Tag: Neil Coyle

  • Neil Coyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    Neil Coyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Neil Coyle on 2016-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what assessment he has made of the effect of recent changes to universal credit on families in Wales.

    Guto Bebb

    Universal Credit is transforming the lives of the most disadvantaged children and families in this country.

    This Government recognises that work is the best route out of poverty.

    Our welfare reforms have resulted in record numbers of Welsh people going out to work – strengthening families through financial security and improving the life chances of children throughout Wales.

  • Neil Coyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Neil Coyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Neil Coyle on 2016-05-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to the Answer of 3 May 2016 to Question 35165, on Personal Independence Payments, what steps his Department is taking better to understand why sufficient documentary evidence is not being sought during the assessment and mandatory reconsideration stages.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The 75% can be broken down as follows:

    Cogent oral evidence – 66%

    Cogent documentary evidence supplied at the appeal – 9%

    These figures are from internal DWP systems, where only one of possible multiple reasons can be recorded, and are derived from unpublished information and have not been quality assured to National Statistics or Official Statistics standard.

    The Department encourages claimants to provide as much relevant evidence as necessary to support their claim. The “How your disability affects you” form and accompanying guidance sets out the range of information that can help the Department reach a decision. The guidance for Health Professionals also sets out sources of further evidence which could help inform their advice to the Department.

    At the Mandatory Reconsideration stage, again claimants are encouraged to provide any further evidence about their disability. Following the first independent review of Personal Independence by Paul Gray, the Department is reviewing all communications (including those used by Assessment Providers) it has with claimants throughout the claim, assessment and reconsideration process to ensure that claimants clearly understand the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support their claim and application.

    Further, once a claimant has submitted their claim, the Department has created a new Standard Work Instructions (SWI) for its decision making staff to gain further evidence, where appropriate. For Mandatory Reconsideration, the SWI puts a process in place to establish what the areas for dispute are, consider any gaps in the evidence, ensure any expected further medical evidence is received and referring that to the Assessment Provider. “

  • Neil Coyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Neil Coyle – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Neil Coyle on 2016-07-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he plans to take to ensure that Govia Thameslink Railway Limited operate the Southern and London Midlands franchises to a high standard.

    Claire Perry

    The Department monitors each train operator’s overall performance – this includes regular meetings with their senior management where performance is scrutinised and challenged. There are clear actions set out in the franchise agreement should performance drop below what is expected. Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd is the company that operates the Thameslink Southern and Great Northern franchise that includes Southern services. London Midland is a franchise in its own right.

  • Neil Coyle – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Tier 1 Investor Visas Review

    Neil Coyle – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Tier 1 Investor Visas Review

    The parliamentary question asked by Neil Coyle, the Independent MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)

    When her Department plans to publish the review of tier 1 investor visas.

    The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)

    This question has been raised on many occasions, including, funnily enough, by me in a former incarnation. I am pleased to say that we are approaching the moment when I will be able to satisfy not only the hon. Gentleman’s but my desires.

    Neil Coyle

    Sounds fascinating, Mr Speaker, but the Minister—whom I congratulate on his role—knows that this review was commissioned nearly five years ago, so it is pathetic not to be able to give us a direct answer on when it is coming. Contrary to today’s rhetoric on securing borders, can he confirm that this scheme quickly became a security risk to this country, with no fewer than 10 Russians who were approved under the scheme now being sanctioned by the UK, and that more than 6,000 others granted tier 1 visa status are now being reviewed as a security risk to this country?

    Tom Tugendhat

    The hon. Member makes some solid points about the dangers of the involvement of certain states—in this case, Russia—in the United Kingdom. He should also be aware that the visa scheme closed in February 2022, and the response to Russian aggression or Russian influence in this country has been pretty robust. Indeed, since 2019, we have increased spending on the National Crime Agency by 30% and £200 million extra has gone in. As he knows, there is a long way to go and that is exactly what I am going to be doing over the next few years.

  • Neil Coyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Neil Coyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Neil Coyle on 2015-10-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 23 October 2015 to Question 12674, what his Department is doing to ensure that people provide sufficient written medical information for their initial Personal Independence Payment decision to prevent the need for reconsiderations and appeals.

    Justin Tomlinson

    Claimants are invited to provide any evidence that they have to hand when they submit their "PIP2 How your disability affects you" questionnaire. We also ask them who assessment providers can approach to seek further evidence.

    We have worked with organisations representing disabled people to improve our communications; we now provide additional information to claimants outlining more specifically the types of evidence which are most helpful in enabling us to carry out an assessment.

    In every case the health professional conducting the assessment will consider any evidence that the claimant has provided, and will also consider whether further evidence will help them in providing advice on the claim to the Department’s decision maker. Ensuring that the claimant is able to tell us who is best placed to provide supporting evidence forms a core part of our approach. Such evidence can come from a variety of sources, including GPs, hospital consultants, community psychiatric nurses and social workers, as well as family members and carers.

    We would urge all advisors and advocates to encourage claimants to provide relevant evidence at the earliest opportunity to avoid the need for reconsiderations and appeals, and minimise consequent costs for the tax-payer.

  • Neil Coyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Neil Coyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Neil Coyle on 2015-10-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what research licences are under consideration by her Department relating to medicinal benefits of cannabinoids.

