Business of the House

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I am truly sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent’s plight. That truly is a terrible story. The Secretary of State for Transport is committed to trying to improve disability access to all our stations and public transport. The hon. Lady will understand that an enormous amount of capital investment is going into those services, but I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Transport is aware of her question and that we do all we can to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

This week, the Royal Gibraltar Regiment has been mounting guard at the royal palaces and the Tower of London; I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the regiment on that honour and in paying tribute to its work as an integrated part of the British armed forces? Will he find time for a debate on the value of Gibraltar to the United Kingdom and the British family, and on the links that bind us together?

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to not just Gibraltar but many nations around the world that co-operate with our armed services. The regiment has received an honour. I thank him for putting it on the public record and congratulate all those involved.

Business of the House

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will have the opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions on 8 March. This is an important issue. Matters of immigration are very sensitive and I encourage the hon. Lady to either write to the Foreign Secretary or challenge her during FCDO questions.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

London accounts for 13% of the UK’s population and 22% of its gross domestic product. The issue of how London is governed is important to the whole country. We used to have debates in Government time on London and its governance. Can we restore that situation, so that we can examine why Conservative Bromley is debt-free, while Labour Croydon is bankrupt and required an £120 million bail-out; and why the Labour Mayor increased his press office’s budget by 33%, while shipping the London Assembly, which, in statute, has a duty to scrutinise him, 8 miles down the river, out of the centre, in order to marginalise it? Are those not matters that we should be able to debate in the House?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question highlighting those issues. If I can facilitate such a debate, I will be delighted to, but of course there are other routes open to him: he might want a Westminster Hall debate; he can apply for an Adjournment debate; or he could even talk to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) about getting a Backbench Business debate.

Business of the House

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

Parliament created the Greater London Authority deliberately with an elected Mayor and an elected London Assembly to act as a check and balance on the operations of the Mayor—a constitutional function. The current Mayor, for financial reasons of his own making, has arbitrarily decided to vacate the purpose-built City Hall, which is iconic in London, and move the Assembly’s scrutiny staff functions to a building in the east part of the capital—out of sight and perhaps out of mind—that has been described as “too small” and “unfit for purpose”, while he retains offices in central London for his own political appointees and staff. Can we have a debate on the governance of the Greater London Authority so that we can discover whether this behaviour by the Mayor is consistent with the intentions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was himself a distinguished member of the Greater London Authority. I cannot promise him a debate, because if we were to set out a debate on the failings of the Mayor of London, I fear I would have to announce business on that subject for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. We would have even lost private Members’ Bills on the week that we are back.

We were lucky in our Mayor between 2008 and 2016. We had the greatest Mayor that London has ever seen, who knocked Dick Whittington into a cocked hat. Since 2016, things have gone sadly downhill. We have a socialist who is, as I said earlier, incapable of running a whelk stall—that stall that is so famously run by many competent people who are good at running things, but he cannot. He has failed in so many ways. He has failed in terms of planning and getting the number of homes built in London. He has failed in terms of Transport for London. He has failed in terms of bridges, so that part of Putney is disrupted by excess traffic. I am afraid that it is only a Mayor with that sort of record who would try to get rid of his scrutinisers. I note he has one rule for himself and one rule for his scrutinisers. There is a word for that, but it might be unparliamentary.

Business of the House

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I agree, as I do on many matters actually, with the hon. Gentleman. He is much missed in this Chamber and we hope to see him back physically in the not-too-distant future. It is a duller and quieter place without his regular sedentary interventions. He may have forgotten, but there was a referendum in 2014 in Scotland, which settled the issue. It seems to me that, in the midst of sorting out a pandemic, getting the economy back on its feet and resolving some little local difficulties going on with the leadership of the Scottish National party, it would be reckless to be proposing a referendum at this point.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

There are 1.2 million stroke survivors in the United Kingdom. It is the largest cause of adult disability in this country. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House make time for a proper debate on the progress of the national stroke programme, because, two years on, the quality and availability of after-care and rehabilitation services, particularly specialist areas such as physio and speech therapy, remain very variable to the great concern of many families?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. The NHS long-term plan, published in January 2019, outlines commitments to improving stroke services, including better stroke rehabilitation services and increased access to specialist stroke units. Stroke services across England continue to provide rehabilitation and post-acute services to stroke survivors and their families and carers during the pandemic. In part, this has been helped by innovative methods of care delivery alongside face-to-face contact. Almost half of stroke survivors have had virtual care since covid began. More than 80% of them reported positive or very positive experiences. There are 20 integrated stroke delivery networks, giving full coverage across England. Integrated stroke delivery networks were established in shadow status in October 2020 and we expect them to be fully operational by spring 2021. Ninety per cent of stroke patients will receive care in a specialist stroke unit and more patients will have access to disability-reducing treatments of mechanical thrombectomy and thrombolysis. This combined with increased access to rehabilitation services will deliver improved long-term outcomes for stroke patients. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue.

