Mental Health and Well-being of Londoners

Debate between Matthew Offord and Jeremy Corbyn

Thursday 12th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful for that clarification and I thank the hon. Lady for it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman was saying about his experience with the police in his borough of Barnet. I have similar discussions with the police in my borough and although many of them are well aware of the vulnerability of people with mental health issues, it seems that there is a lack of consistency in the Metropolitan police training and a lack of continual awareness-raising for police officers, before they attend the scene, on the need to look for a mental health condition when they find somebody behaving in an odd or strange manner on the street.

[Dr Offord]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which is certainly something that I would be willing to take up with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. That was not my experience, but as it has been the hon. Gentleman’s, I think it is a useful footnote for me to take back to show that the approach is not the same all over London. I am grateful for that.

I realise that the Minister is a public health Minister and not a Minister in the Home Office, but I am keen that police officers should not be delayed for up to eight hours of their shift by taking people to hospital to seek an assessment under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 only to find that a doctor is not available and no assessment can be made. I have spoken to several custody sergeants who have made the point that I will make again: a police cell is not a substitute for a place of safety in the form of a hospital. I am keen to take that up with the Home Office myself.

The Mayor’s report said that of every £8 spent on long-term health care, perhaps £1 is spent on people with mental health issues. I spent two hours this morning at the Whittington’s wonderful ambulatory care centre opened by the Government, and I congratulate them on that. It is easy to see people who clearly have long-term medical health problems, and one suspects that their mental health might be in the same fragile state as their physical health. If we include the £1 in every £8 spent on long-term health care, that adds another £2.6 billion to the £26 billion that we are spending on health care in London cited by hon. Lady. We certainly need to address that.

I am aware that in west London there has been an initiative as part of the London growth deal to help people to get into employment. Indeed, the local enterprise partnership has secured money from the Government’s transformation challenge award, and I congratulate the Government on that. I want to see more work going ahead.

It is not only people with long-term health conditions who are likely to suffer from mental health issues, but the long-term unemployed as well. I understand that approximately 46% of the people claiming employment and support allowance for more than two years have mental health issues. I speak not as someone judging those people but as someone who has experienced mental health issues in my family and have seen the consequences of that. Indeed, the Daily Mirror was kind enough to publish an article on me and the consequences of mental health issues in my family. Although most of it was wrong, I will put that to one side. I will not use the Chamber as a confessional, but the media have an obligation and a responsibility to report issues to do with mental health in a more positive and indeed less derogatory fashion than they have.

Finally, I pay tribute to colleagues who have worked hard on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) was instrumental not only in securing a debate in this House to which I was able to contribute but in promoting mental health issues through some of us writing an article for a pamphlet he published. I am grateful to him for that. I also congratulate my Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who introduced a Bill to allow people with mental health disorders to stand in this place.

Although I am proud of this Parliament’s record, I would like Government action on the employment of people with mental health issues, and more Government action to provide people with a place of safety that is not a police cell. I would like the health service to ensure that its mental health professionals are always available, so that police officers do not spend their time waiting in accident and emergency departments for a professional to see a person who has been sectioned under section 136 of the Mental Health Act. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Palestine and Israel

Debate between Matthew Offord and Jeremy Corbyn

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I had not anticipated being called to speak, so I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The proposal for this House to recognise Palestinian statehood is not only premature, but misguided. An affirmative vote tonight would be nothing more than a propaganda victory for those who wish to bypass the mediation of the peace process in favour of international institutions such as the United Nations where the Palestinian Authority enjoy an automatic majority.

Three years ago President Abbas made it explicit that the attempt unilaterally to assert statehood through the UN was to ensure that it

“would pave the way for the internationalisation of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us”—

the Palestinian Authority—

“to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the international Court of Justice.”

The Palestinian Authority are seeking to create opportunities for new diplomatic and legal fronts on the conflict with Israel that enable a distraction, an alternative and an escape route from the bilateral principle entailed in the Oslo accords and subsequent diplomatic frameworks.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

Israel and the Peace Process

Debate between Matthew Offord and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

No, I will not.

Britain was involved in the original partition and in the Balfour declaration, so we have a duty to help promote peace. That means suggesting to Israel that leaving the United Nations Human Rights Council, running away from international institutions and opposing Palestinian membership of the UN are hardly an indication of a process of peace, or of recognition of or respect for international law. They are very much the opposite.

If Israel cannot abide by international law and if it continues to abuse human rights and imprison Palestinians, why is the European Union-Israel trade agreement carrying on as normal, as though there is nothing wrong? That agreement has a human rights clause and that clause should be respected. We should, therefore, enter negotiations and tell Israel that if it cannot abide by the trade agreement’s human rights clause, the agreement itself will be suspended.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Matthew Offord and Jeremy Corbyn

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

There is a serious danger of many Members agreeing with each other here, which will not do the House’s reputation any good at all. [Interruption.] It will not do the reputation of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) or mine any good at all, either. I think the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I do not wish to exaggerate by saying that quality of the water in the Thames is heading back to what it was in the 19th century. It is not, but it is deteriorating because of the amount of effluent being pushed into it and because the sewerage system cannot cope. Ergo, something clearly has to be done.

I have discussed this issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). As I see it, the Thames tunnel is a solution and it is necessary. My concern is with the cost and the impact; I am also concerned about whether the solution will last. That is why I hope that the Minister will inform us, when he comes to reply, that his Department is seriously looking at other issues, such as permeable surfaces, reducing the use of water, using other forms of drainage that do not pump everything down towards the Thames, and perhaps other forms of sewage disposal that will not lead another generation to have to spend an equally large amount of money on the next new solution to this problem.

