Reform UKRomford

Andrew Rosindell MP: Parliament year 2 · speeches

How to read this

Hansard records words spoken in Parliament. A contribution does not by itself show that policy changed.

Year 2: 4 Jul 2025 to 3 Jul 2026. Newest first within each group. Follow the original source for full context.

Speeches

2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to join the people of the Isle of Man this weekend, as they prepare to celebrate Tynwald Day on Monday. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting the Tynwald day reception in Speaker’s House last night with the Chief Minister, the President of Tynwald and the Speaker of the House of Keys. For several years, I have received correspondence from former constituents who have moved to countries such as Australia and Canada after a lifetime of paying tax in the UK. Nearly half a million British pensioners abroad have their state pensions frozen, while those in the EU and the United States receive annual increases. That is even the case for those who retire to the British overseas territories of Anguilla, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos. How can it be right that British nationals are treated differently depending on where they live? Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on this long-standing injustice?
29 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
T2. The Minister should know that although the triple lock remains in place, it is not as effective as it should be because of fiscal drag. A lot of pensioners are now paying tax, as the threshold has not been increased since 2021. Will he please do something for the hard-working pensioners of this country, who deserve better in their retirement?
29 Jun 2026 · Supporting British Pensioners · Hansard source
More
I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will know that my borough of Havering has the second largest number of older people in the entirety of Greater London. Nearly a quarter of my constituents are within that age bracket, and they are losing out. I know that the Government’s policy on the winter fuel allowance has changed, but it frightened them and made them ask whether Labour is really on their side. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the next Labour Administration will not target pensioners, but will give them the respect they deserve, and ensure that they have a happy and healthy retirement?
29 Jun 2026 · Supporting British Pensioners · Hansard source
More
14. What recent steps he has taken to support British pensioners.
25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
I feel sure that the Leader of the House will want to join me in celebrating with the people of Romford. We have a double celebration this week: Armed Forces Day, when there is a magnificent parade through the town centre with the Royal British Legion Band & Corps of Drums, ex-servicemen, cadets, and many others joining to salute our brave servicemen and women; and the 10-year anniversary of 70% of my constituents voting to leave the European Union and take back control of their country. I want to make one serious point about the closure of schools across the country. Will the relevant Minister come to the House today to say, “No. We have learnt the lessons from covid. Closing schools because of a heatwave is the wrong decision to make”? Taking children out of the classroom is absolutely wrong, so will the Minister make a statement condemning it?
25 Jun 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source
More
There is a consensus across the House that the horrific occurrences in Sudan are worthy of global attention and action well beyond what has been done so far. We spend a lot of time talking about Gaza in this Chamber, but very little time talking about Sudan, which is a far greater humanitarian crisis. Will the Minister consider the implications for the Christian community in Sudan? It is a small community, but they have been particularly harmed by the conflict, with many churches being demolished and many vulnerable Christians persecuted. Will he take that matter up with the international authorities?
24 Jun 2026 · Animal Shelters: Regulation of Euthanasia · Hansard source
More
I beg to move, That this House has considered the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters. It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of deep concern to animal welfare organisations, rescue centres, veterinary professionals and millions of animal lovers across the United Kingdom: the regulation of the use of euthanasia in dog and animal shelters, and the wider challenges facing animal welfare across this country. Before I begin, I pay tribute to my dear late friend, Sir David Amess. Sir David was one of Parliament’s most passionate champions of animal welfare. Throughout his distinguished parliamentary career, he consistently spoke up for animals—God’s creatures—who could not speak for themselves. Whether campaigning for stronger welfare protections, raising welfare concerns in Parliament or supporting charities working on the frontline, his compassion for animals was unwavering, and I am determined that his legacy on animal welfare will live on, hence this debate today. I would also like to recognise the work of his daughter, Katie Amess, who has continued that commitment with great determination and dignity. Through her engagement with rescue organisations, campaigners and welfare charities, she has ensured that these issues remain firmly in the public consciousness. Those working tirelessly to improve animal welfare across our country are grateful for her continued advocacy. Sir David understood a simple truth: the way a society treats its animals says much about the values it upholds. It is in that spirit that I bring this debate before the House. The issue before us is not simply one of euthanasia; it is about transparency, accountability, responsible ownership, animal welfare and whether our current systems are equipped to cope with the pressures they now face.
