EU Exit: Negotiations and the Joint Committee

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

First, may I say that I wish I had my hon. Friend’s lean physique, because I am afraid that bits of me are wobbly? That is not the case with him. On the substance, he is right: we both need to be firm in these negotiations, as the Prime Minister has been, and ready for any eventuality. That means that if we do go to Australian terms, we need to use the freedoms that that affords.

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

In 2019, £300 billion of UK exports went to the EU, which was 43% of our entire total, and not even 2% went to Australia. This is the Minister who told us that these would be the easiest negotiations ever, but businesses in Southwark tell me that they have lost patience with the Government, that uncertainty is costing them and that their employees face losing their jobs as a result of his failure to secure a deal. The simple question is: why do my constituents face losing their jobs as a result of his inability to do his?

[Michael Gove]

I think that is what we call a leading question, but the hon. Gentleman misattributes the earlier quotation—I think someone else, rather than me, made that point. More broadly, however, prosperity for his constituents and mine depends on making sure that we embrace the free trading, outward-looking approach that the Prime Minister has outlined. That is the best way of making sure that can export not just to Europe and Australia, but across the world.

Covid-19 Update

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Tell me about it, Mr Speaker! My hon. Friend makes an important point, and there are obviously provisions for 30 hours of free childcare. Her point about emergency childcare is well made. That is why we need to keep the economy moving in the way that we are.

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

The chief execs of 17,000 hospitality businesses—representing half a million jobs and millions of customers every week, including many in my central London Southwark constituency—say that not one of them has seen a super-spreader incident and none has had direct contact from the tracing system. Testing and tracing is not working, so why will the Prime Minister not get a grip and fix those systems, instead of floundering, trying to find someone else to blame, and putting more lives and more jobs at risk?

[The Prime Minister]

That is why we are investing massively in NHS Test and Trace, and in a co-ordinated local effort. As I have said before, we are now testing more people than any other country in Europe, and we have contacted hundreds of thousands of people across the country and persuaded them to slow the spread of the virus. Rather than continually knocking NHS Test and Trace, let us work together to support it and build public confidence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

And hopefully he can do Chorley at the same time.

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

In January, the Government were still pretending that there were only 5,000 rough sleepers across the whole country. During the lockdown, 15,000 rough sleepers were supported under the Everyone In programme. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the homeless charities, councils and others who stepped up and provided accommodation in the crisis are funded for every single person they helped?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. One of the consolations of this crisis was that we were able to prevent so many rough sleepers from succumbing in the way that, alas, happened in other countries. That was a great effort by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the charities, working together. Of course, we will continue to do what we can to support those vital charities, to prevent rough sleeping and homelessness.

Brexit Negotiations

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend should know that this is of course not a backstop, because we will come out of the customs union. The whole of the UK would be out of the customs union. In so far as Northern Ireland would remain temporarily aligned on agrifoods and industrial goods, that is by consent, so there is no backstop. But he is absolutely right to say that these proposals offer the opportunity to do free trade deals around the world, and that is a very exciting prospect indeed.

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

The Prime Minister has recently admitted that it was wrong to cut our police so much that nine in 10 crimes have been going unpunished, his Government are beginning to admit the massive faults with universal credit and he has admitted the deep damage to the NHS. This unusual honesty is refreshing, so when will he get equally honest about Brexit and admit that these plans would leave our country worse off and less secure, that they risk the very future of the United Kingdom and that as such they should never—and can never—be described as being in our national interest?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that many of his constituents voted to leave the European Union. Indeed, the population as a whole voted to leave the European Union and their wishes must be respected. This House has voted time after time to honour the promise that we made to the British people. We can do so, and I believe—I am absolutely sure—we can achieve a glorious future by coming out with a deal of the kind that we are outlining today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

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

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 3 July.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

While offering our commiserations to the England Lionesses following last night’s semi-final, may I say that they have inspired millions and made us all very proud?

I am sure the whole House would want to join me in congratulating Rose Hudson-Wilkin on her appointment as Bishop of Dover. I know she will take on that new role with the same dedication and care that she has shown to all of us during her time as Speaker’s Chaplain.

We offer our best wishes to all those taking part in this Saturday’s Pride. Yesterday, 10 Downing Street hosted a reception to look back with pride on everything that generations of campaigners have achieved, to celebrate the contribution that LGBT people of all backgrounds make to our national life, and to look forward to a future where the bigotry and discrimination that LGBT people still face is a thing of the past.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Neil Coyle]

I add my thanks, and those of everyone in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, to the England women’s football team, who have inspired the next generation of girls and boys to get involved in football.

