Prime Minister's Role in Creating a Safe Environment

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Yes. That would be totally unacceptable. I am not aware of the particular circumstance to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, but I can confirm that that is totally unacceptable.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

No, I am not going to take a whole series of points of order—[Interruption.] Sorry, no, I am now going to proceed with the statement from the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Order. I do not require assistance from the hon. Gentleman. We come now to the statement by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. [Interruption.] Order. If people who are leaving the Chamber would please do so quickly and quietly, we can attend to the terms of the statement from the Secretary of State. I think there is now something approaching calm.

Points of Order

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order and for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intention to raise it. There are various ways in which right hon. and hon. Members can seek to debate the conduct of Ministers and, indeed, of others on the Floor of the House. My suggestion is that she visit the Table Office, where the Clerks will be ready to advise her in more detail on the options open to her.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Back in March, I was invited to visit Sufra NW London food bank to understand the work it is taking part in on behalf of my constituents. I followed the parliamentary protocol of informing the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) that I would be visiting Sufra, as it is in her constituency. It therefore came as quite a surprise that the Brent Central Labour party and Brent Momentum tweeted an identical picture of six men saying that they had heard I was planning a photo op and would be going along to make their feelings known. Neither my office nor Sufra had advised anyone of the meeting.

I will not impugn the reputation of another Member, but can you advise me, Mr Speaker? If any Member or, indeed, the staff in their parliamentary office was responsible for leaking information about the whereabouts of another Member, what action would the House take against them?

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but even if he does not, I cannot possibly be expected to know the circumstances that he has just described. That is the first point. Secondly, although he has kindly told the House that he informed the hon. Lady of his intention to raise the matter, I have not heard her viewpoint on it. Manifestly, it cannot be here and now, at 3.01 on Thursday afternoon, a matter for adjudication by the Chair. I should have thought that was readily apparent.

The hon. Gentleman has made his point and registered his displeasure. I am sorry if he has felt ill served by the way in which he has been treated or by the reaction to his visit, but palpably it is not a matter for me now. We do have other business that is quite heavily subscribed, which he might concede is more pressing.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, so be it. I treat the House with respect. I have treated its Members with respect. I chaired a previous Speaker’s Conference, and there was no criticism of the way in which I did so. One reason why the Leader of the House might not be well versed in that particular Speaker’s Conference and in a position to make a judgment about my chairmanship of it is very simply that it took place before the right hon. Lady entered the House of Commons.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House runs on conventions, as you have already made clear in your statement today. One of those conventions is that Treasury Benchers always tell Opposition Front Benchers of statements they are going to make. To clarify, can you confirm to the House that you not only informed the Leader of the House of your intention to make this statement but told her the contents of your statement?

[Mr Speaker]

I absolutely cannot confirm anything of the sort. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that his understanding about what might happen between the usual channels is one thing; that absolutely does not apply to Speaker’s statements. If the hon. Gentleman—

[Dr Offord]

Why not?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman shrugs and says, “Why not?” That has never been the case. The Speaker of the House makes statements to the House at a time when the Speaker of the House thinks that they will be of interest and benefit to the House. I am under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to pre-announce that statement, either to the Leader of the House or to the shadow Leader of the House, and I did not do so. If the hon. Gentleman—a keen student of parliamentary procedure—is offended by that fact, well, I am sorry, and he is of course welcome to be offended, but there is absolutely no breach of parliamentary protocol or etiquette whatsoever. That is the reality, and I have explained the position in terms clear and unmistakable.

Legislation against Female Genital Mutilation

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is a difficult choice. I believe the hon. Member for Hendon is a doctor. Let us hear from the fella.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, not a medical doctor.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a philosopher.

