Neil Coyle
MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark · Labour · United Kingdom
“Hundreds of constituents on Acanthus Drive, Abercorn Way and Achilles Close face eviction threats, rent hikes and pressure to sign weaker tenancy agreements from their landlord Freshview and the freeholder BMR St James.”
“Ms Lewell, given all the references to Dracula, I am tempted to point out what a shame it is that none of the bloodsuckers from Reform is here. Given the point the Minister has just made, I invite him—and colleagues—to visit the Golden Hinde in my constituency.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for making an amazing speech and celebrating local history. In my constituency we have the Brunel Museum, which is a fantastic local resource covering engineering history, the Thames and the Brunel family. It makes an estimated £150,000 social value contribution, but it struggles to compete for resources.”
“Does the hon. Member also agree that there is a gap in the information that politicians and those who fund us need to supply? It cannot be acceptable for any Member, or any political leader in the UK, to forget that they met the Russian ambassador, to forget that they met someone who later turned out to be a Russian spy—as did the Reform…”
“Does the hon. Lady at least welcome the job guarantee for 18 to 21-year-olds? Does she think that that represents this Government working with employers such as the Premier League and the FA to create opportunities? Is that not in stark contrast with her Government, who watched opportunities disappear while they did FA?”
“Q6. Yesterday I welcomed Bermondsey PC Kevin Webster to Parliament, after his recognition as the Met’s Police Constable of the Year 2025. Will the Prime Minister commend Kevin for his local work, and that of Labour Southwark council’s amazing night time and antisocial behaviour team?”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Neil Coyle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“I think the Conservative spokesperson just gave the figure of £500 million in pension credit fraud and error last year. Is the Lib Dem spokesperson saying that that is not very much?”
“Could the hon. Member give us the figures on the increase in pension credit take-up for the period during which a Lib Dem held the position of Minister for Pensions?”
“Is the shadow Minister suggesting a level of deductions that is acceptable? The amount that the Department for Work and Pensions can claim back has fluctuated in recent years. Are the Opposition proposing a level at which that threshold should be set?”
“I am not talking about the amount for those who have committed fraud but for the second group that the shadow Minister mentioned, where there perhaps has been a mistake.”
“Is the shadow Minister’s other concern, with those who have committed fraud, that he thinks the payment should be faster? The Bill allows for 100% of this falsely claimed sum to be recouped, but he seems to be suggesting that he would like to see that done faster. Is that the nature of the amendment?”
“I share some concern about the £300 being on the face of the Bill. It is unusual to have the figure stipulated there. Would the Opposition prefer the figure to be stipulated in the code of practice, the guidance or the statutory instruments that go with the legislation, so it can be more easily adjusted over time?”
“I am a trustee/director of Southwark Charities, which provides accommodation for some older people who may be affected by the provisions of the Bill—a cursory reference, really. Examination of Witnesses Professor Mark Button, Dr Rasha Kassem and Professor Michael Levi gave evidence.”
“Again, when you think about the nature of fraud and who is committing it, you are talking about different powers and different motives for individuals versus organisations. There are different assets and different ways of recovery. They are not the same, and therefore that has to be clarified in the Bill.”
“In policing, we talk about organised crime activity and people normally think about organised crime groups. That is a definitional problem that may be too much for the Bill in its present form, and indeed for Governments. They certainly need to think about what conditions apply to which people, and I am sure they have. I am not sure whether that constraint needs to be in the Bill, but Dr Rasha may have a different view. Dr Kassem: For me, when I talk about fraud committed by organisations, it does not have to be organised crime. It could be a legitimate organisation defrauding the public sector. Again, the Bill mentions things around recovery, such as accessing bank accounts and seizing assets—how would they apply in cases of organisation versus individual? That needs to be thought about carefully in the Bill.”
“Q Can I come back in on the point about fraud and error, and the differentiation between organised fraud and fraud by individuals? Are you saying that needs to be more clearly defined? There is potentially a slight difference on the panel: Dr Kassem, you were saying that there needs to be greater clarity in the Bill, and Professor Levi, you were saying that some bits do not need to be in the Bill. Are you saying that they need to be in the guidance? I was a bit confused. Professor Levi: I am not sure that it needs to be in the Bill. Definitions of what we mean by “organised” are typically vague. An act committed by three or more people for the pursuit of profit is a very low bar for organised crime. A fraud by one person can be perfectly well organised, but they are not part of an organised crime group.”