24 Jun 2026 · Animal Shelters: Regulation of Euthanasia · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member is, of course, absolutely correct. The laws in this area are completely inadequate, and as I will go on to say later, this is something that people across the British Isles care deeply about. We are a nation of animal lovers, and there is no greater animal lover than the hon. Member. He speaks very passionately for the people of Northern Ireland, and I thank him for his intervention. Across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, rescue organisations report that they are overwhelmed. Shelters are full, waiting lists are growing and charities are being forced to make impossible decisions as increasing numbers of dogs and other animals are abandoned, surrendered or left as strays. The RSPCA has reported significant increases in abandonment in some areas, and rescue organisations throughout the country consistently warn that they are operating beyond capacity. The consequences of the cost of living crisis, combined with irresponsible breeding practices and impulse pet purchases have created what many in the sector now describe as a genuine animal welfare crisis. When shelters are full and rescue spaces cannot be found, local authorities and contracted kennels face a difficult decision. Under existing legislation, once a stray dog has completed the statutory holding period and remains unclaimed, authorities may rehome the dog, transfer it to an appropriate establishment or euthanise it. The law therefore clearly provides alternatives to euthanasia, but campaigners, rescue organisations and those working directly with council pounds have serious concerns about how the system operates in practice. Many local authorities no longer operate their own pounds. Instead, they contract the service to private kennels or commercial providers. Those facilities often have limited space and resources and significant operational pressures. As a result, many do not conduct the full behavioural assessments and adoption processes required for direct public rehoming. The practical reality described by many rescue organisations is that once the seven-day statutory holding period expires, the race begins to find a rescue space before a healthy dog loses its life. Volunteer groups known as pound pullers spend countless hours attempting to find rescue placements for dogs facing euthanasia. Rescue organisations report that they are frequently contacted to take dogs from council pounds, but many are already operating at full capacity. One of the most troubling aspects of the issue is that we do not actually know the true scale of it. There are no centralised systems recording how many healthy or treatable animals are euthanised by local authorities, contracted kennels or veterinary practices. Freedom of information requests often produce inconsistent results, records vary significantly between local authorities, and veterinary practices are not required to report such figures centrally. There is no direct knowledge of what is really happening on the ground. The absence of data is a serious problem. Good public policy demands that evidence is provided, and depends upon it, yet there is a remarkable lack of transparency in this area. We cannot properly assess the scale of the issue, identify trends or develop effective interventions if the information is not collected. I therefore urge the Government to consider establishing a national reporting framework for healthy and treatable companion animals euthanised in the stray dog and shelter system. Such a measure would not seek to criticise local authorities, rescue organisations or veterinary professionals; rather, it would provide transparency, improve accountability and ensure that future policy decisions are informed by evidence rather than assumption. The Government should also review whether the current seven-day holding period remains fit for purpose. Rescue organisations argue that seven days is often insufficient to locate an owner, complete necessary assessments or secure an appropriate rescue placement. Given the unprecedented pressures facing the rescue sector, it is reasonable to ask whether a framework established decades ago remains adequate for today’s circumstances. Although euthanasia is the issue we are debating today, it is not the root cause of the problem. The real question is why so many animals are entering the system in the first place. Time and again, rescue organisations tell us the same thing: there are simply more dogs than there are homes available for them. The reality demands action. First, we should examine whether it is appropriate to continue issuing large numbers of new breeding licences when shelters and rescue centres are already struggling to cope with existing demand. Responsible breeders have an important role to play, and this debate is not about penalising those who adhere to high welfare standards. However, when rescue organisations across the country report that they are full and that healthy animals are being put at risk due to lack of capacity, we must ask whether the current rate of licensed breeding is sustainable. The Government should therefore consider temporarily restricting or reducing the issuing of new breeding licences until pressure on shelters and rescue organisations has eased. Secondly, all animals rehomed through shelters and rescue organisations should, where medically appropriate, be compulsorily spayed or neutered and microchipped before adoption. Many reputable rescue organisations already operate in that way. Introducing a consistent national standard would help reduce unwanted litters, improve traceability and prevent future generations of animals from entering the shelter system unnecessarily. Thirdly, we should continue strengthening laws on animal cruelty and abandonment. Animals are sentient beings, not disposable commodities. The law must reflect that principle. Stronger enforcement with tougher penalties for serious cruelty offences, and greater support for prosecutions, would help deter neglect and abandonment while reinforcing the responsibilities that accompany pet ownership. Fourthly, the Government should establish a central national database for stray, abandoned and lost animals that is accessible to local authorities, shelters and authorised welfare organisations. At present, information is fragmented across multiple systems, charities and regions. A unified database would improve communication, reduce duplication, increase opportunities for reunification and significantly improve the efficiency of rescue efforts. Fifthly, every stray animal should be routinely scanned for a microchip upon entering a veterinary surgery, local authority facility, contracted kennel or rescue organisation. We desperately need a more unified approach here. Surprisingly, there is no single microchip database for those organisations to check. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the 11 databases of the Association of Microchip Database Operators to build a single point of search, but what happens with the 14 databases that are not AMDO members? Furthermore, although some databases are free of charge, some are now charging one-off amounts. Others are starting to charge subscription fees, which I am concerned will create a financial barrier to a legally mandated obligation on owners to microchip. I commend to the Minister the work of Vets Get Scanning, an organisation established by the late Sir Bruce Forsyth and his fabulous daughter Debbie Matthews, who has been campaigning for this for many years to stop pet theft and return animals to their rightful owners. I invited Sir Bruce Forsyth to the Houses of Parliament some years ago to promote this very cause. He met many Members of Parliament at that time, including Sir David Amess, to promote the importance of all veterinary surgeries scanning animals when they are brought in, to check who the real owner of the pet is and to ensure that stolen dogs are returned to their rightful owners. This recommendation carries a particular significance because of the tragic case of Tuk in 2017, which exposed serious shortcomings in the identification process and highlighted the devasting consequences that can occur when procedures fail. I must also pay tribute at this point to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who has championed this cause. Routine and repeated microchip scanning would be a simple, practical and cost-effective safeguard that could prevent similar incidents in the future while increasing the likelihood of lost pets being reunited with their families. Taken together, these proposals would not require vast new expenditure. They are simple, preventive measures that address the causes of the crisis rather than merely responding to its consequences. By reducing the number of animals entering the system, improving traceability, strengthening accountability and supporting responsible ownership, we can reduce the circumstances in which euthanasia becomes necessary. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work undertaken by rescue charities, volunteers, local authority officers, kennel staff and veterinary professionals. Those on the frontline of animal welfare frequently face heartbreaking decisions. They do not do so because they lack compassion, but because they are operating within a system and are under immense strain. This debate is not about assigning blame, but about identifying solutions. Sir David Amess often reminded us that animals cannot speak for themselves. It therefore falls to us as legislators to ensure that their welfare is properly protected. The measures I have outlined today would increase transparency, support rescue organisations, encourage responsible ownership and reduce the number of healthy animals at risk of unnecessary euthanasia. Most importantly, they would tackle the underlying causes of the crisis rather than merely its symptoms. In doing so, we would not only improve the lives of countless animals across the country, but honour the legacy of Sir David Amess, whose lifelong commitment to animal welfare inspired so many, and support the continuing efforts of Katie Amess and others who work tirelessly to ensure that vulnerable animals are given the protection, dignity and compassion that they deserve. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
23 Jun 2026 · Loan Charge · Hansard source
More
2. What steps she has taken to support people adversely affected by the loan charge.
23 Jun 2026 · Loan Charge · Hansard source
More
The Minister will be aware that tens of thousands of people continue to suffer because of the loan charge scandal, and that successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have failed those people. They have dithered, delayed and ignored reviews, causing confusion, worsening the financial harm and anxiety for so many people. Surely the Minister must agree that the victims deserve resolution and closure, so that they can move on with their lives?
