DWP Estate: Office Closures

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Matthew Offord

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At last week’s business questions, the Leader of the House announced that there would be a debate this afternoon on protecting and restoring nature at COP15 and beyond. Unfortunately, it seems to have dropped off the Order Paper and no one understands why. I am sure that Government business has changed, but through your offices, may I encourage the Leader of the House and the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee to allow time for that debate, plenty of time before COP15 happens?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know whether the Leader of the House wishes to give an answer to that. [Interruption.] I am sure that we can get you an answer but I do not have one to hand. I am sure that, as we go to business questions, the Leader of the House may want to point it out.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Matthew Offord

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Rugby league.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]]

Many of my constituents who currently find themselves in unsaleable flats owing to fire safety concerns would like to let their properties so that they can purchase a second, larger property, suitable for a family, but they are anxious about doing so in case their fire safety issue cannot be resolved within three years and they are not able to reclaim the additional home stamp duty surcharge. Can we have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on whether Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will consider such circumstances as exceptional and extend the three-year time frame in which additional home stamp duty surcharge can be reclaimed if the purchaser can demonstrate that they cannot sell their first property owing to issues with cladding and fire safety defects? As the Chancellor will be aware, such circumstances are outside the control of hundreds of thousands of leaseholders, not only in the Hendon constituency, but across the country, due to no fault of their own?

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Matthew Offord

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). He is part of a small coterie of us who have sat through the whole of this afternoon’s debate, so I feel some sense of camaraderie with him.

There is a lot in the Bill to be welcomed. I think I speak for many in the House when I say that any legislation that improves our constituents’ safety is to be applauded. However, I wish gently to advise the Minister that legislation alone is not a panacea for reducing crime in the United Kingdom. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull (Julian Knight), for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) have all said, the PCC determines priorities, and that affects the level of crime.

As a London MP, I can speak only about London. It is a fact that crime is on the rise in our capital and has been since the incumbent Mayor was elected. I say with no particular pleasure that it is rather disappointing that his standard excuse is that he could tackle the problem of violent crime if he had more resources. I certainly do not agree with that point of view. It is completely disingenuous of the London Mayor to demand more funding. The Government have continually provided financial support to him, including through a scheme for him to receive a cut from business rates, which has provided an additional £60 million. The Government have also allowed the Mayor to raise council tax to bring in an additional £49 million to support the police service in London. Therefore, overall, the Government have supported the Mayor by giving him access to more than £110 million, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull and for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) have mentioned. Then of course there are the millions of pounds that the Mayor of London holds in reserves.

All police services need legislation to address changing criminal behaviour. The vile issue of acid attacks is just one of those where the law needs to catch up. Indeed, under Ken Livingstone crime started to go up, but his replacement—my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—Stephen Greenhalgh, who has already been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) made it a political priority to address violent crime, particularly crime affecting young people. History proves to us that policing is not just about money and legislation, but about political will.

I am very pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has entered the Chamber and is in his place because I wish to mention the article he wrote in January for the Evening Standard. He said that when he was appointed deputy mayor for policing in London, the number of teenage murders in his first year was 29. He made it a political priority to address that rise and ensured that, when he left office, the number had been reduced to eight. The trajectory that he was previously on would have put the number of deaths at more than 50. The number of deaths in London now is about 80, so we are at a higher level.

My hon. Friend said that there was a culture in the Metropolitan police whereby teen murders were not considered statistically high in comparison with other world cities. That is appalling. He also said that the view of the Met police was that deaths of black youths were considered a fact of city life. That is abhorrent. He also outlined in his piece that many of the initiatives were controversial because they disproportionately affected black communities. That required him and the Mayor continuously to reassure communities that their actions were keeping their children safe. That is a commitment that the current Mayor should accept.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who has returned to her place but who is perhaps not entirely listening to me, made a claim that crime in London was not actually increasing—or that it was doing so proportionally slower than in the rest of the country. There are reasons for that. The significant population of London shows that any percentage increase has a disproportionate effect on crime. Under the leadership of the current Mayor, London is undergoing a surge in violent crime. Since the beginning of his mayoralty, acid attacks are up 65%, knife crime is up 44%, homicide is up 16%, GBH is up 8% and rape is up 36%. Indeed, the chairman of the London Police and Crime Committee has launched an inquiry into why policing in London is failing. He says that the rise is not only unacceptable but deeply troubling.

