Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

The hon. Member makes a number of important points. In relation to value, yes, this is about a closer alignment of the two schemes. MPs need to declare value at the moment, but value does not need to be declared under the ministerial scheme. That is the loophole that we are looking to close, and we will do so as soon as possible.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Will this Government’s ethics and integrity commission end the grotesque situation that arose under the endemic corruption of the Conservative Government, which saw a relative of someone who extended lavish hospitality to disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson put in the House of Lords against the advice of our security services?

[Ellie Reeves]

My hon. Friend will know that, as well as dealing with these issues, we are seeking to reform the House of Lords and improve the transparency of the appointment process.

Debate on the Address

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey]

I am delighted to say that today we welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), the new Member for that constituency, to the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am sure she will have all the answers that the hon. Gentleman needs.

But growth and house building are not the only challenges, crucial though they are. I am sure that all of us across the House, as we knocked on doors during the election campaign, heard the same common refrain from people of all backgrounds and all walks of life: that nothing seems to be working as it should, from the health and care crisis to the sewage scandal to the cost of living. The British people have overwhelmingly rejected the past out-of-touch Conservative Government. They have gone, but after so many years of being taken for granted, many people have simply lost faith in our political system to solve their problems.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches recognise the scale of the challenge now facing the new Government. They have a big job to do, and so do we. We will work hard on behalf of our constituents. We will scrutinise the Government’s plans carefully and strive to improve them, and we will oppose them when we think they have got it wrong, but where they act in the national interest to solve these problems and improve people’s lives, we will support them.

One issue that came up more than any other at door after door—I am sure it was the same for Members of all parties—was the issue of health and care. Patients are waiting weeks to see a GP or an NHS dentist, if they can find one; more than 6 million people are waiting on NHS waiting lists; tens of thousands of cancer patients are waiting months to start urgent treatment; patients are stuck in hospital sometimes for weeks, ready and wanting to leave but unable to do so because the care home place is not there or the care worker or support for the family carer is not in place. Fixing this crisis in our NHS is essential, not only for people’s health and wellbeing but for the economy and for growth. Only if we get people off the waiting lists and into work can we get our economy growing strongly again.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the delays and waiting times in the NHS and social care, but how much does he regret his role in the five years he spent in a coalition with the Conservatives creating that situation?

[Ed Davey]

I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. We can all go back to things that other parties did in government and say that they were wrong. I would just say to him that I come to this task now in a spirit of constructive opposition to work for the best for our country, and I hope that he and other Members will do that too.

I welcome a number of the measures for the NHS in the King’s Speech, including on reducing waiting times and particularly on mental health. I want to work with the Government to improve those; they are long overdue. Of course, I also urge the Government to look at the proposals on the NHS in our manifesto, on boosting GP numbers so everyone can get an apartment within seven days or 24 hours if it is urgent, on improving access to dentists and crucially to local pharmacists—if more people can get the care they need early and locally, fewer people go into hospital—and on giving cancer patients the care they deserve with a cast-iron guarantee that they will start treatment within two months after diagnosis. This is the scale of the ambition we need for our NHS right now, and I hope the Government will show it.

There is another part of this crisis that needs to be fixed through urgent attention, and it is care. I spoke during the election about my own caring journey, first for my mum when I was a teenager, then for my dear nana, and now as Emily and I care for our severely disabled son, John. I have been incredibly touched by the response from colleagues across the House who have reached out to tell me how important it is that we speak out on care, for people who need care and for carers, both professional social care workers and the family carers who are looking after their loved ones.

I have had the chance to hear from carers of all ages all over the country as they shared personal stories with me. They include the couple who care for a son with similar care needs to John’s, who reached out to say that they know what it is like to worry about what will happen when they are no longer there to look after their disabled son. They offered me advice, and I was touched by their kindness and generosity.

Each care story is so different yet, in many ways, they have much in common. We all share a special, wonderful bond with the ones we care for, and we all share the feeling that no one else understands us. Caring has been in the shadows for far too long. Let this be the Parliament in which carers’ voices are heard and we become the caring nation.

Caring means people doing extraordinary things every day for the ones they love, often in the face of difficult circumstances, physical challenges, no breaks, mountains of paperwork, countless appointments and endless phone calls. They try to navigate a broken system that is simply not designed to work for carers. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will do our very best to get a fair deal for carers, whether on carer’s allowance or on the big challenge of fixing social care, so that our loved ones get the support they need, when and where they need it.

