Neil Coyle
MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark · Labour · United Kingdom
“I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Cabinet. It took months of legal wrangling and court time to secure a £1 million refund for leaseholders and £9 million in remediation works on Empire Square in Southwark.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing the debate. I will focus my comments on the cycle hire regulations in Southwark.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Then there is Whelan’s, a pub in Rotherhithe with a bike bay outside that overflows regularly with dumped bikes, blocking the way of customers and blocking a bus stop, but most worryingly, blocking the delivery of beer to the pub. A pub without beer cannot stay open very long. It is on a red route, so alternatives are limited.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Southwark council could replicate Ealing and remove bikes at cost to the providers. Constructively, the council could move the bay outside Whelan’s to the verges on the opposite side of Rotherhithe Old Road.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Lime claims it has 400 staff to clear bays and more need directing to those sites, but it says Southwark council sends no one to them. Council inaction is even more inexcusable because Lime has a £500 million fund to provide bays that local authorities can bid for.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the point about Westminster council and data, does the hon. Gentleman support the Mayor of London’s request that the new Government regulations require all providers to share information on how many bikes and vehicles they have on the road in our capital, and wherever else they are operated? I obviously have a London interest.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,562 lines on record for Neil Coyle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 6 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I do not remember any western in which a sheriff held a roundtable. In terms of the outcome, what is the pace at which counterfeit or dangerous goods will be removed? That is the concern for consumers. Even if I buy something, discover that it is shoddy and report it through the process in the Bill, there is still a significant gap in time before something is taken off. The takedown power is crucial to prevent further hundreds, thousands or millions of that product being sold or marketed to people when it is known to be dangerous or faulty and could put lives at risk.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister is coming to it, but the takedown power is the crucial bit to do that and it is what the OPSS, which he refers to, says it wants.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his reassurance that this will be looked at over the summer. As things stand, the Government are saying—the Minister has just said—that a product could cause a fire and potentially a fatality, but still the process would be to report it through a particular agency and possibly take court action, rather than what the regulators want to do and customers want to see, which is the take-down of the item to prevent any further dangerous incident or potential fatalities. I hope that the Minister gets to a point where that immediate power will be available.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With that reassurance of looking at this further over the summer and to improve on where things stand, I will take the Minister at his word. The idea that we can support everything in a product safety review that will start we know not when feels a bit like missing the bus—or missing the stagecoach, to stick with the analogy. The powers need to be in the Bill to ensure that when the product safety review is done, the vehicle is already available to enable dangerous or counterfeit goods to be removed, but given his reassurance, I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn . Clause 217, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 18 Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those goods, known to be dangerous, are still online. Removing fake reviews might help to prevent people from buying such shoddy items, but removing the goods altogether should be the fundamental aim. I politely suggest that the Minister adds ESF and specific consumer groups such as Which ? to his round of pending meetings, to ensure that the Bill is improved—and to tackle the problem that he previously acknowledged existed. He likened himself earlier to “Pale Rider”. He may think he is “Pale Rider”, but I am not convinced that he has turned up on a horse, or even on a pony. Given that there is no baron here, it is more as though he is on a rocking horse.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
““A portable heater” was on eBay and people were saying it was fine, but it had “easy access to live parts with 240 volts running through the heating element, posing” what ESF called “an imminent risk to life.” Another example is a “‘water-proof’ extension lead… on Amazon.” Guess what? There are “no water-proof capabilities” and this “presents a significant risk of electric shock. This item has already been recalled as unsafe by the Office for Product Safety and Standards”. A combination of the takedown power and the removal of fake reviews that claimed that these products were okay and good to use would be a significant step forward—one that, sadly, is not in the Bill. One last example is the bargain beauty products—not something I buy often for myself—on eBay that had no fuse in the plugs. That is how dangerous they were.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would be better for good business, better for customers and better for ensuring that standards were upheld. The charity Electrical Safety First, which is based in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, has said that in one of its investigations 93% of products bought from online marketplaces were unsafe—93%! In some significant part, that is down to fake reviews imposing a false legitimacy on goods. People buy because they believe other people have bought and have had an enjoyable experience or got the product they sought. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has already provided examples of the need to protect consumers, and I draw the attention of the Committee these live examples, which are happening right now.