Andrew Rosindell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady clarify if she would support the people of Havering if they chose to be part of an Essex unitary authority—if that was their democratically chosen wish?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Chagos Islands · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have now been forced to admit the real cost of the catastrophic Chagos surrender deal: it is not £3.4 billion—oh no, Mr Speaker—it is a mind blowing £34.7 billion, which is 10 times more that we were told. No wonder Mauritius is planning tax cuts of its own, and it is British businesses and families who will pay the price. This deal leaves our country poorer, our defence capabilities damaged and our standing in the world weakened. Will the Minister now apologise to the British people for this epic failure in diplomacy, withdraw his Chagos surrender Bill and keep the islands British?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this summer Adjournment debate, fittingly named after my dear friend and colleague, the late Sir David Amess. However, it is with regret and sadness that I feel the need to draw to the attention of the House the way in which Sir David’s family has been continuously mistreated. As I have said time and again, including at Prime Minister’s questions, there must be a statutory public inquiry into what happened to David. Last March, the Amess family met the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary at No. 10 Downing Street, supported by their former MP Anna Firth, who continues to do commendable work for the family and their campaign for justice. As many have noted, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the family were petitioned to work within Lord Anderson’s process. Again they tried to do the right thing; again they tried to comply with the Government’s approach; and again, as it turns out, that was a grave mistake. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and, indeed, Lord Anderson, promised to keep the grieving Amess family front and centre of the process. The family were meant to have a guiding—indeed, a leading—role, but that did not happen. Instead, they were kept to the sidelines, and were not treated as being in a unique position; and the media received information before they did. The treatment of the Amess family has been simply outrageous. The process should have been followed more diligently, and the Amess family should have been treated with significantly greater dignity. Having lost their father and husband, who was a wonderful friend to us all, the Amess family should have been first, not last, in the pecking order. His Majesty’s Government should show some more respect for the memory of our late dear colleague, and as I have said before, there must now be a full public inquiry, not only matching the Government’s words with appropriate action, but ensuring that lessons are learned. From the Government, we must see an urgent effort to establish the full facts, learn the full lessons from the failings of Prevent, and determine what will be done in future to avoid a repeat of such a crime against this House and, indeed, democracy. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) referred a few moments ago to the late Member for Eastbourne, Ian Gow, a dear friend of mine who was also murdered. He was murdered by an IRA bomb on 30 July 1990, 35 years ago. Ian was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher, and he first introduced me to Mrs Thatcher in 1982. He was cruelly murdered by the IRA in 1990. In the 35th year since his murder, let us remember him as well. He was a great man and a bulldog of a politician—a great British bulldog. We still miss him today. As Members will know, I am proud of being from the county of Essex, as indeed was Sir David Amess, and if I may, I will take a few moments to say this: Romford is Essex and Havering is Essex, but we have been denied the right to play any part in the discussions about Essex devolution. Essex is our county. It is our historic county. Romford and Havering are geographically tied to the people of Essex, yet we are forced against our wishes to be under the artificial construct called Greater London. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will relook at this and give the people of Romford and Havering a chance to have a different form of local government so that we can focus on what is best for our borough of Havering and rekindle the links to our historic county of Essex. I ask all Members to look at the wonderful historic county flags on display in Parliament Square. What a wonderful display it is of the fantastic historic counties of the United Kingdom, in which the Essex flag is the most prominent.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Humanitarian Situation in Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Dr Huq. It is appropriate that, as someone who has always stood up for humanitarian causes, self-determination and the rights of peoples around the world, you are chairing this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall this afternoon, on the last day of term. She has been a principled voice on the issue in Parliament for a very long time; I commend her for it. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on Sudan and South Sudan—not least Glen Promnitz of its secretariat, who is here today—for keeping parliamentarians briefed and informed on the ongoing situation in the region, especially when so much of the world appears, regrettably, to have fallen silent. They have done an excellent job; I commend them for all their work. I would like to refer to some, although not all, of the comments that have been made this afternoon. I have just said that the world is regrettably silent, but this House has not been silent this afternoon. I have heard some very passionate speeches and comments from all parts of the House. Considering how much is happening in the world today and how many issues we do talk about, we have not spoken as much as we should about Sudan. The nature of the conflict and the dreadful repercussions on the people of Sudan is absolutely horrendous, and we are right to debate it. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about the health risks in the region. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and other colleagues spoke about the importance of the diaspora in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke about the use of gender-based violence as a weapon of war; he was right to do so. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as chairman of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, spoke passionately about the issue and gave examples of where we need to highlight it. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) talked about the denial of humanitarian aid as a weapon, a point that was taken up by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed); I thank both Members for highlighting it. It seems that it is now common practice in conflicts that the withholding of humanitarian aid is being used as a weapon, which is dreadful and appalling. I was particularly struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor), who spoke about war crimes and crimes against humanity, and about how justice is needed in such cases. She paid tribute to the diaspora here in the UK. She said that the Sudanese people are not forgotten and that we must stand with them. I agree. She summed up the mood of the House this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who did a fine job in her time as Minister, spoke today with knowledge and experience of the topic. It is a shame that she is not still in her place as a Minister, but we thank her for continuing to take an interest in this very important subject. Like other Members today, I wish to express my deep and growing concern for the people of Sudan, a nation in the grip of one of the most harrowing and shamefully overlooked humanitarian crises of our time. The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has torn this ancient country apart. According to the United Nations, more than 25 million people—over half of Sudan’s population—are now in need of humanitarian assistance. The World Food Programme warns that 18 million people face acute food insecurity, with 5 million in serious danger and over 750,000 children suffering from severe malnutrition. Hospitals and aid convoys have come under attack, entire communities have been displaced, and reports continue to emerge of ethnic cleansing, gender-based violence and mass killings, particularly in Darfur. In April, as has been mentioned, the United Kingdom co-hosted an international humanitarian conference on Sudan. It announced that £120 million would be spent in humanitarian funding, supplementing the tens of millions provided by the last Government. However, nearly three months later, we must ask—and I hope the Minister will respond—what that money has been used for. Where has the money gone? Has the funding reached frontline organisations and local civil society actors working to deliver urgent assistance? Is it getting over the border at the scale required? Is there deconfliction to ensure that it is distributed to the innocent civilians who require that funding? As the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations, the United Kingdom holds a unique and vital responsibility, but I must ask whether the UK is currently doing enough. Are we using our position at the Security Council to its fullest extent? What will the UK do through the United Nations Security Council in the time ahead to push for action on humanitarian corridors and for independent investigations into war crimes, and to hold the perpetrators to account? More broadly, will the Minister tell us what new measures the Government are taking to compel the warring parties into a much-needed ceasefire? How is the UK supporting Sudanese civilian and political forces to engage in constructive dialogue processes such as the Cairo conference? What is the Minister’s assessment of the current effectiveness of such processes and of the Jeddah process? What action does she propose to take on external factors influencing the war? The House would also welcome clarity on whether the Government are exploring replicating the approach of our American allies to sanctions. The United States recently imposed further targeted sanctions. The previous Government recognised that those measures send a clear message that those who commit appalling acts will be held accountable, which is why we implemented a number of sanctions on those supporting the activities of the Rapid Support Forces and of the Sudanese Armed Forces. I welcome the appointment of the UK special envoy for Sudan, but that cannot be the sum of our response. It cannot be a substitute for a full and proper strategy, which I hope the Minister will outline later in her remarks. We, on this side of the House, call on His Majesty’s Government, first, to provide a full and transparent update on the disbursement and impact of the £120 million pledged in April; secondly, to clarify how the UK is supporting frontline humanitarian agencies and set out its diplomatic engagement with regional actors; thirdly, to push for stronger co-ordinated action at the UN and with our allies, including support for a ceasefire and accountability for atrocities committed; and finally, to clearly set out their position on where they could do more on the possibility of sanctions. Finally, although this Westminster Hall debate is crucial for raising awareness and pressing for much-needed action, the gravity of the situation in Sudan demands the highest level of Government focus. I therefore urge the Foreign Secretary to come to the House at the earliest opportunity—probably not until September now—to make a comprehensive statement outlining the Government’s full and proper plan of action to address this ongoing catastrophe. We need to see a clear, unified strategy that matches the scale and urgency of this crisis. Britain has long played a role in Sudan, with deep historical ties that stretch back centuries. From the days of General Gordon in Khartoum, and our administration of Sudan during the Anglo-Egyptian condominium, Britain has been intrinsically involved in the shaping of Sudan’s modern identity. A successful Sudan, then, is not distant from our national story; it is, in part, a reflection of ourselves. None of this happened in a vacuum; our knowledge of the region, long-standing diplomatic channels and moral voice on the world stage place the United Kingdom in a position to lead. We must honour that tradition in Sudan. The world may not be watching, but Britain must not look away.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly do. General Slim is one of the greatest British heroes, and we salute his honour today as well. The loyal service and valiant fighting of those servicemen brought victory home and secured us a peace that has lasted decades. Victory in the second world war enabled a thriving Commonwealth of Nations, global economic growth, the spread of democracy and the guarantees of the freedoms that we so treasure in Britain today. Those achievements are what our servicemen fought for, and we owe it to their memory to celebrate, preserve and advance them at every opportunity, as they did for King, country and Commonwealth.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The home front was an unrelenting struggle and the European theatre was the most mechanised slaughter ever witnessed on the continent, but the brutal fighting of the Japanese was incomparable. Young men would have heard the tales of ferocious fighting on the ground, kamikaze attacks from the air, barbaric treatment of allied prisoners of war upon victory in battle, and mass suicides forced on Japanese civilians upon defeat in battle. Those harrowing tales did not faze the good old men of east London or Essex, or, for that matter, the millions of brave British, Indian and Commonwealth soldiers who volunteered. Over the course of British involvement, loyal subjects of the Crown left their families, friends and native soil to sail to the far east to defend their empire. Many of those brave men were from England, including many from Essex. I remember especially the South West Essex Burma Star Association, which met at the Romford United Services club. I was honoured to be given honorary membership of the club by those old and bold veterans, who I was proud to meet and invite to Parliament in my early years as an MP. Their memory, and that of those who served in the far east, will never be forgotten. For over 90,000 servicemen, it was only ever destined to be a one-way journey. Hand in hand with our American allies from across the pond, those gallant men fought to ensure the end of one of the most brutal and oppressive imperial powers, which could rain terror upon its neighbours no longer, and to ensure that freedom and democracy prevailed. Determined to fight to the bitter end, the imperial Japanese army fully intended to force an allied invasion of the Japanese homeland, which would have led to untold casualty on both sides. That was averted. Often referred to as the forgotten Army, the soldiers of the Pacific theatre were the very greatest of the greatest generation. Their loyal service and valiant fighting brought victory home and secured us a peace that has lasted decades.