Of course, this will not be easy. Fixing social care after years of neglect will be incredibly complicated, but we cannot shy away from it. Although it was not in the King’s Speech, I am encouraged by the reports that the Government are planning a cross-party commission on social care, which we urgently need to find a solution that stands the test of time. I hope we will hear more about that from the Government very soon. Fixing social care is not only essential to give people the care and dignity they deserve and to support family carers. Without it, we cannot fix our NHS.

It would be a big enough task if health and care were the only major crisis facing the Government, but clearly it is not. Inflation may have finally come down to normal levels, but the cost of living crisis persists. Families and pensioners still face record energy bills and sky-high housing costs and food bills. They need support and understanding, which begins with the Government’s promise to be fiscally responsible—that would mark a big and welcome shift from the previous Government’s rather reckless approach to the Budget. With energy bills forecast to rise by 10% in October, clearly we need bold action to bring down costs, from insulating homes to expanding renewable power.

The Liberal Democrats have a proud record of investing in renewable power, almost quadrupling it when we ran energy policy. Our policy drove the cost of renewable electricity below the cost of fossil fuel-generated power. I hope the Government will act with the same level of ambition to tackle not only the cost of living crisis but climate change too, because urgent action is needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. We have shown how it can be done, and how doing it well will benefit consumers, the economy and the environment. We welcome the Government’s focus on this challenge, and we will push them to meet it.

We will also push the Government on another environmental challenge: ending the sewage crisis. For anyone who still doubted, the election campaign clearly showed the strength of public anger about the pollution of our rivers, lakes and beaches. The Government have made welcome noises about holding the water companies to account and making sure they put these environmental issues before profit, but the Liberal Democrats will push Ministers to act as quickly and decisively as possible to put an end to this appalling scandal.

Health and care, the cost of living, climate change and sewage, these big crises just got worse and worse over the last years of the previous Government, whose failure to address them is a big part of why people’s trust in politics is so low. This year’s British social attitudes survey found that 45% of people—a record high—almost never trust the Government to put the national interest first. I am sure I speak for everyone in the House when I hope that this Government will prove that wrong. But restoring public trust and confidence in our politics is a major task for us all, right across this House, no matter our party.

I think there are two parts to how we restore that trust. The first is by tackling the root causes of the many scandals that have caused so much harm and done so much damage to public trust, from Hillsborough to Horizon to infected blood. We welcome the promised Hillsborough law, with its statutory duty of candour on public officials, but we urge the Government to go further in this area. Given the vital role that whistleblowers have played in exposing these scandals, I urge Ministers to look at our proposals for stronger protections for whistle- blowers, including a new office of the whistleblower.

The second way to restore trust is by transforming our politics, so they are relevant, engaging and responsive to people’s needs and dreams. The measures that the Government have promised to strengthen democratic rights and participation are therefore welcome, as is the principle of shifting more power out of Westminster and Whitehall, so local decisions are made by the people for them and the communities they live in. I am sure the Prime Minister knows that the devil is in the detail, so we will scrutinise those plans carefully when they come. We fear they will not go far enough.

It will not surprise anyone in the House to hear that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that political reform must include electoral reform: proportional representation giving everyone equal power to hold Members of Parliament properly to account. Maybe even the Conservatives support that these days. I note that according to the same survey on British social attitudes, the majority of the public agrees with us.

I have focused on the many big domestic challenges facing us, but I will conclude by touching on the enormously challenging international picture. From Vladimir Putin’s appalling war in Ukraine to the dreadful conflict in Israel and Gaza, with the terrible humanitarian catastrophe there and hostages still being held by Hamas, these are tumultuous times indeed. They demand that we work together with our allies through international institutions. And yes, that means working constructively with our European neighbours, to rebuild the ties of trust, trade and friendship with our European friends that have been so badly damaged by the Conservatives.

As liberals, we believe that the UK can be an incredible force for good when we stand tall on the world stage, championing the vital British values of democracy, liberty, human rights and the rule of law. When the Government do that, they will have our full support. I close by paying tribute to those on the frontline of that effort: our armed forces, deployed around the world. Whether securing NATO’s flanks in eastern Europe, combating Daesh terrorists in the middle east or supporting peacekeeping missions in Africa, they serve our country with incredible courage and professionalism, and we all owe them an eternal debt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) on her maiden speech? It is clearly a real achievement to be the first to make a maiden speech in this Parliament, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in congratulating her and wishing her well in the years ahead here in Parliament.

