Debates between Neil Coyle and John Bercow

There have been 10 exchanges between Neil Coyle and John Bercow

1 Thu 25th July 2019 Mental Health Act 1983
Ministry of Defence
2 interactions (927 words)
2 Tue 5th March 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
HM Treasury
2 interactions (26 words)
3 Mon 28th January 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2 interactions (36 words)
4 Tue 15th January 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Department of Health and Social Care
2 interactions (43 words)
5 Fri 11th January 2019 Points of Order 3 interactions (310 words)
6 Fri 11th January 2019 European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Home Office
3 interactions (209 words)
7 Wed 17th October 2018 Universal Credit
Department for Work and Pensions
9 interactions (266 words)
8 Tue 30th January 2018 Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis
Department for Exiting the European Union
7 interactions (739 words)
9 Mon 16th October 2017 Oral Answers to Questions
Home Office
2 interactions (103 words)
10 Mon 16th October 2017 Motorcycle and Moped-enabled Crime
Home Office
2 interactions (103 words)

Mental Health Act 1983
Debate between Neil Coyle and John Bercow
Thursday 25th July 2019

(8 months, 2 weeks ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate
Ministry of Defence
Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle - Hansard
25 Jul 2019, 4:09 p.m.

I thank all colleagues for their comments and personal experience. When I worked at the National Centre for Independent Living, the charity ran Experts by Experience across social care. I hope that the Minister takes note of that—it sounds as if she is talking about involving survivors, service users and carers in future plans. I thank the Minister for her frank admission that we need to do more. Again, I thank all the organisations involved.

Some people are commenting online that too few of us are here in the Chamber, but lots of work goes on outside such debates as this one. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred to the all-party group on social work. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) also works on mental health outside that group, and reference was made to the previous legislation of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed).

I asked the Minister 10 things, I think, most of which were covered in her response, but I will follow up on some. On children’s access to mental health care, it is great to acknowledge the leadership of Charles Dickens Primary School in Southwark, but that 35% target is a national one, and it would be good to know from the Minister what more is coming in the system. On the principles in the independent review, she mentioned gratefulness, an indication about the principles, and she just touched on the advocacy issue. It is important to note that the piloting of the culturally appropriate advocacy is more limited in scope than the review intended, so it needs to be expanded to everyone, whether informally through in-patient care or to people detained. The model should be an opt-out one, which was the preference of the review.

The Minister confirmed that the White Paper will still be on time. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham talked about when legislation might appear, and perhaps the Minister will indicate that in correspondence. She touched on resources, the need to expand the service offer and how it pays for itself—how she is making the case for parity of resource allocation in the system would be good to know. She spoke positively about the nominated person and better involvement of nearest relatives, and that is really welcome. That person is of course chosen when someone is well—that is the key difference. No matter how ill someone becomes later on, or how badly they suffer delusions, the person whom the patient chose when well is important.

Earlier upstream interventions were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and others. The Minister commented that the high level of detention through not getting that right was a mark of failure. The spirit of the plans is to get that level down. It would be good to see more.

It was brilliant to hear about the custody cells, which will be included in any legislation. That is a brilliant commitment. On sexual assaults, I think that the response was that we need to learn more. I welcome the earlier campaign of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) to end mixed-sex wards, but such incidents are still occurring. More needs to be done, just as it does on the issue of deaths. There was a specific request for an inquiry, and it would be good to know the Minister’s view of that.

On standardised support and care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East told us about the family of a child with autism having to make that decision on whether to travel. The Minister said that too many are in that position, and it is something that the CQC should look at. Given that the CQC may only gain the powers and resources that she mentioned through Government, I think a stronger case needs to be made for that.

On advance decisions, there were some positive comments but I will come to an end. The lyrics of “Karma Chameleon” were mentioned by the Minister, and Prime Ministers might “come and go”, but the people who need their lives transformed and who need better mental health care experience the outdated legislation every day. I hope that after the White Paper we will see real pace to deliver reform.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered reform of the Mental Health Act 1983.

Mr Speaker Hansard
24 Jul 2019, 11:34 a.m.

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc.) Act 2019

National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Act 2019

Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019.

Business Before Questions

Standing Orders (Private Business)

Ordered,

That the new Standing Order relating to Private Business stated in the Schedule be made.

Schedule

“118A Power of Committee of Selection to sit when House adjourned

(1) The Committee of Selection shall have leave to sit at any time on any day on which the House sits.