[Dr Offord]

That is correct.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for making a statement today. I also welcome that she does not see a moral equivalence between brit milah and female genital mutilation. There is no moral equivalence between the two. I urge her to bring forward legislation as soon as possible, because I would like to hear the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) opposed the Bill. I do not believe it is sustainable to say, “I objected to the Bill because of procedure rather than its content.” Let us bring forward a Bill as quickly as possible so that not only can we hear that defence but, more importantly, we can hear the will of the House by taking a vote on the issue.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I, off the top of my head, thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the understated terms in which he has said it? People can form their own judgment, but I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not seeking to prolong the argument further—at any rate, on the evidence of what he has just said. That, I think, is respected. He is a very senior Member of this House with long experience.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I thank you, Mr Speaker? You said you would go away, look at the video evidence and make your mind up. You did that and I am very grateful. But it is for my constituents to make their own mind up when they look at the footage. It is for them to decide if the Leader of the Opposition—or anyone else—is indeed a misogynist or antisemitic, not us.

[Mr Speaker]

With great respect, I heard the hon. Gentleman out and it was right to do so. He has made his own point, including a point that was not germane to these exchanges or this controversy, but it stands on the record. I said I would look into it. I have looked into it. I have come back to the House and I have said what I have said. The Leader of the Opposition has said what he has said. I do not honestly think I can be expected to add to that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) is seeking to take part in Question 12 or anticipating Question 13.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am anticipating Question 13.

[Mr Speaker]

It is the latter. We will get there when we are ready, and we are grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm.

HMP Birmingham

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the prognosis is positive and the hon. Gentleman may be satisfied erelong, but I say that with caution because he is not easily satisfied and, even if satisfied, is not necessarily satisfied for long.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

It is not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that he is hailing a taxi, but I am happy to take his point of order.

[Dr Offord]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Over the recess, the number of people killed, stabbed and murdered on the streets of London this year reached 100. That figure has already surpassed the years of 2012, 2013 and 2014. I have received emails from constituents asking me what I will be doing to reduce that number or to prevent further deaths. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Mayor of London is responsible for the crime strategy for London. Would you advise me how I can hold the Mayor of London to account, because his crime strategy simply is not working?

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who I know would not seek to entice me in a political controversy, is that it is open to him both to question Ministers in relation to policy and, through the Committees of the House, to undertake such inquiries and seek to secure the attendance of such witnesses as will provide evidence that the hon. Gentleman can then use. I feel sure that he will use it always and only in the public interest.

Points of Order

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have just made a point about the constraints on time and it would be helpful if people would be sensitive to it, because it is about others; it is not just about what they want to do now. I am grateful to him for advance notice that he wished to raise this point. I note his concern and I understand what he has just told the House, which is that he has brought the matter to the attention of the hon. Member for Stirling(Stephen Kerr). I appreciate that Members in all parts of the House are increasingly using social media to draw attention to proceedings in this House, and that, of itself, is perfectly understandable. Moreover, broadly it is to be welcomed. That said, I urge all Members to take care to ensure that usage of selected clips of debates does not create a misleading impression of what has taken place. I might add that it is one thing for a Member to post a clip of what he or she has said, but to add evaluative commentary or to imply the absence of a reply to a point that that Member has made could fall into the category of knowingly misleading.

As for the code of conduct, what I would say to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) is that in the circumstance that he thinks there has been a breach of it, the appropriate action is to write to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I strongly suggest that he do so if he is so motivated and convinced, rather than pursuing the matter further on the Floor of the House. That ruling is relevant not just to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I am grateful for airing the issue, but to other Members. I must say to the House that it would not be desirable if we were regularly to have points of order of this kind. Already we have colleagues complaining about Members visiting their constituencies without prior notification and we do not want a whole new category of constant points of order on matters of this kind, so it is up to Members to help each other.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

If Dr Offord feels that his views need to be registered to the nation, so be it.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In December 2016, the British Government adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of “anti-Semitism”. This definition explains that claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist and illegitimate endeavour is anti-Semitic. Therefore, by the Government’s own measure, the words “Israeli apartheid week” are manifestly anti-Semitic and violate this country’s own definition of anti-Semitism. Given that the Secretary of State and his team are here and that yesterday marked the beginning of Israeli Apartheid Week, may I ask you, Sir, how we can have a statement from the Government condemning these actions and, if appropriate, bringing forward the necessary legislation to prevent them?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know whether a Minister is minded to make a statement on the matter, and I am not entirely sure which Minister the hon. Gentleman had in mind. The Secretary of State for Education is in his place, but it is not obvious to me that the matter is for the Secretary of State. Other Ministers are also present on the Treasury Bench and they will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. I suspect that what he has had to say will be communicated more widely to members of the Government. I think that for today we will leave it there, but I thank him for saying what he wanted to say.

