Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think we should wrap up with a new, young Member seeking to make an early mark—Mr Geoffrey Robinson.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

Is the Prime Minister aware that next Wednesday, 12 September, we have the Committee stage of my private Member’s Bill, the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill? I wish to thank her personally for her tremendous support, and of course I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister’s support, the Government time and the Minister’s support have been vital. Can the Prime Minister assure us that she will sustain that support through Committee stage? If that is the case, we can get the Bill through the Commons procedures by the end of the year and have it on the statute book early in the new year. I think the whole House would be pleased to see the Bill become an Act, because its sole purpose is to save, preserve and enhance lives.

Contaminated Blood Inquiry

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that this is a matter that affects the whole House? I would not think there is an MP whose constituents have not been affected one way or another. Is she also aware that this goes back to the mid-1970s—as far back as Callaghan’s Government and perhaps even Wilson’s—and that what is effectively a cover-up has been carried on under all Governments since? This is an all-party issue.

To this Government’s credit, we finally have an inquiry that I believe we first called for during the very first Backbench Business Committee debate—you were in the Chair, Mr Speaker. Coming now to the present, having taken this initiative, it is vital that the Minister now sees to it that the inquiry is genuinely independent and that there is no withholding of documents, because the prevailing attitude that we have come up against is of the retention of sensitive documents by both the Department of Health and the NHS itself. No public indemnity certificate or anything of that kind should be used to prevent us from getting at the truth of what happened.

[Mr Speaker]

I remember that first Backbench Business debate on the matter well, including, if memory serves me correctly, a Government Whip rather impertinently rebuking me for the non-selection of a Government amendment. I do not think he quite realised at the time that we were into new territory. The clue is in the title: Backbench Business. There was no requirement to select a Government amendment, especially a wrecking one.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Does the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) wish to conclude his oration, or has he already concluded it?

[Mr Robinson]

I would, very briefly, like to conclude. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The pause, if anything, has given me new breath and I shall seek to expend it.

I was saying that the Government have introduced the Bill with the words, “Trust us, we’ll put it right.” Nowhere has the Bill been more eruditely or expertly criticised than on their own Benches by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who unfortunately is not here for these latter stages. He has exposed it as being a shoddy Bill that should never have been brought forward.

We say very clearly to the Government tonight that, as far as the negotiation goes, a transitional arrangement is vital. Soft terms are equally important for our manufacturers, traders and financial companies—everybody on whose livelihood the wellbeing of this country depends. If we go for the mess the Government are currently promising us, I regret to say that we will have a very hard Brexit and the citizens of the whole country will take a very hard economic knock to their wellbeing. I want to avoid that, so I say take the Bill away. Bring back a corrected Bill that is decently presented and does not try to wrench power away from Parliament for ends that we cannot yet even specify. Bring it back in a shape fit enough that we could be justified in voting for it.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I will be brief and to the point, as many other hon. Members want to take part in the debate. We have heard some remarkable contributions, and I will mention two that were made yesterday. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who has just left the Chamber so will not hear my remarks, challenged everyone who will be voting in favour of this Bill tonight, as I will be, to examine our consciences. They particularly challenged those of us—I strongly count myself among this number—who voted, argued and campaigned for a remain vote. I believe that, as we lost the vote, we have to face the consequences, although the former Deputy Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe feel that we should not.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) also said that this is an issue of conscience. I regret to some extent that we will be voting on a three-line Whip, as it is a deeply moral, conscious decision that we all have to take. However, I would have much more difficultly justifying and coming to terms with my conscience if I were to vote against the Bill and, effectively, in favour of delaying and frustrating the beginning of the negotiations and, therefore, the whole process of leaving the European Union. We have only to re-read the referendum question. It was so simple, asking:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

There were no ifs or buts. It was a simple question understood by everybody who took part in the referendum. It is no good now to say that the referendum was really only advisory and that we should have a second referendum or a confirmatory vote.

I campaigned widely in the west midlands, strongly on the remain ticket. I went out of my way to warn my constituents about the economic consequences, although warnings, particularly from the then Chancellor, may have been overdone throughout the whole campaign, which did not particularly help us. I warned people that the referendum was a one-off, that it was a yes or no question and that there would be no second referendum or further bite at the cherry if we did not like the outcome. Members who are telling us that tonight’s vote is a matter of conscience for those who were on the remain side and who felt strongly about remaining, as I did, believe that we should vote against the Bill. On the contrary, there is not a conceivable material argument for doing so. Indeed, to do so would be to betray the very basis on which we conducted the referendum; that is certainly what I spoke to, and I believe that it is what all Members who actively took part in the referendum spoke to.

We come to the question of how this House can be involved in and influence the negotiations. My experience of negotiations—business and others—tells me that we have to get real about this. The issues and choices will become clearer once we are in negotiations. I agree with the former Chancellor, who brings us great advice from Davos and other centres of learning, that perhaps economics will not be the big issue of the negotiations. However, the outcome on the economic and trading front is the essence of what this is really about for working people. My advice is simply this: soft Brexit and a transition period. Anything else would predict a harsh and uncomfortable future for the working people of this country.

[Mr Speaker]

As I said yesterday and perhaps I can be forgiven for repeating today, it would be hugely appreciated if colleagues did not keep coming up to the Chair either asking explicitly when they will be called, or doing so implicitly by inquiring whether it is alright if they go for lunch, repair to the loo, consume a cup of tea or eat a biscuit. It is not necessary. All I would say is, please be patient. I want to accommodate everybody—I am on your side—but it does not help if people keep coming up to the Chair all the time. It is incredibly tedious, especially when one is trying to listen to what colleagues actually have to say.

