Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I was listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and I will reflect on it. I thank him for making that point.

Let me say a little more about the financial changes—

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

I am glad that my hon. Friend is moving on to that point, because residents in my constituency are surprised that the limit of £18,000 is so low, given that we hear concerns about the benefits cap of £26,000. I am delighted that he is going to explain why the limit is £18,000—of course, it is more for people with children.

[Mr Harper]

The previous requirement, which I think has been alluded to, was that applicants had to be “adequately maintained”. The courts generally interpreted that to mean income equivalent to the level of income support for a British family of that size, which was about £5,500 a year for a couple at that time. Our view was that that level of income was not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and did not provide adequate assurance that UK sponsors and their migrant partners could support themselves and their children over the long term.

The previous regime also required quite a complex assessment, both for applicants and caseworkers, of current and prospective employment income and other financial means. It made decision making difficult, as was highlighted by the independent chief inspector’s report of 24 January on the processing of applications under the old rules for spouses and partners. Again, that was partly why we wanted a financial requirement that was clear and transparent; applicants would know where they stood, and we could make clear and timely decisions.

The minimum income threshold is £18,600 a year, with a higher amount with those sponsoring dependent children—it is £22,400 for those sponsoring one child and an extra £2,400 for each further child. We based that on the expert advice of the independent Migration Advisory Committee. It gave us a range of figures and that was at the low end. Its figures went up to about £25,000, a level at which someone would be making a net contribution to the Exchequer. The £18,600 level we settled on is broadly the income at which a couple, once settled here, cannot access income-related benefits. It is not an exact match, but it was as close as we can get. Our approach broadly says, “If they are here earning that amount of money, they are going to be able to stand on their own two feet and not expect the taxpayer to support them.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that plenty of companies in this country regularly secure permits to bring talented people to fulfil specific roles? So, it happens now and we are proud to welcome talent into our country to fill those roles.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right. If people have married or are with a partner, they are looking at a particular route. It is worth saying, and her intervention highlights this, that there are alternative routes for people under the immigration rules for some of these difficult cases.

Police

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ruffley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but we should resist the temptation to believe that a Home Secretary or a policing Minister in Whitehall can make decisions about the mix between uniformed back staff, who would be able to perform at short notice the kind of reserve and back-up on the front line that my hon. Friend describes, and pure civilians. This has been a long-running debate in the world of police reform, but we know that it is for the chief constable to decide and to make dispositions accordingly. Whether or not my hon. Friend accepts that, any Government would have to have in mind reducing the number of the uniformed work force in non-front-line activity.

Let me repeat the statistic. According to HMIC, in March 2010 17% of uniformed officers were in non-front-line roles. It is our intention that measures put in place to reduce that will mean that only one in 10 of uniformed officers are in non-front-line roles. I would have thought that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Delyn, who I thought was a worthy and dedicated policing Minister in the last Parliament, acknowledged that that should be a policy objective of Governments, chief constables and police commissioners.

I want to talk not just about reducing bureaucracy as part of police reform, but about getting more bang for our buck by doing more with less. That relates to what are undoubtedly difficult and controversial reforms to pay and conditions—the Winsor reforms. I remind the House that when we talk about funding settlements for the whole of the police service, a massive 80% of expenditure for most police forces in England and Wales goes on pay. Yes, we can mandate collaboration, which this Government are in the process of doing to make efficiencies in procurement, information technology, uniform, traffic and so on. But those and other heads of spending amount only to 20% of what a police force spends; 80% is spent on people. It therefore seems to me that it is incumbent on any Home Secretary, whether Labour or Conservative, to look afresh at how we can get a modernised pay system, crucially linking pay progression—the former Government indicated that they supported this concept—with higher levels of skills and with those who have undertaken higher professional training. This is not performance by results, but linking pay to the skills that officers have, paying less attention to progress up the pay ladder simply as a result of age.