11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
As the Leader of the House is only too well aware, there has been a big political change in Havering, with a new Reform council and 23 Reform councillors elected in my constituency. Despite that, outer Greater London boroughs are still subject to the Labour mayor’s plan, which mandates boroughs such as mine pursuing astronomical building targets that necessitate huge high-rise buildings that do not fit in a town like Romford. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on these disproportionate plans, so that local people in areas like mine have the autonomy and a stronger voice, enabling them to defend their way of life and the character of our town and country borough?
4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
The Leader of the House will be aware that the local elections across Greater London brought seismic change to the political landscape. In my constituency, every single council seat—all 23—was won by Reform UK, and Havering council is now a Reform UK London borough. Does he accept that the political divide between inner-city London and areas that orbit the capital, such as my town and the county borough of Havering, can no longer be ignored after these results? Will he make time for a debate on reform of regional and local government around the capital, so that boroughs like Havering can regain our independence from the bureaucracy and control of City Hall and the Mayor of London—just as Margaret Thatcher, when she abolished the Greater London Council in 1986, gave real power back to local people in local boroughs?
3 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
Q7. I wonder if the Prime Minister has had the chance to study the election results in Havering: zero Labour councillors were elected in Romford, zero Conservative councillors were elected across Havering for the first time since 1964 and it is the first Reform UK London borough. That shows people’s disillusionment with the political establishment. In his final days as Prime Minister, can he do something for the people of Romford and give us the accident and emergency unit at Queen’s hospital that the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said he would deliver, but failed to do?
18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source
More
At the heart of the King’s Speech lies a fundamental misunderstanding of how economic growth is created. Growth comes from the grassroots, not central planning. It certainly does not come from Whitehall or European micromanagement and regulation; rather, it comes from everyday people in our constituencies who get up early, work hard and build businesses from nothing while incurring risks themselves. It comes from Governments getting out of the way of people’s lives and allowing enterprise to flourish. In Romford, the entrepreneurial spirit is deeply ingrained in our community. Ever since King Henry III granted our market charter in 1247, our town has thrived through enterprise. My constituency has always been a town of market traders, small businessmen, shopkeepers and the self-employed. Napoleon’s remark that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers should fill us with pride, as our entrepreneurial spirit is the foundation of Britain’s success as a prosperous, free-trading nation. Yet today my local high street, like so many up and down the country, tells a very different story. Successive Governments, and this Government in particular, have made it harder, not easier, to operate a successful business here in Britain. Only this Government could stand here claiming to back growth while simultaneously hammering employers with a tax on employment through higher national insurance contributions. The people of Romford made their views known very clearly on 7 May, with every single council seat in my constituency—all 23—being won by Reform UK. Ordinary working men and women have simply had enough. Watching their communities fall into terminal decline while the national Government effectively destroy people’s livelihoods is simply unacceptable. Two of those Reform UK councillors, Diane and Russell Smith, are landlords of the Wheatsheaf pub—a family-run business started by Russell’s father. They are risk takers, and they are indispensable to our local economy. It was never their intention to enter frontline politics, but they could no longer tolerate watching their community fall into disrepair and seeing the so-called Government of working people fleece small business owners and local traders like them and make running a successful commercial enterprise intolerable. They are right.
18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source
More
The right Member is, as always, completely correct. Our nation’s success is built on grassroots entrepreneurial spirit, not bureaucracy, corporate control or Government regulation—and certainly not Brussels interfering with our affairs yet again, after we had a referendum in which the British people voted overwhelmingly to get out of a political union with Europe. Now, the Government want us to have a pathway to growth, apparently through closer alignment with the European Union. We do not yet know what the contents of the so-called European partnership Bill will be, but it is bound to mean more powers being stripped away from this place and the British people, with the introduction of so-called dynamic alignment—the regulatory straitjacket that will be imposed on us by Brussels. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said to the Prime Minister only last week, the Labour party’s solution to growth is to make the UK a subservient rule taker from a foreign Parliament. That is unacceptable. The socialist solution is always more central planning, more spending and more bureaucracy. It failed in the 1970s, and it will fail again today. What this country needs is not more Whitehall diktats or Government intrusion into people’s lives, but another 1979-style Margaret Thatcher revolution for enterprise—a period of national rejuvenation defined by cutting back state intervention and giving people back control over their lives. We must cut the waste and red tape strangling business, scrap IR35, and give our tradesmen, freelancers and small firms a fair deal again. We need to lower and simplify corporation tax to make Britain one of the best places in the world to build a business, instead of watching as the wealthy flee our shores. We must abolish inheritance tax, so that families can pass on what they have built through a lifetime of work. We must reform welfare, so that those who can work do work, but ensure that those who are vulnerable are genuinely cared for. We must reward effort, protect the vulnerable and, most importantly, bring back respect for the hard-working taxpayer. We need to cut waste, restore discipline to public finances, and spend where it helps working people and small businesses, rather than propping up the bureaucracy and needless white-collar workers. I want Romford to thrive again, but we can achieve that only if we stop treating small businesses like cash machines, and start treating them, rightly, as the backbone of our economy and the lifeblood of our communities.
22 Apr 2026 · Defence Sector · Hansard source
More
The Minister will be aware of the excellent potential of the defence sector in Wales. However, she will also be aware that the United Kingdom, under this Government, is woefully unprepared and uniquely vulnerable to global and geopolitical threats. What steps is she taking to ensure that her Department works with the Ministry of Defence in prioritising British firms in Wales over foreign suppliers so that we strengthen British capabilities and skilled Welsh jobs, rather than offshoring our security and our jobs to strategic competitors or, even worse, to our enemies?
22 Apr 2026 · Defence Sector · Hansard source
More
2. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the defence sector in Wales on the UK’s defence capabilities.
26 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) is absolutely right: Essex has existed since before the Norman conquest, and during those years, everything from the River Lea to the North sea was part of the great county of Essex. Yet today, the people of Havering and my constituents in Romford are not included in any discussion or any consultation; they have no meaningful way of participating in discussions about how we want to go forward. Does the Minister agree that it is time that the people of my borough were given the right to also become a unitary authority, free of the control of the Greater London Authority and City Hall? Will she at least allow Havering to become part of the ceremonial county of Essex so that our identity as part of the ancient county of Essex remains strong?