Visible Religious Symbols: European Court Ruling

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Extraordinary self-effacement; the hon. Gentleman is setting a very dangerous precedent.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Although the judgment applies to men and women, does the Minister agree that it sends an appalling message, particularly to Muslim women in places such as my constituency? Will she reassure me that she will take tangible action to reassure specific faith communities that the United Kingdom certainly will not go down this route?

Points of Order

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is better for these matters to be raised in the relevant Question Time session. The hon. Gentleman is well seized of that age-old principle of campaigning, namely quantity, persistence and, above all, repetition. I think my short-term memory serves me well. His observation about the absence of members of a particular political party was made the other day, but he has opportunistically seized his chance to repeat it this afternoon. He has made his own point in his own inimitable way.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman—I am saving him up.

[Mr Speaker]

As I advised the hon. Gentleman yesterday, it is the normal expectation that responses from Ministers to written parliamentary questions are both timely and substantive. Moreover, I suggested to the hon. Gentleman that there was a growing spectre of potential embarrassment for Ministers from the relevant Department, the Department for Communities and Local Government—namely, if they did not respond speedily to his question, he might feel inclined to raise points of order over and over and over again about the matter. That would be gravely embarrassing to Ministers and I was sure that they would not want that to happen.

Ministers will have heard, or will hear very soon, of the hon. Gentleman’s perfectly reasonable question last week and of his point of order about it today and I am sure that they will not want the embarrassment of his coming back to the Floor and raising further points of order about the non-answer. The hon. Gentleman is starting to copy the tactic that has long been followed by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and that was followed regularly by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, the late Sir Gerald Kaufman, of raising in the form of either a further written question or a point of order the fact of a non-answer. That is gravely embarrassing and I feel sure that Ministers will not want it to continue for any length of time. I know the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—I have known him for 30 years—and he is a very persistent fellow.

[Dr Offord]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I be the first to take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who is from a part of the country I know well from when I lived in Cumbria?

I was fortunate, Mr Speaker, to be selected for the 90-minute debate this morning in Westminster Hall on Iran’s influence in the middle east, but I was unfortunate in taking the Northern line from my Hendon constituency to the Houses of Parliament. The Northern line was suspended, meaning that I and many of my constituents were unable to get here. First, on that basis, may I ask whether a mechanism can be introduced so that if a Member is physically prevented from attending a debate or any other business of the House, someone else can take their place? Secondly, will you look favourably on having an Adjournment debate or another Westminster Hall debate on this issue before the festival of Nowruz on 21 March?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and, first, thank him for his courteous tribute to the new Member for Copeland, which will be warmly received and appreciated by her and a great many other colleagues to boot.

Secondly, I am sure that the delay on the Northern line, which is not an uncommon phenomenon—a fact of which I am well aware, hailing from that part of the world myself—was not deliberately contrived to disadvantage the hon. Gentleman in pursuit of his Adjournment debate, but it is nevertheless a very considerable inconvenience.

Thirdly, I would say to him that hard cases make bad law and I am cautious about the idea—I hope that he will forgive me—that on the basis of his bad experience a new rule should suddenly be introduced. That is something that the Procedure Committee could consider and I would be advised by the House, but I would be reluctant to make any precipitate judgment in his favour on that point.

Fourthly and finally, seeing as the hon. Gentleman raises his concern with me, I would simply say that the track record shows that on the very rare occasions—two spring to mind, but I will not name the Members for obvious reasons—on which Members unavoidably missed their Adjournment debates, their applications for another such debate soon in substitution were met favourably. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and recognise the importance and urgency of the matter. Perhaps we can leave it there for now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House we are discussing terrorism in Northern Ireland. These are extremely serious matters and I hope Dr Offord will be heard.

