Andrew Rosindell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Oct 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps he is taking to maintain Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this crucial debate. He always says it as it is and speaks common sense. He is speaking for millions of people in this country who are sick of the knife-crime epidemic that we see across our nation. This is a timely debate, following the appalling events in Manchester only a few weeks ago. As the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) just said, the appalling murder of our friend Sir David Amess took place four years ago today. We continue to grieve for that great parliamentarian and his family. We all felt the loss when he was taken from us. Every one of us in this place will have heard of the fear and frustration of our constituents regarding the rising tide of violence in our cities. As the Member of Parliament for Romford, an Essex town on the periphery of Greater London, I see that fear at first hand. Ordinary, law-abiding people—mothers walking their children to school, young people heading home from work, shop workers locking up at night—are frightened to walk the streets of their own city. A fortnight ago, the police cordoned off Romford High Street due to a knife-crime-related incident. Last year, a man was stabbed and killed only metres from my constituency office. That is not how London used to be. When I was growing up, it was not like that at all. It is not, and should not be, characteristic of the world’s greatest city. My constituents are dutiful people. They respect the police and they respect authority; they expect their Government to defend them. Many residents have sought refuge in Romford from the crime that is spiralling out of control in inner-London areas. However, we fear that Havering will one day go the same way. It fills me with shame and anger when I hear that other nations now warn their citizens to exercise a high degree of caution when visiting our capital. Australia has raised its travel advice for the United Kingdom from level 1 to level 2. That places us in the same bracket as countries such as Albania, Senegal and Tunisia. The embassy of the United Arab Emirates has gone further still, warning of a recent increase in violence and knife crime in London. When foreign Governments are advising caution on British streets, something has gone very wrong indeed. Yet the Mayor of London chooses to accuse others of spreading misinformation, rather than confronting the truth on knife crime, along with the rest of his totally appalling record. I agree with President Trump’s assessment that Mayor Khan is doing “a terrible job” for our capital. According to the recent Policy Exchange report, which has already been mentioned, there are almost 17,000 knife crime offences in the capital, which is an 86% increase since 2015. London now accounts for nearly a third of all crime in England and Wales, and almost half of all knifepoint robberies. Robbery is now the largest single category of knife crime, with more than 10,000 offences in 2024, the majority involving mobile phone theft. During Boris Johnson’s term as Mayor of London between 2011 and 2016, knife crime in London fell by almost a third. Since Sadiq Khan entered City Hall—sorry, I should say Sir Sadiq Khan—the number of offences has climbed relentlessly, but Mayor Khan takes no responsibility for the shocking situation. The reality is that Londoners have been failed by a mayor who spends most of his time virtue signalling, rather than restoring order to our capital. The result is that criminals have been emboldened, while the law-abiding majority have been abandoned. Stop and search, used properly, is working and needs to be extended, and I am glad that my party is suggesting that. I am sure that others in this House agree. We need zero tolerance in policing the worst hotspots. That means returning to the principle of having large numbers of uniformed police officers patrolling our streets. It means tough sentences for those who carry knives and immediate prison terms for repeat offenders. The first of nine policing principles outlined by the former Prime Minister and founder of the Metropolitan police, Sir Robert Peel, is that the basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. That may have worked in the 19th century; it certainly worked in the 20th century; and I am convinced that it will work in the 21st century. We must ensure, however, that the police are doing the job of policing and not acting as social workers. We want more police and fewer PC PCs—politically correct police constables. I commend the hon. Member for Ashfield for bringing this debate before the House. I hope that the Minister is listening to everything that is being said, because the people of my constituency and throughout London are fearful that the Government and the Mayor of London are simply not doing the job that they were elected to do.