Business Statement

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the right hon. Lady and the Opposition Front Bench for the support that they have given. I understand that they have worked with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to ensure that there is satisfaction throughout the Chamber in respect of this very important business.

Let me respond to the three questions that the right hon. Lady asked. The Bill will be presented today; the time will be protected, so it will not be affected by statements or anything else tomorrow; and the Treasury has approved an increase in resources to ensure that the cost of maintaining people in prison and the associated costs are affordable.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ensure that this business has priority over all others, but can he give us the proposed timetable for the debates on the police grant and local government finance grant motions? Those also involve important and timeous issues—not as grave as this, but important to local authorities that are seeking to set their budgets.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right: those matters are indeed important, and they are being delayed. The local government finance motion must come before the House by 1 March to help councils. It will be introduced as a matter of priority, and on Thursday I will announce when it will be introduced. The same applies to the police grant motion. Both are relatively time-sensitive, and they will be returned to the House as urgently as possible.

Tributes to the Speaker’s Chaplain

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I want briefly to add a personal note of thanks and tribute to Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin. Rose married Anne-Louise, my wife, and me about 18 months ago. She did that with great charm, great style and joyfulness, and great Christianity. She showed great care and sensitivity to us in preparing us for that wedding, and also to our families, and, in particular, Anne-Louise’s two children, who had lost their own father tragically. The care that she showed has always stuck with us. Since then, particularly in the past few months, when Anne-Louise, sadly, has been unwell, Rose’s continuing support and prayers, and the kindness that she has shown to our family, mean more to us than any words that I can say in this Chamber could ever adequately convey.

I also want to say a quick word about Rose’s husband, Ken, who has been a great support to her, and who I, as Chair of the Justice Committee, had the pleasure of meeting when he was working as a prison chaplain. He, too, has been a great servant of God and of the broader community, and a great witness to his faith. That enables me also to say how valued the work of the prison chaplaincy service is by many in difficult times of their lives.

Anne-Louise specifically asked me to come here today and say that she is still in hospital but on the mend, and that Rose’s support has meant more to us than anything. For those of us who do have a Christian faith, she could not be a better pastor and shepherd. For those who do not have such a faith, there could be no better ambassador. Dover will gain immeasurably from her arrival as its suffragan bishop.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I wish you every success and your family every happiness for the future. It might not be so easy for me to see directly eye to eye with your successor; that might be more of a physical challenge for some of us. I wish you well and hope that all goes happily for you and your family in the future. In the end, we ought to remember that the things that bring us here in our desire to serve our communities are more important than the things that may divide us on political grounds.

[Mr Speaker]

The beauty of the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to Reverend Rose will, I think, remain with colleagues for a long time to come. As to the matter of physical stature, he, I and the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) share in common that characteristic of notable shortness, but I have always argued that we should at least be regarded as environmentally friendly on the grounds that we do not take up excessive space.

European Union (Withdrawal)

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I have been a member of my party for 50 years, and throughout that time, I have believed in our membership of the European Union. I campaigned for that in the referendum. My constituency voted to remain in the European Union, albeit by the very narrowest of margins, but my side lost and I accept therefore that we need to leave the European Union. I want to leave with a deal. People in my constituency and businesses—those who work hard to build wealth in this country—are genuinely concerned about the impacts of leaving without a deal. Their concerns are not illegitimate: they are real, and they need to be addressed. Equally, they have real and genuine concerns about prolonged uncertainty, and we as politicians need to weigh heavily the damage perhaps done reputationally to our body politic.

These are not easy matters. We have had a great many statements of bold certainty in this debate and too many other things—perhaps too much hyperbole and not enough pragmatism. My conclusion, to try to reconcile that narrow margin in my constituency and those conflicting but genuine concerns of my constituents, has been to vote three times to leave with a deal. I wish others had done so as well.

If I believed that passing this motion today would make it easier for us to achieve a deal, I would support it, but I do not believe that it does. You will know, Mr Speaker, that I have not been afraid to defy the Whip of my party in the past when I thought it right and proper to do so. But after real heart searching and thought, I have concluded that it would not have that effect, and that it might, regrettably, have the contrary effect, of reducing the Government’s leverage in negotiations. If we are to get a deal, the only point that we will realistically do that now is at the Council on 17 and 18 October. I do not wish to bind the hands of the Government in the run-up to that.