“Q To be clear, for example, if someone who has received child benefit fails to notify a change of circumstances when their child reaches 18, there is no suggestion that that would be considered fraud in this legislation? Dr Kassem: It depends on whether they have knowingly done that, because the differentiating factor between fraud and error is the intent.”
“Q I think they know the date of birth of their child, but so does the Department for Work and Pensions. The distinction is whether that is an error relating to updating their record with the Department, or a deliberate act of fraud so that they can continue to receive a payment that they are not entitled to. My question is: are you saying that needs to be clearer in the legislation—or guidance, potentially, if we listen to Professor Levi? Dr Kassem: Yes, in terms of the intent, because errors could happen. The differentiating factor between fraud and error is the intent to deceive. The example you mentioned could be error or fraud, depending on the intent to deceive. There must be clear criteria in the Bill to at least guide staff in the public sector to differentiate between fraud and error.”
“Q But sticking with that example, it is also an error on the Department’s part to continue making a payment when someone has reached an age where they are not entitled to receive it. Dr Kassem: It could be, yes. Professor Levi: I agree.”
“So does that distinction need to be in there—that there needs to be the flexibility to treat this on an individual basis? Professor Button: I was just going to say that my son recently reached 18 and went to university, and my wife received a letter saying something like, “Unless you have these circumstances, you have to positively say that they are staying on in further education.”, so there would be a clear misrepresentation there, I think. There would not be any opportunity for an error in that particular example, based on my experience with my son.”
“Mark’s son’s case is a perfect example; the Department has clarified so that, if the family had continued claiming under those circumstances, it would be clear that they had committed an offence.”
“But what if the 18-year-old went into work? The point is that the onus is on the individual to make clear the change in circumstances to the Department, but the Department also has the opportunity to question. In your case, you are showing that the Department has done that. Professor Button: They sent a letter, and you had to fill in a form to say that your son was staying on in further education in order to continue receiving payments. Professor Levi: Yes, to reduce the fudge. It is sometimes difficult to see how there can be a legitimate explanation in the case that you are rightly using, but there must be a possibility of arguing. I am not sure myself that that needs to be in the Bill—that is a matter of criminal law, which the Bill does not seek to change in this case—but, in most departmental behaviour, they will adjust.”
“Presumably Parliament would like to see those proposals before they are approved, but there is an issue about parliamentary time—or it could be done through supplemental issues. But I think it is right. Very few people can envisage the future. Look at the impact of technologies in our time. People will find ways of getting around things that you have not thought of yet, so that is pretty normal.”
“Q Good luck to Mark’s son at university. I have one more question regarding Professor Levi’s point about previous experience and organisations being closed down because of appeals and things. Is there a need for this Bill to retain the flexibility in the potential to give bodies new powers over time when challenges arise in either recouping stolen money or challenging potentially fraudulent behaviour? Professor Levi: I am enthusiastic about the extension of the 12-year limitations; I think that is very sensible, particularly in view of the length of time that has elapsed since covid-19. But I am not sure how you would insert something in the Bill that would enable it to be varied.”
“Q Joshua, you spoke about the Bill’s dual powers, both prevention and recovery. I just wonder, is it possible to quantify or estimate a percentage or lump sum figure of how much is expected to be saved from people who know they can no longer attempt to fiddle by not declaring capital or multiple accounts? Are you able to put a figure on that, or would you look for implementation before working on figures? Joshua Reddaway: On how much fraud is created?”
“Q On how much this legislation will prevent people from trying to fiddle the system. There will be people who are aware of the new powers who then do not do it; that is the point you were talking about when it comes to prevention. Joshua Reddaway: Is this the behavioural effect?”
“Q The deterrent effect, yes. Joshua Reddaway: I have not done anything that adds to the information that is already in the impact assessment. I have not audited it, so I would just point to the numbers in there. I know there is an issue around whether people will split their money between multiple bank accounts. Is that also part of what you are referring to?”