• 16 Sept 2025 · International Day of Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this timely debate to mark the International Day of Democracy. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition I absolutely endorse her words about Jimmy Lai; her constituent should be released immediately. It is right that this debate has been brought to the Floor of the House today, and that we all pause and reflect on the centrality of democracy, which in various forms runs right the way through our own national story and to the principles that we the United Kingdom hold dear across the world. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the birthplace of parliamentary democracy. Our history, our institutions and our very identity as a nation are bound up by that great achievement of democracy. The story of our constitution—the balance between Crown and Parliament, and the empowerment of the individual through common law—was a British innovation that has evolved organically over many centuries. By the good fortune of our history and the wisdom of our forebears, we achieved a parliamentary system that blends monarchy and an upper Chamber, and which includes the state Church, the judiciary, science, the armed forces, academia and business. Of course, we have the vehicle to represent the popular will of the people here in this democratically elected House of Commons. Despite what some would describe as anachronisms of history, I believe that we in this country have a model parliamentary democracy. At the heart of our democracy is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty: our people, through their elected representatives, are the final authority. That is the cornerstone of our freedom. Britain’s democratic reach extends far beyond these islands. From the very outset of our imperial past, England, then Great Britain, and then the United Kingdom was able to replicate the best of our democratic traditions in the far reaches of the planet. In many of our former colonies, the right to vote was established and extended even more broadly than it was at the same time in the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth of Nations embodies these democratic principles: 56 nations bound together not by force, but by free choice and by the shared democratic values enshrined in the Commonwealth charter. I believe that the Commonwealth of Nations is an undervalued institution. To have its headquarters a mere few minutes’ walk from where we sit today surely makes us the envy of any western democracy. I read with great interest ahead of this debate the briefing from the Westminster Foundation for Democracy —an organisation that I was proud to serve as a board member for nine years and have worked with for 20 to 30 years. It was established by John Major’s Government following the fall of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain, at the time when Margaret Thatcher was our Prime Minister. We commemorate the 100th anniversary of her birth next month, on 13 October. As we all know, Mrs Thatcher was a courageous leader, who was not afraid to oppose communism and stood up for freedom and democracy in Europe, resulting in an end to the communist tyranny that dominated the eastern side of the continent. In 1993, I established a freedom training programme, with the support of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, through the Conservative party’s international office and the European Young Conservatives, which I chaired at the time, to help to spread the ideas of free people, free nations, free markets, democracy and the rule of law. We were doing all that via sister parties; the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, all political parties did the same. I worked with countries ranging from Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia to Belarus—where I launched the Free Belarus campaign in 1997—Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Moldova and Albania, as well as Ukraine and Russia, and even nations as far away as Argentina, a country that regained its democracy after Margaret Thatcher ensured the defeat of the military dictatorship in 1982 by the forces of the Crown in the south Atlantic.

• 16 Sept 2025 · International Day of Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid not, because we are very limited for time. Britain should do more to strengthen international democracy, and the Commonwealth is a perfect vehicle for that. We have seen a queue of nations, particularly on the African continent, that want to join the Commonwealth. A good example of that is Togo. I am proud to have assisted that nation’s accession to the Commonwealth, which formally took place in 2022, following my visit to Togo in 2019. Therefore I ask the Minister: what are the Government doing to assist the Commonwealth with its operations abroad? Surely the Commonwealth should be central to this Government’s strategy in promoting democracy and our democratic traditions abroad. We are seeing the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world. I am thinking of, among others, the People’s Republic of China, Russia and Iran, the leaders of which came together in a show of force in Beijing only a fortnight ago. These countries pose a serious threat to democracy around the world. Therefore I ask the Minister: why are the Government willing to give the world’s leading authoritarian country the largest embassy in Europe and a base to spy on its dissenting citizens—those who simply disagree with Chinese communism? These nations have openly expressed their intent of reshaping the international system, so how is Britain making use of its seat on the UN Human Rights Council to push back against those who would seek to water down our democratic norms? Also, of course, there is the matter of the Chagos islands. The Government denied the Chagossian people any form of serious consultation over the future of their homeland and ultimately decided to hand their islands, which belong to them, over to a nation in cahoots with China. Will the Minister reflect on the discussion we have had today and give the Chagossian people the democratic right, which I believe they are entitled to and which all of us, regardless of party, are supporting today—the right to determine their own future? That is democracy. Decolonisation must mean giving self-determination to those whose homeland it is. Why should our loyal and God-fearing British Chagossian friends be denied that right? In closing, I will mention, as many Members have done today, the horrifying event that took place in the United States of America last week. Charlie Kirk’s murder was, I believe, an affront to the democratic values that have bound our two nations together for hundreds of years. Of course, Members across the House may not have agreed with Charlie’s views on a number of issues—we all disagree, on all kinds of issues—but this is a place where we can discuss our differences and the pursuit of truth in well-intentioned debate, without intimidation, hatred or violence. So I believe it is fitting to conclude with a quote from Charlie that sums him up best. He is someone who I actually met, when he came to the House of Commons in 2018—I gave him a tour and he went to Speaker’s House for a Christian celebration. Let me end my comments today by quoting from Charlie, because I believe that what he said encapsulates the very issue we are discussing today: “When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group…What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.”

