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 8 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.
“The chatty mums network of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe recently met me to raise concerns about the cost of living and lack of affordable childcare. What assessment have Ministers made of the impact of cuts to universal credit and the new Tory tax on working mums from April?”
House of Commons31 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Prime Minister told Parliament and the British people that there were no parties. We now know that he attended several, including one at which he was ambushed with cake, in his most pathetic excuse yet. Given his previous statements, which we know to be patently false, how does he explain why this report says that at least 12 parties in his home warrant police investigation?”
House of Commons31 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Prime Minister describes Ukraine and Russia as equal parties, and we know he likes a party. He also said that “Ukraine has scarcely known a day of peace” since the 2014 Russian invasion and illegal annexation. Indeed, in December there were 128 shellings of Ukrainians in Donetsk, and three Ukrainian soldiers have been murdered by Russian-backed forces since January. The question is why the Prime Minister has not acted sooner, and why is he even now saying we must wait for full-scale invasion before further sanctions—including on access to SWIFT—and the “Moscow’s Gold” report recommendations are implemented? Why wait?”
House of Commons25 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Secretary of State therefore amend the Building Safety Bill to finally clarify responsibility and load the burden where it belongs—on the developers, builders and manufacturers—so as to properly protect leaseholders, as Ministers have promised multiple times but which today’s statement fails to deliver?”
House of Commons10 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is four and a half years since Grenfell. The Secretary of State has made clear today that the Government have failed to solve the problem, but he then said that his chief action has been to write a letter to developers to ask them to come along to a meeting. That is simply not good enough for the thousands of leaseholders affected in Southwark. The biggest threat in this statement is to allow the backdating of action against those who have installed unsafe products over 30 years, but it is leaseholders who will be forced to take on the legal and other burdens involved, including the fees.”
House of Commons10 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“9. We know the Prime Minister is happiest at Peppa Pig World, but in the real world, people in Southwark face rising energy bills, rising shopping costs, and a new Tory tax. Leaseholders also face huge costs for fire safety works post Grenfell required by his Government, so will the Prime Minister try to keep just one promise in 2022 and protect all leaseholders from those costs, and will he back the cross-party campaign to make those works exempt from VAT in order to add £1 billion to the building safety fund?”
House of Commons5 January 2022Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As it stands, the Nationality and Borders Bill will criminalise the work of the RNLI, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), acknowledged in Committee; it is an outrageous situation. I have tabled an amendment to prevent the RNLI from being prosecuted for its courageous humanitarian work. Will the Home Secretary meet RNLI staff and volunteers and adopt my amendment to protect these frontline life savers, who have sadly already been the target of abuse and attacks because of the Government’s irresponsible narrative and media headlines on this issue?”
House of Commons22 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that the Minister will outline whether children are intended to be placed in those centres.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I had to wait weeks for this…and this meant I couldn’t open a bank account.” It can be problematic to open a bank account within 28 days and, as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), confirmed in June, it can take weeks to access a national insurance number. The average wait for a new national insurance number is 10 to 12 weeks, not the 28 days found in measures for refugees. The current 28-day “move on” period is incompatible with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which gives local authorities a 56-day period to work with households at risk of homelessness and to provide alternative accommodation.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Currently, someone who has claimed asylum and been given refugee status will see their asylum support and section 4 support stop 28 days after that decision, which is out of sync with Government welfare and housing policy and insufficient time to move on with affairs. At that point, refugees stop getting their cash allowance and have to move house. While they get permission to work, they need both a bank account and a national insurance number for that. There are potential pitfalls to opening a bank account. Zikee, an ambassador for the Voices Network said: “The biggest problem I faced when I received my refugee status was that I was asked to move out of my Home Office accommodation within 28 days…this affected me so much as I did not have my…biometric resident card due to a Home Office error.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would extend the current 28-day “move on” period for newly recognised refugees to 56 days. According to the British Red Cross, the London School of Economics and others, that could benefit the public purse by more than £7 million annually and address the profound human costs of poverty and homelessness. I thank the British Red Cross for its help with the new clause and its broader research and work in the area. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I receive support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project in this policy area.