Andrew Rosindell MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 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?

• 22 Jan 2026 · International Day of Education · Hansard source

  More

  I am so pleased that the hon. Member has raised that point. With your permission, Ms Vaz, I will answer it.

• 22 Jan 2026 · International Day of Education · Hansard source

  More

  I will certainly do so. To say one brief thing to the hon. Member, the letter was written to reflect the consensus of an all-party parliamentary group that I happened to be the chair of. The letter did not necessary reflect my opinions on everything. Self-determination should always determine decisions.

• 22 Jan 2026 · International Day of Education · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 22 Jan 2026 · International Day of Education · Hansard source

  More

  That was a fine intervention and I entirely endorse everything the hon. Gentleman said. One of the reasons Britain has had so much outreach around the world is because of our Christian foundations. It is so important to uphold and cherish our Christian heritage. Of course, Christian missionaries have travelled the world and established schools, hospitals, universities and churches, helping countries far and wide and people of all religions. I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s examples from his constituency; my constituency also has many churches that do excellent work and support causes around the world. I thank him for raising that point. The Commonwealth is, I believe, a tangible force for good—I am sure we can all agree with that—and it should be central to any Government’s foreign policy. A voluntary association bound by shared language, legal traditions and educational standards embodies the very arguments that we are debating here in Parliament this afternoon. Above all, it provides Britain with a unique global reach that no other country enjoys. There are Commonwealth countries in every part of the world, including, let us not forget, our cherished overseas territories and Crown dependencies, such as the British Indian Ocean Territory, which should remain a British territory. The Commonwealth has presented our great nation with an inheritance that is the envy of the world. But, obviously, soft power works only when it also serves the national interest. I am afraid that is where this debate has to be honest. Too often, international education policy has drifted away from British priorities and towards fashionable global causes, administrated by bloated bureaucracies with little regard for value for money or outcomes. My new party, Reform UK, believes in engagement with the world, but on Britain’s terms, not at our expense. Last month, in my previous role as shadow Minister, I met with the British Council. It does invaluable work—I place that clearly on the record—but what I heard in that meeting should concern the House. Funding from the Foreign Office has still not returned to pre-pandemic levels. The British Council is being forced to consider the closure of up to 35 country offices, with 10 having already been lost during covid. Just £20 million would stabilise the British Council network, yet at the same time, this Government appear perfectly relaxed writing cheques running into the tens of billions for the handover of a British territory, thereby betraying British people, based on questionable interpretations of international obligations that deliver nothing tangible for the British taxpayer.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle), who has said that these elections should go ahead. Indeed, democracy delayed is democracy denied. In the past, when there has been a delay to local elections, I cannot remember it ever being for longer than one year. When Margaret Thatcher rightly abolished the Greater London Council, the term of the GLC was extended by one year only. Any delay has never been longer than one year, and one of two or three years is a complete denial of democracy. It is quite clearly a way of Labour avoiding humiliating defeats on 7 May. As they are going to be delayed, would the Secretary State please consider allowing the people of Havering to have a choice about our becoming part of Greater Essex instead of Greater London?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member for Newark.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this timely debate. I have listened to colleagues who feel passionate about their towns, villages and counties. We have heard about Leicestershire, Hampshire, Suffolk and now Devon—all wonderful great English counties. It shows that whatever party we belong to, we care about the communities that we come from. We want the best local government structure that works for local people and delivers services, but it is also about identity. For me, as a proud Essex MP, being stuck in this artificial creation called Greater London has never been good, so radical reform of local government is needed, and it needs to be as local as possible. True democracy is at a local level, not in some bureaucratic organisation in a city. It is local to villages and communities, which is where it should be. We should all work to achieve that and make it as democratic as possible. On behalf of, I believe, local people the length and breadth of England, I would like to add my voice to the chorus of outrage against this Labour Government’s decision to delay an ever-increasing number of local government elections under the guise of restructuring. That is just an excuse not to hold elections. It is nothing less than a blatant attempt to hide themselves from the scrutiny of the ballot box, silencing the voices of millions of voters on the local issues that matter most to daily lives. I, alongside my new Reform UK colleagues here in Parliament, totally oppose the ditching of democracy in such a way. Reform UK has launched a legal challenge, including a judicial review, due to be heard this week. We are clear that democracy delayed is democracy denied. The Labour Government are running from the fight of their lives in the upcoming elections on 7 May. There is no way that the British people will let them off the hook. They may delay the elections, but they are just delaying their own defeat and demise. The British people will not forget that it is Labour who have abolished democracy in whole swathes of the country on 7 May. History tells us that only dictators cancel elections yet, shockingly, 30 local authority leaders have written to the Secretary of State requesting that local democracy be denied and their positions secured for another period without elections.