In March, the Prime Minister told this House that we had to back her damaging Brexit plans so that she could focus on domestic issues like knife crime. On Sunday, an 18-year-old was stabbed and killed in Walworth in my constituency. Can the Prime Minister explain to that teenager’s family why she has overseen a Government of paralysis who have failed to tackle violent crime?

[The Prime Minister]

We are all concerned by the incidents of knife crime that we have seen. We are all concerned with the incidents that we saw over the weekend, and our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims. Too many lives of potential are being cut short, and those individuals and their families are being cruelly robbed of those futures.

We have not been failing to act on this; we have been acting on this. We have ensured that we are working across the board, because it takes all of society to work on this issue. It is not just an issue of policing. We have made more powers available to police—[Interruption.] Some Labour Members say it is just an issue of policing. No, we need to ensure that young people do not carry knives. We need to ensure that young people are taken away from a route into crime. That means dealing with drugs; it means dealing with gangs. We have provided more funding to police. We have provided extra powers to police. Sadly, the Labour party voted against that.

European Council

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It was not at the weekend that we said we would move to a skills-based immigration system; we have been clear about that for some months. The figure of £30,000 was the figure that was set out in the Migration Advisory Committee’s report.

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

The Prime Minister has described a new vote on Europe as an act of bad faith. This is the Prime Minister who tried to deny Parliament a meaningful vote and then pulled the vote when she knew that she would lose. This is the Prime Minister who claimed that it was her way or no way, despite the option of revoking article 50. This is the Prime Minister who told 10,000 people from other EU countries living, working and contributing in my constituency that they had jumped the queue. Is she in any position to lecture anyone about what it means to act in good faith on this issue?

[The Prime Minister]

I simply repeat to the hon. Gentleman the points that I have made about the vote that took place in 2016, and about the duty that we have in relation to that.

Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), because we went through the same experience of this House at that time. Although we like to feel that we take our decisions on an intellectual basis, I know that my feelings on this are motivated by strong emotion and what happened to my father in the war. He volunteered as a 15-year-old—he lied about his age—to go to the continent and stop the Huns bayoneting Belgian babies. He returned broken and badly wounded in 1919, extremely grateful to the Germans for having saved his life when he was dying in a foxhole. He could have bled to death.

My motivation—this should be our highest motivation —is the interests of our armed forces. They need an absolute assurance that any decision to put their lives at risk is taken in the most serious way after the most searching inquiries are carried out. We owe them that. I believe that another inquiry is necessary, and that is one on the decision to go into Helmand province in 2006 at a time when only six members of the armed services had been killed in the war. We went in in the hope that not a shot would be fired and 450 of our servicemen died as a result. That is what we must do now—that is what we should be taking on, not a tribal party row in this place. It is not appropriate; it is not right. We must look to the reputation of Parliament.

As has been said, we were misled. Whether it was deliberate or not—the expression “sincere deceivers” has been used in the United States about what happened in that war—we know that after that debate 139 of my comrades on the Labour Benches voted against the war, which was a very courageous thing to do as we were under great pressure, but 50 others had grave doubts about the war. They were, in my view, bribed, bullied or bamboozled into voting the wrong way and many—

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

Bribed? You can’t say bribed; that’s outrageous.

[Paul Flynn]

They were induced—

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I rise to address a misapprehension that seems to have developed that the report of Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry has cleared the then Prime Minister of misleading the House. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said earlier in an intervention, papers released recently as a result of a freedom of information request—after quite some resistance from the current Government—have shown that the Iraq inquiry was designed from the outset to avoid blame and to reduce the risk that individuals and the Government could face legal proceedings.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) is shaking his head. I can give him copies of the civil service memos that were released as a result of that freedom of information request. My point is, however, that not having been charged with investigating blame or accountability, or indeed the legality of the war, Sir John Chilcot—for whom I have the greatest respect—is in no better a position to absolve the then Prime Minister of blame for misleading the House than anyone else who has carefully considered the evidence and the analysis of it that Sir John has set out.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) indicated that he had placed in the Library a detailed report that carries out that analysis and suggests that the House was misled. I am not saying that; it was said by an independent expert who has looked at the evidence set out by Sir John Chilcot. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, said that the inquiry would help us to learn lessons that would strengthen UK democracy, foreign policy and the military forces, but how is democracy strengthened if the House does not scrutinise the evidence and consider issues of blame and accountability when so many people have died?

I am conscious that I do not have much time, but I want to talk briefly about what those memos—the memos that were released after the current Government had fought so hard to prevent their release—show us. They show the thinking and advice at the highest level of government prior to Gordon Brown’s announcement of an inquiry. They show that many officials who took part in the events that the inquiry investigated—including the former spy chief Sir John Scarlett—were involved in setting it up. They reveal that senior civil servants, under Gordon Brown, went against Whitehall protocol when they appointed a civil servant with significant involvement in Iraq policy during the period covered by the inquiry to the key role of inquiry secretary.