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am almost sorry, but the Minister’s answer ignores the reality and the situation in which people find themselves. He does not have an answer about the anomaly in housing or social security policy, and he has not even tried to explain why the Government are ignoring the potential savings to the public purse. I will press the new clause to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I ask that the Government consider those practical solutions that could take the power away from people smugglers and traffickers, who the Minister routinely calls evil, with which I agree, while honouring our commitment to the refugee convention. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On arrival, they would be deemed to have made a protection claim in the UK and go through the normal asylum process. They would have access to legal aid and there would be a right of appeal in the first-tier tribunal against the refusal of a France asylum visa application. That would be a full merits appeal and would not be limited to a review of the original decision-maker’s decision. The tribunal will decide for itself whether the criteria are met. That appeal process utilises the existing machinery of immigration appeals under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. There would be onward rights of appeal to the upper tribunal and Court of Appeal under sections 11 and 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, as with other types of immigration appeal.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are likely to be good reasons for her claim to be dealt with in the UK, so the criterion is likely to be satisfied. That is an illustrative example, but decision makers would make up their minds on the facts of each individual case, having regard to all relevant factors. The procedure for making the application would be to the appropriate decision maker—an entry clearance officer authorised by the Secretary of State—and they would be required to waive biometric and other procedural requirements if satisfied that the applicant could not be reasonably expected to comply. There would be no fee for the application. The successful applicant would be given leave to enter for a period of not less than six months, prescribed by the Secretary of State, who would also prescribe the conditions of such leave.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In considering whether there are good reasons, the decision maker will take into account the relative strength of their family or other ties to the UK and France; their mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities; and any other matter the decision maker thinks is relevant. To give a brief example, applicant X applies for a France asylum visa. She is street homeless in France due to a shortage of available accommodation. She has PTSD and depression as a result of being tortured and has not been able to seek treatment due to her insecure living situation. She has no family and friends in France but has a brother in the UK with whom she has a close relationship and who could support her if she were here. She speaks good English but does not speak French.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The applicable country guidance accepts that if a person is detained for political offence in country A, they are likely to be subjected to serious ill-treatment, so if applicant X’s claim is found to be credible she would be entitled to asylum. The appropriate decision maker believes that applicant X is credible. Applicant X’s claim is likely to have realistic prospect of success, so the criterion is likely to be satisfied. I will keep examples brief in the interest of time. The fifth criterion is about good reasons and is intentionally open-ended. It allows the appropriate decision maker to make a fact-sensitive evaluation of the merits of the case.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is used in paragraph 353 of the immigration rules, which deals with a person who has been refused asylum and has later made further submissions on asylum grounds and says that they have a fresh right of appeal against the refusal of their further submissions. Home Office officials, courts and tribunals are well used to applying that test. The leading case on the realistic prospect of success is WM (DRC) [2006] EWCA Civ 1495. To give an example of how the criterion could work in practice, applicant X applies for a France asylum visa. She is from country A and claims that she is wanted by the authorities of country A for a political offence.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The new clauses provide for certain persons in France to be granted entry clearance to allow them to claim asylum in the UK. The new clauses set out who qualifies: they have to be in France; they cannot be an EU national or a national of Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway or Switzerland; they have to intend to make a protection claim in the UK; their protection claim, if made in the UK, must have a realistic prospect of success; and there must be good reasons why their protection claim should be considered in the UK. The first three criteria are self-explanatory. The fourth criterion—the realistic prospect of success—is a well-established test in UK immigration law.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They would have the benefit of cutting smuggling and potentially saving money in the long term. If they are serious about safe and regular routes, the humanitarian visa option would create them. The new clauses also make use of the border anomaly in Calais. The Government should commit to exploring safe routes if they are serious about preventing dangerous options. The example from Detention Action is of Dylan Footohi, an Iranian refugee who says, “I came to the UK seeking asylum. I came irregularly simply because there was no legal way for me to do so. My journey to the UK took two years; two years of exploitation and abuse and life-threatening experiences.” He felt that that way was the only option. If there had been an alternative, he would have taken it. These new clauses offer that alternative.