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  I was about to conclude my remarks when the Division bell rang. I hope that the Minister takes on board my point about the historic and ceremonial counties, and that councils across our land will proudly fly the county flags from each town and county hall across England. I know that will delight the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  Can the hon. Member will tell us whether it was also in the Labour manifesto to abolish local council elections?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  There is always a legitimate case to have a short delay when there is a serious purpose for doing so. I remember when Mrs Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council—what a glorious day that was. We did not have elections for the GLC and extended it for one more year. In circumstances such as that, where it is one more year, there are legitimate reasons to delay, but we are talking now about up to three years. That is unacceptable and completely beyond what is reasonable or necessary to get everything organised and ready for any local government restructure.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  All of us knock on doors and talk to our constituents. The thing they are really unhappy about, in all councils, is the fact that councils are not operating effectively and getting the true local jobs done in their local communities. The more remote the system and the bigger the council area, the less effective it will be. Does the hon. Gentleman see the point about smaller towns, villages and boroughs losing their identity and local control because it goes to some big bureaucracy somewhere else, a long way from where they are?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman says; he speaks absolute common sense. An even better example is what has happened in Greater London, where the borough of Havering, which has always been in Essex, is being sucked into Greater London and paying huge sums of money to subsidise inner-London areas, but gets very few services in return. The Mayor of London is dictating to places such as Romford when it comes to building high-rise blocks in the town centre and imposing things such as the ultra low emission zone, as well as his crazy, woke political correctness, which I know most people in my constituency and in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are completely opposed to.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to give way because I know what the hon. Member is going to say. In my borough there have been no delays or restructuring for many years, so it has not affected my area. That is why I have not spoken about delayed elections in other areas; that is for other Members to have done during those restructures. I would love local government to be restructured in the Greater London area—I have been calling for that for many years. Sadly, my former party refused to countenance such a thing. Tony Blair recreated the GLC under the guise of the GLA and introduced the elected Mayor of London, which nobody really wants and is very costly. We had the opportunity for 14 years to do something about that. The hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) also has concerns about the way that the Mayor of London and the GLA have operated, and he will reply from the Opposition Front Bench later. I am interested to hear whether a future Government that the Conservatives are part of will be radical and actually do something about the artificial local government structure that has been imposed on us in the Greater London area.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  At the general election, which we need as soon as possible, we will see how many Reform MPs are elected. I am happy to have an election as soon as possible, because this country needs change. We have been stuck in a rut for years and the British people have had enough. So yes, let us have a general election to get rid of this disastrous Government and put our country in a better place. Going back to the original point, most of the boroughs that are delaying their elections are Labour-controlled, but the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have also requested cancellations, so they do not get off the hook scot-free. As it stands, more than 600 council seats will not be contested later this year. Almost 4 million people will be denied the chance to elect their local council representatives. It really is shameful. It is unnecessary and wrong, and the policy should be changed. This is nothing short of a scandal. The British people deserve better; they deserve a say about who runs their local councils. That is why Reform UK supports serious consultations on local government reorganisation, and ultimately referendums on it. Local voices cannot be silenced, and we will fight to ensure that they are heard. Although it brings a short-term advantage to the Labour party, blocking elections harms local people. Take my borough of Havering, for example. In 2000, London governance was reorganised in a manner not dissimilar to the