“Yes. Joshua Reddaway: I have spoken to DWP and the OBR about that. My understanding is that frankly it is an area of uncertainty, and that they wanted to make an adjustment because they knew there would be an effect but they do not know what that will be. We will have to come back and see what that is. For me, the more fundamental point is that this power will not stop all fraud. It is designed to stop some. Will there be behavioural effects that will limit that? Yes. Does that in itself mean you should not try? No.”
“Q As the new powers are rolled out, where people attempt fraud and a recovery effort is made, that will be clear and quantifiable. Will you be able to put a figure on that? Will you be assessing in any way how much of a deterrent it has been to have the new powers, including the access to bank accounts, for example? Joshua Reddaway: My first instinct is that I would ask DWP how it was going to do that, because that is how the wonderful world of audit works.”
“Of course. Joshua Reddaway: Secondly, I would suggest to them that they can establish a baseline, because this is pretty transparent within their published statistics. You have got a breakdown there of how much fraud is caused by people mis-stating their capital. The reason DWP is able to do that is because when you apply for a benefit, you do not have to provide your bank statements, but when you are subject to an inquiry that informs the statistics, you do have to provide your bank statements. The statistic is generated by the difference between those two processes. That will continue to be the case after this power is enacted.”
“Q Can I ask you a procedural question, Chair? Is it possible to furnish Committee members, through the Clerks, with instances in the last Parliament where codes of practice were missing from legislation? I certainly sat on Bill Committees where we did not even have the costings for Government plans. There seems to be a suggestion that this is not routine or is somehow abnormal. I wonder whether we could have that.”
“These are landmark new powers to investigate fraud across the wider public sector that have not previously been considered.”
“Overall, it is a fundamental change to the way that we do it, and it is part of a broader package. As I said earlier, this saves £1.5 billion over the forecast period, but it is part of a broader suite of measures that amount to the largest ever intervention to tackle fraud of £8.6 billion over that period. Unfortunately, like many of these things, that number is so high because the level of fraud we have is so high. Georgia Gould: I add that the PSFA measures are entirely new. There have previously been no powers to investigate and recover fraud from the wider public sector, outside of tax and welfare. This is some of the highest-value fraud, through procurement or businesses falsely applying for Government grants, which is currently going un-investigated because of the resource pressures that you talked about.”
“The previous Government tried to bring forward the third-party data measure, now likened to the eligibility verification measure, but it did not have the oversight and safeguards in place that we have now. There are a number of totally new proposals in the Bill that are crucial. To your point about the capacity of the police, the powers of search and seizure will be particularly helpful in speeding up investigations into serious and organised crime, because we can crack on with that, as it were, and enter premises without the need to wait for co-ordinated action from the police. The other totally new power that is really important here, and which I personally think is a fairness argument, is the ability to directly deduct from people who receive their income through means other than benefits or PAYE employment.”
“Q The first question is about legacy. The last Government were truly record-breaking. We now have a social security system with the highest ever fraud rates and with little action to tackle it. We heard from witness after witness today that the police have lacked the capacity and resource to tackle the problems. To what extent do you think the legislation is necessary to address the challenge that has gone untackled for over a decade? Andrew Western: I think it is fundamental, given both the lack of previous action that you identify and a general modernisation of powers. The world is changing. The nature of fraud is changing, and the behaviours exhibited by fraudsters are different from those of 10 or 15 years ago.”
“The Minister for Social Security and Disability is doing a tremendous amount of work to reach out to repair relationships where that needs to happen. That work must continue because people make a fair point when they tell us that they are fearful of the DWP. I speak to people who do not want to apply for current benefits; they want to stay on legacy benefits because they fear they will lose entitlement through the application process. That is something that we need to constantly keep under review. We need to look at what we can do to improve those relationships.”