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Global Plastics Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Minister is aware that His Excellency the Ambassador of Ecuador is the chairman of the UN intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastics. Is the Minister working with him? His Excellency is in London and doing incredible work in this area, and I hope that our Government are co-operating with him. He is also doing work toward and looking forward to the day when Ecuador can join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Future of the Church of England · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) referred to the importance of the local parish. Across England, the parish is central to everything. The church and the local vicar are a part of our community. In fact, we are very lucky in Romford to have the Church of St Edward the Confessor. We have a new vicar, the Rev. Jordan Palmer, who has just joined our church. Does the Minister agree that the parish is vital? It is not just about the church community, the members of the church; it has a wider responsibility to all people of all religions and no religion, not just Church of England members. The Church of England should cherish the importance of the parish as a part of all our communities in the constituencies we represent.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Future of the Church of England · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very moving and powerful speech. Our Head of State, who is also the head of the Church of England, represents the rights of all peoples to live in a free society and to worship freely. It is because our Head of State is also the head of our established Church that there are protections for all religions and denominations in our constitution. The cross is on the top of the crown that he wears, which demonstrates that the Christian faith is the basis of our constitution, our customs, our heritage and our British way of life. Does my hon. Friend agree?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to make the Leader of the House aware of the serious delays to cladding remediation faced by residents of the Axis apartments in Mercury Gardens, Romford. It is a common problem across the country. Residents of the Axis apartments have endured years of uncertainty since fire safety issues were identified nearly four years ago, following the Grenfell Tower fire. Despite the building’s management agent applying for permission for remediation works over a year ago, the Building Safety Regulator has still not approved the application. This regulatory delay has left leaseholders trapped; they are unable to remortgage or sell their homes, and face ever-increasing insurance premiums and unaffordable safety costs. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make an urgent statement on this matter, so that my constituents, and others across the country facing similar problems, can escape financial ruin and move on with their lives?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement, but I have not heard her say anything about the work of the boundary commissions for local government and constituencies. I think they should form part of this discussion, particularly to ensure that constituencies can be made up of genuine communities by getting rid of the pointless rule that a constituency cannot go beyond a certain region. Areas of Essex near my constituency, for instance, cannot be included within Romford, which only goes into London. Similarly, local council wards would surely be better if they were one-member wards, whereby they could be like mini-constituencies looking after a particular community. Would that not be a better way forward, and would the Minister consider it as part of the review?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, not least as you have another role as trade envoy to New Zealand. I was very pleased to visit Christchurch, New Zealand, some years ago to see its magnificent cathedral. I then went again a few years later and saw that it had been destroyed. I pay tribute to our New Zealander friends because theirs is a Christian country, they uphold Christian values and they are part of our Commonwealth family. Many New Zealand MP friends of mine would be fascinated by, and very supportive of, this wonderful and important debate. I commend the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing it and, more importantly, for continuing the work of our friend and former colleague Fiona Bruce, who was Member of Parliament for Congleton until last year. We can all agree that the hon. Gentleman is doing a splendid job as the special envoy on freedom of religion or belief, upholding the values shared by Members on both sides of the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for paying tribute to Fiona; she is a lovely person and we miss her. But we are delighted that the work she started is being continued by the hon. Member for North Northumberland. The British nation has always stood resolutely for liberty, not just here at home but around the world. We are one of the few nations that have appointed a special envoy of this nature, and that is no small thing. But with that leadership comes immense responsibility. When millions across the globe face violence, imprisonment and discrimination simply because of what they believe, we cannot look the other way or pass by on the other side. We have a moral obligation to defend the fundamental freedoms that have shaped our history in these islands and defined our values. We must never retreat from upholding what is right. Indeed, it is precisely because we always stand firm in defence of such principles that the United Kingdom commands such deep respect around the world. Liberty generally, and freedom of religion or belief more broadly, must be at the heart of our foreign policy. I commend all Members who spoke in this debate. I pay particular reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for highlighting the issue of what is happening in Taybeh, and how horrific the actions taken there are. It is very upsetting to hear, and I hope that our friends in Israel will be listening to this debate. As someone who is, and has always been, pro-Israel, I am very upset to hear what is going on. My heart goes out to the members of St George’s church, the Christian community and all those being persecuted or losing their lives in that dreadful conflict. At the start of his speech, the hon. Member for North Northumberland spoke about visiting the Soviet Union and seeing the persecution there. I remember that during my days in the Young Conservatives we supported freedom of religion in the Soviet Union; Bibles were being smuggled over there—a lot of work was going on in those days. Earlier this year, I visited Shkodër, in the north of Albania. I visited a prison where the most appalling torture had taken place under the vile Albanian communist regime. We all agree that the world must move on from those atrocities and not go back. Sadly, there are parts of the world where these things continue. We must stand together, unified against such things. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for making a clear statement: he said that we should be bold and courageous in proclaiming our Christian faith. And so we should. The entirety of the foundations, traditions, customs and heritage of our country are based on the Christian faith. The cross is on the top of the crown—when the King wears the crown, there is a cross on the top. That means that all religions and denominations are equal, but there has to be an understanding that there is a Christian foundation to our society. I say to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) that I was honoured to travel to Iceland a few years ago with Lord Campbell-Savours, the hon. Member’s father. We had many discussions about all kinds of things. The hon. Member has a wonderful father, who serves in the other place, and I am delighted to see that he is continuing his father’s work and talking about Iceland, a country with which we have a huge amount in common. There are many dear friends in that country. I also thank the hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for speaking in this significant debate. We learned last week, and this has been articulated this afternoon, that the FCDO has now announced a five-point strategy on freedom of religion or belief. That is a welcome step, but as ever it is not about the plan—it is about delivery. What matters now is whether this Government are matching the words with actions. The first point that has been articulated is that of upholding international standards. The UK has long had influence in international forums, as a member of the UN Security Council and given that our capital, London, is home to the Commonwealth Secretariat, but are we really using that influence to lead the charge on religious freedom to the full? Are we naming those who trample on religious rights? Are we truly standing up to regimes that ignore international law and persecute people of faith? Or are we hesitating when that might come at a diplomatic cost? Maybe the Minister can answer those questions later. Secondly, on bilateral engagement, Ministers regularly tell us that they raise these issues behind closed doors. When will we see the results? What outcomes have been achieved from our talks with long-standing members of the Commonwealth, such as, for instance, Pakistan, where blasphemy laws continue to be abused with devastating effect; or Nigeria, where only last year, 218 Christians were slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists in the middle belt? Have we made clear to those Governments that this simply cannot go on and that there will be consequences if it does? And what about China? The persecution of Uyghur Muslims, Christians and Falun Gong practitioners has long been systematic, brutal and well-documented. Governments, past and present, talk of engagement, but what does that mean in practice? Given that His Majesty’s Government have gone back on their promise of a fully published China audit, will the Minister assure us all today that freedom of religion and belief will be front and centre in any negotiations with the Chinese Communist party? Or are we still willing to trade human rights for economic deals and the allure of a super-embassy on prime real estate in London? Is that really something we should be supporting? The third strand of the FCDO’s policy strategy is building coalitions. In principle, of course I support that, but coalitions must be seen to be achieving things. Who are our partners? What practical steps have we taken with allies to defend freedom of religion and belief in the toughest regions, such as the Sahel, the middle east or central America? Have we formed joint initiatives or are we merely issuing polite statements?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Of course; I could not possibly disagree. Now that point is on the record, I am sure the Minister will take note and take that case forward. The fourth strand is about maintaining FORB across the FCDO. If done properly, that could be transformative. But, again, where is the detail? Are our ambassadors trained on FORB? Are they expected to report on it? Is religious freedom considered when we decide where aid goes or when arms are sold? Is FORB integrated in our dealings with Commonwealth partners, many of whom face significant challenges on these issues? Or is it still viewed as a specialist interest and a box simply to be ticked? The final point is civil society. Those brave individuals on the ground are often the first line of defence for religious freedom. They speak out when Governments will not. They face threats, harassment and even death. How are we supporting them? Are we funding grassroots organisations? Are we giving them access to our embassies and high commissions, our diplomats and our protection, or are they being left to fend for themselves? At the recent FCDO briefing on this subject, cases were presented regarding countries such as Nicaragua, Eritrea, Yemen and Afghanistan. The picture was bleak, with repressive laws, targeted killings and the crushing of dissent. This is seemingly part of a wider pattern. In Nicaragua, the Ortega regime is targeting the Catholic Church in a campaign of repression. In Eritrea, Christians are languishing in prison. In Yemen, religious minorities are caught between war and persecution. In Syria and Iraq, ancient communities have been decimated. What exactly is the UK doing in each of those places? Where are the consequences for those who commit these crimes? The Government recently announced the suspension of sanctions on the new Syrian Government. However, as recently as this week, we have witnessed the eruption of violence between the Druze minority and Islamists, with the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reporting dozens of deaths. In the light of those developments, was the suspension of sanctions on Syria premature? I think it was. If FORB is central to our foreign policy, was the suspension of sanctions on Syria an indication that religious freedom has been restored in Syria? Are we monitoring the dangers faced by religious and ethnic minorities such as the Druze, who have long sought to remain neutral in Syria’s civil conflict? The sad truth is that freedom of religion and belief is deteriorating and violations are increasing. Perpetrators are becoming more brazen and the people who are suffering, be they Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Yazidis, Jewish people, Baha’is or others, too often have nowhere to turn. If the Government are prepared to back fine words with firm action, let us see it now. Will they publish regular updates on how the five-point strategy is being delivered? Will they bring transparent, accountable and measurable goals into the work published? I believe that Britain has always stood for freedom. Let us not falter now. We have a voice through the previous Government’s creation of the special envoy position. We have the tools now; what we need is the resolve to use them. I urge the Minister to ensure that all our talk of freedom of religion and belief is not merely honeyed words, but a real statement of intent from His Majesty’s Government that we take this seriously and that those who violate the sacrosanct principles of religious freedom will suffer the consequences.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  First, I add my tribute to my late friend, Lord Tebbit of Chingford, who was one of the finest parliamentarians and a man of great courage and patriotism. We owe him so much for what he did for our country. He was also a victim of terrorism, as you will know, Mr Speaker. This week I had the privilege of representing my constituency at the 20-year commemoration service of the 7/7 bombing at St Paul’s cathedral. For those of us who were in London, in Westminster, on 7 July 2005, it brought back the sheer horror of what took place on that dreadful day. For the 52 people who lost their lives and the countless others who were mentally and physically scarred, the suffering was beyond imaginable. A constituent of mine at the time, Dan Biddle from Collier Row, lost both his legs and an eye in the attack and has been battling that trauma ever since. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Home Secretary to heed Dan’s call for a full public inquiry into 7/7, and to give the victims the justice, the compensation and the closure that they rightly deserve?