I recognise that we have a problem; I recognise that London has to wake up to it. I believe that the Thames tunnel is probably the only solution on offer to deal with it. We have to look ahead as well, just as Parliament was forced to face up to the pollution in the river in the 19th century when it stank Members out of the building. We are not at that stage yet, but Londoners deserve a decent and clean river of which they can be proud. We look forward to the days when the salmon and dolphins are back in the Thames, as they could, should and ought to be.

[Mr Offord]

I shall comment on the proposals of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). Some of his comments were interesting and opened me up to some of his concerns, which are shared by some Conservative Members. I shall investigate some further issues afterwards, but I wish to put some comments on the record now.

I am a supporter of the Thames tunnel. I do not think I am considered a spendthrift politician. I am often described as a right-wing Conservative—a moniker with which I am very comfortable. On this occasion, however, I am supporting Thames Water in its endeavours to clean up the river.

I am most concerned about amendment 4, proposed by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, according to which financial assistance should be given for “the financing the infrastructure” only if

“secured by a group company which has adopted the equator principles.”

I was not initially aware of what the equator principles were, so I went away to conduct a little research.

The equator principles were established to guide investment for major works and projects in developing countries, particularly those countries that have a limited environmental regulatory framework. Although they are now described as applying to all major projects across the country, the relevant environmental directives here in the UK set much higher standards than anything that appears in the equator principles.

Applications for projects on the scale of the Thames tunnel will be considered by an independent body—in this case, the Infrastructure Planning Commission. I understand that back in September 2010, Thames Water referred the matter back to the IPC. Beyond that, I understand that after investigation, the Secretary of State will be required to look at the project to establish whether it is acceptable; that will be followed by acceptance or rejection by Parliament.

The scale and the nature of the Thames tunnel project has triggered the need to undertake an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the EU EIA directive and the EIA regulations. The EIA process will seek to identify the likely significant effects of the project, which we hope will inform part of the design process and facilitate design improvements, ultimately identifying suitable mitigation measures for any residual environmental and social effects on our constituents. The output of the EIA process—the environmental statement—will convey to decision makers, such as ourselves, the environmental effects of the project, including on local communities.

Other studies have been undertaken that will inform the independent decision makers during the IPC process, including an equalities impact assessment, a health impact assessment and a sustainability assessment. In addition, as we all know, local authorities will be able to make their case directly to the IPC, and they will be able to produce their own local impact statements. Finally, the extensive consultations undertaken by Thames Water comply fully with the Planning Act 2008 and are in line with the Aarhus convention.

It is certainly my view—and I believe it is the view of Thames Water, which is proposing the scheme—that the directives and guidelines are being complied with to an extent that far exceeds the requirements of the equator principles, and I am particularly uncomfortable with that. I am disappointed that the amendment will not be pressed to the vote. I feel that when amendments have been tabled, we should test the view of the Committee on them. I do not understand why the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark tabled this amendment. I would have thought that he had done enough work to be able to speak eloquently about his other concerns. I do not think that he really believes in this measure, which rather muddies the water generally.

The second part of my speech is about the Chris Binnie meeting, which I attended. I was quite surprised to hear that the person who promoted the original plan had decided, after seven or so years, that he felt an alternative was more viable. The viability of the scheme, he said, lay in the fact that it would cost only £60 million as compared with the £4.1 billion he originally envisaged. What he did not address in the meeting, however, was the fact that the £60 million scheme would not fundamentally address the problem of sewage and other contaminants in the river. All it would do is scrape some of the 39 million tonnes of effluent off the top of the Thames and aerate some of the river, affecting fish and livestock living in it. It does not address some of the issues in the EU environmental legislation that we need to address fundamentally as part of the super-sewer scheme.

I was rather concerned to hear that someone who had proposed a scheme only seven years ago had suddenly changed his mind. I felt that some of these aspects should have been considered seven years ago. He said that circumstances, including the financial situation in which the country and Government find themselves, had changed. That reminded me of an old African proverb—that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, and the second best time is now. I ask myself why he did not push this scheme forward at the time. We have had to wait seven years and he now claims that it is unaffordable. I am very suspicious of people who come forward with a professional opinion and then, when circumstances change, decide that better alternatives could have been proposed. In hindsight, it would have been better if he had advocated these proposals originally.

I do not believe that the amendment will be pressed to a vote. If it were, for the reasons I have outlined, I would certainly be against it. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer—certainly not for as long as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark did. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to some of the points that have been raised.

North Africa and the Middle East

Debate between Matthew Offord and Jeremy Corbyn

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Offord]

Likewise.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am glad that I have helped to perpetuate the sense of equality that we are observing this afternoon.

Obviously, this is a vital debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North rightly drew attention to its historical connotations, and to Britain’s historical involvement in the region. We tend to delude ourselves in the House that Britain is seen as a benign liberal democracy that never operates out of self-interest but is concerned only with the greater good of mankind as a whole, and that we seek to promote the rule of law, democracy and independence throughout the world. Sadly, the history of Britain’s involvement in north Africa and the middle east hardly adds up to that. We have seen, for instance, the 1952 coup in Iran and all its subsequent ramifications, the Suez operation in 1956, the United States bombing of Libya in 1986 when the planes took off from this country, the obsessive dealing in arms in exchange for oil, and the turning of a blind eye to volumes and volumes of human rights abuses in countries that we claim are close friends of ours.

Last week I tabled what I thought was a perfectly innocuous and reasonable question to the Secretary of State, asking him to tell me on which occasions since June last year

“human rights issues have been raised with… (a) Morocco, (b) Tunisia, (c) Algeria, (d) Libya, (e) Egypt, (f) Yemen, (g) Saudi Arabia and (h) Bahrain”.

I was very disappointed to be told that the Minister would answer “shortly”. I hope that he will answer shortly—