The documents, a series of memos from Whitehall officials, cover a four-week period in May and June 2009, and they show that the officials favoured from the outset a secret inquiry to be conducted by Privy Counsellors. In a memo to Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet official Ben Lyon advised that the format, scope and membership of the inquiry could be designed to

“focus on lessons and avoid blame”.

It was noted that a parliamentary inquiry of the sort suggested by the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd, would

“attract a daily running commentary”,

like the Hutton inquiry. Gus O’Donnell also advised against appointing judges or lawyers who would adopt a “legalistic” focus. Indeed, as we know, there was no legalistic focus. The inquiry did not look at issues of blame and accountability. That is the reason for this cross-party motion: it is intended to enable the House to look at those issues now.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I will not, because I do not have much time.

[Neil Coyle]

It is not a cross-party motion.

[Joanna Cherry]

The motion is supported by members of seven parties. It has been made clear this afternoon that Labour Members do not support it, and I think that that speaks for itself, as does the behaviour of some speakers. My point is that the purpose of the motion, which has the support of seven political parties, is to ensure that the House does the job that the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said the inquiry would do—namely, to ensure that democracy was properly served.

If the House does not examine the outcome of Sir John Chilcot’s findings properly and if it does not look at those issues of accountability, democracy and justice will not have been served. That is the point of the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to all those who served, lost their lives or were injured in Iraq, to their families and to everyone who currently serves in our forces. I am delighted to support the motion that my colleagues have so ably put forward.

The scene was set in forensic detail by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who started by asking what we should do in parliamentary terms in the light of the inquiry’s findings. It is reasonable to consider parliamentary accountability as a tool that this House should actually use. He went on to highlight that no checks and balances currently exist in the system. Like all of us, he looks forward to the report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and its recommendations.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, said that lessons should be learned and that the Government are considering them. I believe that he meant that, so does he agree that further specific examination of the contrast between public and private policy and presentation of intelligence vis-à-vis the then Prime Minister is desirable to help to prevent any repetition of past events?

The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) spoke about pursuing one individual. That individual was the then Prime Minister, who gave differing statements in private and in public—statements upon which, as we heard today, Members of this House relied. If statements were different in private and in public, why should we not debate that? To use the current context, how would we and members of the public feel if we thought that our Prime Minister—heaven forbid we were to be in such a situation again—was having private discussions with President-elect Donald Trump that differed—[Interruption.]

[Neil Coyle]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

No, I will not. How would we feel if those discussions differed from the information that the Prime Minister presented to the House?

I welcomed the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who spoke with great eloquence and some good humour, and gave us a whirlwind tour of his constituency. He rightly paid tribute to the work of the organisations that exist there. I welcome him to the House.

The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) seemed to suggest that they should have some say in the motions that the SNP brings to this House on our Opposition days. We will decide that, thank you very much. What we choose will be based on our constituents’ interests, which are at the heart of all that we on these Benches do. The Labour party can debate what it wants on its Opposition days. Let me be clear: we are not required to be sensitive to the Labour party’s ongoing issues when choosing what to debate. That is its problem. We will remain sensitive to our constituents’ issues and continue to stand up for them.

I thank the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) for his support for the motion. He made an excellent speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), whose brother served. My hon. Friend quite rightly did not speak lightly and used his customary passion, conviction and principles, which the House so often enjoys. My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) spoke of the necessary further scrutiny. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) discussed how Sir John Chilcot was not charged with investigating blame and therefore is in no better position than anybody else to absolve the then Prime Minister.

The hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), whom we also thank for supporting this motion, gave informative speeches with huge insight into this matter. My hon. Friends the Members for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) also spoke very well indeed, and I thank them for their contributions.

This is an important debate, not simply because it is about a former Prime Minister, but because it is about the fate of 179 servicemen and women who went to war and did not come home. It is about their families, and the mental and emotional scars they bear. It is not about us—it is about them. And it is about the hundreds of thousands of dead and injured civilians in Iraq and beyond. It is also about Parliament—this institution—and about protecting the integrity of our democracy. When our democratic institutions are under immense stress and public faith in the political process is at a low ebb, it is vital for our democracy that we can reassert that the discussions we have here in this House may be contentious and controversial, but they are carried out in a way that recognises and does not distort the facts at our disposal. If we choose to look the other way, what hope is there for restoring the public’s faith in this Parliament?