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston and the hon. Member for Gordon have already made some excellent points, so I will be brief. Amendment 125 would add fake reviews to the list of banned practices. No customer should be hoodwinked by the deceitful practice of submitting a fake review. Fundamentally, many customers see fake reviews as fraud, which is the fastest-growing crime. Our police services are overstretched and sadly, under this Government, they do not have the resources to tackle fraud. The amendment examines alternative routes to securing action to tackle a problem that is leading to dangerous circumstances, as has been outlined. Amendment 125 would provide a stronger power than the one proposed, and it has been called for by organisations representing British customers and responsible British businesses.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that airing that specific, possibly niche concern today will give us greater time to capture it and ensure that the Bill does not preclude action against rogue traders where specific prices are agreed up front but that is not the deal that takes place, because someone pays for a cheaper or even a more expensive alternative that does the same job. Having flagged that concern, I hope that the Government will look again at the wording and at how they will meet their overall aim, which I support.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“An example might be where someone arranges for a person to come and fix a car part, a boiler or a pipe leak, and that person then arrives and says, “The product you’ve looked at online is not compatible with your boiler,”—or their fittings, their car or whatever it might be—“but guess what: I’ve got a different one in the van that’s a bit cheaper,” or a bit more expensive, “but will do the job better for you.” By making a slight change to the wording of the Bill to remove the words “and its price” on page 150, amendment 126 would deal with that kind of rogue practice, which is out there and which has been raised by trading standards. The fear among the bodies that are trying to secure greater action against rogue traders is that the existing wording of the Bill allows wiggle room and will let the dodgy practices continue.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The existing wording might stop the Government meeting the aims that they are setting out to achieve. The suggestion is that the specific requirement that the price be covered, if that is not the price paid, will potentially prevent action from being taken against a trader who deliberately advertises a price, but then changes it.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have a few brief supplementary comments, further to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston. I just want to point out an anomaly and the problematic nature of the wording of the Bill, which I hope the Government will re-examine before they go further. Amendment 126 would expand the definition of “invitation to purchase” to cases in which the information provided to a consumer covers the characteristics of a product, but not its price. That might sound counterintuitive, as it did to me when I first went through this with organisations, but it would expand the goods and services covered by the legislation. That is important, because the use of “price” in the wording of the Bill could prohibit action against a rogue trader.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister says that clause 250 is relevant only in certain circumstances. Can he be clear that the Government’s intention is not for the provision to cover someone who has perhaps been a decades-long subscriber to, for example, Sky? I hate to pick a particular company, but it is for the purposes of the conversation—I am not a Sky subscriber. Is the Minister saying that, if a person had had a contract for a decade and was a regular viewer of sports channels, or whatever it might be, they would not be caught by the clause? The “certain circumstances” do not seem to be well understood by some businesses outside this building.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think that Sky briefed quite widely—it briefed members of the Committee and beyond—that it thinks that it is caught by the provision and that it covers all contracts. I can understand that a person would be caught by the new provisions if they had a new contract where there was a discount, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston already pointed out, but to impose the condition retrospectively on business contracts that someone could have had for decades seems to place a new onus on existing business arrangements. The Government have avoided doing that in other legislation, and I wonder about the rationale. I picked Sky off the top of my head, but it is an organisation that is concerned.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous. To be clear, is it the Government’s expectation that a subscription could be cancelled through a single communication from any device or social media platform? Over recent days, significant figures have tried to close bank accounts and other things by tweeting. Is it the Government’s expectation that this communication would come from a verified point of contact, such as an email address or phone number that the company holds? Otherwise, I could set up a Twitter account—or a Threads account, as we have seen this week—in the Minister’s name and then cancel his TV, or other, subscriptions.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Sorry if I was not clear. I thank the Minister for checking. Will it have to be from a single point of contact, such as a verified address, to protect the customer as well as the business? If I wanted to cancel a contract, would I have to use the email address or phone number that the company holds for me and not, as the Bill currently reads, a Facebook post or something that the business may not be able to confirm is mine? Does that help?”