[Dr Offord]

I welcome the new commitment to a pledge of office, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the passive acceptance of values is not sufficient, and that there must be an active fulfilment of them?

Business of the House

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The Department for Education entered into a funding agreement to establish Watling Park free school in my constituency. The school has already offered 40 places to children in an area of high demand, and they were due to start in a temporary class this September. Barnet council played its part when its assets regeneration and growth committee agreed, through a majority decision, to sell the school a parcel of land. Unfortunately, a minority of members of the Labour group decided to refer the decision back to the full council, thus putting the 40 places in jeopardy. As I was unfortunately not called during Education questions—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is very long. A single short sentence will suffice.

[Dr Offord]

Very important as well, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not disputing its importance. In a kindly way, I am telling the hon. Gentleman—I am not debating the issue with him; I am telling him—that the question was too long. A short sentence, and that will deal with the matter.

[Dr Offord]

Will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to explain how we can stop important agreements being undermined by individuals who have an ideological axe to grind?

Electoral Registration

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon, the Serjeant at Arms confirmed to me that the former Member for Eastleigh, Mr Chris Huhne, had applied for and been granted a parliamentary pass. Given the low esteem with which many Members of this House are held by our constituents in regard to poor behaviour, is there any method that we can use to rescind that application to ensure that someone who is a convicted criminal cannot freely walk around the Palace of Westminster?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has put his concerns on the record. That said I will, if I may, make two points. First, these are matters dealt with by an established process under the auspices of the Serjeant at Arms, and although I do not cavil at the hon. Gentleman having an opinion on the matter, we do not discuss security related matters on the Floor of the Chamber. Secondly, I put it on the record that, although the hon. Gentleman has a view that he has expressed with great alacrity, there is also the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which is on the statute book. I note what he says and I understand his concern and no one will deny him the right to his point of view, but we will leave it there for tonight.

Business of the House

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Because there had been no ministerial statements during the week, I attended this morning’s session of oral questions to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to try to establish the Government’s position on the United Nations climate change conference in Lima and the agreement that was reached on Sunday, as it has huge implications for the discussions that will be held in Paris next year. It worries me that the House has not discussed the United Kingdom’s position on the legal structure of the agreement. There has been no discussion about the deferred decisions on ensuring a flow of finance to developing countries, about where the burden for cutting greenhouse gas emissions should lie, or about the dropping of the requirement for countries to provide information about their “prospect reduction targets”. May we please have a debate in Government time, so that we can discuss those important issues?

[Mr Speaker]

I think we have already had it.

Points of Order

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is most gracious of the hon. Lady. The matter stands there.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure you will agree that Members should always use temperate and moderate language in our exchanges in the Chamber in order, if nothing else, not to offend our constituents. Therefore, can you provide a ruling on whether it was in order for the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to use the word “bigot” when referring to a Member of the House of Lords and by implication Members of this House when discussing the same-sex marriage Bill? May I ask that your office write to the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his sesquipedalian tendencies do not fall foul of the House again?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and his courtesy in giving me notice of it. I ought perhaps to say to the hon. Gentleman that I trust he informed the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) of his intention to raise this point of order—and I am grateful to him for his nod of assent. I heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda last week and I did not intervene. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was using the word “bigot” in application to a particular individual and the record at column 360 of Hansard confirms this. I should, however, add that even had he been doing so, I do not feel that accusing others of holding strong opinions on the basis of prejudice rather than fact is altogether uncommon in exchanges in the House and I am not inclined myself to view its use in that way as unparliamentary. That said, I do remind all Members of the need for courtesy and moderation in the language they use in debate and the need to respect the good faith of those on the other side of the argument. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and the House both today and for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Q8. I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because I have recently returned from a delegation to Israel—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the words of Dr Offord, and at the moment I cannot hear them.