The Winsor proposals are, of course, more complicated than that. Chief constables will have flexibility—and it is they, not Ministers in Whitehall, who will make these managerial decisions—and this will be done in conjunction with the locally elected police and crime commissioners. It will be for them to ensure they have the proper mix of ability within the uniformed ranks and they will also have to make decisions about civilianisation in regard to the allocations laid before the House today for each police force area, and make that money go further.

I close by saying something about accountability. This money will be voted for by Government Members, and I think the right hon. Member for Delyn suggested that the Opposition will vote against it. We must get away from the idea that Ministers will be held personally accountable. We vote for the money, and I want the message to go out that police and crime commissioners will have the prime job of driving through change to get more value for that money.

I know it is early days, but my experience so far of the elected commissioner in Suffolk, Councillor Tim Passmore, has been positive. He has put together a draft set of priorities; he has gone to the trouble of speaking to and meeting all the Suffolk MPs; and he has taken amendments to his first draft. My own view—I think most police and crime commissioners should look at this—is that a target should be set for the percentage of time that officers are visible to the Suffolk public. I think, too, that an objective should be set to move towards the 10% of uniformed officers—and it is only 10%—who should be on non-front-line activities, which as I outlined is the national objective, by March 2015. These commissioners should hold themselves to account by explaining—in my case, to the taxpayers of Suffolk, but to others in police force areas up and down the country—what they are doing to reduce bureaucracy, to get a higher percentage of officers on the front line and to ensure not only that there are more of them on the front line, but that during their shifts they spend a higher proportion of their time visibly out and about so that the public can see them.

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

I thank my hon. Friend and Suffolk neighbour for allowing me to intervene. I, too, pay tribute to Tim Passmore. Not only is he already sticking to his mandate of no rise in the precept, but he is applying a different perspective by opening cupboards and managing to understand where the money is going. I note his praise for operational police officers, but I also note his recognition that some external professional discipline can produce more for less—especially from the huge property estate, which he is working closely with the county council to try to rationalise.

[Mr Ruffley]

I think my hon. Friend’s point applies to every one of us whose area has a police and crime commissioner. The essence of localism, which I think, in its broadest sense, is supported by both major political parties and by the Liberal Democrats, is that we cannot for ever say that it is the Minister’s fault. We cannot keep on saying that the man or woman in Whitehall knows best. Those on the ground, the elected police and crime commissioners, must explain what they are doing in their forces, with their chief constables, to bring about greater visibility of policing—with manifestly constrained resources—and, if they are not able to hit their objectives, they must explain why.

Some people may think that we are doing ourselves out of a job—that we are just voting for the money and telling people to get on with it. That would be a crude gloss on what I am saying, but I think that the thrust of it is absolutely correct. We need local people, whether in Humberside, Suffolk, Dorset or the west midlands, to stand up and be counted. We need people to know how many hours have been saved in cutting red tape, because more red tape can certainly be cut: it can be rooted out. Assets are underemployed—estates are badly managed, for instance—and we need to get more value from those assets.

We face reductions throughout the comprehensive spending review period during the current Parliament, but I repeat that we started from a high base—a 20% real-terms increase over the 10 years of the Labour Government up to 2008—and the cuts should be seen against that backdrop. We do not support the cuts because we want to be beastly to public services, or because we think that the police should become more efficient and should therefore be paid less. We should all like to be in a position to look again at what we spend on the police once the economy starts growing again at trend or above, but in the meantime we must press on with reform.

We have had more resources over the past 20 years, but we have not had the reform that should have gone hand in hand with those increased resources. Under the current Home Secretary, that area of policy will not be neglected, because she knows that it is not just more money but the way in which we use our police that will enable us to reduce crime levels and keep our constituents safe.

Hillsborough

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is both a sadness and a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I thank the panel for its diligent work in pulling together all the evidence and finally laying bare the truth that has now been shared with the world, and I thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who managed finally to persuade his Government, quite rightly, to start the inquiry. I also thank the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her diligent work going through the papers in the Library and using her legal mind to ensure that work on the issue kept going.