• 7 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad the hon. Lady recognises the funding disparity between inner Greater London and outer Greater London. She will be aware of the DABD charity, which is based in her constituency. It provides special educational needs support for young children during the summer, Christmas and Easter terms, but the charity has been defunded, so it cannot carry on its activities for young people based in the London borough of Havering, which the hon. Lady also represents. Will she join me in calling for Havering council to ensure that that funding continues so that those children can get the benefit the charity provides?

• 7 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member mentions Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge, but Havering is also in outer Greater London, and Marks Gate is next to Collier Row, as he knows. We are all underfunded. There is a total disparity when it comes to funding for outer Greater London areas. Will the hon. Member back my ongoing campaign for fairer funding not only for special educational needs but for a range of areas, because our boroughs on the edge of London and in Essex constituencies which fall within Greater London are not getting our fair share of resources?

• 7 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham · Hansard source

  More

  A lot of positive things are being said that will be welcomed on all sides of the House, but does the Minister acknowledge the concerns of the hon. Members for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) and for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) and me about the huge disparity in funding for boroughs such as Barking and Dagenham, Redbridge, and Havering, in particular? We are not getting our fair share. Will she please help outer-London boroughs get a fairer share of the cake, because at the moment that is simply not happening?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to make the Leader of the House aware of the mayhem, disruption and chaos taking place in Romford at the Gallows Corner flyover junction of the A12 and A127, which has been closed for refurbishment by Transport for London and the Mayor of London. Despite the junction being closed for over a week, there is no sign that any works have actually begun, and it is causing unacceptable delays to local businesses throughout Essex and the whole of east London. This is simply unacceptable, and there is now talk of the project going on until September and beyond. Would the Leader of the House be good enough to ask the Secretary of State for Transport, who used to be deputy mayor for transport in London, to get on to her friend the Mayor of London, and TfL, and ask them to make an urgent statement, end the disruption in my constituency and get on with the job?

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating my excellent local schools in Romford and Hornchurch—Ardleigh Green infant school, Dame Tipping Church of England primary school, Hornchurch high school, Parklands primary school, Squirrels Heath junior school, St Edward’s Church of England primary school, the Frances Bardsley academy for girls, and Towers infants school—for their superb Ofsted reports, both good and excellent? Will she join me in promoting, as my local schools do, more British values, more patriotism, singing the national anthem at assembly, and flying the Union Jack outside every school across our country?

• 26 Jun 2025 · BBC World Service Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate and thank him for his powerful words supporting the BBC World Service. I think he speaks for most hon. Members of the House—in fact, I am struck by how many speeches I have heard that we all agree with. There is a consensus in this Chamber that the BBC World Service is such an important tool for soft power. I know that everyone has spoken with passion, and it is important that we ensure that it not only survives, but thrives and continues to play an important role around the world, because so many people depend on the BBC World Service. As its name suggests, the World Service is not merely a broadcaster that serves the United Kingdom’s purposes; to some, it is a lifeline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned Terry Waite. That was an example when the BBC World Service was a lifeline to someone who was in a very difficult position. Many people around the world depend on that voice of truth, reason and liberty, and that is what the BBC World Service provides, away from so many state-controlled media organisations that promote propaganda and misinformation, which are sadly on the rise today. It is said that power falls into three categories: military power, economic power and soft power. It is British soft power—our cultural influence, our values and our institutions, not least our monarchy, which the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned —that has long distinguished the United Kingdom on the global stage. The vehicle at the heart of that soft power and influence is the British Broadcasting Corporation World Service. In 2011, when I was a relatively new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we stated unequivocally that the World Service is a key component of Britain’s soft power. The FAC recognised its invaluable work in “providing a widely respected and trusted news service in combination with high-quality journalism” to many countries. We said then, as I will say now, that its value far outweighs its “relatively small cost”. As we have heard, the service reaches an audience of more than 320 million people each week. It broadcasts in 42 languages and has a profound impact on some of the world’s most repressive regimes. In Iran, 13.5 million rely on the BBC World Service; in Afghanistan, it is 4.9 million; and in Russia, it is more than 2 million. Yet today, this institution is under increasing financial strain. This year alone, the BBC World Service has announced 130 job losses, seeking to save just £6 million—a tiny sum, measured against the service’s global influence. Meanwhile, its total deficit is expected to rise to nearly £500 million next year. There is a serious risk that the core language services, such as those that serve Iran, Sudan and Myanmar, could face cuts or be scaled back when they are most needed, so we must ensure that does not happen. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard clear evidence only in November that cuts to the BBC Arabic and Persian radio services have created dangerous vacuums, which are being filled by hostile, state-backed propaganda, including Russian-backed media in places such as Lebanon. What assessment have the Government made of the consequences of the cuts, and how do they intend to respond to the risk of allowing trusted UK-backed voices to go silent in those critical regions? To address those issues, the BBC has called for the Government to fund the rise to £200 million as part of a three-year settlement. In the longer term, it is proposed that the Government assume nearly all of the £400 million budget after 2027. The Foreign Affairs Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the International Development Committee have echoed the calls for long-term financial certainty. Lord Collins has indicated that a decision will be taken as part of the Government’s 2025 spending review. However, the FCDO’s own efficiency plans, published alongside this month’s review, exclude the BBC World Service from projected savings, citing uncertainty around the transition of the ODA budget to 0.3% of GNI by 2027. The Minister needs to address that concern in her remarks. I therefore say to her: have the Government set any efficiency targets for the World Service? Can she clarify what scale of reduction in direct grant funding is being considered as part of this transition? I often discuss the wider debate about the BBC’s domestic funding with my constituents in Romford, and I am sure all hon. Members have similar discussions. I would welcome having that discussion in this House too, but the World Service is different; it stands apart. It is not a domestic broadcaster—it reaches all parts of the world—so it cannot be lumped together with the BBC’s domestic broadcasting. The World Service needs clarity and certainty if it is to continue its vital work across the globe. One proposal raised during the FAC’s oral evidence session is for a clearer funding distinction. English-language services should continue under the licence fee, while language services should receive dedicated Government grant in aid. Do the Government support that proposal? If so, would the Minister consider, as suggested by the former director of the World Service, Jamie Angus, allowing parliamentarians to oversee and scrutinise the work of the BBC World Service? The previous Conservative Government rightly recognised the strategic importance of the BBC World Service and took meaningful steps to support it. The £20 million boost announced in the 2023 integrated review helped to safeguard all 42 language services through to the end of 2025. That followed earlier, targeted injections of £4.1 million in 2022 and £8 million in 2021, designed to counter disinformation and expand digital engagement. Those were timely and effective interventions, which strengthened the World Service when it was most needed, but what is now required is a long-term, sustainable funding settlement that builds on that solid foundation. Funding is not the only challenge. Modernisation must go hand in hand with financial stability to ensure that the product is viable for the future. Is the BBC doing enough to engage younger, digitally native audiences across the world? Can it continue to evolve while maintaining the editorial depth and credibility for which it is rightly respected? Do the Government have confidence that the current digital strategy is sufficiently robust to meet the demands of this new age? On the other hand, radio remains vital in many regions, particularly where internet access is limited or non-existent. Do the Government acknowledge the ongoing strategic value of traditional radio services, and will they ensure that they are not sacrificed prematurely in the rush towards digital-only broadcasting? There is also the question of political neutrality, which is one of the BBC World Service’s greatest strengths—I hope; it is not always the case in the UK, but I hope it is the case with the BBC World Service. Its global reputation rests on its independence. It must never speak for any Government, but it should, proudly and without hesitation, reflect the values, culture and identity of the United Kingdom. That does not mean becoming a mouthpiece for Westminster, but neither should it shy away from showcasing our constitutional monarchy, our democratic institutions or our national symbols—the Union flag or the national anthem. There is a balance to be struck, and I ask the Minister what representations the Government are making to the current BBC leadership to ensure that balance is struck. Alarmingly, the 2025 global soft power index shows that the UK has fallen to third place, behind China for the first time. Following the announcement of the Soft Power Council by the Foreign Secretary and the Culture, Media and Sport Secretary earlier this year, will the Minister tell us what role the council sees for the World Service in its work? What progress has been made to date, or has the initiative been quietly set aside? The British Isles, Great Britain, England, the United Kingdom—however the world sees us—have always been more than just a geographical place on the map. We have been an idea, forged through sacrifice and struggle, to uphold something unparalleled: a set of values, rich in customs, traditions and ceremony; a way of life that millions admire across the globe. The BBC World Service projects that very idea further and more effectively than any embassy, high commission, foreign aid programme or Minister ever could. If we allow the World Service to become a casualty of bureaucratic inertia or short-term budget trimming, it will be not Britain’s voice that falls silent, but the voice of reason, truth and liberty, in places where those things are in short supply. As the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, once stated, the BBC World Service is “possibly Britain’s greatest gift to the world”. That gift has never been more needed. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I urge the Government to ensure that it remains the gift that keeps on giving to peoples around the world, in every continent, who look to Britain as a beacon of freedom, a nation that always upholds liberty, and one that will stop at nothing to defend the right of free speech.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Flags: Public Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. I only wish that my own London borough of Havering would recognise that. I have tried for many years to ensure that the Romford town crest is displayed in Romford. Sadly, however, because of the corporate identities of London boroughs, my borough has steadfastly refused. I fought that battle against my own party, which governed the council for 20 years and failed to do anything about it, and I am still fighting against the current council, which is controlled by the residents association. Local patriotism, local town crests and local flags are also very important to the culture and make-up of our great British society.