden on their family, their friends and society that they should end their life early.

While I will upset some of my constituents, I hold a different view from them on this matter, as I have done consistently, and I will continue to want to leave the law as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Millar]

That speaks to my concern about normalisation. If we introduce legislation that says, “It is acceptable to end life for a wider range of conditions”—the evidence before us in Scotland is that that interpretation is correct—we risk normalising suicide as a prescription.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is making a perfect point in terms of clause 2 of the proposed Bill going through the Scottish Parliament at the moment. There is no mention of 12 months and no mention of a person dying at a particular time. It is simply about aspects of a condition from which someone is not able to recover and could reasonably expect a premature death. The worry that we have is the interpretation of the law. It has undoubtedly expanded around the world such that we have seen an increase in the number of people with assisted suicide.

[Robin Millar]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. I will conclude with this: we must never get to a point where assisted dying is seen as a prescription. We must never get to a point where we see death as a treatment.

Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak about this Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on introducing it. The wisdom of doing so will make her the toast of many a pub around the country.

The Bill is so helpful because it recognises the flexibility of changing from using the affirmative statutory instrument procedure, with all the requirements that go with that, to using the negative procedure. That allows the Government of the day the flexibility to respond to public demand, particularly when thinking of special occasions. Rightly, the original 2003 Act does not specify what constitutes a “special occasion”, so there can be aspects of flexibility. Indeed, it provides that these orders should not be treated as hybrid instruments. That is why I was interested in clause 1(c), which proposes to omit section 197(5) of the 2003 Act. This basically rules out any possible objections to the statutory instrument in respect of it being deemed to be hybrid; by legislation, it would absolutely not be considered to be hybrid. I just want to make sure that the Minister is happy that this will not trip up any future negative SIs.

The hon. Lady has talked about some of the extensive celebrations, and we know that consultation is required only where appropriate. That is also the right balance to have when we are talking about much more local situations, especially if an event is on at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning, instead of just extending a little bit longer. That would be appropriate. I hope she is proud of the deregulatory approach of the Bill, which I would welcome for the future, especially when we are considering all sorts of legislation in that regard. The intention is to reduce bureaucracy. That is why about 80% of secondary legislation is done through the negative resolution. We need to continue that. There is often a clamour in his House, and particularly in the other place, to try to get everything on the affirmative. It is appropriate, of course, which is why the route exists, but it is also appropriate to consider the practicalities of how legislation is enforced.

I look forward to the Bill becoming law. I am sure that many of the pubs and other outlets that require licensing hour adjustments in my constituency will welcome it too. Let us make sure we get to the next World cup finals, so that we can take full advantage of it.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is important to speak in this debate. I have to say, I was somewhat astonished by the speech of the shadow Home Secretary, who cannot even get the name of the country right, talking about the Kigali Government when we are talking about Rwanda—a respected country that has recently been president of the Commonwealth.

I want to associate myself with the comments about the sad loss of Sir Tony Lloyd. As a Member of Parliament in both Manchester and Rochdale, he was assiduous for his constituents and assiduous when he was in government, and he will be much missed in this House.

The reason why I stand today is that I am keen to make sure that this Bill gets through its Third Reading with the largest majority possible, so that we can say to the other House that the elected House has had its say. We are doing this Bill solely because, having had the excellent Illegal Migration Act taken through by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—which, we should all remember, the Labour party opposed religiously, blocking everything that we tried to do—the Supreme Court, after disagreeing with the High Court, pointed to the issue of Rwanda specifically. It is important that Parliament stands up and addresses that specific point so that we can get through this stage and then commence the relevant sections of the Illegal Migration Act, particularly regarding having a safe third country.

I am conscious that temperatures are pretty high, but there is a genuine passion on this side of the House to respect the will of our constituents, who want to see a fair legal migration system and not the vague plan—which really is not a plan—from the Labour party. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends: support this Bill tonight so that we have the biggest majority possible. I appreciate what other Members have said, but clause 2 is very specific that when decision makers are making decisions, Parliament has given its full confidence that when people go to Rwanda they will be treated fairly and that the conventions will be applied. Then we will have not only the effective process but the effective deterrent, which I think the whole House seeks.

Let us be clear and let us talk with one voice. I wish the Opposition would join us, but I know from their track record of opposing the Illegal Migration Act that they might talk the talk, but they are full of bluster. They do not really mean it and they do not really care. I know that this Conservative Government care, and I know that every Conservative MP cares. We need to make sure that the Lords listen to the elected House.

Communications Data and Interception

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I do, of course, talk about these issues with my opposite numbers in the EU member states. I have been talking with them about how they will address the issue, and I will continue to do so. We want to ensure that we have the maximum ability to deal with terrorists and criminals and that we do not leave any safe haven available for them.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend spell out the implications for the safety of people in this country if we do not proceed with the legislation as she proposes, with the commendable support of the Opposition?

[Mrs May]

The risk is very clear. The risk is that we will lose access to communications data and to our ability to access intercept material. As I have said, those capabilities have been used in every major terrorist investigation by the Security Service. In 95% of the serious criminal cases dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service, communications data were used and were necessary. In many of those cases, such data were an important and vital part of getting a prosecution—not just in investigating but in prosecuting criminals. Failure to have access to that data will mean the criminals will go unimpeded and will not be brought to justice. I think that, sadly, as a result of that, innocent lives will be lost.