I welcome all new Members to this House, not least because some of them make me look older, which I have been looking forward to for some time. I remember when I was first sworn into the House. I entered at a by-election and so swore in on my own, in a class of one. There was a real heckle on that occasion from the beast of Bolsover. He asked if I was here on work experience and everyone laughed. I have a few more grey hairs now, 10 years on, and have just been through a difficult general election in north Nottinghamshire. I want to begin by saying a special thank you to my constituents for doing me the great honour and privilege of re-electing me, all the more so on what was clearly a difficult night for my party. During this Parliament, I will represent my constituents with all of my vim and vigour.

Having served as a Minister under each of the last five Prime Ministers, I know what a special privilege it is to serve as a Minister, so I wish our successors in office all best wishes and good luck in the years ahead. As patriots, we all know that this Government’s success is our success, and we want them to tackle the great challenges facing our country. I want them to enjoy their time in ministerial office as much as I did.

The general election made a number of things clear to me. I am deeply proud of many of our Government’s achievements, which I will fiercely defend in the months and years ahead. We took a bankrupt country and righted our public services and public finances. We ensured a decade of good employment after inheriting high unemployment, particularly among young people. We led Europe in the defence of Ukraine. We reformed our education system, and we now outstrip countries all over the world in the literacy and numeracy of our children. We were one of the world’s greatest countries in tackling environmental challenges, decarbonising faster than any other G7 country. For those and other reasons, I will always defend the record of the last Conservative Government, but I will come on to some of the lessons I have learned from their failings.

[Neil Coyle]

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that voters were ungrateful on 4 July?

[Robert Jenrick]

I cannot quite hear the hon. Gentleman. If he is asking whether the electorate were wrong, the answer is no. No politician should ever doubt the electorate, but it is right that we defend the things we did well in government so that there is a proper diagnosis of what we got right and what we got wrong.

I think we did get some things wrong. We promised to get Brexit done when we stood in 2019, and we did. We got Brexit done and restored our sovereignty as a nation, which is a great and lasting achievement, but we also promised that we would secure our borders and that we would ensure a strong economy, lower taxes and a strong NHS and public services, which the public rightly expect. On those counts, we did not deliver the public services, the lower taxes, the economic growth and the migration system that we promised and the public rightly expect.

The baton now passes to this Labour Government. Where they succeed, I will welcome and support them; and where they fall short, I will challenge them. We want to ensure that the great issues facing our country are properly addressed. We live in one of the greatest times to be alive, but it is a time of immense change. There is a power shift from west to east, and new technology, like artificial intelligence, is upending old industries. It is an age of mass migration, which is challenging the pace of change in our country, creating huge pressures on housing, public services and integration, and making it harder to build the united country that we all want to see.

I worry that this King’s Speech falls short on some of those great challenges. There are undoubtedly Bills that I welcome, and I am delighted that the new Government are taking forward the Bill for a Holocaust memorial, a project in which I have been involved for many years. Some of the Bills are radical, such as the changes to our energy policy, and I worry that they are radical for all the wrong reasons. Despite having decarbonised faster than other countries, and despite being responsible for only 1% of global emissions, we now find ourselves with a Government pursuing, for ideological reasons, a net zero policy that will make it harder for our own consumers to afford their bills. The policy will further erode our industrial base and leave us in hock to Chinese technology. We are trading dependence on Russian hydrocarbons for dependence on Chinese electric vehicles, smart meters and solar panels that will despoil our countryside. New quangos, such as Great British Energy, will spring up, serving no apparent purpose and taking inspiration from predecessors such as Robin Hood Energy in Nottingham, in my part of the world. That failed project wasted £50 million of taxpayers’ money.

I worry that 200,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector have been put in danger in the first few days of this Government, at a time when they are rightly saying that they want to fuel our economy, create jobs and change the dynamics that the country has seen since the 2008 financial crash and after 20 or 30 years of low productivity growth and unsatisfactory economic growth. We should all be working to find ways to do that and to make that possible.

I worry about the message we are hearing on the economy. We want economic growth, but economic growth is founded on harnessing the entrepreneurship of our people. It is about creating a start-up country and helping small business people to found businesses around their kitchen tables, like my parents did. It is not a statist vision of this country. It is not about using new quangos or a national wealth fund, which is an oxymoron because it is going to borrow the money it seeks to invest. It is not about changing our employment laws, which will make us less competitive and drive the kind of higher structural levels of unemployment we see in Europe that we have mercifully avoided over the last 10 years.