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think that last comment about a tweet not being sufficient would be welcomed by responsible businesses that just want to use the verified contact details. The other point is perhaps a bit more worrying, Chair. We are quite well into this Bill Committee. There is an economic impact assessment. The Minister has said today that the measures would be implemented immediately, but has just corrected that in his final comment. The assessment set out here does not now include the cost to business of implementing these measures, because we do not have a start date. How can businesses plan to implement measures when they do not know their start date, and they do not know because the Minister is still clarifying what would be considered sufficient contact from a customer to close an account?”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is important at this stage to flag that concern, because there is a deep resentment, almost, from the sector over the Government’s suggestion that trading standards take this on, yet the Government still insist that it is the appropriate vehicle. I hope there is still time to review which alternative body might be able to take on this task. This feels like something that a national body should deal with, and it should not sit with local authorities as operators and rogue traders may cover whole regions of the country, not one single local authority. I did listen to the Minister, and take onboard his suggestion that the FCA is not necessarily the right vehicle, therefore I am prepared to withdraw this amendment, as drafted, but I would like to see a commitment to reconsider where this responsibility sits.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 7 would have made the FCA the relevant body, rather than local authorities, but the point of the new clause is that trading standards should not be made responsible for something when they do not have the expertise or resource to be effective. If the Government do not think it should be the FCA, it is up to the Government to come back and find the right body. It is the Government’s legislation; they want it to be effective, and for these saving schemes to not collapse and leave people without, so it is incumbent on the Government to come up with either the resources and skills—training, whatever it might take—for trading standards to do this, or an alternative body to oversee these specific saving schemes.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Again, this is the Government trying to insist that local government take on greater responsibility after cuts to their own resources. Southwark is a case in point. We have seen similar cuts to trading standards, but also to the overall council’s budget. The Government reduce the responsibilities of central Government Departments, such as the Home Office, and pass on additional costs running into the millions for things such as emergency children’s services with no recourse to public funds, without giving additional resources to councils to do so. This is another case in point where the Government are trying to push a new power and demand on to an already overstretched and under-resourced arena.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will come back to its direct comments— “and therefore should be in the remit of a national regulator with the experience and resources to deal with financial matters. CTSI would like to see all references to local authorities removed in these provisions and to pass on responsibility.” The Minister says that the FCA is not the right vehicle or body. Perhaps there is space and time to examine what that body should be. The point made by trading standards is that they do not have the skillset to oversee financial services in the way that the Government are demanding. They do not have the resources—that is the point made in our evidence sessions. This follows 13 years of cuts to weights and measures—to trading standards—which we have seen across the country; there has been a 50% cut in their capacity to do the job.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government say that they have assessed where this should sit; they say that they have worked with partners and consulted, but that does not seem to be the feeling of the chartered institute covering the sector, whose language is interesting: “These brand new provisions have been inappropriately dumped on local authority trading standards to deal with, but it would be much better placed to give the Financial Conduct Authority the responsibility to regulate new provisions on savings schemes which are similar in nature to banking and other financial matters already regulated by the FCA. Saving schemes are often national schemes”— such as Farepak, which Members will be familiar with. No individual local authority could have prevented what happened with Farepak; I think that is the point it is making.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have a couple of points; I will try to keep them brief. The clause fundamentally rejects where the Government suggest the responsibility for oversight of a savings scheme should sit. I was just listening to the Minister, and it is probably worth flagging up the message from the Chartered Trading Standards Institute on this.”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I wonder whether the Minister could pinpoint where in the Bill’s impact assessment documents the estimates are for the number of cases that the Government expect under this legislation, the average time for a case to be heard and the amount that the Government will be resourcing courts?”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister say why the Government chose a costly court process—costly to Government and to individuals, as well as more time-consuming—rather than a specific measure that allows for a body already set out in a schedule to require the removal of information on products that are known to be faulty or counterfeit?”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the time that someone is going through the process—potentially for months and months—products that are dangerous to individuals might still be online. I am keen to hear from the Minister what will happen in the interim. What is to stop sellers and online marketplaces continuing to retail products that are dangerous to individuals or are counterfeit goods? We will come to this next week, I think, but there is an alternative: the take-down power suggested by trading standards. With what is out there currently and what the Bill intends, we hear lots of analogies about the wild west, but it all feels a bit as if, instead of getting a Clint Eastwood figure to address the problems, we are getting a Deputy Dawg.