(2) On days on which the House does not sit, the Committee of Selection may sit only with the leave of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the grant of which shall be entered in the formal minutes of the Committee; and no notice of a meeting on a day on which the House does not sit may be given unless accompanied by a notice of the grant of such leave.”—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Neil Coyle and John Bercow
Tuesday 5th March 2019

(1 year, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
HM Treasury
Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard

Well done.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard

13. What assessment he has made of the effect of the freeze on benefits on the level of personal debt of benefit recipients. [909584]

Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Neil Coyle and John Bercow
Monday 28th January 2019

(1 year, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Mr Speaker Hansard

I beg your pardon; I am getting ahead of myself. I call Neil Coyle.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) - Hansard

6. What recent assessment he has made of the ability of local authorities to discharge their statutory responsibilities to vulnerable children. [908834]

Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Neil Coyle and John Bercow
Tuesday 15th January 2019

(1 year, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Department of Health and Social Care
Mr Speaker Hansard

Order. As I am often moved to observe at Health questions, demand tends to exceed supply, as in the health service under whichever Government, but we must now move on.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) - Hansard

1. What recent steps he has taken to tackle NHS workforce shortages. [908556]

Points of Order
Debate between Neil Coyle and John Bercow
Friday 11th January 2019

(1 year, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Mr Speaker Hansard
11 Jan 2019, 9:37 a.m.

I did not hear the interview. There has been considerable focus this week on Parliament and how matters should be handled. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, in terms so clear as to brook of no misunderstanding, that if a change in Government policy is to be announced, especially on a major matter that has been the subject of considerable controversy, it is proper for that announcement of a change first to be made to the House. A statement, of course, is a form of speech, but it is then customarily followed by substantial interrogation. If somebody can make a speech outside the House, it is perfectly open to that person to make a statement in the House. Respect for the House, and in particular for the Chamber, is a matter of the highest importance as far as I am concerned, and it should be so far as all Governments are concerned.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) - Hansard

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions has today published a report calling for this exact change of policy. The Secretary of State has given multiple interviews this morning, well before any written statement has been put before the House. What measures does the House have to hold the Secretary of State to account for a clear breach of how such an announcement should be made? It looks very much like a Government attempt to remove negative headlines in order to get some positive press coverage.

Mr Speaker Hansard
11 Jan 2019, 9:38 a.m.

Nothing can be done immediately. There is, as far as I can see, no scope for bringing the Secretary of State to the Chamber today, unless she were to offer to come later in our proceedings. That request could be entertained, but otherwise I think the hon. Gentleman will have to content himself with the likely prospect of exchanges early next week.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Debate between Neil Coyle and John Bercow
Friday 11th January 2019

(1 year, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Home Office
Mr Speaker Hansard
11 Jan 2019, 10:28 a.m.

Order. Before the right hon. Lady takes the intervention, let me say that there is quite a lot of chuntering from a sedentary position going on. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who has been here for three and a half years, and I know regularly auditions for the status of senior Member of this House—[Interruption.] Well, he can shake his head, but I am telling him what his behaviour conveys to me. He is normally a good-natured fellow, but he is chuntering too much. His role—he is a PPS, I think?—is to fetch and carry notes and to nod in the appropriate places; he should remain silent.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle - Parliament Live - Hansard

On the people affected, is it not true that there is already a 300,000 backlog at the Home Office of people waiting for decisions even before EU citizens are added to that queue? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister accused EU citizens working in and contributing to our country of queue-jumping? In cheerleading the end of freedom of movement, are not the Government sticking two fingers up at the 60 million British people who wish to travel and work in the 27 other EU member states and who will lose out under this Government’s plans?

Universal Credit
Debate between Neil Coyle and John Bercow
Wednesday 17th October 2018

(1 year, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Department for Work and Pensions
Mr Speaker Hansard
17 Oct 2018, 1:15 p.m.

Order. I say to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), whose grinning countenance belies an aggressiveness of spirit in this matter, that it is not really in order to yell out, “On the same point”, as a way of trying to ensure that one is called.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle - Hansard

I am trying to stand out from the crowd.

Mr Speaker Hansard
17 Oct 2018, 1:16 p.m.

Believe me, the hon. Gentleman does that perfectly satisfactorily in any case.

Break in Debate

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle - Hansard

I am really grateful to the Secretary of State—

Mr Speaker Hansard
17 Oct 2018, 1:17 p.m.

Order. Before we hear from the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that his intervention will not be aggressive—we have a point of order from Frank Field.

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Hansard
17 Oct 2018, 1:17 p.m.

I did not have any impression that the Secretary of State was having any particular difficulty; I think she was spoilt for choice and taking a little while to exercise her choice. But we are always grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s advice, solicited or otherwise. [Interruption.] Well, I am not going to comment on the glasses situation—it is rather beyond the ken of the Speaker. However, we note the right hon. Gentleman’s well intentioned advice.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle - Hansard
17 Oct 2018, 1:18 p.m.

The Secretary of State is making her usual robust case and claims that the system has improved. Why is it, then, that the Department acknowledges that thousands of landlords, especially private sector landlords, will never be part of the landlord portal; that the Government have had to exempt supported housing fully from universal credit; that 300,000 people will get late payments this year, according to the Department; and that underpayments and overpayments are increasing under universal credit to levels not seen with the legacy benefits?