And I worry about immigration, because we live in an age of mass migration. I have been honest—painfully honest—about the failings of the last Government on this topic, but I worry that the same or worse mistakes are about to be made again. What we are seeing in the channel is a national security emergency. We are seeing tens of thousands of people about whom we know next to nothing crossing into our country, breaking into our country, in flagrant abuse of our laws. Some of them are subjects of interest being followed by our security services. This has to stop. Scrapping the only known credible deterrent, with nothing else to put in its place, is going to surrender to the people smuggling gangs. That is wrong, it is a mistake and I worry that we are going to rue the day that we did that.

I also hope that the Government will take legal migration seriously. We have to accept that the public in most parts of our country have been voting for 20 or 30 years, in elections and referendums, for Governments that promise to control and reduce the level of legal migration, only for Governments of all political colours to do precisely the opposite. That is immensely corrosive to public trust and confidence in politics and in democracy. As one of our colleagues said earlier, about the rise of far-right parties around the world, if we centrist parties on the left and the right do nothing about this, we will see the rise of far-right parties in this country. That would be a great mistake.

I hope the reforms I started, to reduce the number of people coming into this country legally, are taken forward, and that we further reduce those numbers. We could have used the King’s Speech today to implement a legal cap on net migration, embedded by Parliament in law. We have not done that, which will mean further pressure on housing, public services and the pace of change.

Let me close with this: the Prime Minister has said he wants this to be a new era, in which politics is defined by service. I think we will all agree on that point—it should be—but the question is who do we serve. I do not think we come to this place to serve the interests of new quangos, commissions and reviews, the legal fraternity in contested notions of international law, or the new and worrying rise in sectarian politics, represented in this House for the first time in my lifetime, which again should worry us. We are sent here to serve the interests of our constituents. I choose them; I choose to ensure the working people of Newark and Nottinghamshire are always represented. They sent me here with a few clear messages: secure our border; reduce immigration; lower our taxes; stop the crime; build homes; build a more united country, cohesive and integrated, not riddled by the poison of left-wing identity politics. That is what I am here to fight. Where this Government do that and live up to that test, I will support them. Where they do not, I will fiercely challenge them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

This is the first time I have ever been able to speak from the Government side of the House, having first been elected in 2015, which was six Prime Ministers ago. In the 2015 general election, Bermondsey and Old Southwark was so far down Labour’s target list—it was No. 84, I think—that the rule of thumb was that if I won, we would be in government. I will not ask where everyone else has been for the last nine years, but I will thank them and congratulate them on being here today, especially colleagues who have already made their maiden speeches and those who will make them in the coming weeks and months. It is amazing finally to be on this side of the House, but I cannot say that it has been worth the wait, given what the Tories have done to our country over the past few years.

My constituents’ overwhelming sentiment since the election is one of relief, and of shaking off the sense of shame and embarrassment about the previous Government and the country’s economic devastation. My constituents are still paying higher bills and mortgages as a result of Tory economic incompetence, but there is relief that the shame of the last Government is over. We saw the Equality and Human Rights Commission have to investigate the Department for Work and Pensions because of its unlawful behaviour towards disabled people. Through political incompetence and maladministration, the second biggest spending Government Department was unable to support disabled people properly. Change in the leadership of that Department could not be more refreshing.

Another cause for relief is that the Rwanda policy is scrapped. It was an unlawful, immoral international embarrassment that was raised with our Foreign Office and raised on every trip I went on with the Foreign Affairs Committee, to the UN, to the US and to Brazil. Wherever we went, countries saw that we were shirking responsibility while others shouldered a greater responsibility. It is also a relief for taxpayers because it was such a colossal waste—a humongous, knuckle-headed nonsense.

I cannot even repeat what Tory Ministers called the scheme when they were in government, because it would be unparliamentary language, but it cost hundreds of millions of pounds at a time when my constituents were being told that the £20 uplift on universal credit was unaffordable, that seeing a doctor or dentist was just not possible and that having enough police was a luxury and somehow not a Government priority, all while millions were poured down the Rwanda drain. And for what? A scheme that sent no one but Tory Home Secretaries to Rwanda at an outrageous cost. For the price of sending one person to Rwanda you could send six people into space, and the electorate gave their verdict two weeks ago when they blasted the Tories into space. And yes, terrible puns were on my leaflets in the election.

The Leader of the Opposition—it feels good to say that—said today that he wished to work with the new Government on certain policies. I say to new MPs that from opposition I was able to improve the laws on housing rights for women fleeing domestic violence, on some terminally ill disabled people receiving support from the personal independence payment and on support for communities affected by terror attacks. I say to them: take the Prime Minister up on his offer. He said that the door was open, so take him up on that offer to seek improvements that benefit your constituents.