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 25 proposes a humanitarian visa route, and new clause 26 grants a right of appeal—something that made Tory MPs very excitable yesterday. I do not intend to push the new clauses to a vote; they are aimed at opening dialogue, and they link back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central. If the Government are serious about finding solutions to people smuggling and trafficking, they should consider providing practical routes for people seeking sanctuary, in the way that they do for Syria and Afghanistan, and undertake to review humanitarian routes and how they could work. I thank Bella Sankey of Detention Action for her work on these clauses. There are some fantastic people working on these issues. The purpose of the new clauses is to offer the Government a constructive solution for safe routes.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(3) For the purposes of this section, “relevant provision” means— (a) section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (b) Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c) Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016.’— (Neil Coyle.) This new clause would require the Home Secretary to publish a strategy within two months of the bill gaining Royal Assent on the accommodation of people seeking asylum who are accommodated by the Home Office. Brought up, and read the First time.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(2) The strategy must cover, but need not be limited to, the following— (a) ensuring an equitable distribution of accommodation across the regions of England, Scotland and Wales; (b) the suitability of financial provision provided to local authorities relating to costs supporting accommodated asylum seekers; (c) the suitability of financial provision provided to local authorities relating to costs incurred supporting individuals after they receive a decision on their asylum application; (d) the provision of legal advice to accommodated asylum seekers; and (e) the provision of support from non-governmental bodies.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not think that even the Home Office impact assessment of the Bill accepts what the Minister has just said, because it says that Bill compels some people to take dangerous routes. As I said at the start, however, this is just a probing set of new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 27 Asylum dispersal strategy ‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 2 months of this Act gaining Royal Assent, publish a strategy on the accommodation of asylum seekers under a relevant provision.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Like hotels, Napier and Penally barracks were seen as contingency accommodation—temporary measures because of a lack of suitable dispersal. The Government need to get the dispersal system in place. We do not know what the Government reception centres would look like or where they would be located, nor have the Government said whether people would be accommodated for the entirety of their asylum process. It is proposed that the centres would “provide basic accommodation” and “allow for decisions and any appeals following substantive rejection of an asylum claim to be processed”, but we are conscious of the delays in the asylum system, and it is possible that people could be living in the centres for several months, potentially in remote locations.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We do not know where reception centres will be or the types of accommodation that the Government intend to provide while seeking to move away from dispersal in communities where service providers have argued that it is better for integration. That is why a strategy is required, and I hope the Government accept that they need to move towards a more co-ordinated approach. On dispersal, the British Red Cross has said there is currently nothing in legislation that says people supported under sections 95, 98 and 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 have to be accommodated in any particular way. Dispersal is not underpinned in the current legislation, so a strategy would help clarify the situation for the Home Office and the rest of us.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Its use has just been extended for five years, with the Home Office using a special development order to do so. In his letter to the Committee on 21 October, the Minister said Napier is not classified as an accommodation centre. I think that is a mistake, and I hope the Minister can explain why the Home Office is using a special development order, when the High Court has ruled that the standards and operational systems at Napier barracks are unlawful. As things stand, we do not know what is and is not accommodation according to the Home Office. We have reports and court rulings on unlawful and unfit accommodation.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I intend to table an amendment on the specific issue of what is and is not an accommodation centre on Report, especially with some of the sites being used as contingency accommodation, including a hostel in my constituency that Public Health England suggested should not be used for accommodation for the Everyone In scheme. The Home Office chose to override that advice and use it for refugee and asylum seeker accommodation. The Government now seem to think that dispersal is broken, and they want to open a parallel system of accommodation, but they want to use what they refer to as “reception centres”. I hope the Minister can provide some clarity on that and on whether the Government feel that they need to use the 2002 Act. Perhaps the Minister can clear up this messy situation. Napier barracks has become synonymous with this issue.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I thank the British Red Cross for its help with the new clause, which is very simple and is line with what the Government have said they are committed to elsewhere. It would simply entail publishing a strategy to cover Home Office accommodation, and it aims to ensure an equitable distribution of people across England, Scotland and Wales, that financial support is provided to local authorities in areas where people are seeking asylum in Home Office accommodation, and other elements. Although the Committee has heard that the Government’s intention is to move towards the use of reception centres, it is fundamentally unclear where accommodation is aimed to be and what the Government consider accommodation to be.