26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
This week, I was shocked to hear about the unacceptable living conditions that my constituents are enduring at Haynes Park Court in Hornchurch. Leaseholders and tenants paying substantial service charges report rat infestations, black mould, damp and water leaks, alongside concerns about antisocial behaviour throughout the estate. Despite repeated attempts to engage with the managing company, London and Quadrant, about these issues, residents feel ignored, neglected and completely let down. Does the Leader of the House agree that housing associations like L&Q must be held to account? Will he make time for a debate on improving living conditions for my constituents and others who are facing similarly appalling conditions at the hands of housing associations that are failing in their duty to local residents?
26 Mar 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will agree that the disclosure of the Mandelson files is of national importance and in the public interest, so can you please confirm that all the Mandelson files—including those restricted by the police—will be released to the Intelligence and Security Committee by 29 April, the date that I believe will be the Prorogation of Parliament? If not, can you confirm that the Humble Address will be rolled over into the next Session, or that a new motion will be tabled to ensure that those important documents are released?
26 Mar 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source
More
I thank you for your indulgence this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are about to start the Easter recess. Traditionally in this House, we have always had an Easter Adjournment debate. Last year, the Easter Adjournment debate was renamed to “Adjournment of general debate of the House”. Can I ask you why there has been no Easter Adjournment debate this year? We are still a Christian country, and Easter is an important festival that we have always recognised by having that Adjournment debate at the end of the Session.
26 Mar 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
I have absolutely no doubt that the Leader of the House will have joined all of us in celebrating St Patrick’s day on Tuesday 17 March. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting a St Patrick’s day celebration in Speaker’s House. However, why are the Ulster banner and the cross of St Patrick not flown from the Houses of Parliament? It is right that flags are flown for Wales, Scotland and England on patron saint days, but no flag is flown for Northern Ireland, so can we rectify that for next year? Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a St Patrick’s day debate in the Chamber, as we usually do? It is right that we discuss British-Irish relations, particularly the negative effect of the Windsor framework, which has divided our United Kingdom and is a democratic outrage.
12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
Every year, for St George’s day, my local scouts in Romford have a parade and a service at a local church; in fact, there are two parades in Havering, as this also happens in Hornchurch. This year, however, the police have withdrawn support as they are not prepared to marshal the very short parade on the basis of cost. We pay in huge sums of money for the Metropolitan police and, as with any kind of event, I expect them to be there to look after the safety of the young people celebrating the patron saint of scouting. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the importance of celebrating St George’s day as part of our great English cultural heritage, as well as the failure of the Metropolitan police to ensure that the London borough of Havering is given the police cover that we deserve and pay for?
11 Mar 2026 · Commonwealth Day 2026 · Hansard source
More
I commend my hon. Friend for his initiative in having this debate and for his work as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth. Does he agree that the Commonwealth’s wider members—our overseas territories, the Crown dependencies, the external territories of Australia and the realm states of New Zealand—are also very much part of the Commonwealth family and should be included in some way in the work of the Commonwealth?
11 Mar 2026 · Commonwealth Day 2026 · Hansard source
More
rose —
5 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
In 1986, when President Ronald Reagan contacted Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ask that Royal Air Force bases in the UK be used to attack the Gaddafi regime in Libya, she said yes. This Prime Minister has said no to the same request from the current President, refusing the use of the Chagos islands. We know that Gibraltar is under threat as well, with the deal that is apparently being agreed, which could prevent the use of Gibraltar for future defence and security. What have this Government got against the British overseas territories, and is it not time we had a debate about the importance to defence and security of the British overseas territories’ contribution? Now we hear about the British bases on Cyprus. We need a debate on this, because they are vital to the defence and security of the United Kingdom and the entire free world.
2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source
More
I hope the Prime Minister agrees that current events show how vital military infrastructure is in the middle eastern region of the world. However, at the very moment when Diego Garcia is relied on as a critical asset, the Prime Minister proposes to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius and to lease back the airbase for our use. Does he not realise what a catastrophic policy this is? Will he abandon this misguided plan and ensure that the Chagos islands remain under British sovereignty?
2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source
More
Cancelling elections is always wrong, unless there is an extreme situation that necessitates postponement of an election. I cannot think of many examples in recent years in which that was necessary. I remember when Margaret Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council. She extended its term by one year only and then the GLC was, rightly, abolished. I remember that during the covid pandemic, the Greater London Authority’s term was extended by one year, but then it was shortened in the next term, so there was a five-year term and then a three-year term. Cancelling elections—I think, in this case, purely for political reasons—is fundamentally dishonest of this Government. It was only because of the actions of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who sought a judicial review, that the Government were forced to do another U-turn, allowing the right of the people of this country to vote for their chosen local councillors in the forthcoming elections on 7 May. I would like to make a further point, because democracy is not only about how people vote in local elections and whom they choose as their local councillors; it is also about the structure of local government. My borough is the London borough of Havering, as the Minister knows only too well because I have spoken about it on many occasions. I was rather disappointed that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) did not acknowledge that the London borough of Havering actually is also an Essex borough. The problem is that the people of my borough have never been given the chance to choose whether we want to be under the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority, or whether we would prefer to be a unitary authority or under the new Greater Essex. We simply do not get given the chance to decide. We are not asked. Our opinion does not matter. We are forced into an artificial Greater London structure that does not suit the interests of my borough. It means that we are paying vast sums of money to, effectively, subsidise inner London. It means that things like ULEZ are imposed on us. It means that planning is taken out of our control, so we are Londonised and are becoming a concrete jungle. All these things have no democratic mandate from the people of Havering. Postponing elections is really just as bad as denying local people the right to choose what kind of structure they would like to be in. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton was in Romford outside the town hall only last week, and the popularity in my borough of a local referendum on becoming a unitary authority outside Greater London is extremely high. I say to the Minister that if we believe in democracy, we need to be given the chance to make those decisions. The key point here is that we are only debating this issue because of the petition—I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on introducing it to the House. Frankly, it is a disgrace that we have to do this and that so many people had to sign a petition purely to demand their right to vote in a democratic election on 7 May. My borough was voting anyway; our election was not postponed. We are looking forward to quite a big change in Havering—and I think there will be a big change—because people are tired of being governed by City Hall and tired of being governed by a town hall that is not representative of the local community. I firmly believe that we will have the first Reform UK council in the Greater London area. I would like to make a point to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). I agree with everything he said. The Liberal Democrats have an honourable position in terms of democracy—I think there was a little issue in Cheltenham, but let’s not worry about that. The Liberal Democrats were very clear that there should have been elections. However, under the restructuring of local government, his new local authority will be called West Surrey. Surely it should be called West Surrey and South Middlesex to reflect the true historic county identity of that area. If we are going to rename local authorities, we should give them names that reflect the geography and history of the area. It is very important that Middlesex is included in the name of the new unitary authority. I hope he agrees.