Today, we have a chance to take a significant step towards restoring parliamentary authority. This issue is above party politics, which is why I am glad to have the support of colleagues from across the Chamber and from Members from seven separate political parties. To his great credit, Sir John Chilcot’s report forensically and repeatedly dismantles the public pronouncements of Blair as a catalogue of failure and neglect of the principles and duties of government. Chilcot stated that the actions of the Blair Administration were crucial in undermining the authority of the UN Security Council and that despite repeated declarations to the contrary, Blair personally committed the UK to joining the US in invading Iraq before all peaceful and diplomatic options had been exhausted. We have heard loud and clear about the following words today:

“I will be with you, whatever”.

Parliament must recognise that and must act.

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will not give way.

Indeed, at the last two nuclear non-proliferation treaty five-yearly review conferences there was unanimous support for a weapons of mass destruction-free zone across the middle east, which surely we can sign up to and support. I look forward to the Defence Secretary’s support for that position when he responds to the debate.

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

My right hon. Friend is speaking about previous party policy. At the shadow Cabinet meeting last Tuesday, it was agreed that current party policy would be conveyed by Front Benchers. When will we hear it?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my hon. Friend for his view. As he well knows, the party decided that it wanted to support the retention of nuclear weapons. We also decided that we would have a policy review, which is currently being undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis).

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) is as well aware as I am of the existing policy. He is also as well aware as I am of the views on nuclear weapons that I expressed very clearly at the time of the leadership election last year, hence the fact that Labour Members will have a free vote this evening.

Other countries have made serious efforts—

House of Commons Members’ Fund (No. 2) Bill

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I join this debate as parliamentary private secretary to the shadow Leader of the House. I am less familiar with the history of the fund than the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has done so much to promote this Bill. The shadow Leader of the House is in his constituency in Wales, and the shadow Deputy Leader of the House is in Great Grimsby, and they are working hard for their constituents. They have provided me with the opportunity and pleasure to speak for my party from the Front Bench for the first time, in what has been an exciting parliamentary week for me and included my first question to the Prime Minister. For a relative newbie, it has been a busy week. I hope it is not too long before I get the chance to speak for my party from the Government Front Bench.

In Committee, my shadow Front-Bench colleagues made it clear that Her Majesty’s Opposition have no objections to the aims and principles behind the Bill. The contributory nature of the fund is very welcome, as is the desire to enhance the scheme’s flexibility. I would like to take this opportunity to echo the thanks of the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), and the thanks of other Members, to the trustees for their administration and management of the fund. I welcome the chance to expand the pool of expertise the trust can call on, including from former Members or another representative of potential beneficiaries.

The shadow Deputy Leader of the House and other colleagues raised several concerns and sought clarification on a number of issues that went unanswered or have been left unaddressed. The issues raised included the fund’s future accountability and the potential to amalgamate the administration of Members’ funds. Given the constituency of the shadow Deputy Leader of the House—the world’s largest fishing port no less—I promised to do my best to weave in a fish or seafood pun or two, so here goes nothing.

Despite my hon. Friend’s best efforts to “winkle” information out of the hon. Member for Mole Valley and Ministers, the Government appeared to “clam” up in Committee and were prepared to “skate” over some the issues involved. We will not stand for it. We have had enough of Ministers who refuse to answer questions in this “plaice”. [Interruption.] The money involved here is not tiny. The “tuna several million squid”—I do apologise—is involved; according to the House of Commons Library briefing, some £7 million. Members deserve appropriate answers, given the sum of money involved.

Our role in opposition is to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise them as effectively as possible however much they try to undermine our ability to do so, for example through the plans to reduce Short money. Some improvements have been made, as Members have had time to “mullet” over further. However, no answer has yet been provided on the amalgamation issue, which has now simply been removed from the face of the Bill. This is a “red herring” to distract those who recognised the benefit of a potential merger and were willing to explore the option at a later stage. I hope answers will be provided today in respect of the dogged pursuit of the issue in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). The latter has expressed concern that the Bill could represent a missed opportunity if the issue is now lost or ignored. The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons would not explain the Government’s position or thinking on this issue in Committee. Perhaps the Cabinet Office Minister will be more forthcoming.

There are three remaining areas of concern, focused on the accountability of the fund as it moves forward: on transparency, it would be useful to know more about how accessible information will be on the fund’s more flexible use and investments; on monitoring, it would be helpful to indicate how the fund’s use, especially any new uses, will be able to be scrutinised and inspected, and who by; and, on reporting, a little more information on how often reports will be provided, how they will be lodged and whether there will be any ability for Members to query reports, would be very welcome. I hope the hon. Member for Mole Valley and Ministers will throw some light on these issues, but I conclude by stating that Opposition Members do recognise the length of time it has taken to get to this point and the potential of the Bill to move things forward. I hope we see progress today.