    Mike Penning

    The Home Office issues controlled drug licences to those who wish to possess, supply, produce or manufacture controlled drugs. Licences are not issued for individual pieces of research. Licences are not ordinarily granted for individual substances but schedules of substances.

  • Neil Coyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Neil Coyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Neil Coyle on 2015-10-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to the contribution of the Minister of State for Disabled People to the debate on Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People) of 27 February 2014, what progress his Department is making on an assessment of the effect of welfare changes on disabled people and carers; and when his Department plans to publish that assessment.

    Justin Tomlinson

    Cumulative impact assessment analysis published by HMT is the most comprehensive available, as spending is not the only way to help disabled people and carers. It is crucial that any assessment includes looking at further support including health spending, employment support, and investment in infrastructure, as well as the introduction of the National Living Wage, the extended childcare offer for working parents of three and four year olds and the increase to the personal allowance. HM Treasury’s analysis includes these wider impacts in its cumulative analysis.

    However, it is not possible to produce a cumulative impact assessment of policies on disabled people and carers using this model only.

    The Government has published analysis showing how the share of public spending that benefits households and the share of tax paid by households changes as a result of government policy.

    The richest fifth will be paying a greater proportion of taxes in 2017-18 than in 2010-11 as a result of government policy – and more than all other households put together.

    The proportion of spending received by households in each quintile has not changed since 2010-11: around half of all spending on welfare and public services is still going to the poorest 40 per cent of households.

  • Neil Coyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Neil Coyle – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Neil Coyle on 2015-10-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps his Department is taking to increase the accuracy of initial personal independence payment (PIP) decision-making to address the rate of successful appeals of PIP.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The Department monitors the quality and accuracy of its decision making with a robust quality assurance framework where feedback is given to individual decision makers as required. When a decision is overturned by a tribunal, it does not necessarily mean that the original decision was incorrect. A reason for a decision being overturned could, for example, be the provision of additional written evidence that was not available to the original decision maker. That is why we reformed the system, with the introduction of mandatory reconsideration, which enables a further opportunity for evidence to be provided without need to go to appeal. Of course, the Tribunal can form a different view based on the same facts and medical evidence. We will continue to use feedback from the Tribunal to inform the Department’s approach to decision-making or consider onward challenge where that is appropriate.

  • Neil Coyle – 2021 Speech on Universal Credit

    Neil Coyle – 2021 Speech on Universal Credit

    The speech made by Neil Coyle, the Labour MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2021.

    Today is blue Monday, when people feel at their lowest ebb, and the actions of this true blue Government will add to that despair. The Government were elected on a promise to level up, but are cutting help at a crucial time—in the middle of a pandemic, with rising unemployment and restrictions not yet lifted. People worried about their finances and pushed to the edge by covid will see how much the Tories really care today in the way they are holding this debate and in their denial about wider universal credit problems.

    This system has been running for eight years, but it costs more than the legacy system and actually helps fewer people. A third of applicants last year got nothing—turned away at the point of need. It has caused food bank usage to rise dramatically, and food banks tell me that the last thing people require in their support needs is a cut from Government now. Last year, more than 300,000 people got their first payment late, and that figure will be substantially higher this year according to the Government’s own figures. This is a Government whom the UN has shown have created a system that requires people to experience poverty, much of it through in-built delays to payments. Delays are not free: rent does not stop and the need to eat does not stop. The Government’s solution for the people facing those delays is debt. Last year, half a million people seeking help were told they could only have a loan, with the universal credit deficit in the Department for Work and Pensions reaching £1 billion.

    Extra funds are available to help, if the Government fixed the problems. The National Audit Office has shown that more than £1 in every £10 spent on universal credit is erroneous in one way or another, and the Government have not done enough to fix that problem.

    In Southwark, a third of the people on universal credit are in work. The constituents I have seen include a woman whose entire first monthly payment of universal credit was £17.68. I have been helping a man whose combination of furlough and universal credit does not even cover his rent and bills. These are people required to use a food bank from my constituency office in the heart of central London.

    And the Tory response to these circumstances is to cut help. It is extraordinary. We see their true blue values in the wider debate on tackling poverty—values that led to the ludicrous insinuation from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) that Government food vouchers were being used in “crack dens and brothels”, and the suggestion from his Tory colleague the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) that they were being used to buy alcohol, when they simply cannot be. More than 9,000 people in Redcar are on universal credit and deserve better representation. By contrast, their previous MP has been working in a food bank and setting up a book bank to help local children.

    Then, of course, there is the Leader of the House, who has attacked UNICEF and charities helping children in Southwark. The fact that UNICEF and the UN are highlighting and seeking to alleviate poverty in Britain should shame our Government and secure action, but instead the Government attack the messenger. They pretend that their system is working, when it is failing people even with the uplift. They pretend that Labour would scrap the lot, putting out trash information because the truth is too painful for them to admit. They pretend to care. If they really did, they would be hammering on the Minister’s door and demanding an extension of help today, not a cut.

  • Neil Coyle – 2020 Comments on UK/EU Trade Deal

    Neil Coyle – 2020 Comments on UK/EU Trade Deal

    The comments made by Neil Coyle, the Labour MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, on 24 December 2020.

    Once again I find myself out of sync with the Labour whip and direction from shadow cabinet. I had hoped this would change in 2020. I have until 30th (my birthday!) to decide what to do. Happy Christmas!