Just over a year ago, on 17 October, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) made his tremendous contribution to the Backbench Business Committee debate, when we got to debate Hillsborough in this House for the first time in a very long time. Not long afterwards, a colleague said to me, “I know that’s all very powerful, but I don’t understand why it’s still an issue. The Taylor report said it.” Indeed, the Taylor report said it. In many people’s minds it may not have gone far enough, but it laid the blame firmly at the feet of South Yorkshire police. To give credit to the Hillsborough independent panel, it has been able to show the scale of the cover-up.

I spoke quite emotionally in the Chamber when the Prime Minister read his statement last month, and today I have already said that I am still sick, angry and incredulous at the cover-up. The families of the victims, their friends and those who have been keeping the campaign alive for 23 years may be sick, angry and incredulous today, but they are vindicated in the campaign that they have been pursuing.

I want to thank the Attorney-General. I appreciate that he is a man of great legal diligence and wants to go through the paperwork, but the announcement that he made in the written ministerial statement was welcome—that he would be applying not just for one inquest to be set aside, but for all 96 to be set aside, so that the many inquests that were restrictive in nature could be put aside. I also thank the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health for their continuing diligence on this matter.

I will not relay again all the different issues, but I have been trying to put myself in the mind of the former Member of the House, to whom my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) have already referred. No Liverpool fan will ever forget the tragic events that happened in another country, in Heysel, just a few years earlier, when other football fans were resentful at what had happened because all teams were banned from European football as a consequence of what happened that night. I do not want to read out again the statement to which my hon. Friends referred, but I will always struggle to understand how someone could repeat a few days later the smear of somebody who implied that Liverpool fans were sexually abusing a dead person, and indeed were going to go further than that. I realise that that person cannot be in the House to defend himself today and I know that he has expressed his regret.

It was made clear today that two forms of investigation are needed—one into what actually happened on the day, and one into the potential cover-up. Of course it will be for a court of law to make that decision. Since the last time we discussed the matter, a school friend has contacted me by e-mail to say that he did not go into the stadium that day because he saw the police officers opening the gate, he saw what was going on and he walked away—and thank God he did. I hope that such evidence will be put to people, even though they may now be quite elderly. As we heard earlier, when one of those officers retired on medical grounds, it was decided not to pursue justice. I know that there was a private prosecution, which did not end as we may all have wanted, but I still hope that such people will be brought to justice.

One of the things I would like to say to the people who have kept the fight going is “Please, have a little more patience.” That may seem a terrible thing to say after 23 years, but people were patient for the unveiling of all the terrible things that came out in the Hillsborough independent panel report. Although we can say freely in the House what we believe, it is important that we allow justice to come to its full term and that the IPCC or the special prosecutor, if that is deemed appropriate later, is brought into play. One of the things that I hope those outside the Chamber will recognise is that we know that Parliament has let people down in the past, but there is unanimity here today that Parliament is definitely on their side and we will not let people get away with it.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but we might have drawn a slightly different conclusion from the point on which we agree. My point would be that we do indeed have a lot of regulation for scrap metal, as the 1964 Act includes quite a bit of it, but, as he has identified, it has not worked and is not working. If regulating the industry has not worked, I am not entirely sure that the solution is even more regulation. I am not entirely sure where the evidence is that suggests that solution and that is the nub of my concern.

It seems to me that the only solution proposed to solve the problem is regulation, regulation, regulation. I wonder whether other measures could be a bit more successful, such as SmartWater, which I mentioned earlier and which is already having a great effect in reducing theft. Not only does it help to bring people to justice, but it acts as a deterrent to stealing the metal in the first place. Another measure might involve increasing the sentences for people who are caught. If we had more robust penalties and sentencing for this crime and if we sent people to prison and kept them there longer, that would have a much more beneficial effect on the local community and metal theft than simply tackling the scrap metal dealers.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. However, although his points about stronger penalties for those who cause the crime and the deterrents are all valid, people only steal to get money and the easiest way for them to get money is to get cash. If we remove cash from the equation and make the process transparent, so that they have to go through legal channels, that will be the most powerful deterrent in ensuring that people are not minded to steal metal in the first place. Does he agree?