“On specific interventions, I would argue that—although it runs contrary to the evidence that we heard from the witnesses—there is the potential, through the eligibility verification measure, to build trust not just with disabled people but with all people in receipt of benefits, because we will be able to check that they are entitled to what they have. The capture of overpayments at an earlier stage and the ability to know that people who are genuine claimants are receiving the right amount of benefit will help to build that trust. What really erodes trust is someone being captured in a position where they think that they have, for several years, been receiving benefits to which they are entitled but then end up with, for instance, a £35,000 debt to the Department. There is a suite of activity ongoing with stakeholders.”
“Q We also heard, from the previous panel in particular, that disabled people lack confidence or trust in the Department for Work and Pensions—and I think that goes across Government—as a result of their treatment in the last 14 years. The DWP is facing a potential legal challenge from the Equality and Human Rights Commission because of the last Government’s treatment of disabled people specifically. Is there additional work, beyond the measures in the Bill, from either of your Departments, to try to tackle some of those trust and confidence issues, and to try to rebuild confidence in how the Department and the Government treat disabled people? Andrew Western: Yes. We are always looking at ways that we can build stronger relationships and build trust.”
“The Post Office is supposed to follow principles of community engagement in how it handles these issues, but that has not been the case in Blackfriars. It must not happen again. For people worried about that specific site, I want to flag up that there is a lot of interest in running it with an alternative provider. However, that must not come at a loss of services or a loss of rights for the workforce that the state picks up down the line, and all costs must be taken into account. When more is known—we think that will be in April—I will organise a public meeting with local representatives of the Post Office, the CWU and others, which I will advertise as soon as I can for everyone worried about this great community asset.”
“Those making decisions need to be mindful of that. As was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), there is a lack of respect shown to customers and the workforce in the handling of this. Specifically on this site, the Post Office website said that an alternative provider was available on Blackfriars Road. Well, the Post Office shut that post office two years ago this month. It was supposed to reopen—the Post Office said it had bidders for it last summer—but, since my visit two weeks ago, the Post Office has now stated that it will not reopen the Blackfriars Road site at all, which is a massive disappointment for many in SE1 and the local area. The failure to communicate that—again, not a local responsibility—shows a lack of respect.”
“Sadly, they feel blamed for national Post Office failures. Rent is also not the local branch’s responsibility; it does not determine the rent that it pays for its prime Borough High Street location. It is disappointing that the Post Office did not seek a rent reduction in 2020. I saw how, during the covid crisis, rents for commercial and residential premises fell for the first time in the 20 years I have lived in the borough. However, the Post Office failed to negotiate or seek a reduction. That is not the responsibility of the individual staff, who feel they are now being held culpable for a failure that sits elsewhere. It is hard to imagine an equivalent site locally that would be cheaper. If the branch moved away from its high street location, it would lose business and commuter footfall, which could reduce turnover.”
“I hope that it will cover Link and the access to cash campaign, which is already part of that discussion, and that there will be space to talk about the future of business rates for post offices and whether there could be a community interest exemption. I want to flag up a couple of concerns about how the London Bridge branch has been handled by the Post Office. It has an incredibly small team of less than 10 full-time equivalent, and they are incredibly busy, but they have met every target set by the Post Office, including a currency transfer increase last year of more than 20%—we are talking about millions of pounds there. The team have taken on additional services where possible, but those services they have lost have been the responsibility of the Post Office nationally and not the local branch.”
“That is incredibly refreshing after years of mismanagement and mixed messages from mixed Ministers from two different parties since 2010. It is really useful to see the Minister in his place. We may disagree on one issue during the six nations, but he has been a massive champion of post offices and has said on the record that the Post Office should do more when it comes to providing banking services. He has been a doughty champion for the Co-operative party and a champion of post offices having a broader banking and financial footfall, whether that be through a credit union or banking. I hope to hear more from him on those issues. Like posties, he now has to deliver in office as a Minister. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Thank you. I hope that we will hear when the Green Paper will be published. I think the aim is by the end of July.”
“I thank the Post Office for answering some of my questions and for joining me on that visit, but it is disappointing that the branch is in that position, not least because we have a new ministerial team, Government Ministers have stated that there will be £50 million of additional funding and there remains a commitment from the Government to ensuring that every community has access to a post office branch, which is incredibly welcome. I am proud to have stood and won last year on a manifesto that said Labour would look for ways to strengthen the network in consultation with sub-postmasters, trade unions and customers. I am glad that the Government formally recognise that “The UK-wide Post Office branch network is an essential part of the UK’s economic infrastructure, supporting high streets” and “businesses”.”