It may be a narrowing window of opportunity to get a deal. We may not succeed, but for the sake of my constituents, and to reflect that narrow margin in my constituency and in the country and try to find a means of us moving on together, I believe that we should try to seize that opportunity. I do not impugn for one second the motives or the integrity of those who have proposed this motion—many of them are among my dearest and best friends in this House—but I believe it would be mistaken to support it. For that reason, I will support the Government. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to think again before we cross the Rubicon. For 50 years, many of us have worked together. I hope we can continue to do so in the future, and I hope that they will reflect one last time before taking the step of voting against the Government tonight.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker, and in an endeavour to fulfil that injunction, I say, as lawyers would, that I adopt most of the arguments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) made, particularly his masterly analysis of some of the matters, and I do not intend to repeat them.

However, it is important to recognise that there is a potential conflict between two important concepts: the revived use of the Humble Address, which may be of value to the House, and the imperative of protecting the concept of lawyer-client privilege generally, and particularly as it relates to advice given to Government. Having been a much less distinguished member of the Government than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), I confirm what he said about the way in which legal advice is received by Ministers. The impression has been given that it is as if, a little like in private practice, we are asked to produce one big rolled-up opinion as a nice document for which one charges appropriately. That is not what happens in practice here. We need to draw that distinction.

Another point concerns the particular nature of the Law Officers’ convention, which goes beyond the normal lawyer-client privilege. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly conceded that it was wrong to attack the Attorney General because he is not the client but the Government’s lawyer. Having known my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General professionally and personally for the better part of 30 years, I have absolute faith in his integrity. I believe that he did everything he could to fulfil the injunctions placed upon him. I have absolute confidence that he spoke frankly and that he would not, as the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who is not in his place, unworthily suggested, cherry- pick. My right hon. and learned Friend has never approached his responsibilities as a lawyer or a politician in that way. In a sense, the wrong person has been put in the dock.

I will support the Government amendment because the conflict between the use of the Humble Address and protecting parliamentary privilege requires something more than the summary disposal that will come at the end of the debate. The way in which we deal with the interaction between those two matters warrants serious consideration. If the Humble Address process is to be updated, perhaps it is a matter for not just the Committee on Privileges, but the Procedure Committee to look at. I offer that as a constructive suggestion.

For a proportionate way forward, the Committee on Privileges is best placed to consider the matter in a dispassionate and evidence-based way and I therefore support that. Perhaps the Committee might look at the option that the Father of the House floated. However, for today, I urge hon. Members to accept the Government amendment and not to imperil a fundamental legal and constitutional privilege.

Business of the House

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman might be aware that a number of Members have raised this issue with me in recent days. Both the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Information Commissioner’s Office are putting out further advice for MPs. My own parliamentary staff undertook the first round of training, and found it much too generic: there was not enough detail about the consequences for pre-existing data we hold on constituents who have contacted us before, and so on. So there is now a huge effort under way to ensure that MPs get the advice they need so that they can be absolutely clear about the impact this has on their relationship with their constituents. To be clear, it is vital that our relationship with—our ability to communicate with, about and on behalf of—our constituents is not impaired in any way.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

In the first two months of this year, there were 413 domestic burglaries in the London borough of Bromley, some 32% up, and 38 of them were in the Chislehurst ward alone. They are largely carried out by organised gangs of criminals, almost invariably armed and willing to threaten, and sometimes use, violence. It is not unique to Bromley, either, or to other parts of London. Many of my constituents regard this as a crime of violence and think that, frankly, all domestic burglaries should be treated as crimes of violence because of the invasion of someone’s home, family and privacy. May we have a debate in Government time on having a joined-up strategy for tackling this through both police priorities and the sentencing framework?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s experiences in his constituency, and of course any form of burglary, particularly when violence is threatened, is very frightening and harrowing for the victims. I encourage him to seek either a Backbench Business Committee debate or an Adjournment debate so that he can raise his particular concerns directly with Ministers.

Business of the House

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that good lawyers are always available, even at short notice.

So far, much of the debate about the European Commission’s draft withdrawal agreement has centred on its effect on Northern Ireland, but hidden away in one of the footnotes is, regrettably, a restatement that Spain would have a veto on the application of either a transitional or a final agreement to the overseas British territory of Gibraltar. May we have an early, perhaps even an immediate, statement from the Leader of the House that Her Majesty’s Government’s position remains that such a scenario is wholly unacceptable, and that Britain will in no circumstances agree to any arrangement that prevents Gibraltar from being treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I hope I can give my hon. Friend the assurance from the Dispatch Box that Gilbraltar’s interests will be protected, as will every other part of the UK and our dependencies. He raises an important point, and he will be aware that the Prime Minister is making a key speech tomorrow, and I will certainly make sure that I pass on his comments.