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Flags: Public Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely concur. I commend the hon. Member for his patriotism, his love of country and his understanding of the importance of being proud of being British. Flying the Union flag is an essential part of that. I refer the House to early-day motion 1199 of 29 March 2010, signed by Mr Speaker himself, which records the significant moment in parliamentary history when the Union flag was raised permanently on the Victoria Tower in the Palace of Westminster. In 2007, I established the all-party parliamentary group on flags, which became the APPG on flags and heraldry, and which now forms a central part of the APPG on British heritage, which I am proud to chair.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Flags: Public Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid I have to continue as I have very little time to complete my speech. When representatives from other countries visit, it is of course right that, out of courtesy, their national flag should fly for the occasion. Alternatively, when there is a tragic event in a particular country, it is right for that nation’s flag to fly for a strictly limited period out of respect and sympathy. I firmly believe that we are reaching a point of broad consensus on the flying of flags, and it should be based on the principles of neutrality of public institutions, public buildings and the public square when it comes to matters of deep political controversy, much like the position of Speaker of the House of Commons. That is needed now more than ever. I have here a copy of the booklet on the approved flying of flags. It is available in the Speaker’s Office. It explains the policy on flying flags on flagpoles on the parliamentary estate and outlines what I consider to be, with a few exceptions, a broadly correct approach. However, I strongly believe that the cross of St Patrick or the red hand of Ulster should be flown on 17 March for St Patrick’s Day, in addition to the cross of St George, the cross St Andrew and the red dragon for St George’s, St Andrew’s and St David’s Days respectively. However, in many town hall and public buildings across the UK, political polarisation has reached a new height. Change in a variety of social and political principles is coming fast. Civic unrest is on the rise and I do not believe that ever more calls for diversity are the answer. We need a more unified approach, with the British people represented by national symbols, including flags, which bring us together and do not divide us further. One example is the so-called Progress Pride flag, which many believe promotes a contentious ideology that harms women and vulnerable children. It is clearly politically divisive and should not be flown from public buildings anywhere in the United Kingdom. There is a clear and simple expression of the position that I believe we ought to adopt. We must recognise the importance of institutional neutrality in government and publicly funded spaces. We must acknowledge that the flying of political flags can be seen as implicitly endorsing specific viewpoints. We must enable individuals and communities to freely express their identities and customs, while ensuring that public institutions exercise strict caution to remain inclusive to all British citizens. We must call on all public bodies, especially those representing national and local government, to draw up clear and consistent policies limiting flag displays to country, county, city, borough, town, village, military or those that represent the monarch, the royal family or officially recognised flags such as Armed Forces Day, VE Day, VJ Day, and for occasions such as the Royal Air Force flag for Battle of Britain Day, the red ensign for Merchant Navy Day, the Royal Navy flag for Trafalgar Day and the British Army flag on Waterloo Day. We, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, must give a firm answer to the grey area filled with uncertainties and questions. It must be one of unifying patriotic neutrality. Finally, I commend His Majesty’s Government for continuing the tradition of flying the flags of historic counties for one week in July every year. Our historic counties, my own being Essex, make up the genuine identities of peoples across these islands, separate from the administrative and council boundaries. However, I strongly believe that the display of county flags in Parliament Square each July for Historic County Flags Day should be strictly restricted to the historic county flags alone. Regional flags and other flags can be flown on other days, but it is important that only historic flags representing the historic counties are flown. Sir Desmond, thank you for allowing me to speak at such length today. I commend the Minister for her interest in this subject. I also thank her for visiting the Channel Islands earlier this year, where I am sure she was proud to see the flags of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark for their 80th anniversary of Liberation Day. Pride and patriotism in our countries is something that all people, and all members of all parties, should be proud to uphold. I have no doubt that the Minister will not disappoint Members of this House today.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Flags: Public Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I do. I thank the hon. Member for his helpful intervention. I will refer to much of that later in my speech. On the matter of flying flags from public buildings, I draw the attention of the Minister to my early-day motion 1452, which so far has been supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Jack Rankin), for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). I also thank Ryan-Mark Parsons and George Bundock, the staff of the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), for their advice and amazing support for the campaign to uphold neutrality in flying flags from public buildings. It is now more important than ever for this House to recognise and unequivocally support the importance of maintaining the institutional neutrality of Government and publicly funded spaces. That is particularly vital when seen in the context of a range of entirely new and overtly political flags or banners—as they should be correctly referred to—being flown not only by individuals, as is their right, but by publicly funded bodies such as local councils, town halls, civic centres, hospitals, schools, universities, police stations, railway and underground stations, bus garages and other institutions and organisations, as well as Departments of His Majesty’s Government. This innovation of recent years is not only alien to the civic traditions of this country. I believe that it is emblematic of a declining understanding of the importance of national unity and pride in our national heritage and constitution that is often alienating to many hard-working, law-abiding citizens of this great country who see themselves, first and foremost, as British and not part of a minority or a separate community. I believe that the British people firmly stand for upholding neutrality of the public square, enabling all to have their welcoming corner, but under one nation, one Union flag and