[Dr Offord]

I will repeat my declaration, Mr Speaker. I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I have recently returned from a delegation to Israel and the Palestinian Authority with Conservative Friends of Israel. On the Israeli streets and in the corridors of power, Iran remains the No. 1 issue of concern. Earlier this week, French President Hollande visited Israel to discuss this matter with Israeli counterparts and appears to have clearly understood Israel’s legitimate concerns. When will our Prime Minister be visiting Israel, our close democratic ally in the region, to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue and other regional concerns?

Points of Order

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an interview with Decca Aitkenhead in The Guardian on 30 August, the violinist Nigel Kennedy was asked if he voted in the last general election, to which he responded:

“Oh yeah. In fact, my wife wasn’t there, so I got another friend to go and vote for Jackson with my wife’s voting card.”

Asked if he was being serious, he stated:

“Yeah, yeah, man, and it was really worth it in that case.”

That admission undermines the democratic process and is a criminal offence. There have been many accusations of voting irregularities in many seats, including my own, but this is the first time that someone has publicly admitted to having been complicit in the act of personation. What action should occur in this scenario, where wrongdoing has been admitted?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for his point of order and for his courtesy in notifying me of it in advance. He is alleging that a criminal offence may have been committed. That is a matter for the police, not for me.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harris]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He talks about the unchanging nature of marriage over thousands of years. I do not know whether he is a Christian—he has not yet got to that part—but will he have a good look at the Old Testament? King David, a man described as:

“A man after God’s own heart”,

had not one wife or two wives but many, many wives and concubines. He had children by them all and was never once criticised by the priests or the writers of the Bible. Of course marriage has changed over many thousands of years—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman but interventions must be brief.

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful for that intervention, particularly as it gives me an extra minute, but I will come to that point later.

One reason I oppose the Bill is that it will be an open-ended process, the consequences of which the Government and the hon. Gentleman do not appear to have considered. In an attempt to appeal, the Government have produced a policy on the principle of eradicating difference. The bitter irony is that it will lead only to greater inequality.

First, civil partners already have all the legal rights of marriage, which is denied to many others who cohabit. Two sisters who live together for many years cannot enter a civil partnership, but if one dies leaving the property to the other, the sister who remains is liable for full inheritance tax on the property. That would not apply to female same-sex partners. That is hardly fair, is it? As a result of the Bill, same-sex couples have a choice of seeking to get married or seeking a civil registration. A heterosexual couple would be denied the opportunity to seek a civil registration and have only one choice: marriage. That, too, is hardly fair.

However, what concerns me most is where this Bill will lead. The Government are unable to give assurances that certain scenarios will not develop. I suspect that many problems will evolve through the legal process because the judiciary will construct judgments that are contrary to the reassurances we hear in the Chamber.

Many hon. Members supported the legislation introduced by the previous Government that created civil partnerships because the consultation document—“Civil Partnership: A Framework for the Legal Recognition of Same Sex Couples”—stated:

“The Government has no plans to allow same-sex couples to marry. The proposals”

for civil registration

“are for an entirely new legal status of civil partnership”.

Just a decade later, we are in the House to discuss the matter again. When the Government say they have no plans to change the criteria for determining who can form a marriage, including a marriage between two people, their assurances are worthless. When I asked the Minister what consideration she had given to extending other forms of marriage, her response was that the law is pretty clear that marriage is between two people. Is that the same law that says that marriage is between one man and one woman? If so, another Government can simply change the definition to include as many partners as they want.

Three Members of the House have said they find it disgusting that people compare polygamy to same-sex marriage. I would challenge all three, if they had remained in the Chamber, to justify that. The assertion was particularly galling because my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) refused to take my intervention. I could have explained to him that no one has ever made that justification. For the record, I have never made that comparison, but the evidence from around the world is that, once marriage is redefined and has a flexible definition, pressure grows for further redefinition. That should come as no surprise. Several advocates of same-sex marriage openly support changing the law to permit polygamy.