2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source
More
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has sympathy with me, because local identity matters. Giving a council a name that everyone feels represented by is very important, so I hope that will become a reality. Middlesex Heritage is campaigning strongly for this. Even I get requests to raise this issue, although I am not a Middlesex MP—I am an Essex MP, and proud of it. I hope that the Government have learned a lesson here. Democracy has been fought for over many centuries and many generations. It is not something to just discard, postpone or delay purely for political advantage. I am afraid that the Government have been caught out on this issue. I believe the Minister should apologise today for the denial of democracy. Thank goodness the threat of a judicial review prompted the Government to make the U-turn so that the people of this country can properly vote in local elections on 7 May.
2 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
Does the Secretary of State agree that we should prioritise the promotion of British heritage in schools? If so, will she bring in a policy to ensure that every school flies the Union Jack outside its premises, and that a different pupil gets the chance to raise the national flag every morning?
25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source
More
I think we are getting to the crux of this issue. The Minister was in the Foreign Office when the negotiations were taking place. He should know that the Île du Coin in the Peros Banhos atoll, where Misley Mandarin, the first minister appointed by the Chagossian people, is currently situated, is nowhere near Diego Garcia. It is over 120 miles away from the military base. It poses no threat. The people on those islands pose no threat to security or to the military base at Diego Garcia. This is a sham. This Government and the last Government have been denying the truth, which is that the Chagossian people are British and should be given the same rights of self-determination that the Falkland Islanders, the Gibraltarians and all British overseas territories rightly deserve.
12 Feb 2026 · Commuter Safety · Hansard source
More
3. What steps she is taking with public transport providers to help improve the safety of commuters.
12 Feb 2026 · Commuter Safety · Hansard source
More
The Secretary of State is only too well aware of the dither, delay and ineptitude of the Mayor of London and Transport for London over the Gallows Corner A127-A12 junction. It should have been completed last year, but the works will apparently be going on not only until the spring of this year, but even longer. The situation is affecting people right across Havering, Essex and east London, and it is creating chaos and disruption for my constituents and those of many other hon. Members. Will she please take control and sort this matter out as fast as possible, so that it does not do any more damage to our local economy.
12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), I know that the Leader of the House will fully appreciate that he is a member of His Majesty’s Government. In 2022, guidance issued under the last Conservative Administration established “UK Government” as an official corporate identity and a commonplace Government term, but he will know that any Government, including the current one, serve at His Majesty’s pleasure. The Prime Minister does not serve a corporate construct; he serves the Crown—the embodiment of our nation and her people. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the need to reinstate an understanding of, and deference to, our constitutional heritage, which is His Majesty’s Government and the King in Parliament?
5 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
Last week I visited Gina and Vincenzo, the owners of a fantastic local Italian restaurant in Hornchurch, whose much-loved business is struggling under the weight of extortionate business rates. They used to pay £2,200 a year, but are now having to pay around £6,800; however, according to the calculator on the Government website, they will have to pay an astonishing £19,000 in business rates in the future. The Leader of the House must know that pubs and restaurants across the UK are being ruined because of the Government’s anti-business policies, so will he at least make time for a debate on business rates reform? Can he really blame the owners of Umberto’s for banning Labour MPs from their premises?
29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
The Leader of the House will be aware that, on Monday, I joined my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) at a huge rally in support of our brave British veterans, a magnificent occasion organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The message from veterans was clear: Labour’s plans to enable the perpetual persecution of soldiers who served in Northern Ireland is “diabolical”. Indeed, I would say it is a betrayal. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate about how the United Kingdom has ended up with a policy of giving legal protection to the terrorists who killed British subjects, while the soldiers who protected civilians in Ulster face prosecution simply for doing the job of serving Queen and country?
28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source
More
Given that the President believes this deal to be “an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”, perhaps the Prime Minister should show some courage, withdraw this legislation and scrap this atrocious deal altogether. In conclusion, this deal should be cast into the dustbin of history where it belongs, mark an end to the Government’s policy of managed decline, and prove that when it comes to the sovereignty of people over their homeland, whether it be Chagos—the British Indian Ocean Territory—or any other territory that is being decolonised around the world, it is the people themselves who must decide, have the final say and be given the right of self-determination.
28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source
More
My right hon. Friend is completely right. There is a precedent here. The Falkland Islands could have gone the same way. Gibraltar could have gone the same way—indeed, the Government tried to make that happen. In 2002, one of the biggest campaigns I have ever fought was against the joint sovereignty plan by Tony Blair, which was against the wishes of the Gibraltarian people. I commend Mr Speaker, who at the time I worked with very closely in order to keep Gibraltar British, as happened in 1982 in order to keep the Falkland Islands British—but always on the basis of self-determination.
28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source
More
I am very pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I only wish that, when he was the leader of the Conservative party, he had gone on to become Prime Minister, because then we would not be sitting here debating this issue today. The last words of his speech said everything that needed to be said. All Governments of all political parties have failed to do the right and moral thing over many decades. The Chagos islands were depopulated—cruelly depopulated—and the people of the Chagos islands were never given any say or any right of self-determination. Had that happened, decolonisation would have taken place, and there would never have been an International Court ruling. The Chagos islands would have stayed British and, as the Falkland Islanders and the Gibraltarians have done, they would have proudly voted in any referendum to exercise their right of self-determination and stayed British. However, all Governments of all parties ignored the whole issue for decades, despite all the appeals of a small number of us who tried again and again and again, but were ignored. That is why we are in the position we are in today. I cannot disagree with almost anything my former colleagues have been saying about this issue. They have analysed it correctly, and I only wish that we had done something about it during our 14 years in government.