[Philip Davies]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point and she might well be right. Time will tell. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South will be successful with his Bill and we will see, but I am not necessarily as confident as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) that that will happen. The criminals who are engaged in such illegal activity are clearly making a lot of money from it, and I do not believe that on the back of this Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made it clear that he did not see it as a silver bullet—those people will pack up their equipment and say, “It was nice while it lasted, but now we’ll all move on to knitting,” or to some other activity of which we would all approve. I suspect that they will continue with their criminal activity and will merely pursue it in a different way. It will probably go underground and through illegitimate businesses rather than legitimate scrap metal dealerships.

We should be wary of the idea that regulating businesses will solve the problem. I have always taken what might be deemed an old-fashioned view of such matters and if someone is going out and committing the crime of stealing metal, we should be clamping down on the people who are going out and stealing the metal. The Bill seems to be chiefly aimed at clamping down on the metal dealers further down the line. The people going out and stealing the metal are not being targeted as much as the dealers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I hope that it will not do his reputation too much damage when I say that over the past two years he and I have found common cause on a number of law and order issues, much to my surprise and, indeed, his. I am sorry that today there is a slight difference of opinion between us on the content of the Bill, because I believe that the measures it sets out will be a valuable addition to the police’s armoury. I say in passing that, if that was a short speech, I look forward to hearing one of his longer ones at some point, because it was certainly a good effort on his part.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on bringing forward the Bill and thank him for doing so. He has been unfailingly courteous in helping to inform Opposition Front Benchers and other Members of the House about the Bill’s objectives. We have had a good dialogue on the Bill before Second Reading and I believe we should support it. He made a very strong case in his speech, and I believe that the Bill will be a good addition to the police’s armoury in tackling metal theft.

Metal theft, as we have heard today in contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and other Members, is a huge and growing problem that has increased over the past three to four years largely because of issues to do with the price of metal. There have been many high-profile cases, and in every constituency, as the hon. Member for Croydon South said, churches, school halls, war memorials and cemeteries have been hit by thieves, who take metal for profit, for cash and for their own gratification, and who in doing so cause immense disruption and distress and have damaged the fabric of our society.

I was particularly struck by the experience of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), whose own father’s grave was desecrated, and only this week we saw the conviction of two individuals who took part in the theft of the memorial to Tim Parry and Johnathan Ball, who were killed in Warrington some years ago.

So there is a real issue, and in cash terms the Association of Chief Police Officers estimates that metal theft costs the UK economy about £770 million a year. The British Metals Recycling Association, which supports the Bill as a group of people who deal with the matter daily, says that 15,000 tonnes of metal is stolen each year, and it is clear that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 still allows hundreds of businesses to operate outside the licensing and inspection regimes. I pay tribute to the association, with which I have had meetings on the issue, and it fully supports the measures before the House.

The Energy Networks Association reports that the cost of metal theft to energy generation industries rose from £11.7 million in 2010 to some £60 million in 2011. Metal theft in churches rose by 48% between 2010 and 2011, and the cost of repairs to railways has risen to £60 million over the past four years.

The British Transport police estimate that between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011 there was a 70% increase in the theft of cable, which is undoubtedly the No. 1 crime on the railways, accounting for almost 40% of railway property theft—not to mention the delay, danger and inconvenience it causes.

The British Transport police also confirm that the prevalence of metal theft is tied closely to the price of metals on international markets, and sadly, or positively, depending on which way we look at it, that is expected to rise until at least 2015.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) is on the Opposition Front Bench today, because as a Home Office Minister with me in the previous Government, when the trend began to emerge, he took action and undertook surveys and reports in the north-east, in particular, on the recognition of that emerging trend. He was instrumental in founding what has turned into Operation Tornado, which is now being rolled out nationally, and it is an issue that we certainly need to deal with throughout the United Kingdom.