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) asked the Home Office what the Government were doing to engage with local authorities to understand why offers for dispersal were not matching demand, and to ensure that there was true collaboration. He received a letter in response from the Home Office that stated: “We remain fully committed to working towards the agreed change plan once we have been able to move people out of hotels and into more appropriate Dispersal Accommodation.” I hope the new clause helps the Minister with that aim. I commend it to the Committee.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Not only do they not have decisions four years later, but the Home Office cannot even give a timeframe for when their cases will be concluded. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today when and how the Home Office will cut the horrific backlog that his Government have created. At the end of September 2020, there were 3,621 Sudanese, Syrian and Eritrean nationals who had been waiting longer than six months for a decision on their application. The grant rate across those countries was 94% in the most recent stats. That is an incredibly expensive waste. A strategy, as outlined in the new clause, would help address the underlying costs and focus Ministers’ and civil servants’ minds on cutting delays and lowering the cost to the public purse. Earlier this year the hon.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In November 2020, the Public Accounts Committee warned of a system in crisis, and it recommended: “The Home Office should, within three months, set out a clear plan for how it will quickly and safely reduce the use of hotels and ensure that asylum seekers’ accommodation meets their individual needs.” It would be great to hear from the Minister on how that clear plan is being developed. The new clause would help to address the problem that the Government have created. The time involved comes with escalating costs to the Home Office and the taxpayer. Will the Minister update us on average times and what he is doing to tackle them? I have two examples from Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I have raised the cases of an Eritrean woman and a Mongolian man who have both been seeking asylum since 2017.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The increase in decision-making delays since 2018—prior to the pandemic—has resulted in people staying in asylum accommodation for far longer, which is something the Minister has just said he is determined to tackle, so a strategy should be welcome. The situation is unsustainable and only a strategy to build out of it will address the problem. In April, we had a Backbench Business debate on accommodation, focusing on the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports into asylum accommodation. The NAO reported last July that the system the Government have adopted caused costs to escalate by 28%, and saw a 96% increase in short-term and more expensive accommodation.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will give some background stats: in December 2020, around one in five people in Home Office accommodation were living in a hostel, B&B or hotel—triple the December 2019 figures. In Southwark, there were 1,022 people in dispersal accommodation in June, but, as I have just said, hundreds have arrived since then. The Red Cross suggested: “The Home Office should, as a matter of urgency, address the supply of suitable asylum accommodation, and work with local authorities, devolved governments”, and it pointed out an increase in the demand for asylum accommodation and a rise in the number of people living in inappropriate places.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In fact, when I asked the Home Office what resources the council would receive to support the hundreds of new people, it wrote back saying, “We have given some money to the clinical commissioning group.” That is not part of the council. I had a really useful discussion with the Local Government Association, which said that it would welcome a dispersal strategy and that it wants people to be able to work. There are workplaces that are desperate to take people on, but they cannot get them in. A proper dispersal strategy should look at employment levels in certain areas. Moving people into areas with high levels of employment, rather than into the cheapest accommodation across the country, would actually benefit the workforce and the economy. That strategy would be adopted by any sensible Government, so I do not hold high hopes.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Dispersal is better in the local community: through work with the local community, and by using dispersal accommodation, people are better able to make connections and start feeling part of a city. As Asylum Matters states: “Providing support for people seeking asylum, including finding suitable accommodation, should be carried out in partnership with local government and local community groups.” That is not what we are seeing. For the almost 700 recent arrivals in Southwark, there was absolutely no in-advance co-ordination with the council; the Home Office alerted the council only after opening accommodation. Bearing in mind that accommodation would have been commissioned and procured in advance, there was ample opportunity for discussions to ensure that support was in place, but the Home Office failed to engage.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is helpful, but it has been brought to my attention this week that a 16-year-old is in a Home Office accommodation hotel in my constituency. I do not know whether that is an age-disputed case for the Home Office, but there is clearly a mismatch between the Government’s intent and what is actually happening. Rewan has been living with his two sons, aged 11 and 18, in a hotel room for 10 months. His sons cannot study, and although he is desperate to get work, their living circumstances do not allow for that. Umar was told in October 2020 when he moved into a hostel with his wife and four children—aged 7, 9, 13, and 14—that they would be there for a matter of weeks. They are still there. That is what is happening on the ground and why a strategy on dispersal is required.