28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source
More
I have one simple question for the hon. Member. Is it now Conservative party policy to give self-determination and the right of resettlement to the Chagossian people?
28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source
More
I agree with every word my very dear and long-standing friend has said. I sit on a different Bench now, but as I look around the Chamber, I see colleagues on the Conservative Benches who I still agree with on most things, but I see some people on the Labour Benches—and certainly some of those in the Government—who seem to hate everything about this country and want to undermine this country, including when it comes to Northern Ireland veterans, and this particular issue, of the surrender of one of His Majesty’s territories against the wishes of the people, is exactly what I am talking about.
28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source
More
I will not give way at this stage. As I think all Members on both sides of the House will know, few issues have consumed so much of the 25 years of my parliamentary life as the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagos islands and, more importantly, the Chagossian people. For more than two decades, I have fought for the Chagossian right of self-determination, as with all overseas territories and former colonies. I chaired the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group. In fact, I was previously the deputy chairman to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), so trying to get cross-party consensus on where we were heading was a bit of a juggling act. The one thing that united that all-party group was the belief that the Chagossians should have the right of resettlement. I argued strongly for self-determination and that ultimately, whatever the options are and whatever happens, the Chagossians should have the final say. The right hon. Member had a different view, but members of that group—representing seven political parties—came to the view that the first thing needed was resettlement. However, the Conservative Government, over 14 years, absolutely refused even to consider any option for the resettlement of those islands. I also dealt with this issue as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee over 15 years. Unlike the many who now speak with great certainty but remained silent during that period, I did not remain silent. I have also been to the British Indian Ocean Territory. I have walked around those islands, and seen the abandoned churches and schools. I have walked around the ancestral graves of the Chagossian people and the derelict homes. I have seen the visible traces of a community expelled from its homeland and denied the right to return. I have raised this with every Foreign Office Minister in every Government over and over again, and I have been ignored. A small number of us were ignored; I pay tribute to Daniel Kawczynski, the former Member for Shrewsbury, and Henry Smith, the former Member for Crawley, for raising this matter. We all raised it, but, sadly, over 14 years the last Government just dismissed it and refused even to consider it. I went to Peros Banhos, the outer islands, which are 160 miles away from Diego Garcia. There is no security threat there. It took me four different boats to get to the outer islands. People could live there with no issues whatsoever, because they would be a long way from Diego Garcia. Despite the line from the Foreign Office, when I went to the State Department and raised this matter directly with the Americans, they said, “We have no objections to the Chagossians living in the outer islands.” Our Foreign Office has been puppeteering this policy for years, and our Ministers just went along with it. They did nothing and they ignored the facts. I went to Mauritius in 2002, accompanied by the then leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend Michael Howard—Lord Howard of Lympne. It was not part of the official programme, but I asked, “Please can we go and visit the Chagossians in Port Louis?” After a bit of a flurry from officials, in the end we insisted, and we went to meet the leaders of the Chagossian community. That was in 2002, which was pretty much my first year as a Member of Parliament. So when I speak about the Chagos islands, I do so from long experience, having visited Diego Garcia and the outer islands, and I conclude that the current position represents—sadly, by all parties—a shameful betrayal of the loyal British Chagossian people. The Government’s Bill is nothing short of a surrender. It hands away British sovereignty over a territory that we have administered for more than two centuries. It binds generations of British taxpayers to a grotesque financial settlement, with tens of billions of pounds paid to a foreign Government simply so we may lease back the military base that we already own. It is vital to our security and that of one of our closest allies, yet we are prepared to risk that vital military and security base for the next century because of this shabby deal. Ministers justify this capitulation by sheltering behind so-called international law. They insist that a non-binding advisory opinion of a Court, whose jurisdiction is explicitly excluded from intra-Commonwealth disputes, is somehow beyond negotiation, yet at the same time they are content to ignore the 1966 agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom—an actual binding international treaty—which states plainly in its very first clause: “The Territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.” That consideration tells us everything we need to know: this was never really about international law. An act of “total weakness” is how this has been described by the President of the United States of America, and does that not just say everything about this Government’s approach? All this is being done without the consent of or a genuine consultation with—and even without the courtesy, which every other territory has been afforded, of a democratic vote for—the Chagossian people themselves. As disgraceful as the Bill is, it did not emerge from a vacuum. For over two decades and, as I have mentioned, for 14 years from the Government Back Benches, I urged Foreign Secretary after Foreign Secretary and Minister after Minister—speaking to them in the Lobbies, going to the Foreign Office and talking to officials; and discussing it over and over again by calling them into all-party group meetings and raising it at the Foreign Affairs Committee—to consider the Chagossians’ right of resettlement and self-determination, but I was ignored all the way through.