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was promised some further information that has not arrived yet; I do not know whether it is in the snail mail or the Minister’s crayons ran out or something, but I hope it is coming. As has been raised this morning, there is no information yet from the Government about their expectations for how many cases will be taken to court, how that will have an impact on the backlog, or what the cost will be to Government or individuals. The reason people will end up at Citizens Advice is that they are seeking legal information; Citizens Advice needs to be resourced to support people and to take cases. In connection with this group of clauses, we are not hearing what the Government intend to do to support cases that need to be taken. And, of course, it takes time.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I did not intend to speak, but I want to press the Minister on the approach that the Government are choosing to adopt in this group of clauses. What the Bill intends is welcome, as we have heard from witnesses and from elsewhere. Fundamentally, customers want quick redress, and businesses want justice and the removal of counterfeit or fake products that undermine their licences and appropriate trading. The Government’s approach—specifically in these clauses, heading for the courts—ignores the backlog that my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has spoken about. On Tuesday, we heard from the Minister for London that the Government did not have an agreement with Citizens Advice, or funding set aside for Citizens Advice, to support people to take a case through the courts.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Within clause 181 there is the option for someone who is potentially identified as selling rogue or dangerous products to use a reasonable excuse. Can the Minister better define what a reasonable excuse might be? Companies and individuals could choose to prolong the timeframe involved in order to sell more goods that are hooky while the process is followed.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To be clear, I am not looking for a list of what companies or individuals might use as an excuse for selling dangerous goods; I wondered whether the Minister would set out the timeframe, as the clause, and associated clauses, are not clear about how long companies and individuals get to provide information or remove dangerous products. What is there to prevent someone from saying, for example, “We have this product on our online marketplace, but it is manufactured in another country. We have been trying to contact the manufacturer, and it has taken some time to identify the specific individual.”? In that time, of course, the individual could have sold more counterfeit and dangerous goods, or have changed their email and other addresses in order to avoid the removal of their products online.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“South London and Maudsley is the mental health trust that covers my constituency. This year, as a direct result of the Secretary of State’s wider policies, SLaM is cutting £45 million from services. He has said today that he wants to improve mental health care and that he takes safety concerns seriously, but when will those words be meaningful for mental health care for patients and their families in Southwark?”
House of Commons28 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is there a reason why trading standards is not on this list? It would be the go-to for a consumer or business under existing law, so why is it absent from this list?”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If a consumer believes that they have been sold something that is counterfeit or damaging, which might meet the “detrimental effects” test, where would they go to find out how to address that issue? If a British company has a licence and a trademark, and it sees someone selling fake goods online, thereby undermining the company’s work and trademark in the UK, how does it go about addressing that? In the evidence session, a question was asked about raising awareness of changes to legislation. Could the Minister take a brief moment to explain those two routes to getting change?”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When witnesses from trading standards sat here two weeks ago, John Herriman and David MacKenzie told us that there needed to be an awareness-raising campaign about the changes. Has the Minister done that, or is that intended to come after the enactment of the Bill? How will that come about?”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Perhaps rather than chapter and verse, just one sentence would be fine. Will the Government resource Citizens Advice to provide the new information on a whole new legislative change in consumer rights?”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Apologies for coming back on this, but that is not an answer. Citizens Advice came to the Work and Pensions Committee just a few weeks ago to say that its advisers, many of whom are volunteers, face the most dire circumstances of their 80-year history; the circumstances are worse than they were during the second world war. That is its assessment of the financial situation that its bureaux face in trying to help people. Is the Minister saying that Citizens Advice will be resourced to provide the additional information?”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is an alternative. There was a suggestion from trading standards representatives of a take-down power, which would bypass the longer route that adds an administrative burden and places the onus on businesses and individuals. Can the Minister explain or furnish us in writing as to the rationale for not seeking the take-down power and a more immediate means of addressing a problem?”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Excessive cost for nil result—does not that assessment sum up not just the Minister’s flawed Home Office plans, but the incompetence at the heart of the whole sinking Government?”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister will have heard the witnesses last week, including witnesses from trading standards. Will the amendments in this grouping be replicated to address the concerns of trading standards and ensure equivalence across the regulatory powers?”