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister says that things have improved since the court judgment and that, for example, NGOs now have more routine access. The hostel accommodation in Bermondsey and Old Southwark was open for three months before the first visit of Migrant Help on site. I am just not convinced that the Minister has given an accurate portrayal of the current picture and the real situation in a real building affecting hundreds of people in my own constituency.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are leaving the taxpayer with a massive bill for the Government’s failure. Therefore, we will press new clause 27 to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government routinely dodge using the term “accommodation centre” because they do not want to set up an advisory group. If they went through the formal process of designating something as an accommodation centre, an advisory group would help to resolve some of the problems that we have seen at Napier and in the hostel accommodation in my constituency, where they had an almost inevitable covid outbreak. The Minister has not committed to a strategy. We are seeing a longer process, with routine delays for applications and appeals. We are seeing damage to people’s lives. We are seeing damage to the economy because people cannot get a job and make more of a contribution as quickly as would be possible if there were a strategy and a plan.”
House of Commons4 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, an MP can be found guilty of sexual harassment and retain the Conservative Whip; can be found guilty of bullying and keep the job of Home Secretary, overseeing law and order; can break covid rules and be Health Secretary; can break the law and be Leader of the House; and can endanger the lives of our armed forces and allies and be promoted to Deputy Prime Minister. Why should we be at all surprised by the return of cash for questions and Tory sleaze?”
House of Commons3 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is stepping in as Minister, but he just said that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby was right in his assertion that many of those who claim to be asylum seekers are not. Could he remind us of the Home Office statistics on that issue?”
House of Commons2 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In light of the fact that the Minister is asking for the amendment to be withdrawn and given his understanding that decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, can the Minister tell us if the guidance that goes with the legislation will set out the exemptions and the process by which cases will be decided on an individual basis, and if there will not be the blanket exemption that is the Opposition’s understanding?”
House of Commons2 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister said earlier that the tailored plan would support someone until they move back into the community. Can he confirm that that support will be provided whatever setting the person is living in, not only to those who happen to be in a detention centre or accommodation centre, for example?”
House of Commons2 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister is right: a huge number of organisations welcome the specific leave to remain on these grounds. Perhaps he could tell us the average length of time that it takes to prosecute gangs on these specific circumstances and whether it is the Government’s intention to protect anyone who has been trafficked for the entire period of the case in order to prevent them from being intimidated if they are outside the UK and in their country of origin, for want of a better term.”
House of Commons2 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But I am asking very specifically about the circumstances in clause 53(2)(c), where the Government are offering leave to remain on these specific grounds. Is it the Government’s intention that that leave to remain is extended for the period of any case involving the individual who is believed to have been trafficked?”
House of Commons2 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let us try it the other way round. Can the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to end leave to remain during criminal proceedings if that could mean that someone is forced to leave the UK and could be at risk of intimidation in another country?”
House of Commons2 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Could the Minister provide some statistics to help us—I do not expect him to have this to hand, but perhaps he can respond in writing—on the average length of these cases, the number of people granted leave to remain who were believed to be victims of traffickers and the average length of the leave to remain they granted? Those would be useful statistics for the Committee and for the House ahead of Report.”
House of Commons2 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the Minister is suggesting that there would be variation in the lengths of leave provided. Can he set out that it is the Government’s expectation that there would not be a minimum, bog standard six months that everyone is given, and that there will be quite considerable variation in the periods provided?”
House of Commons2 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister is again saying extend, rather than grant for the necessary period. Coming back to the criminal prosecution case, it is very unlikely that the case will be heard within six months. It will not even get to court within six months, let alone be heard. Is it the Government’s expectation that someone will be protected with a period of leave that covers a court case? Will the individual decision maker have access to the average statistics on the time it takes to hear a case of this nature?”
House of Commons2 November 2021Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