28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source
More
I will make some progress. With assurances from the United States, and given precedents around the world where indigenous people live alongside military installations, in 2016 I tabled an urgent question calling for self-determination. The response from the then Conservative Foreign Office Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, was this: “we do not consider that the right of self-determination actually applies to the Chagossians.” —[ Official Report , 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 386.] What a colossal disgrace. Sir Alan compared Chagossian resettlement to Pitcairn—another British community that the then Conservative Government were willing to discard to another nation, even though Pitcairn later proved strategically vital for our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. I am sad to say that the Government are correct that it was my Government—the Conservative Government at the time—that began this scandal, conducting 11 rounds of negotiations with Port Louis. I commend Lord Cameron, who rightly ended those talks, but they should never have begun in the first place. Why did my former party not repudiate that whole policy entirely afterwards? Why did they not say, “That’s the end of it. Never again.” and repudiate the failure of Sir Alan Duncan to give self-determination? Why did we not jettison that entire policy? We did not do so. Even from within the shadow foreign affairs team, I argued very strongly that the policy was fundamentally and morally wrong, and that self-determination must be central to our response, but I was shut down. The Conservatives’ opposition to this Bill, I am afraid, does comes not from principle but from convenience. The cost of this surrender is indeed eye-watering and has been the focus of the Opposition for the last year, but no amount of money compares to the dishonour of selling out British people. Self-determination is fundamental to everything I believe in—so fundamental that it rendered my position as shadow Minister untenable. I was pleased to hear the words of self-determination used earlier by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), because when I asked we take that position in the past, I was told it was not party policy. I am thrilled if now, at long last, self-determination for the Chagossian people is official Conservative party policy. I hope that is the case—if it is, then everything that I have been fighting for over the last 25 years has been worth it—but the Bill and its origins, under both this Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government, represents the moment that I had enough over this issue and needed to say clearly that country has to come before party; and I believe that the Chagossians deserve the same democratic rights as every other British citizen. A few weeks ago, I was genuinely horrified and upset to be prevented, on Conservative Whips’ instruction, from voting for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is a fine addition to the House and has campaigned wonderfully for the rights of the Chagossian people. His amendment sought to guarantee a referendum for the Chagossian people. I went to the doorway of the Lobby, but was told that I could not go in and vote for it. I apologise to my Chagossian friends that I let them down on that, but I was told not to and I felt deeply upset that I did not. I made it clear to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that he had, and still has, my support. Meanwhile, genuine opposition on the Benches from which I speak now has put aside party squabbles, because national interest must always come before party—there is not really much in common usually between the Reform and Liberal Democrat Benches, but this is a matter of principle. Colleagues in my new party voted for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and I commend them for doing so. It asked simply to give a displaced people the right of consent before their homeland is gift-wrapped and donated to a foreign country. That is all we are asking: let the people decide. Who can seriously disagree with that principle? We rightly insist on self-determination for the Falkland Islanders, we strongly uphold it for Gibraltar, and we defend it for every other British overseas territory and former colony. The Government are happy to support that principle over Greenland, it seems, but not for their own British Chagossian people. It makes no sense and it is morally reprehensible. What took place in the House of Lords on Third Reading was shameful. Peers repeatedly called for a Division, shouts of “Not content” were heard again and again, yet the House was denied the opportunity to vote. A Bill of immense constitutional, financial and strategic consequence—one of the most important pieces of legislation of this Parliament—was nodded through on a procedural manoeuvre, squandering a chance to kill it. I was further disturbed to learn from many very angry Conservative peers who contacted me that they had been instructed not to vote the Bill down, not because the arguments were weak or because the numbers were lacking, but because of a quiet understanding that sovereignty should not be defended too robustly today, lest it cause inconvenience for tomorrow. Many Members of the House of Lords contacted me absolutely in despair at the instructions that they were given by their Whips. This is not coming from me, because I am not in the Lords, but from those who were there who were deeply upset by that. That crossed the line. A Conservative Government denied the principle of self-determination. This Labour Government have gone much further, surrendering the homeland entirely without the consent of the Chagossian people. This is a bipartisan failure. The legislation sells out the King’s islands, binds future generations to vast financial liabilities and ignores the rights of an exiled people. I could not in good conscience remain silent and complicit, disarmed of any meaningful say in the deliberations of my former party and ashamed that the party of Margaret Thatcher—the party that took back the Falkland Islands in defence of the principle of self-determination—would be implicated in this betrayal. Perhaps the Prime Minister will keep to the word of his own Deputy Prime Minister, who stated on ITV last February: “If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward.”
27 Jan 2026 · UK Bus Manufacturing · Hansard source
More
Good morning, Dr Murrison. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and my good friend the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this important debate. Today we gather to discuss British bus manufacturing. We are here to highlight not only skills, the economy and transportation but, I believe, the integral role of all those dimensions to the security of our entire nation. This industry is woven into every facet of our national life. It is part of the fabric of our island story, and I believe we must defend it. This is not just about vehicles; rather, it is about our British heritage, our skills and the future of our country. There are more than 4,150 highly skilled individuals directly employed, and more than 13,000 indirectly employed, in the supply chain of bus manufacturing throughout the United Kingdom. Bus manufacturing is a powerhouse of skilled jobs that trains and employs local people across 90 local authorities. Those jobs are not only skilled but more highly paid than comparable occupations, with salaries 20% higher than in other parts of the supply chain. Sadly, we do not manufacture buses in my constituency of Romford, but local people are employed in all parts of the supply chain, and many more depend upon it. Every day, local people in Romford, which is part of Greater London, rely on buses supplied by great companies like Ulster’s Wrightbus keeping our communities connected. In my borough of Havering to the east side of London in Essex—where my constituency is located—almost a quarter of journeys are made by bus, and across the whole of the Greater London region, buses enable more than two thirds of journeys. Buses are an essential lifeline for so many of our constituents. I use buses all the time; I jump on the 103, or possibly the 499, from my home down to Romford station on the way to Westminster. We have two very good buses in my community. They are provided by Transport for London, which comes under the Mayor of London. I entirely endorse the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim when he talks about the absolute failure of pride that the Mayor of London shows in our part of the country. British buses could be purchased and procured for use in Greater London, and yet Mayor Khan is going to China: shame on him. That is one reason why people in my borough would love to have the opportunity to not be under Greater London and be fully part of Essex as we have historically always been. While our buses are essential for both the economy and transportation, that is only part of the picture. We ought not to forget that many British buses are made in Northern Ireland. That is a stark reminder of the severe damage being inflicted by the Windsor framework—a shameful betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland that is creating barriers between British people and businesses, and creating two internal markets in one United Kingdom. That is a national disgrace and must be brought to an end. We are one United Kingdom and all British people should be treated the same. The rules should apply throughout all parts of our great nation; we should not be separating Northern Ireland from Scotland, Wales and England. I look forward to the next Government—and I hope it will be a Reform UK Government—reversing the Windsor framework and implementing Brexit as the people voted for. It is also a reminder of the continuing avenues for growth and job creation across the Union. Wrightbus is a prime example; the Ballymena company produces dozens of buses every year, employing hundreds of local people and supplying a quarter of buses across Greater London. That means roughly a quarter of bus journeys taken by my constituents are made possible by the entrepreneurial spirit and work ethic of the good people of Ulster. That is an incredible testament to the importance of the Union and showcases Britain at her very best. By backing British bus manufacturing, we are not only calling on the Government to protect transport networks, the economy or even the Union, but also asking that they live up to their central responsibility to defend our national security. Under the zero emission bus regional areas scheme, which ended in 2024, 40% of buses were procured from abroad, increasing foreign influence in this native industry and divesting from the domestic skills base. Worse still, publications such as The Times, The Guardian and others have reported extensively on kill switches present in foreign-made buses, inserted by international competitors or adversaries of the United Kingdom, such as the People’s Republic of China. The very real risk of foreign disruption has been permitted for too long by successive—I am afraid to say—Conservative and Labour Governments and must be brought to an end. Keeping our bus manufacturing in British hands is no longer a patriotic preference or an economic luxury, but a national necessity. I call on the Government to keep our bus network in British hands, protect our people and create jobs across the kingdom that showcase British excellence. Let us ensure that we have the skills, investment and political will to back British industry making British buses: British made for generations to come.