House of Commons22 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is the Minister suggesting that the equivalent powers to access information, which were specifically addressed last week by trading standards representatives, will be covered by this legislation?”
House of Commons22 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am hoping for clarity. I think there were attempts to get information to the Minister when I intervened before. Last week, trading standards specifically asked for the powers that are being discussed in these amendments. I appreciate that this grouping is for a different regulatory body, but does the Minister aim to set up equivalence for regulatory bodies, or is the new body to have greater powers than an existing body with a similar purpose?”
House of Commons22 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend the shadow Minister has been accused of repetition, but she made a point about resources. The Minister is making further comments about the capacity and tasks of the regulator, so perhaps he could come back to the earlier question on resourcing, about which a lot of concern was expressed last week in the evidence sessions. Will the Minister address some of that and tell us how the new body will be resourced to fulfil all the tasks that he is discussing?”
House of Commons20 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister made reference to the analogue competition. That equivalent is trading standards and physical competition, but last week they told us that they had had a cut of 50% in their capability to tackle problems. The Minister is talking about powers to investigate, to assess, to recall, to monitor and to review, all within a fixed timetable, against companies with very significant resources, so what capacity will there be to review the powers and resources of the new body and how will it be kept up to date in terms of its skills?”
House of Commons20 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister’s assertion is not shared by the News Media Association. The Opposition amendment tries to address some of the concerns around timeframes of designation and final offer mechanisms. Will the Minister tell us why he thinks the News Media Association’s briefing is inaccurate?”
House of Commons20 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Peter Eisenegger: The Bill has clauses that allow us to address that in terms of, “Has the information put before the consumer been complete and accurate?” If something does not comply with safety standards, that has been omitted. It is a question of interpretation that we would have to nail down and make clear.”
House of Commons13 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q The Bill aims to protect consumers and challenge unfair competition online, but one significant disadvantage for British companies and consumers is counterfeit goods sold on platforms such as Amazon. For example, the British company that holds a licence to make Peppa Pig toys has the trademark and the patent, and meets the standards, including safety standards, but counterfeit goods, particularly those imported from other countries such as China, are dangerous and do not meet safety conditions. Will the Bill help end that situation for consumers and companies here? Is it an opportunity to do so or, if not, is it amendable to achieve that?”
House of Commons13 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given the jump in mortgage arrears, and to help everyone who is struggling to pay the Tory surcharge on their mortgages since the disastrous mini-Budget, is the Minister considering increasing access to mortgage interest relief?”
House of Commons13 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He told everyone he would take his own life. The police attended, but he fell and was pronounced dead the following week. That is what the mental health crisis means in practice—the loss of life, the human tragedy. Stephen deserved better, and if individuals like him, whole communities such as mine and multiple public services are not to face similar situations, with the avoidable costs and loss of human life, mental health reform must deliver better. I hope we see a serious case review and I look forward to that coming forward.”
House of Commons7 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He was ultimately sectioned and detained for his own wellbeing, but then discharged to the unsafe home that he had told everyone he was unable to live in. He called the London Ambulance Service daily. He and others called the police. The police told me they had visited and intervened 56 times in recent months due to his behaviour. It was a crisis for him, for his neighbours in the street, including Norma and the Groombridges, who were trying to help him, for the London Ambulance Service, which is already overstretched and struggling, and for the police, who now say they may have to stop responding to mental health call-outs. Stephen was discharged and did not get sufficient support. On Wednesday 19 April, just three days later, he climbed through the window frame on the top floor of a Browning Street building.”
House of Commons7 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister made some claims about figures at the Dispatch Box just now, but SLAM told me last week that, despite the level of the crisis, it is cutting £45 million this year. What that means in practice is horrible. I wish to talk about the human impact. I met Stephen Crawford through the Walworth community council. I have known him since 2010. To be clear from the start, this was a man who was known to the local community and known to council care workers and local mental health services. He had severe anxiety. He was a sweet, gentle soul, but he was a target for those seeking to misuse him and his home with criminal intent. Understandably, he became very agitated about his home following break-in attempts and thefts.”
House of Commons7 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