reorganisation that is taking place across the country today. In the 1960s, our area had the administrative title of the London borough of Havering imposed on us, but everyone in Havering knows that we are in Essex. We did not need to be told that we are suddenly part of London when for one and a half millennia we have been under Essex, but the bureaucracy imposed that new title on us. Now we are under the thumb of the elected Mayor and the Greater London Authority, so please can we have a referendum on whether to stay part of that regional government structure? Havering is not London. We do not want our local government controlled by a London Mayor—particularly the current one—and I think most of my constituents would like us to get out. We want to connect with our Essex roots, both culturally and administratively. The people of Havering deserve a referendum on whether they want to continue to be dominated by a political mayor. Whether we remain part of that structure must be their decision. I believe it is time to give local constituents in Romford and throughout the borough of Havering a choice about whether we are under the Mayor of London or whether we should regain our independence and our local identity. At one point, the Ministry stated that “all elections should go ahead unless there is strong, evidence-based justification for a temporary delay.” Those words are now haunting the Labour party. I firmly believe that local and regional government is in dire need of reform, not only in my borough of Havering but across the country, but the answer cannot be less engagement with local people. It must be the opposite of that: giving local people a genuine say about the structure of their local councils. There should be thorough consultations, crystal clear explanations and referendums in local areas so that the decision is made by local people. Central Government bureaucrats must not make decisions above the heads of local people, ignoring what they truly want. The Government’s current excuses are simply that—worse, in fact. The reality is that this is a political stitch-up to keep local authorities under Labour control. From speaking to people in my constituency who have experienced a Labour Government and a Labour Mayor of London, I have to say that the last thing they want is for Labour to be running their local council. Labour is running from the polls and taking democracy with it; it should change this policy quickly. There is still time for the Government to do their favourite thing: make a U-turn. We have seen a lot of those recently, so let us see another one on this issue. Local government needs fundamental reform, but the Government must consult people more broadly, respect democracy and allow elections to go ahead as planned. Anything else is unacceptable to local people across this country, regardless of their political affiliations. Reform UK will fight this every step of the way. I commend the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who made a very good point about the identity of the historic counties. For many years, I have fought to combine the historic and the ceremonial counties so that we all have one county identity, rather than the muddle that we have at the moment of ceremonial counties, administrative counties and historic counties. Three definitions of counties is nonsense. Local government reorganisation means we should go back to the simple concept of a county being a geographical and historical area that we can all feel part of because it is our history and identity. My borough should have always have been under the ceremonial county of Essex. There are lots of other anomalies across the country—in Leicestershire and other parts—but perhaps the Minister could at least take this one back, so that we can have one county identity, which we could then celebrate across the country.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This has been fundamental to everything I have ever stood for in this House as a Member of Parliament. This Bill did not have its origins in this Government; these were originally the proposals of the previous Conservative Government. No Government have ever given the right of self-determination to the Chagossian people. Shamefully, we have treated them differently from all the other overseas territories. We sent a taskforce to rescue the Falkland Islands. Margaret Thatcher would never have given one inch of British territory away to a foreign country, let alone have paid billions of pounds to do so. This is a shameful day for our country. We are giving away the King’s islands. Rescuing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do; betraying the Chagossian people is absolutely the wrong thing to do. My former party went along with this for years, ignoring everything I ever said to every Foreign Minister and every Foreign Secretary. Over and over again, I raised this issue, and warned that it would lead to this catastrophe. I was ignored, and now we see the betrayal of the Chagossian people, our national security is being threatened, and we are paying billions for it. I say to all colleagues on both sides of this House—including those in my new party, but particularly those in my old party —that this is a humiliation for this country, and a betrayal of the loyal British people sitting in the Gallery today who should have the right of self-determination. I am ashamed of what this Parliament is voting on today. I will speak up for the rights, democracy and self-determination of all the British people in all the overseas territories.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Foreign Secretary explain why, if she rightly supports the self-determination of the Greenlandic people as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, she does not support the self-determination of the Chagossian people to remain a British overseas territory?