26 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source
More
When the historians write about this period of British history, those who have engineered this betrayal of British sovereignty over the King’s islands, along with the complete betrayal of the loyal British-Chagossian people, will not come out of it too well. I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to review this shameful policy and give the Chagossian people—whom he did not even mention in his reply to the shadow Foreign Secretary—the same right of self-determination that we afford to all other British overseas territories. Why are the Chagossians treated differently to everybody else?
22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
The Leader of the House will remember that nearly a decade ago, on 17 November 2016, I asked a question on the subject of the resettlement and subsequent self-determination of the Chagos islanders. The then Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, shamefully said: “we do not consider that the right of self-determination actually applies to the Chagossians.” —[ Official Report , 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 386.] Given that that position was taken by the previous Conservative Government, and that the current Labour Government have gone further still by surrendering their home without consent, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the right of self-determination for the Chagossian people, and end the bipartisan failure and injustice that has left an entire people without a voice for 60 years?
22 Jan 2026 · International Day of Education · Hansard source
More
I will go back to the point. We are told that there is no money for the British Council, yet somehow we find the cash for all sorts of other things: for housing the people who are coming to this country illegally; for the failing digital identification experiment; and for a long list of projects that do nothing to strengthen Britain’s position in the world or to promote education. I am sure we will shortly hear warm words from the Minister about the importance of international education, and rightly so, but those words will ring hollow when the Government are presiding over an erosion of Britain’s ability to support education, influence and cultural engagement across the globe. What makes matters worse is that the cuts are focused on British Council offices in developed countries—the countries that need our support more than most. These are places where English teaching may not be the primary objective, but where influence, networks, science, culture and diplomacy absolutely are. The British Council is certainly not just an English teaching charity. Its stated aims are to foster cultural, scientific, technological and educational co-operation with the United Kingdom. Undermining that mission weakens Britain. However, Reform UK is not calling for a blank cheque—far from it. If Britain is to help educate the world, that education must champion the United Kingdom and its values, free speech, our model of parliamentary Government and the rule of law. It must never put Britain second. We should not be funding programmes to apologise for our history, undermine our institutions, or promote ideologies fundamentally hostile to our way of life. Nor should international education be used as a back door for uncontrolled migration or permanent settlement. Students should come to Britain to learn, and then return home as ambassadors for this country and assets to their peers. They should certainly not be numbers that disappear into a broken system that is already overstretched. Ahead of the International Day of Education, I say that, yes, education changes lives, but it also helps to shape geopolitics. If we hollow out our soft power while pouring money into symbolic global gestures, we will wake up—as we have for some time—poorer, weaker and less respected. Reform UK believes that Britain should engage with all nations of the world and treat all countries with respect, working with all nationalities and peoples for the best interests of humanity, but always in Britain’s national interest. Our educational institutions and global networks remain world class—dare I say, the best—but the question is whether the Government are willing to end the bipartisan policy of managed decline and once again put British cultural influence back on the map.
22 Jan 2026 · International Day of Education · Hansard source
More
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who secured this timely debate to coincide with the International Day of Education. Over my 25 years as a Member of this House, I have been extremely fortunate to travel to all parts of our planet, whether as part of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I served for 15 years; the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which does excellent work, as we all know; the Inter-Parliamentary Union; the NATO Parliamentary Assembly; the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly; or, most especially, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which I served as a governor for nine years, doing work in countries around the world. I have also taken part, over the years, in various missions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to countries including Uganda and the British Indian Ocean Territory. I will say a bit more about the Chagos islands later. Through my travels I have seen at first hand the impact of British education, cultural exchange and institutional engagement around the world. I felt it right to participate in this debate because I was due to respond to it on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition as a shadow Minister. Although that is no longer the case, I am sure that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will do justice to the role this afternoon, and I wish him well in his endeavours. Education has the ability to transform lives and, ultimately, it shapes the world in which Britain must operate. For generations, this country has been regarded as the workshop for global leaders, and the world’s elites have wanted to send their children to be educated here in the United Kingdom. That includes post-colonial leaders such as Lee Kuan Yew, Robert Menzies and Mahatma Gandhi, and contemporary leaders such as the great Tony Abbott and Shinzo Abe. The list goes on—it is very extensive—and we should take great pride in the fact that so many distinguished figures from around the world choose to send their children and families to be educated here in the British Isles. It is clear that our schools, universities and language, and our great British culture, have projected British influence further than any number of tanks or treaties ever could have done. That influence has been built deliberately through institutions and scholarships that are respected across the globe, including the Rhodes scholarship, the Chevening programme, the work of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, and the generations of Commonwealth scholars who have gone on to become leaders in politics, business, science and civil society. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth, I have seen how thriving these networks of influence truly are. However, I am afraid that the Commonwealth itself, and bodies such as the Commonwealth of Learning, have been understood by successive Governments as almost like a hangover of colonial times—something from the past that should belong in history. That attitude is wrong and needs to change. We should be proud of what Britain has achieved over the centuries and we should continue those traditions today.
22 Jan 2026 · International Day of Education · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way on that point?