In Holland, same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001. Three-way relationships have since been given legal recognition through cohabitation agreements. There have been attempts in Canada to legalise polygamy through the courts using same-sex marriage. In 2007, an appeal court in Ontario ruled that a child can legally have three parents.

Polygamy already exists in this country. The Government recognised in 2007 that there were more than 1,000 bigamous or polygamous marriages in England and Wales. That was identified by Members and peers in the House of Lords. The unintended consequence of the Bill will be allowing the introduction of polygamous marriages, as advocated last night on television by Peter Tatchell. Therefore, I will vote against the Bill on behalf of almost 1,000 of my constituents who have made clear their opposition.

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), I am angry that I have defended people who are homosexual, including many who have left the Chamber, who then deride me as a bigot, and send me text messages saying that I am wrong just because I do not support them. I bitterly resent that.

Equality does not mean that we should treat everything the same. We certainly do not have the right to redefine marriage over the heads of our constituents.

Business of the House

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there are two further statements to follow and, thereafter, two important debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. If I am to get anywhere near accommodating the level of interest, brevity from Front and Back Benchers alike will be imperative.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Can the Chancellor come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House what consideration he has given to the impact of the rise in the pensionable age on those in receipt of permanent health insurance payments under schemes that were designed to end at the current retirement age?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mark Pritchard. Not here.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

14. What recent progress his Department has made on mitigating the effect on rail passengers of rail fare increases.

Middle East

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would like to accommodate several more colleagues, but I shall have a better chance of doing so if hon. and right hon. Members would now confine themselves to single short supplementary questions without preamble, and we will have comparably succinct replies, as ever, from the Secretary of State.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

According to article 51 of the United Nations charter, Israel’s actions are in self-defence. May I therefore urge the Foreign Secretary and this Government to provide support to Israel in her sovereign right to defend her people?

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for the need to be mindful at all times of how outdated sewerage systems can cause problems. People may be more accepting of occasional discharges during periods of very high rainfall, but he knows north Cornwall well, and if he considers the area of Trevone he may wish to look again at South West Water’s record on delivering its promises, because in that area discharges have been occurring several times a month, and the company has yet to take action. I have raised that issue with South West Water, and we hope to address it soon, but he is absolutely right that there is a problem not just here in London, but throughout the country.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a worrying pattern developing whereby the erudition of interventions is equalled only by their length.

[Mr Offord]

I take it from that only that you would like me to talk for even longer, Mr Speaker.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, and having had some experience as a lifeguard in Cornwall I have seen at first hand the problems that South West Water has caused. I intend to go on to address the points that he raises.

From my experience in Cornwall and elsewhere, I am aware also that there are 500 regulated sewer overflows on Britain’s beaches that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, are supposed to operate only after heavy rain. However, swimmers and surfers often complain, even to me, that the overflows operate more regularly to relieve pressure on sewerage systems that are said to be “at bursting point” by the various water companies.

Despite a £10 billion investment programme by water companies since privatisation, about one in four beaches still fails to qualify for the European Union’s top category. The investment has ensured that 96% now meet the lower mandatory standard, but this still means that a swimmer, surfer or scuba diver has a 14% chance of contracting a bacterial or viral infection, and that is simply not acceptable.

Every year the water companies factor into their operating costs the insignificant fines, ranging from a couple of thousand pounds to tens of thousands of pounds, that can be levied on them, and they know that it is cheaper to pay them than to ensure that their infrastructure performs within the terms of their licences. Water companies are labelled repeat offenders, as year on year they are fined for impacting the environment with unlicensed discharges of untreated sewage. Only last Friday South West Water was ordered to pay almost £40,000 in fines and costs for allowing sewage to escape into the River Dart near Galmpton in south Devon, after effluent entered the river last May and caused the closure of a shellfishery.

The 1976 EU bathing water directive is not designed to identify effectively the impacts on the environment from combined sewer overflows. It is useful in giving an indication of water quality over the bathing water season, but all that it really tells us is the water quality during 20 short periods over 140 days, and only in the most popular bathing zones, not at the points where water is most likely to be polluted, such as the mouth of a river or the nearest CSO on the beach.