• 15 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Home Secretary aware that 20% of officers in the Metropolitan police are currently either suspended or on restricted duties, with senior officers warning that the situation is unsustainable? Does she agree that we need urgently to review both welfare and disciplinary processes in our police services so that towns such as Romford can get more police actually patrolling our streets?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the decision in February 2010, our national flag—the Union flag or Union Jack—must fly from the Victoria Tower every day of the year, but in summer a much larger flag is flown; in winter only a small flag is flown. Can you please ask Mr Speaker to raise with the House authorities why the larger summer flag has been removed and replaced by the smaller flag? When I last checked, British summer time does not end until 26 October, so surely the larger Union Jack should fly at least until that date. May I also say that 26 October is also Essex Day, so maybe we can fly the flag of Essex as well?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This is a truly sad and tragic day for our friends in the United States of America as they remember the events of 9/11 in 2001, and given the tragic assassination last night of Charlie Kirk. I was privileged to welcome him to the Houses of Parliament in 2018 and take him to Speaker’s House for a Christmas reception. He was a friend of the United Kingdom, he stood up for freedom and his Christian faith, and we mourn his loss and send our condolences to his family and friends. Talking about someone of principle who stands up for freedom, 13 October—the day the House returns after the conference recess—will be the 100th anniversary of the birth of our finest post-war Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, which was to restore the British economy, stand up for Britain around the world, defend freedom and not give away British islands but protect, defend and restore them, as she did for the Falkland Islands in 1982?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend said the magic word: “Essex”. Does he support the Transport for London (Extension of Concessions) Bill that I have tabled? TfL runs to Shenfield, Reading, Epping, Watford, Cheshunt and Amersham, way beyond the boundaries of Greater London. The Bill would require TfL to enable any local authority that is served by a TfL route or by a route to which a TfL concessionary scheme applies to opt in to the concessionary fare scheme, including the freedom pass for our old age pensioners.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the Secretary of State might have a word with her friend the Mayor of London about the appalling mismanagement of the Gallows Corner junction, where a flyover is being constructed. The gridlock, chaos and delays are affecting the whole Romford side of Essex, and east London. It really is chaos. Will she get it sorted out?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I welcome the opportunity to bring to the Floor of the House the issue of the impact on British society of the Equality Act 2010, a topic that I believe is increasingly being raised not only by my constituents in Romford, but more widely across the United Kingdom by people whose lives are affected on a daily basis because of this legislation. It has also been the subject of detailed research in the recent report from the think-tank Don’t Divide Us, which was co-authored by Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert and Dr Anna Loutfi, and which I commend to Members of all parties and to the wider public. For centuries, our common-law tradition has been at the vanguard in the defence of what we consider our liberties as Britons. Ushered in 900 years ago and emboldened by Magna Carta in 1215, common law enshrined the once revolutionary principle that all individuals are equal before the law, judged not as members of groups, but as subjects of the Crown, with inherent rights. From that tradition came trial by jury, which has its origins in Anglo-Saxon England, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. Were those gifts from Brussels or Strasbourg? Of course not. They are the hard-won fruits of our own history and the innovative quality of our forebears and the generations that have come before us. When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, we were told by the now Baroness Harman that it would end discrimination, give everyone a fair chance in life and bring transparency. Those are fine words indeed, yet they give the impression that Parliament can, through sheer willpower, eliminate some of the more damaging and derisive aspects of human nature. Fifteen years on, the reality is, I am sad to say, very different. The Act has not united our country; it has divided it. It has not reduced discrimination; it has fuelled grievance. It has not strengthened our traditions of fairness; it has undermined them. In fact, it has fanned the very flames that it sought to extinguish. In the first instance, the Act is woefully drafted. Let us take as an example the alleged definition of race. Section 9 defines that as including, but not limited to, “colour; nationality; ethnic or national origins.” That is imprecise and confusing and has generated a grey area in law. Simply put, it is a poor expression of parliamentary intention, whatever that was at the time. We are also seeing absurd contradictions. Section 13(5) bans racial segregation, yet guidance under the Equality Act allows organisations to create separate spaces based on combinations of protected characteristics. In practice, that could mean the state sanctioning racial segregation in Britain in 2025, all in the name of equality. The Act and the imported ideology that underpins it have created a culture of division and victimhood. It is the legislative foundation of what today is called DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion—and the ever-expanding industry of woke training sessions and quotas.