Since the election, I have had constituents come in to Parliament. Two schools have come in: St Michael’s college in Bermondsey and the Southwark inclusive learning service from London Bridge. It has been amazing to speak to young people about the new priorities and how the new Government are already beginning to mend and heal the UK with the work done in the first week and announced today in the Gracious Speech. This includes lifting the ban on onshore wind despite Green opposition, boosting UK investment, beginning to fix our NHS, tackling crime and antisocial behaviour and reasserting targets for house building, which is a very welcome priority for my constituency in Southwark, where housing is always the No. 1 priority.

I flag to the new Government and new Ministers that the Bakerloo line extension would bring 20,000 new homes at least, and benefit not just transport infrastructure and homes but jobs across the country, and boost our economy. I hope to see the Bakerloo line extension delivered under the new Government, offering new hope and new ambition for Britain from a Government who finally say to people not what they cannot have but what we are seeking to achieve for our country and for our people’s future, including today. Of particular personal importance to me is fixing mental health services. My mum had schizophrenia, a mental health condition, and that was my route into public policy awareness and politics. To have the chance to influence and shape mental health services as we in the Labour party begin to fix them and build out better is an enormous privilege.

I want to end today with a special thank you to the wonderful people of Bermondsey and Old Southwark for giving me my fourth win, including defeating an independent Corbyn candidate; to the Labour members in my constituency who fought so hard, both locally and in other target seats; and importantly, to my local Labour party executive for all their hard work and support, in the last Parliament in particular and over the election period. I look forward to delivering the better Britain they fought for, under this Labour Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

For his maiden speech, I call Graham Leadbitter.

Resettlement of Afghans

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

I ask the hon. Lady to send me the details of the case directly. As far as I am aware, we have responded to all individual cases. I am well aware of the strategic situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Prime Minister asked me to do a specific job on hotels, which we had to do before we could even think about bringing people over from Afghanistan. We have now done that. The Government recognise their commitments, and we will have more to say on that in due course.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

My constituent’s brother trained and fought alongside UK forces. He escaped murder by the Taliban by fleeing across the border, injured and without papers. Can the Minister confirm how many Afghans have been relocated from third countries under pathways 2 and 3 of the resettlement scheme, and explain why his Government still require those allies to seek new documentation from the men trying to kill them, or to arrive on small boats?

[Johnny Mercer]

Those schemes lie with the Home Office and the immigration system. I am sure that his question will have been heard. It is clear that challenges remain in this space. As was alluded to in the previous question, the consequences of getting it wrong that we are dealing with are particularly horrific. We recognise our commitments and will work continue to work hard to fulfil them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister need not worry, because he has no responsibility for the Opposition.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Q8. Every single Member of the House is required by law to confirm the true source of a donation before it is accepted or declared. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he followed all the rules all the time before he took £38,500 of free air travel on 28 April? If so, why does his story keep changing about who paid?

[The Prime Minister]

All donations are declared in the normal way. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if there are administrative changes to that they are quickly corrected.

Bishops in the House of Lords

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Davies, for calling me in this debate. To make it clear, I speak in a personal capacity as someone who would welcome the formal extension of invitations to sit in the House of Lords to representatives of other faiths: imams, rabbis and representatives of other Christian denominations. I serve a community with two cathedrals and was proud to attend the 175th anniversary of St George’s Cathedral, which is a Catholic cathedral, just this week.

I support reform of the House of Lords, but just targeting bishops for removal would leave the House full of Tory donors and political patronage, and that is not a House I would be happy to see. This debate puts form before function. Frankly, the composition of the upper House is less of an issue than its role. I would prefer an upper Chamber with regional representation, elected council leaders and directly elected Mayors, whether or not I agree with their politics.

I am mindful that a bishop at least represents a diocese, which gives them—more than others they sit with—a constituency, of sorts, to reflect in the House of Lords. I am also mindful that bishops are seen as the spring chickens—the upstarts and whippersnappers—of the House of Lords, because they are forced to retire at 70, which is younger than some of their peers, who, of course, are also peers. The bishops’ contributions come from their expertise and experience, are based on years of service, and are underpinned by values that are integral to what they bring to our upper Chamber. The Bishop of Durham yesterday described the Government’s Rwanda plans as “horrifying” and “immoral”, and I share that sentiment. Although there are so few bishops in the Lords, they have been crucial to narrow recent wins. Their votes have been decisive—I thank them for their service—including on the Government’s plan to sack nurses for daring to strike in favour of their employment rights and pay, which their union voted for. Lords should be commended for serving until 4 am, rather than being told that their contribution is unwelcome.