Back in April, seven people were murdered in the capital, and when asked repeatedly whether he had met the bereaved families, the Mayor told LBC Radio:

“No, I haven’t spoken to the bereaved families. I’ve got a deputy mayor and a police commissioner...the point is that we are a team.’’

Well, I can say that, no, they are not. We introduced police and crime commissioners so that someone was accountable—so that an individual could be held responsible. That job is held by one person, and in London it is the Mayor. He may have a team supporting him, but he must take the lead, show leadership and stop hiding behind his employees. His standard response to any criticism is to release a press release, but given the fact that he has increased the budget of his press and public relations team to £2.5 million, he has time to do that. Recently, he put out a press release asking schools to take up his knife wand policy, which is laudable in its aspiration, but he had a take-up rate of just 2.4% of London schools. That has to be wrong, and it is not keeping our children safe.

In addition to the legislation that we are discussing today, there are lots of other things that the Mayor of London can do to tackle knife crime.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I just advise the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is not a personal attack on the Mayor of London? [Interruption.] I am sorry; did the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) say something?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank you for that, because otherwise I would have something to say and that would not be helpful to you. I am just trying to be constructive. We are on Second Reading of a Bill, and I am allowing latitude, but Members must focus on the Bill.

[Dr Offord]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is certainly not a personal attack. I can only illustrate my experience in the capital—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member for Spelthorne is helping out again. Let me just reassure you: the Bill is about knife crime, and not about other issues. As much as you think you are getting good advice from the hon. Gentleman, I would take your advice from the Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I want to move the Bill on, and I want to ensure that we do not need to have a time limit. Please, let us carry on.

[Dr Offord]

Whether it is the Mayor of London or any police and crime commissioner, I feel that they could all do certain things to tackle knife crime, including better community engagement, better use of stop and search, and the provision of preventive initiatives.

There are several parts of the Bill which I have some concerns about. I am never convinced that attaining the age of 18 should allow an individual to engage in any particular kind of behaviour or activity, whether that is drinking, voting, fighting in the armed forces or buying bleach. I therefore have some concerns about the age of 18 with regard to the provisions in the Bill. It is my understanding that the Home Office does not regularly collect data on the age of those engaging in acid attacks, but information collected from 39 forces showed that only one in five acid attacks was committed by a person under the age of 18. This leads to questions about whether the person who has purchased the substances is over or under the age of 18. I hope the Minister will take up this issue and legislate on it.

While preparing for this debate, I had a look on the internet to see how easy it is to purchase a knife online—for example, on eBay. I was pleasantly surprised to find that flick knives, gravity knives and zombie knives are not readily available. However, kitchen knives are, so the provision in the Bill that seeks to ban knives being sent through the post does not seem to be a very effective use of the legislation, given that most knives used in crime usually come from kitchen drawers.

I would also like some detail on the proposal to make the possession of a knife on a further education premises an offence. As has been mentioned, there are some scenarios where this is permissible. In the case of training, gamekeepers, chefs, cooks, hairdressers, electricians, builders and carpenters all require a bladed instrument, so in many respects these people will have to be excluded from the provisions.

The Bill seeks to ban the .5 calibre rifles that many Members have spoken about today, but these are legally held weapons. The owners have been vetted. They have been through a process where they have been judged to be not only competent but safe to own a gun. Many of them also regularly attend a club. I therefore have to ask, what does this have to do with violent crime? The owners have exemplary records and are among the most law-abiding people in this country, so why are they being victimised when they have nothing to do with violence, particularly in cities such as London?

The reason I am very interested in knife crime is that I witnessed someone being stabbed in 1990. It was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) said, quite an experience. It certainly had an impact on me. I was actually photographing at the time, and was pleased that I managed to take a picture of the perpetrator. He was subsequently convicted, but would not have been if not for my picture. My recollection of the person who fell into my arms with a big hole in his back will certainly never leave me.

We are approaching 80 murders within the capital this year. I conclude by mentioning two people, who were both my constituents. Back in the winter in Mill Hill, Vijay Patel was punched, hit his head and died; and Raul Nicolaie was stabbed to death in his house. I believe that this legislation will ensure that such tragedies do not occur in the future. I appeal to the Minister: if there is to be any legacy from this legislation, let this be her legacy, because the legacy of the Mayor of London currently is one of a lost generation.