In my constituency, metal theft is a real issue. Indeed, in March, Judge Niclas Parry, sitting in Mold Crown court in north Wales, said that metal theft had reached “epidemic proportions.” It is not something that judges take lightly, and in a sense I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley that, on that aspect, we need a tool in the box for catching criminals and for ensuring that they are convicted and sentenced effectively, but the Bill provides for another aspect—tackling the issue at source, because sadly the police cannot be at every statue, plaque, cemetery, railway junction and railway line. They certainly have to catch criminals, but they also need to help us consider how we tackle the issue in a different way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) tried to do that in a Bill before the House last year, but at that stage the Government did not support his proposals. I do not wish to introduce to our discussions this morning a note of discord, but the Government were slow to recognise and act on the large and increasing problem of metal theft. It is only because Back Benchers, the Opposition and others put pressure on the Government that tough and urgent action was taken, but sadly what we had was a piecemeal approach.

The reforms proposed were new clauses inserted at a very late stage into what is now the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. They tackled the problem in part but left a number of loopholes, which the Bill from the hon. Member for Croydon South will close. So poorly thought out was the 2012 Act that some measures that were brought before us only a few weeks ago are now subject to repeal in this Bill, supported by the Home Office, which took the 2012 Act, when it was a Bill, through the House only weeks ago.

Clause 16(f) of the Bill before us repeals

“sections 145 to 147 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act”,

which received Royal Assent on 17 May 2012. I do not know whether there is a Guinness record for the shortest time that a piece of legislation, which, indeed, will not even come into effect until October, has remained on the statue book, but if there is, sections 145 to 147 of the 2012 Act would certainly qualify—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) smiles a knowing smile—[Interruption.] He says that he was thinking of some of our legislation, but I challenge him to find something that lasted from 17 May 2012 until its repeal in a Bill—supported by the very same Department and produced by the hon. Member for Croydon South—today.

But let us leave that aside, because we do not want a note of discord, and a sinner repented is better than a sinner not.

I am very pleased to see that the Bill mirrors much of what the Opposition, including the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), called for last year. We called for tougher powers to close down rogue traders; for anyone selling scrap to have proof of identity and a record from the point of sale; for the licensing of scrap metal dealers, rather than the current method of registration; and for a move to ban cash transactions, especially for large-scale, high-value scrap metal deals. The plan was supported by the British Transport police, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Neighbourhood Watch, the Association of Train Operating Companies and the Local Government Association.

The proposals that we talked about in January were a balanced and comprehensive package to deal with issues that Members on both sides of the House recognised, and they would have made it more difficult for organised criminals and opportunistic thieves to profit from metal theft. The measures formed the basis of much that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn did in his Metal Theft (Prevention) Bill, which was prevented from receiving further scrutiny although it contained much of what is in the Bill before us.

During the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill on 6 February, my hon. Friend the noble Lord Rosser included one of the provisions in the Bill before us, on powers of entry into scrap yards, in an amendment to that Bill, but the Government defeated his proposed change, albeit by only six votes.

Again, earlier this year, we tabled an amendment to delete the itinerant metal sales exemption on cash payments, a measure that the Government now support in the hon. Gentleman’s Bill before us, so I should certainly welcome today the Government telling the House again the basis on which they exempted itinerant metal sales from the Protection of Freedoms Bill in February. Our amendment would have closed that loophole, and it is thankfully being closed today, but I still do not get the logic behind the Government’s view in the first place.

Speaking in another place on 20 March, the noble Lord Henley on behalf of the Government said:

“We are only talking about a very small number of people”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2012; Vol. 736, c. 888.]