Extremism

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The action taken was that the Cabinet Secretary was asked to investigate all the circumstances around this. He did that, he reported to the Prime Minister, and a number of actions resulted from that recommendation to the Prime Minister.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My constituents will have been reminded today of the serious errors made under the previous Government in funding extremist groups. My right hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of inclusion, but will she join me in paying tribute to the officials in the Home Office and the intelligence services who work day in, day out to keep people in this country safe?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of the very important work done day in, day out, not just by officials in the Home Office but by individuals in our security services and law enforcement bodies to keep us safe. They have to work at that minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day doing the valuable work that they do. We should record our thanks to them once again—it is their work that helps to keep the public safe.

Asylum Seekers (Support)

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for raising the issue, which, as she mentioned, is about the basic level of support given to those fleeing torture, rape or oppression and who seek asylum in the United Kingdom.

Given that the rate was frozen in 2011 and has now been frozen through to 2013-14, yesterday’s judgment was damning. The Home Secretary was ordered to review the amount of money given to support asylum seekers after the High Court ruled that she had used insufficient evidence in deciding to freeze those payments. In his judgment the judge said the decision was “flawed” and that the Home Secretary

“misunderstood or misapplied information which she treated as important in reaching her decision.”

He added:

“In my judgment the information used by the Secretary of State to set the rate of asylum support was simply insufficient to reach a rational decision to freeze rates.”

In the judge’s view, the rates involved

“a reduction in real terms from what was regarded in 2007 as the base minimum level necessary to avoid destitution.”

Remember, Mr Speaker, that these are individuals who cannot work. In the light of that, will the Minister—he has hinted at this—indicate whether he intends to appeal that decision? If he does intend to, will he tell the House how much has been spent to date on legal costs in defending the decision to freeze the rates and how much he expects to spend on any appeal? Will he estimate the number of individuals who are involved? The judge yesterday mentioned some 23,000, but I should welcome confirmation. I should welcome confirmation also on how many of those 23,000—if that is the figure—have children who now face destitution because of the freeze.

If the appeal is made and is not successful, will any new rates be applied from today, or from 2011? What estimate has the Minister made of the impact of any unsuccessful appeal on the level of rates?

Does the Minister agree with what the hon. Member for Brent Central asked for, which is what Refugee Action and, indeed, the Refugee Council, which I spoke to this morning, have asked for, namely a wider examination of the review of and support for asylum seekers—not failed asylum seekers, but asylum seekers fleeing torture, oppression, fear or intimidation, and who cannot, I remind the House, work?

What assessment has the Minister made of those currently in receipt of assistance who now face this freeze? Has he made any assessment, in particular, of the impact on children? Will he ensure that he urgently reviews recommendation 82 of the Home Affairs Committee’s unanimous report of 11 October last year, which asked for a review of section 4 support? How many asylum seekers does the Home Secretary’s Department believe cannot now buy enough food to feed themselves, as referred to in that report? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe missed a meal because they could not afford to eat? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe do not have money to buy clothes?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Is this a speech?

[Mr Hanson]

Before the hon. Lady says any more, I have a right to ask those questions of the Minister. The Home Secretary’s decision making has proved to be flawed. Will the Minister now address that issue, or will there be a return to what a Minister—a Minister in her Government—described as the Conservative party being the nasty party on these issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the Dublin convention, and the fact that those in need of humanitarian protection should seek assistance in the first country that they arrive in. That is something that we make clear in our discussions at EU level. He is also right about ensuring that decisions are made quickly, which is why we have made changes to the old architecture of the UK Border Agency that existed under the last Government and introduced visas and immigration to make decisions more quickly and the immigration enforcement command to see that people are returned.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be proud of the UK’s record in providing a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution. I am sure that we do not want to see people destitute, but what representations has he received from the Opposition or the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) on what increases to the rate they would wish to introduce?

[James Brokenshire]

I have received no representations to date that I am aware of, but I will check when I get back to the Home Office to see whether there is anything to which I can alert the House. Clearly, we are reflecting carefully on the court judgment and will determine what next steps may be appropriate.

Hillsborough

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to reject completely the suggestion that Bishop James Jones’ panel had its own agenda. It did an extremely good job. It identified a significant number of documents, and some are still coming forward. It did the first important task, which was to reveal to all of us the validity of the comments and claims made by the families over the years, who had not been believed and had not been listened to. The panel showed that the families were right and that errors and potential criminal activity needed to be investigated. The work of the independent panel was crucial. It was essential in enabling what is now happening in terms of trying to ensure that we get justice for the families. Had it not been for the independent panel’s inquiry and the results that it had, we would not be in the position that we are in today with two investigations.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the update to the House today. Many people will be surprised to learn about the number of police notebooks that have suddenly become available. I am sure that the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Act 2012 has facilitated some of the investigation, but does she agree that there is a moral imperative for the Police Federation to ensure that all serving and former police officers co-operate fully with the investigation?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Most people will be surprised to know that police officers retain their police notebooks in the first place, and secondly that in this instance they kept them and did not reveal them to the panel. It is good that around 2,500 notebooks have now been made available to the investigators. I encourage anybody who has any information relating to Hillsborough—any documents, any files, anything—to come forward with that. I also support my hon. Friend’s suggestion that the Police Federation encourages all police officers and former police officers, who may have information relevant to these investigations, to make that information available.