Jobs and Business

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Matthew Offord

Friday 10th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Offord]

As I said earlier—I think the hon. Lady has deliberately decided not to understand what I said—this involves elective and semi-elective surgery and other cases. Sometimes people come into the country when they are pregnant and decide to have their child here. If that is a possibility, they should be prevented from coming here. Secondly, and most importantly, they should be forced to have their own insurance policy. I cannot say whether the hon. Lady has been abroad, but I know that if I go to India or New York and find myself in an accident requiring medical attention, I will receive a wallet biopsy from the ambulance man, which will determine the type of treatment I get. [Interruption.] All we are seeking is the same for this country; it is about fairness. It is not about denying people medical treatment; it is about fairness. [Interruption.] I am going to move on. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need the debate to be conducted through the Chair rather than to have cross-channel discussions. I understand that the debate is getting a little tense, but I am sure we can get back to where we need to be on the Queen’s Speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

I can assure you that it never gets tense, Mr Deputy Speaker, particularly with the hon. Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Mr Abbott) and for Preston.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think I will be the judge of that from the Chair.

[Dr Offord]

I bow to your superior knowledge, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I want to move on to discuss other aspects of immigration and what I would like to see in the Government’s legislative programme. We heard earlier about people entering this country from the EU and migrant countries and about the problems they have caused. I have a lot of problems with this in my constituency. In Edgware, for example, several people living in garages told me that they could not afford to go home. On a recent ward visit to Watford Way in Hendon, one of my constituents and I went to an old commercial garage in which scores of people were living rough. These were people who beg locally and they were visibly east European. I spoke to some of them who claimed that they did not have the money to get back home. Funds are available, however, and I should like them to make use of them, because their current lifestyle is unacceptable. That is the face of Labour’s immigration policy in the last decade: people sleeping in garages in my constituency.

As recently as this week, we saw members of the Metropolitan police on horseback going to areas around Marble Arch, rounding up people—particularly Bulgarians and Romanians—and checking their identification papers to establish what they are doing, who they are and why they are here. At present, as the House knows, they are not allowed to work, but those restrictions will soon end, and they will have three months in which to demonstrate that they can support themselves. If they cannot do that, the Border Agency will summon them for an interview and ask them what they are doing. If they refuse to turn up, there is nothing that the agency can do. It should be an arrestable offence not to turn up, but it is not, and they can be picked up again in future sweeps. Moreover, they can leave the country and come back again, in which event their three-months time frame will start all over again. The Immigration Bill should address some of those points, and I hope that the Government have heard my plea.

I now want to talk about what will not be in the Bill. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—who is not in the Chamber at present, but who has been described as “the popular Member for Limehouse—referred to some of the issues that would not be included, but omitted to mention provision for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

Lord Lawson made his position clear at the weekend. Within hours, the Deputy Prime Minister had decided that he knew better than Lord Lawson and, indeed, better than anyone else. He said:

“There are 3 million of our fellow countrymen and women in this country whose jobs rely directly on our participation and role and place in what is after all the largest borderless single market.”

The hon. Member for Preston also gave that figure. I asked him where he had got it, a question that I do not believe he was able to answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) made a 19-minute speech, and has made, I think, five interventions since then. Interventions should not be a way of making another speech. They must be short, because others wish to speak.

[Dr Offord]

Let me respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman’s point by saying that I think there are certain products that parts of the EU cannot do without. For instance, I know that places such as Italy could not do without Lancashire cheese. I have tasted that very cheese in your room on occasion, Mr Deputy Speaker, during some of your receptions.

Was the Deputy Prime Minister claiming, in his “3 million” statement, that Britain would not negotiate a reciprocal deal to avoid tariffs? I should like to know the answer to that, particularly given that we import more from the EU as a whole than we export to it.