Yet the Minister here today, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, said in a holding answer from 26 March to a written parliamentary question:

“There is no accurate information available on the total number of itinerant collectors operating in the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 34W.]

I am glad that the Bill closes off that exemption for itinerant dealers.

We need to consider verification of suppliers’ identity, which we have called for and is now addressed in clause 10. The Bill gives the police greater powers of entry and the right to make closing orders. We welcome the increased fines and the extension of the rights of entry under clause 13. There is still a discrepancy as regards the right of entry to unlicensed sites, although the Government attempted to deal with that previously. We need to consider that in Committee. I welcome the banning of cash transactions, as I did when it was considered during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill earlier this year. We need to consider this seriously.

We need to have verification of suppliers’ identity, which we have called for previously. I therefore welcome the proposals in clause 10, which allows the Secretary of State to prescribe regulations on documents, data or information sufficient to order and verify the supplier’s identity. There is a fair amount of discretion for the dealer. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on this. We will explore in Committee what regulations will be brought forward, particularly with regard to verification. I would particularly welcome some detail on that, as it leaves open a wide range of potential options. The Bill refers to

“a reliable and independent source.”

I would be interested to know whether that includes passports, driving licences or utility bills. Perhaps it could have been solved by an identity card, but I will not go down that route, as I do not want to introduce any discord. I put the Minister on notice that in Committee we will want some clarity on what is a reliable document for these purposes.

We support the more comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to licensing. The Bill allows for scrap metal licences to be issued by local authorities and, in turn, the Environment Agency must maintain a register of licences. I welcome those measures, and I am pleased that the Local Government Association supports them. This is an extremely important part of the Bill and one that we cannot afford to get wrong. In Committee we will need to explore how we ensure that licences and databases are fully maintained and accessible. Saying that we want those things and will put them in place is very different from delivering them on the ground. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister on how he intends to maintain the database and keep an eye on it.

Schedule 1 sets out the Secretary of State’s powers to set a fee for registration. That was raised by the hon. Member for Shipley. I welcome the power for the Secretary of State to set a fee and the fact that there is discretion for local authorities to be flexible about what the fee is dependent on their work load and the number of potential sites in their areas. I would welcome an indication from the Minister, now or in Committee, as to what he envisages the level or range of fees to be. Although the British Metal Recycling Association supports the introduction of a fee, the key point is what level it is set at and how that impacts on businesses. An early indication would take some of the pain out of the equation for those who oppose the Bill.

There are still a number of outstanding issues that the Bill does not address, including the use of Environment Agency funding and the agency’s inability to use its resources to target those who do not pay their fees. The Environment Agency’s role in the context of current legislation needs to be examined in detail by the Committee.

The BMRA has called for second-hand domestic appliance traders and used gold traders to be brought within the scope of the Bill. I put the Minister and the hon. Member for Croydon South on notice that we need to look at those issues. We need not come to a conclusion on them as yet, but I would welcome some detailed thought and consideration as to whether we need to amend the Bill in Committee to include those types of traders. There may or may not be a case for that, but we need a considered examination of the issues.

There is also the general issue of enforcement and the overlapping of the scrap metal dealer and environmental regimes. If there is not sufficient clarity on this approach, there could continue to be enforcement issues.

I have received representations about the exportation of stolen metals, which we can consider as the Bill progresses. If we tighten up the system in this country, there is still no barrier to people exporting stolen metal and recycling it elsewhere in the European Union or further afield. Calor Gas, for example, is losing 100,000 canisters a year, with a large number being exported to Africa. The law of unintended consequences means that tighter policing, regulation and enforcement regarding restrictions on stolen metal recycling in the United Kingdom might lead to increased exports and the involvement of more organised crime rather than just petty criminals.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Felixstowe is in my constituency, so I recognise that it is a big challenge to make sure that we are monitoring goods going out as well as goods coming in. Given that it was suggested earlier that about 30% of crime is organised activity, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill represents a great opportunity to tackle the other issues as well?