I also believe that Parliament should be on top of issues facing our constituents. I am sure that, in Edinburgh, they talk of nothing other than Church of England bishops sitting in the House of Lords, but I have had three requests to be here today. I represent an extremely diverse, vibrant central London community, which includes at least five mosques, and this is a non-issue for the vast majority of the people I serve. Week in, week out, I deal with issues to do with housing, the cost of living and Home Office failures. I am proud to work with peers and bishops on my constituents’ top concerns, which the bishops see reflected in their congregations. They share those values, and I respect that.

I speak in unity with the other representatives of Southwark: my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and Bishop Christopher of Southwark, who sits in the House of Lords. I am proud to share a platform with them in representing and serving Southwark.

I welcome Bishop Christopher of Southwark’s work here in Westminster and in Southwark, where the cathedral was integral to the rebuild after the horrific terror attack at London Bridge and Borough Market. The work of the cathedral, Bishop Christopher and Andrew Nunn, the dean, who is now retired, was fundamental in ensuring that we rebuilt quickly. The love and strength with which they served was commendable, and I am glad to have seen it and been part of it.

The Bishop of Southwark has recently spoken about the 1 million people waiting for council homes. He has supported the Bishop of St Albans’ plan to prevent leaseholders from paying fees to remove dangerous cladding, and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s call for a 10-year plan in partnership with other countries to tackle the refugee crisis and human trafficking. The Bishop of Southwark has spoken about children detained under Home Office plans that he called “most alarming” and “unedifying”, the Home Office’s failure to tackle sexual exploitation and modern slavery, and other issues. It is hard to disagree with those contributions; I welcome them.

One backer of this debate said that bishops have been intervening pointedly in politics. I would be disappointed if the Church were not standing up on these issues and did not take a view on the Government’s devaluing of human life. I would be disappointed if it did not request that, rather than crossing the road, we should be the good Samaritan and intervene to help others where we can.

It is disappointing that this debate is focused on one group in the House of Lords, based on their faith, rather than their role. We can compare them with some of the other contributors in the other Chamber, including Lord Lebedev, whom the intelligence services said should not be there; Lord Archer, who has never spoken and never bothered to turn up; Lord Bamford, who has made five contributions in a decade—one contribution for each £1 million contribution he has made to the Conservative party—and the Earl of Rosslyn, who has spoken once since—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that this is not an opportunity to make personal attacks on individual Members of the House of Lords. I would be grateful if he refrained from doing that. In the House of Commons, we do not pick out particular individuals. We must stick to the subject of the debate.

[Neil Coyle]

Certainly, Mr Davies. I will move on. The point I was making is that there are others I feel should be a more legitimate target for removal from the House of Lords. The bishops should not be targeted purely because of the denomination they represent, their understanding of British values, how they demonstrate that through their faith, the communities they serve and their experience working in churches and dioceses.

I stood for election to help to tackle the real problems in my community and those that the country faces, not to bash bishops—Members can do that in their own time—or get consumed in an academic political debate that makes no meaningful difference to the people I serve. I would sooner hear more from the Bishop of Southwark and the rest of the Lords Spiritual from the Church of England here and elsewhere, rather than the Prime Minister’s shameless hypocrisy yesterday in quoting from Matthew, chapter 25, at the service for the NHS’s 75th anniversary.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as churchwarden for my home parish in my constituency of West Dorset. I have had more constituents getting in touch with me about the matter than my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) may have. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on securing this debate.

As I have told my constituents, I do not necessarily agree with them in principle, but it is important to have an objective, clear and frank debate about why there are constituents and even members of the Church who feel increasingly strongly about the issue. Although I may disagree in principle with the hon. Member for Edinburgh East, we should understand why increasing numbers of people feel strongly about the role of the bishops in the House of Lords.

The Church of England has an incredibly important role to play throughout the land in unifying people with different views. It has a critical role to play in bringing people together and finding ways to have more in common than that which divides us. We need to reflect on that when we start to hear very clear political views from bishops in the House of Lords.

I did not intervene on the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), but I suspect one reason that I disagree in principle is that I disagree wholly with what he says about why bishops should be in the House of Lords. It is not right that bishops, who have an important role to play in unifying their communities and who have the cure of souls, regardless of political view, are in effect being made to feel alienated from their own parishes and their own church communities.