According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, there is

“no reason to suppose that unemployment would rise significantly if the UK were to withdraw from the EU. Withdrawal could cause disruption”

—I acknowledge that—

“but it is most unlikely that export sales to EU markets would cease completely”.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse quoted from The Daily Telegraph. One of the quotes cited the Institute of Directors, which in 2000 came to the opposite conclusion to that of South Bank university. It estimated that there was a net cost to the UK from staying out of the EU of about 1.75% of GDP, which was about £15 billion at the time, but all those figures are completely worthless now as so much has changed since then. We were promised no more boom and bust, but we now realise that that is not the case—it has not been the case for the past couple of years.

All the underlying calculations are simply wrong now, and we no longer know what the true situation would be. I therefore ask the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to commission a cost-benefit analysis on Britain’s continued membership of the EU, to establish what the economic consequences of Britain’s withdrawal would be. I ask it to do that for no other reason than that the Business Secretary said in opening today’s debate that he was interested in dealing with “factoids”, and I would like to see the relevant factoids. I would also like the Deputy Prime Minister to use the correct factoids, instead of scaremongering people into thinking that Britain cannot leave the EU.

There has been some talk about the UK Independence party today, and I, too, will mention it briefly. I believe that in the past couple of weeks UKIP has come to be seen by some as offering a panacea for all the problems of the UK, but I do not believe that is true. I do not think its members and supporters are all fruitcakes, nuts and loops either, and I believe we need to take them on on policy—or, rather, on their lack of policies. I agree with them in some areas, however, and many people voted for UKIP last week not because they want UKIP to be elected, but because they want some of the policies that it raises to be addressed, and they are looking to us to do that. It is wrong for Members on either side of this House to reject UKIP supporters, and it sends out a message that the political class is not listening. Gillian Duffy stated the case well in the 2010 general election, and we ignore it at our peril. I therefore respectfully ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask Mr Speaker to select the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), to which I have added my name, so that we can have an opportunity to vote on it next week.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Matthew Offord

Friday 22nd March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Offord]

The young man is 17 years old, and obviously for the past 17 years we have not had a Government who have addressed social issues in our country.

There is no dispute, at least among the serious political parties, that the country has to make difficult financial decisions in order to reduce the deficit. My disappointment is that there are no such proposals coming from Labour Front Benchers. The Labour party’s 2010 election manifesto stated:

“Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.”

However, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, who is no longer in his place, was recently forced to concede that the cost of housing benefit, at £20 billion a year, is too high. He has also admitted that the Labour party does not have a solution for that. How can they be a credible Opposition if they cannot tell people where they would make cuts?

The most appealing part of the Budget for my constituents is the proposed help to assist people to get on the housing ladder. My constituency is the victim of its own success. Good schools, green spaces and a comparatively low crime rate for London ensure that many people want to move there. Although I certainly welcome them, they put pressure on the availability of the housing stock. My constituents’ children find it hard to buy a property, or indeed to rent one, when they return from university or go to work. We should not forget that not everyone is given a deed of variation by mummy and daddy that allows them to stay in part of the family’s house in places such as Primrose Hill, ensuring that they never have to go to a job interview or get a proper job in order to put a roof over their heads.

Many of my constituents are forced to move away from their family and friends and the places they grew up in. The Help to Buy scheme will help them, because in my constituency there are huge regeneration schemes in progress. The Beaufort Park and Grahame Park regeneration schemes are transforming the landscape of the social rented sector in Colindale, and the Mill Hill barracks site is also providing homes for people in the area. Only this morning—this explains my absence at the beginning of the debate—I met John Morris and the resident representatives of the West Hendon regeneration scheme. It has been a hugely difficult social sector regeneration scheme that was not progressed by the previous Government. Indeed, I suspect the motives of local Labour politicians who want to keep people in substandard accommodation instead of getting homes built. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, Mr Morris says that that is disgraceful—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to hon. Members by constituency.

[Dr Offord]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can only say to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) that perhaps he would like to see some of the conditions that my constituents experience, and then he can conclude whether the previous Member of Parliament, or indeed some of the Labour councillors, did anything to assist them.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Matthew Offord

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the last debate, I heard a Member make a comment about another Member in this Chamber. The language that they used certainly was not parliamentary. Will you take some action, or advise me on how I might make a complaint against the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) for the comments he made when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) stood to make an intervention?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

If it had been within earshot of me, obviously I would have dealt with it straight away, but I did not hear anything.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Matthew Offord

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Offord]

She is in my constituency.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.