one King. The recently announced policy of Reform UK is actually the policy that I have long championed. I am glad to see it adopting that stance in the local councils that it now controls across England. I believe that all political parties should do the same. Our free society is one that I cherish, but all that we have in Britain today is founded on our forebears, embracing one cultural heritage based on the customs, traditions, conventions, laws and constitution of these islands. I am sure that some in this House may hold a certain reticence about the position that I am taking, but I say to them that it is abundantly clear that the flying of identity-based political banners, especially those representing what is sometimes only a slim, exclusive and often exclusionary subset of a particular interest group or social movement, is often seen as implicitly endorsing a specific viewpoint. Some may ask why there is any problem with that being a permissible approach for public bodies to take. They may say that this great nation should accommodate freedom of belief and expression that finds voice in flying flags. I fully accept, and indeed endorse, the notion that free individuals and organisations on their private property may express their identities and customs in whichever manner they see fit, but a publicly owned building or a state-owned or funded institution must, I believe, maintain neutrality. For example, if a town hall chooses to fly a banner for one group of people, it would surely be obliged to fly one for another group, and another group, and so on. In so doing, the council will inevitably appear to be endorsing every cause, identity and political campaign, of which there are absolutely no limits. Not only is that divisive to many who do not necessarily support the cause in question, but the costs and staff time spent on displaying a seemingly never-ending array of banners and flags to please and appease every possible cause—not to mention the organisation of individual ceremonies to go with them—is devaluing the significance of flying the flags of nation, country, county, city, village and town that unite and represent everyone in that community. Indeed, it is becoming unmanageable, as so many banners representing a multitude of groups and causes are being added to the list. It simply has to stop. We must restore a flag protocol regime that upholds our national identity, which should always come first, followed by that which represents our country, boroughs, counties, cities, towns and villages. Of course, no flag of any kind should take precedence over the Union flag on a public building, apart from the royal standard when His Majesty is present. Private expression of political sympathies, and other institutional expressions of political sympathies, are entirely different. Although individuals and communities must continue to be free to express their identities and customs, including by flying flags of public institutions, they should exercise extreme caution and professionalism in order to remain inclusive to all British citizens regardless of their views. Quite contrary to silencing minorities, this age-old position ensures that everyone can pursue their expression and association, find a place and be represented in this country under our nation’s official flags. That is the only logically defensible position, and it is the stance taken by the vast majority of British people, with whom I am in profound agreement. Once we have accepted the importance of maintaining the neutrality of the public square, enabled by the local and national publicly funded institutions of this country, the particular rules for how that should be governed must be decided and expressed in plain English. There is guidance on flag etiquette and rules on flying flags, and the Flag Institute are the experts in this field. I hope the Minister will take advice from them in making sure that everything is handled in the correct fashion. Flag protocol largely dictates how flags should be handled, including how they should be put up, taken down and illuminated. There are flags that require special consent to be flown, and others that do not and ought not, such as national flags, the Commonwealth flag and flags of the United Nations. They should, of course, be flown. There are also flags that are rightly and expressly banned from being flown, most notably those of proscribed terrorist organisations. These rules should strictly be enforced in their entirety. However, there is a grey area in the middle that has been not only occupied, but actively exploited by minority and sometimes extreme political factions—as well as their subscribers or sympathisers—in public institutions. That is the area for which new guidance and rules ought to be implemented, published and enforced, so that we can prevent the domination of public institutions and the public square by overtly political interest groups. That would prevent the continuous vying for a position of institutional dominance by a range of sometimes extreme minority groups, of both the left and the right, which are unrepresentative of British people, culture or heritage, and enable freer expression and a sense of belonging for all British people. I therefore call on all public bodies, especially those representing national and local government, to adopt clear and consistent policies limiting flag displays to flags representing the nation, country, county, borough, city, town and village or those representing the monarch, the royal family or officially recognised flags, to preserve neutrality, true freedom and toleration.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Flags: Public Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued support for flying the Union flag and other national flags across the United Kingdom. When he was a Cabinet Office Minister, he was entirely supportive of the campaigns that I have been running for many years. I thank him for that. The APPG on British heritage is meeting today at 5 o’clock to discuss issues relating to flags, heraldry, national symbols, historic counties, patron saints’ days and all things important to the heritage of our proud island nation. I put on record my thanks to the president of the Flag Institute, Captain Malcolm Farrow OBE, and the institute’s chief vexillologist, Graham Bartram, for their support and guidance over all these years on matters relating to flags. I commend the work of the Flag Institute, the expert institute that understands the importance of flags and the protocol that surrounds them across the United Kingdom, the Crown dependencies and the British overseas territories. I also commend the College of Arms and Peter O’Donoghue, the York Herald, who has given us extremely good advice on the topic over many years. The College of Arms registers flags in its institution: they are there for all to see, admire and recognise as important parts of our national character.