I am delighted to have the Bishop of St Albans here in the Gallery. I was delighted to be in his congregation at the St Alban’s day festival not 10 days ago. It was very clear from the sermon at the lectern in that service that a very pro-immigration message emanates from his cathedral. That is his decision, but I am afraid we have to recognise that not everybody agrees with that position. We are increasingly seeing bishops in the Church of England becoming politicians who wear mitres. That is a decision for the Church of England and for individual bishops, but I think it is a damaging thing for the Church of England to do.

I have been a member of the Church of England for 30 years; if we were counting from baptism, it would be 41. I remember vividly that in my younger years I thought, “Why is the Church not being stronger on the issues that I feel strongly about?” I made representations to my priest at the time. It was probably part of the reason why, at an earlier point in my life, I had to discern whether I had a calling to the priesthood.

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[Chris Loder]

I will give way in a moment.

Many members of the Church of England, and not just residents of my constituency, have been in touch with me about this debate. That is not because they agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh East, who thinks that bishops should be taken out of the House of Lords, but because a good number of them wholly disagree with what some bishops have to say—I recognise that the Archbishop of Canterbury was in Portland only a few weeks ago—and believe that they have spent their life supporting a Church from which they now feel wholly alienated, based on what the bishops have been saying. I am sorry to say that that includes a good number from the diocese of Truro. Everyone ought to note that the bishop, who is being translated to Winchester and will therefore have a seat in this place by default, has had many issues within his own diocese, not least the fact that the future of a good number of parishes is in question. It is important to consider whether bishops should focus on political matters of the day or on the cure of souls and taking care of their own diocese.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Loder]

I am sorry; I wanted to give way to the hon. Member, but I think you are prompting me to finish, Mr Davies. I will happily speak to the hon. Member afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point, which he has made several times in the debate. The truth is that we remain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It remains the case that we have, on certain issues, a Westminster Parliament, which has an upper and a lower House. Members of the upper House are entitled to vote, just as, I might add, Members of the SNP are entitled to vote on certain issues that affect only England, and I have observed them so doing on a number of occasions. I know that the hon. Gentleman wishes not to recognise the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, the people of his country chose otherwise in a once-in-a-generation referendum.

While we are on the subject, I have heard the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) say a couple of times that the SNP will have nothing to do with the unelected House of Lords. That is the SNP’s prerogative, and the SNP is entitled to take that position, but I do think there is something rather sad about it, because the people of Scotland chose to stay in the United Kingdom, and the House of Lords remains part of the constitution of this kingdom. The SNP has deliberately chosen not to represent its views in the upper House, and that is unfortunate; it is a narrow view that is depriving SNP voters in Scotland of a say in the upper Chamber.

[Neil Coyle]

Does the Minister’s sadness on that issue extend to those who seek to gag Church leaders from speaking about immigration? I am unaware of a nativity story that includes an innkeeper telling Mary and Joseph to take their donkey to Rwanda.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman specialises in jokes of poor taste. The Government certainly do not seek to gag bishops in any way. I take the view that I think he takes, which is that Members of the House of Lords should be free to talk about any issue that comes before them—even when I disagree with them. Obviously, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) takes a different view on that. I think it is important that people who sit in the Lords can speak their minds on any issue that comes before that House.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East raised points about how there was special pleading for the bishops in the Lords in one or two areas on privileges. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire pointed out, while there is a custom and a convention, these are not rules. Indeed, the customs and conventions are often more honoured in the breach than the observance.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East mentioned party blocs. Again, what he said is not quite the case. Bishops are not consulted as a party bloc on new legislation before it is tabled, they are not recognised by officials as a party grouping and nor do they get a separate meeting with the Bill makers. That argument does not quite work.

On the code of conduct, although it is true that there is a slightly different code of conduct for bishops, that is also the case for Ministers of the Crown and Members who are employees of non-departmental public bodies. I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s arguments there.

The hon. Gentleman talked, quite rightly, about how the social mores of society have changed, and they have. The position of the bishops has also changed over time. The arguments he will hear bishops advocate today are very different from those he would have heard 50 or 100 years ago. Do bishops today reflect society? I think the hon. Gentleman said 14% of people in the United Kingdom are Anglicans. Only 3% of the Members of the House of Lords are Anglican bishops. If one wanted to go down that route—I am not encouraging anyone to so do—one would say that the Anglicans were under-represented.

I know that the point the hon. Gentleman was actually making was a serious one about the ex officio status of Members of the House of Lords. Going forward, that is fertile ground for discussion, and I thought we were in the foothills of that serious discussion. However, the hon. Member for Glasgow North chose to make this a bigger debate about the House of Lords in totality, and he and I have had that debate a couple of times.