[Mr Hanson]

I support the Bill because it does provide an opportunity to tackle those issues. I am merely saying that I want clarity from the Minister, who has the resources of the Home Office behind him, in considering whether activities may be displaced towards exportation. The involvement of organised crime means that stolen metal being recycled at local institutions could be replaced with its being exported to places such as Africa. Calor Gas has expressed to me the concern that canisters from its business are being stolen and exported for recycling rather than that happening in the United Kingdom. We need to think about how we address that. Can the new National Crime Agency get involved? How do we work with the Environment Agency? Do we need to look at any amendments to strengthen the Bill?

Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are not going to speculate about a future spending review. He might have pointed out that the latest figures show that recorded crime in the west midlands has fallen by 7% overall, and he might have congratulated the chief constable on that achievement, despite the fact that, like every other chief constable, he is having to make savings.

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

T6. I, like many other MPs, was horrified and disappointed to receive an e-mail today from the Police Federation implying that Tom Winsor was effectively discriminating against black and minority ethnic applicants to the police. Instead of trying to smear Tom Winsor as a racist, would it not be better for the Police Federation to look at how to increase the number of successful BME applicants?

[Nick Herbert]

I share my hon. Friend’s view about the e-mail that the Police Federation sent this morning, which included the absurd claim that British policing will be transformed into some kind of paramilitary model, which is palpable nonsense. Tom Winsor’s independent report included an equality statement and the Home Secretary specifically asked the negotiating bodies to consider the impact of his proposals on equality and diversity.

Immigration Queues (UK Airports)

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Well, I will be appearing before the Committee in a couple of weeks’ time, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to ask me the question again then. Of course this will be a regular discussion to be had, because it is important, but I should remind him of what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant): the UK Border Force has part of the responsibility for ensuring that airports run smoothly, just as airport operators and airlines do, and we all need to work together to make the experience of going through Britain’s airports as smooth and efficient as possible.

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

The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) and I attended a briefing held by BAA, which led to our Select Committee writing to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. I am pleased to say that he has responded and we have published the letter today, which suggests that greater co-operation is needed. Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that BAA takes its fair share of the responsibility to make sure that passengers get through the airport and that the UK Border Force and BAA do not drop the baton between them?

[Damian Green]

I am absolutely convinced that that is right. This is about not just BAA, but the airlines and Border Force. All of us need to work together, to share information and to share systems. As we do that, the experience will get better.

Abu Qatada

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The length of time that it has taken to take action is obviously a matter of fact, but of course what this Government did was resume deportation at the first opportunity.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Abu Qatada’s lawyers have made this reference to the European Court only after hearing the exceptionally strong Government case showing that he has a very weak case against deportation? Does she agree that instead of hurling cheap shots, those in this House should be united in their determination that Abu Qatada should be deported from this country as quickly as possible?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This House should indeed be united in its determination to see Abu Qatada deported. I hope that it will also be united in welcoming the work that has been done by this Government to achieve the assurances that mean that we have got such a strong case for deporting him.

Alcohol Strategy

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Many nurses, doctors and other hospital staff will welcome the moves to improve zero tolerance towards drunks being abusive. However, will my right hon. Friend be careful that she is not, with the multi-buy option, harming families that budget carefully during the week when they purchase alcohol?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to implement the strategy so that it has the impact that we want on the cheap alcohol and bulk discounts that lead to the sort of behaviours that I described earlier. When we consult about dealing with bulk discounts, I am sure that the very point that she makes will be raised. Obviously, we will consider that carefully.

Hillsborough Disaster

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak in this debate with a heavy heart but delighted that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) was able to secure it. I was proud to put my name to support the Backbench Business Committee and to the motion today.

The hon. Gentleman’s was a very moving and powerful speech. I am sure that I am not the only one who felt myself go, and I commend him for his composure when he bravely delivered the names of the 96 people who died either on that day or later. He voiced the anger, the frustration and perhaps the hope as well of many Liverpool fans and families, not just the fans from Liverpool and Merseyside, but those from across the country and, indeed, from around the world.