EU Budget (Surcharge)

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing any member of the Government of engaging in deception. If he is, he must withdraw that term.

[Mr Robinson]

I am happy to withdraw it, Mr Speaker; it was meant in a light-hearted manner.

Child Sex Abuse (Rotherham)

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are very important and solemn matters, fully worthy of the full-length Government statement that I had originally been advised that there would be yesterday or today. I am sensitive to the interests of the House and keen to accommodate colleagues, but some premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike would now assist.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Although we urge on the Home Secretary the need to get the overarching review under way—the names and all that—we already have Professor Jay’s report. We can learn from the dreadful experience of Daniel Pelka in Coventry, of which the Home Secretary is aware, and we had a report on that. We are not short of reports or action plans for local safeguarding boards, but what we need is a clearer sense of responsibility. That was the lesson, as I understood it, from Coventry. Three major Departments are involved, which have been represented at this urgent question today, but what is lacking is a clear sense of responsibility. Once that is all brought together, what do we do about it? What action do we take? Do we intervene or do we not? That sense of responsibility must somehow be clearly established locally.

HM Passport Office

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Home Secretary aware that it was nothing short of idiotic to take on the responsibility for processing passport applications from overseas at the very time when her Department was expecting the pre-summer surge, which happens every year? There is a bit more of a surge this year, but it is more or less in line with the extra people that she has. That was plainly just an idiotic management decision.

More importantly, will the Home Secretary explain to the House why there was not a single Government Back Bencher at the Adjournment debate on this issue to represent people’s interests, despite her plug for the debate earlier that day? The Minister for Security and Immigration, who is responsible for the Passport Office, reassured the House on Tuesday that

“We have not compromised on our checks, and will not do so.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 526.]

How was it possible for him to give that reassurance when a letter had gone out the previous day doing precisely that? Why does she not—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say before the Home Secretary responds that there is a great deal of interest, which I am keen to accommodate, at least in part? It would help if contributions were brief. We have the business question to follow and the last day of the Queen’s Speech debate is exceptionally heavily subscribed. People will lose out, and they will lose out all the more if there is not economy.

Syrian Refugees

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry. Last but not least, I call Geoffrey Robinson.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will have been aware of the widespread unease across the House earlier in the week about the Government’s position on this issue. I therefore congratulate her, as others have, on the change of tone and spirit in her statement today, which has largely dispelled that unease. However, it is puzzling that Britain—a founding and permanent member of the Security Council—is running parallel with the UN on this matter. If we are working so closely with the UNHCR on this matter, surely we could take a leading role as we have on all other issues.

[Mrs May]

We are taking a leading role in providing aid and support to refugees from Syria in a variety of ways. We just do not happen to be signing up to a particular programme of the UNHCR. We are not working in parallel with the UN, but are working hand in hand with the UNHCR on a parallel scheme.

Northern Rock

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is extensive interest in this statement, which I am keen to accommodate, but I remind the House that there is another statement to follow. Therefore, brevity is of the essence.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Financial Secretary not aware that this is an appalling deal, and at quite the wrong time for the British taxpayer? Is he not aware that the European Commission cannot sanction the imposition of that date? The worst time to sell a company is when it is loss-making and when—as in this case—it has prospects of profits to come. He should have waited. It is the timing that is being opposed, and which has nothing to do with the European Union, but everything to do with the collapse of this Government’s economic policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

My question to the Prime Minister concerns the contract for the Thameslink rail programme. As he will be aware, that is of great concern throughout the House, and with 20,000 manufacturing jobs at risk, it is right that it should be. Will he confirm that no contract has yet been signed, and indeed that no contract can be let or signed until the funding package is determined? That is a complicated process.

This is the heart of my question to the Prime Minister: given that the funding package—[Interruption.] Twenty thousand jobs are at stake! Given that 20,000 jobs are at risk, will the Prime Minister look at holding the competition for that funding package with the Secretary of State for Trade—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we have got it.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The means of communication of Government conclusions is a matter for the Government—that is to say, it is not for me to specify that there be an oral rather than a written statement. Her plea will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. More widely on this important issue, I reiterate a point that I made in response to the previous point of order, namely that Justice questions will be answered tomorrow. I doubt that it will be beyond the wit and dexterity of hon. Members to raise this matter if they so wish.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I in no way seek to challenge your ruling, but wish to explain to you and the House that I was delayed by seeking to speak to a constituent who is a double infectee of hepatitis C and AIDS, who has suffered greatly and who has been very active in the campaign, to discuss the very issues that were the subject of the statement by the Secretary of State for Health. I will be in touch with the Secretary of State in writing to raise the points that I would like to have raised.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That was not a point of order, but it might be described as a point of courtesy, and the House is grateful for it.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between John Bercow and Geoffrey Robinson

Wednesday 30th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is not a responsibility of the Chair—[Interruption.] Order. The House really must calm down; otherwise it gives a very bad impression to the public who take an interest in our proceedings. A commitment may or may not have been made. The matter is important and the hon. Lady has registered her concern forcefully on behalf of her constituents. The matter is on the record—and I suspect that she will pass copies of the record to those in her constituency interested in it—but it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have recognised that it is an important issue. It is all the more important because the Deputy Prime Minister and many Ministers from his party in the coalition have been so disrespectful and have made suggestions about the personal motivation of the chief executive, whom he was due to meet, that have to be repudiated. I am grateful, therefore, that you took this matter seriously, sir.