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis
Debate between Neil Coyle and John Bercow
Tuesday 30th January 2018

(2 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Department for Exiting the European Union
Mr Speaker Hansard
30 Jan 2018, 1:50 p.m.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intended point of order, although I am not at all sure that I can offer her much satisfaction or comfort. The content of ministerial answers to parliamentary questions is the responsibility of the Minister concerned. It is not, and cannot be, a matter for the Chair. I understand her dissatisfaction with the answers that she has received. I am afraid that it is not uncommon for answers from successive Governments of different complexions to fail to engage—either fully or, in some cases, at all—with the question in the view of the recipient of the answer, or, indeed, to do so only vaguely. However, I advise the hon. Lady to persist and to discuss with the Table Office what other avenues she might pursue.

I must emphasise, on the basis of some little experience in the House, the merits of quantity, persistence and, above all, repetition. Members must—if I may very politely say so—keep at it. I remember one year tabling, I think, a little under 4,000 questions, which somewhat irritated Ministers at the time, although that caused me no concern whatever. I was simply concerned to table the questions that mattered to me. If that caused some inconvenience to other people, it was really beside the point. Democracy costs.

On whether Members will be granted access to analytical studies on the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU ahead of any vote on the final deal, I do not know the answer to that question beyond what we have heard from the Minister today, and the Minister has said some things today on which Members can reflect. If the hon. Lady wants to put further questions on this matter to Ministers, it is open to her to do so.

On whether it is in order for Ministers or Departments to show information to journalists before providing it to the House, I would say that although this is not a matter of order, it would certainly represent a discourtesy to Members, and I would deprecate that. I hope that Ministers will reflect on the matter and consider what information should be provided to the House on this important matter at all stages. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Lady.

Mr Speaker Hansard
30 Jan 2018, 1:50 p.m.

Does it relate to the matters we have just been discussing?

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle - Hansard

indicated assent.

Mr Speaker Hansard
30 Jan 2018, 1:50 p.m.

Very well, I will take it. The hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) will just have to be patient for a short period.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle - Hansard
30 Jan 2018, 1:59 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The ministerial code of practice outlines seven principles of public life, one of which is on openness. It states specifically:

“Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”

It sounds as though there is certainly a discrepancy between what was said to the Select Committee in December and what we have heard over the past couple of days and some things that the Minister has said today. What course of action is open to a Member who wishes to pursue the matter at stake if the Secretary of State or a Minister has not provided information that should be available to my constituents and businesses who are deeply affected by it?

Mr Speaker Hansard
30 Jan 2018, 1:59 p.m.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will make a number of points briefly in response. First, the ministerial code to which he refers is certainly a very important document, but compliance or non-compliance with it is not adjudicated on by the Chair; that is a matter for others.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman inquires on what recourse he has if he believes that there is a discrepancy. The short answer is that he can table a question or, indeed, a series of questions on the matter, applying his little grey cells to the formation of such inquiries as he thinks appropriate.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman referenced evidence to the Select Committee. He will have heard his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chair of the Brexit Committee, who asked a question on this matter early in the exchanges. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can pursue the matter if they so wish. They have a track record of doing so on previous occasions and might choose to do so on this occasion. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Neil Coyle and John Bercow
Monday 16th October 2017

(2 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Home Office
Mr Speaker Hansard
16 Oct 2017, 2:50 p.m.

Order. I wanted to respond favourably partly for the benefit of the Home Secretary and her illustrious office and partly because the temptation to hear the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is overwhelming.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle - Parliament Live - Hansard
16 Oct 2017, 2:51 p.m.

Of 20,000 moped-related crimes in London last year, 752 happened in Southwark, but only 17 people were charged with an offence. Instead of tackling the rising problem, the Government have announced a review. What are the terms of this pathetic response to this blight on my constituents’ lives? When will it be completed? What specific additional resources and powers will it give our overstretched and underfunded police?

Motorcycle and Moped-enabled Crime
Debate between Neil Coyle and John Bercow
Monday 16th October 2017

(2 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Home Office
Mr Speaker Hansard
16 Oct 2017, 2:50 p.m.

Order. I wanted to respond favourably partly for the benefit of the Home Secretary and her illustrious office and partly because the temptation to hear the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is overwhelming.

Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle - Hansard
16 Oct 2017, 2:51 p.m.

Of 20,000 moped-related crimes in London last year, 752 happened in Southwark, but only 17 people were charged with an offence. Instead of tackling the rising problem, the Government have announced a review. What are the terms of this pathetic response to this blight on my constituents’ lives? When will it be completed? What specific additional resources and powers will it give our overstretched and underfunded police?