I was trying to tease out SNP Members’ position on an upper Chamber, should they get independence. I think I got three different answers. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East said that that will be decided as and when; the hon. Member for Glasgow North said we should abolish the upper House; and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire said he would like to see an elected upper Chamber—

Afghan Resettlement Update

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

As I have said a number of times, and as my hon. Friend will know, one of the primary moral reasons to act is that we have not been able to continue that pipeline out of Afghanistan. There are operators who are sat there in Afghanistan today who are entitled to be in the UK. They are not here because that pipeline is not working. We have too many people in hotels, and we want to reintegrate them into UK society. It is as simple as that. We clearly have a moral case. All of us have a responsibility to try to see through our commitments to these people and get these pathways open. I want to see a good, professional, seamless way out of Afghanistan—on those three pathways through ACRS and ARAP as much as he does. I hope we can work together in the months ahead.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)]

In the 18 months since the UK Government capitulated to the Taliban, my constituent Hadi Sharifi has been helping Afghans who worked for or with us to escape. One is the former commander of Kabul, whose injuries at the time prevented him from leaving with UK forces. He is now across the border, but why does he still have no legal means to enter the UK? Why is this Government’s reward for his service to our forces to throw him to people smugglers, criminalise his entry to this country and then threaten to ship him to Rwanda?

[Johnny Mercer]

The conditions of ARAP and ACRS compatibility are very clear. If the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has served in those roles and is entitled to the ARAP programme or the ACRS, he can now apply to those from third countries. If he does so and there are such individual cases where that is not working, then let me know. The criteria for the ACRS and ARAP are very clear, and if he meets those criteria he is entitled to come here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am pleased to say that I have been to the Holkham estate and seen her fantastic business operating in rural Norfolk. We need to turbocharge rural economies, and we need to get more women into business; we know that if women set up businesses at the same rate as men, it would add £250 billion to our economy. She is a fantastic businesswoman.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)]

T4. Some black women in Southwark are disproportion- ately at risk of HIV, but are statistically less likely to access designated sexual health clinics. Does the Minister agree with the report of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS that access to PrEP needs to be improved for this group specifically, through maternity units, at GP clinics and in community pharmacies?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the team have left a bit early.

[Neil Coyle]

Any Minister is welcome to answer.

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to make sure that we are protecting people from HIV.

Sue Gray Report

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is not what I have said.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister told Parliament and the British people that there were no parties. We now know that he attended several, including one at which he was ambushed with cake, in his most pathetic excuse yet. Given his previous statements, which we know to be patently false, how does he explain why this report says that at least 12 parties in his home warrant police investigation?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has proved several times in that question that he has not got the faintest idea what he is talking about, and he should wait for the outcome of the inquiry.

Ukraine

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I know that he speaks for many friends and many good allies in eastern Europe. In Poland, in the Czech Republic and in the Baltic states there are people who would precisely echo his sentiments, and that is why we have to stand strong and united today for Ukraine.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister describes Ukraine and Russia as equal parties, and we know he likes a party. He also said that

“Ukraine has scarcely known a day of peace”

since the 2014 Russian invasion and illegal annexation. Indeed, in December there were 128 shellings of Ukrainians in Donetsk, and three Ukrainian soldiers have been murdered by Russian-backed forces since January. The question is why the Prime Minister has not acted sooner, and why is he even now saying we must wait for full-scale invasion before further sanctions—including on access to SWIFT—and the “Moscow’s Gold” report recommendations are implemented? Why wait?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman must have missed what I already said. We already have a very wide package of sanctions in place since the Russian incursion of 2014. We have personal sanctions and other sanctions for what the Russians did in Crimea and Sevastopol. What we are going to do now is to ratchet those sanctions up very considerably. I am afraid he is not right in what he says about abandoning Ukraine since 2014. With Operation Orbital, the UK has been out there in the front, helping to train 21,000 Ukrainian troops since 2015.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Over 10 million people have been automatically enrolled into workplace pensions already: that has put another £28.4 billion into pensions, so it is a great success. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will be listening closely to what my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) has said.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

9. We know the Prime Minister is happiest at Peppa Pig World, but in the real world, people in Southwark face rising energy bills, rising shopping costs, and a new Tory tax. Leaseholders also face huge costs for fire safety works post Grenfell required by his Government, so will the Prime Minister try to keep just one promise in 2022 and protect all leaseholders from those costs, and will he back the cross-party campaign to make those works exempt from VAT in order to add £1 billion to the building safety fund?