We all know that warm words will never bring back those 96 people. However, I hope that warm words and the clear actions that will result from the motion today will bring some comfort to those people who agonised on 15 April 1989. It was not one of those things where someone had to be there to understand how it affected people, particularly in Liverpool. We have heard compelling eye-witness commentaries today from the hon. Members for Halton (Derek Twigg) and, indeed, for Liverpool, Walton. I remember that it hit home at the school assembly on the Monday morning, when we were asked to pray for someone who had died who was a pupil at our school. That, again, twisted the knife ever further, and I did not even particularly know that person.

I intend to try to keep my comments short, so I will not mention all the contributions that have been made, but I thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who spoke so eloquently as well. I am unusual perhaps in being a red in the Coffey family—the rest of them are blues—but we are nevertheless united in our determination to see that justice is done today and in the future.

The right hon. Gentleman was eloquent in referring to the fact that there were deficiencies in the terms of reference set out in the 2009 report. I am delighted that he was gracious to have mentioned that, great achievement though it was, it is good to bring this back to the House today. Indeed, I am sure that there might have been nervousness when the motion was tabled. Officials and Cabinet Ministers, as perhaps happened back in 2009, may have fed one another’s anxiety that releasing Cabinet minutes and documents before the end of the time limit under the 30-year rule might not allow free discussion in future.

Perhaps that nervousness was triggered by the advice given and discussions that took place on the Iraq war—indeed, there is perhaps anxiety about information yet to be fully disclosed—but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I was pleased to hear her words today that no stone will be left unturned and that full, unredacted papers will be provided to the panel. That is really important because, as has been eloquently described today, there is still a feeling of cover-up—the feeling that people are willing to make smears to cover up their own failings at the time. I am reassured by the determination of the House and the Government to ensure that the Hillsborough independent panel and the families have access to the information that they deserve.

I have a question that I appreciate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot answer now. I encourage her to ensure that the panel has the full time to be able to do its work. The Bishop of Liverpool has recently recovered from illness, but he is also leading another panel that is due to report to Parliament within the next six months, so I should like to encourage my right hon. Friend to make certain that the secretariat is appropriately staffed to make sure that there is no delay in ensuring that the more than 2 million documents are gone through at a good pace, so that people hear the truth as quickly as possible.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) said earlier about the BBC. It was kind of someone from the BBC to phone me to talk about why the BBC is continuing to press the Government on the appeal. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I say to them now that they should ensure that the process can go ahead unhindered, but it should wait its turn until the families have seen what information is held.

I have a final plea to football fans everywhere. It is not often that I support Sir Alex Ferguson, especially as people will realise the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester United, but I really do support what he said the other day: the time has come to end the vile chants about Hillsborough and—dare I say it the other way?—about Munich. I call upon premier league clubs to ensure that they do everything that they can to show that those vile chants should be treated as though they were racist chants. The clubs should hunt down the people doing these vile things—they might not realise how much it turns the knife again and again in the families and fans of our club—and ensure that those people are kicked out of football for good.

Madam Deputy Speaker, 15 April 1989 will never be forgotten in Liverpool. It will never be forgotten in people’s hearts. That will continue, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton said—so it should—but with the disclosure of information and the publication that will finally come, I hope that we can at least show people that the truth will be outed and that there is nothing to hide from the truth. We must ensure that those people who walked along the Leppings Lane will never be forgotten, and they never will be in the House.

Metropolitan Police Service

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes.

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

Given that Sir Paul and Mr Yates resigned from the Metropolitan police, will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clarify whether they can take up any other policing position, including with ACPO or any other policing agencies?

[Mrs May]

Normally, officers who serve in ACPO are serving officers rather than people who have retired. Therefore, I think Sir Paul Stephenson and Assistant Commissioner Yates will not be taking up any such places.