The revised bathing water directive, which will come into force in 2015, will mean four years’ consecutive data being examined and water being measured against tougher standards. However, there will still be 20 samples, and many pollution incidents will fall between the gaps. I remain concerned that many CSOs are deemed not to have an impact on bathing waters, and so are licensed for even more frequent discharges—the licences do not contain a set figure.

The CSOs also discharge when a predetermined volume of water is being passed forward within the sewerage system. When that volume is reached, the CSO can be employed to release pressure from the system, resulting in raw sewage on beaches and in rivers more than 100 times a year, equal to the frequency in London. Those CSO discharges can also have an impact on the coastal environment. Our over-reliance on CSOs has resulted in the European Commission taking the UK to court over a breach of the EU urban waste water directive of 1991. The case has been heard, but we are still waiting for the judgment.

I support the Thames tunnel, the super-sewer or whatever we want to call it, for the environmental and economic benefits that it will achieve in London. The project is expected to add £70 to £80 to the average Thames Water waste water charge, which has been among the lowest in the country, and I recognise the problems that that would cause some people. Even with the Thames tunnel, however, Thames Water’s bill would rise only to the national average. The additional resources from the Government should allay some of the fears of the people whom colleagues have mentioned.

I also welcome the reduction for South West Water customers, but according to one estimate highlighted by the company itself, the cost of removing or further reducing the impact of CSOs in its region’s network would be about £500 million, which could add as much as £40 a year to the average bill in the region. If the Government propose to subsidise each South West Water customer by £50, the company should by its own evidence be able to afford to undertake that work from its current resources. I should like that to happen, particularly given the introduction of the new bathing water directive. Until that occurs, it is anathema for any Government to claim that we have bathing water of a high standard in this country. My experience, and that of other Members, has been that that is simply not the case.

Point of Order

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members of the House are aware of their responsibilities in relation to the rules about not abusing their position in the House and about their personal and financial business interests. Therefore is it appropriate—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. I am grateful to him for what he has said so far, but an allegation of improper use of House resources, which I understand to be the kernel of his point, is not a matter for the Chair. I thank him for giving me notice of his proposed point of order, but I should tell him that any complaint about alleged misuse of such resources should be made to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Very simply, it is not a matter that should be raised on the Floor of the House. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to other right hon. and hon. Members.

If there are no more points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule Bill. I call Mike Freer. May I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and courteously, affording to the hon. Gentleman the same courtesy as they would wish to be extended to themselves in such circumstances?

Points of Order

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I can deal with the point very simply. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that nothing unparliamentary was said, but for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and of the House, let me make clear what a lot of hon. Members know, but some perhaps do not. To accuse someone of misleading the House is unparliamentary and a breach of order. The use of the word “misleading” in the way in which the Prime Minister used it is not unparliamentary or out of order. That is a statement of fact, and I hope that it is helpful both to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been some confusion about the use of iPads and other electronic devices both in the Chamber and in Committee, particularly the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill Committee. Will you advise the House of the conclusions of the Procedure Committee on the use of such devices?

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it.

I shall deal with this briefly, and in two parts. First, my guidance on the courtesies and conventions of the House states that the House has agreed to the use in the Chamber of hand-held devices to keep up to date with e-mails, provided that they cause no disturbance. All such devices may be switched on as long as they are in silent mode. Members should not use electronic devices as an aide memoire in debate.

Secondly—and the hon. Gentleman referred to this—the Procedure Committee reported last week on this matter and the House will soon want to debate its report. In the meantime, I do not think that the occupant of the Chair can reasonably prevent a Member from discreetly using such a device as an aide memoire in debate. Members should remember to send any notes, electronically or not, to Hansard. I hope—I reiterate this forcefully—that the House will soon reach a view on this in order, apart from anything else, to assist the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Offord and John Bercow

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Matthew Offord.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Question 17, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

No, no. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was seeking to come in on Question 11, which is where we were. I am afraid that we cannot go to Question 17.