“Hundreds of people have already signed that petition, which is on change.org, should anyone want to add their signature. I went to the branch two weeks ago to meet the team and saw for myself how busy and loved it was. My constituent Mary—a lovely older lady—was there paying her rent at the time, but it is not just old ladies using post offices. This post office demonstrates how a diverse range of post offices is affected across the country as this branch is hugely busy and serves a massive and vibrant business community at Borough Market and around London Bridge. Of course, it also has London’s fourth-busiest train station right on its doorstep, providing commuter customers on Borough High Street. I visited specifically because of the question mark over the branch’s status.”
“I was pleased to support the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) in securing the debate. It was not the first time I helped him as, in a funny quirk of fate, I house sat for him more than 20 years ago— I think it was 22 years ago, but he is welcome to correct the record if I have got the dates wrong. I thank my London Bridge post office manager Priya and her dedicated team, including Clive and the Communication Workers Union members whom I am proud to serve. They in turn support and serve the London Bridge and Borough High Street community in extremely busy circumstances with massive footfall. That is why there is so much concern about the branch, as demonstrated by the petition to save the London Bridge post office started by London Bridge and West Bermondsey councillors Emily Hickson, Sam Dalton and Sunil Chopra.”
“It has nothing to do with hearing the news. I just wonder whether the shadow Minister can remind us how of many Crown post offices were lost while she was in government.”
“I look forward to working with the Minister on the future of the franchise in my constituency. Is he aware that there were 373 Crown post offices in 2010 but that by 2024 that number had fallen to 115? The shadow Minister either did not know that figure or did not want to admit it.”
“How will the Minister ensure that the safer streets mission is delivered in communities like mine in Southwark, where too often officers are extracted to police protests and the Met is divided between its neighbourhood and national policing roles?”
“On behalf of everyone in Southwark and, I hope, the whole House, I offer the Prime Minister condolences on the loss of his brother over Christmas, and I wish everyone a happy new year. Last July, the public overwhelmingly backed Labour’s manifesto commitment to halving violence against women and girls. Can the Prime Minister set out how today’s vote on the children’s wellbeing Bill is a crucial step to delivering that promise and protecting children without the delay of an unnecessary further lengthy inquiry?”
“What representations have been made to the Chinese Communist party’s ambassador here in London on the consequences of a third round of bounties targeting democracy activists, including British nationals and BNOs, here on British shores?”
“Will the broader China audit include an assessment of the number of Chinese Communist party operatives working in the UK, including through bodies such as the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office? And will the Minister ensure that everyone targeted, whether they are Members of this place, members of the royal family or members of the public with British national overseas status who are originally from Hong Kong, has access to tailored security support?”
“Q14. Southwark faces a significant challenge with antisocial behaviour, but we have fewer police today than in 2010 due to Tory cuts in coalition with the Lib Dems. As the Prime Minister fixes the postcode lottery of law and order, will he consider the request from Southwark police, Southwark council and myself for our community to be a pilot test area for the new respect orders, to address this serious problem?”
“Under the last Government, the DWP faced legal action for its unlawful treatment of disabled people. How will this White Paper, with its positive vision, rebuild trust and better support disabled people going forward?”
“I welcome Ministers’ leadership in attacking the record waiting times inherited from the Tories. Will they in turn recognise Guy’s and St Thomas’ efforts to reduce delays, especially in the ear, nose and throat and paediatric spinal surgery teams? Will the Secretary of State outline measures to protect our NHS from cyber-attacks, which was another issue neglected by the last Government but is affecting patients in Southwark?”
“Q6. Everyone in Southwark will benefit from the positive measures in last week’s Budget, especially the thousands of people on minimum wage, who will get a real-terms increase to help themselves, their families and the economy. The new leader of the Tory party—this week’s leader—is on record as saying that she wants to scrap the minimum wage, having seemingly learned nothing from July. Will the Prime Minister pledge to protect the minimum wage and increase it in this Parliament as finances allow?”