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right that in this country, sadly, we have divided our own nation by treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the kingdom. That was a huge error by, I am afraid to say, the last Conservative Government, which agreed to the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor framework. I am against both, and I look forward to a future Government repealing them so that we have one United Kingdom, where all people in these islands are treated equally and the same. As set out clearly by Don’t Divide Us, the truth is that the Equality Act should really be called the inequality Act. Instead of treating every citizen as an individual equal before the law, the Equality Act elevates certain so-called protected characteristics and encourages people to see themselves not as fellow Britons, but as members of competing groups. Far from promoting individual merit, the Equality Act is simply state-sponsored identity politics. What has been the result? Our English legal system has sadly been Americanised through the introduction of a corrosive culture of litigation in the workplace. Since 2017, race discrimination claims in employment tribunals have tripled, with more than 200,000 cases. Yet only 5% have been upheld, which tells us something very important: either Britain is riddled with invisible discrimination that even our judges cannot detect, which, given the richness of our legal traditions, I simply do not accept, or the law is unfit for purpose. In practice, it has turned the workplace into a battleground of claims and counterclaims. Despite the small number of successful claims, the statistics demonstrate the damage caused in places of work. Victim culture has not only been allowed to dominate the workplace, but been actively encouraged by the legislation. To take one example, in the case of Williams v. Nottingham, the judge noted: “the claimant thinks the existence of a ‘racial disparity’ is in…itself proof of racism”. However, the damage goes much deeper. The Equality Act is not simply a tidying-up of previous anti-discrimination laws; as hinted earlier, it represents a wholesale shift away from our common-law tradition where everyone is equal before the law towards a continental EU-style system based on substantive equality, group rights and bureaucratic enforcement. It was inspired by EU directives, in direct contradiction of our legal heritage. It hands enormous power to quangos, activist lawyers and DEI consultants, while eroding the space for free thought, free speech and personal judgment. Some right hon. and hon. Members suggest that repealing the Equality Act would mean enabling inequality, but that is simply wrong. Just as repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 would not abolish human rights, repealing the Equality Act would not abolish equality. Human rights and equality existed long before these Blairite statutes. In fact, equality as we would define it today finds its roots here in these islands of the United Kingdom. The underlying ideology of diversity is not neutral, as many on the left of politics suggest. It treats diversity as an unqualified good and, by implication, majority identity—whether English, Scots, Christian or British—as a problem to be managed. That is why so many of our constituents feel that these laws are not written for them and certainly not in their interests. The majority who simply want to live by the law, pay their taxes and contribute to society feel increasingly alienated by a system that tells them they have privilege that must be checked, while others are encouraged to claim special treatment. That does not sound like equality to me. The Equality Act has given rise to a sprawling industry, made up of an army of bureaucrats, consultants, trainers and lawyers, all feeding off the taxpayer. Repealing it, as I am advocating today, would mean considerable savings, as vast sums of public money are poured into funding this circus. Repealing the legislation would both restore common sense to our institutions and deliver real value for money to the taxpayer. Estimates suggest substantial savings, with annual reductions in compliance costs running into tens or probably thousands of millions—it is very hard to quantify, but it is a huge sum of money when we consider all the public institutions that spend money on promoting the DEI agenda, money that should be going to our frontline public services instead. The NHS Confederation has indicated that DEI roles alone are costing the taxpayer nearly £40 million, and I am sure that is an underestimate of what is really being spent. That is just one sector; goodness only knows what the total bill is across the public sector, in local government, the police and educational institutions—and let us not forget the BBC. It is time to put the taxpayer first and end this costly charade. The private sector and the corporate world have also been sucked into this dangerous ideology, spending vast sums of money in ticking every woke box while engaging in constant virtue signalling. None of this is cost-free to the public either: ultimately, it all must be paid for out of the pockets of their customers. Some will say, “But you had 14 years in government—why didn’t you repeal it?” to which I say that I, the Member of Parliament for Romford, have opposed the Equality Act from the very beginning. I never believed it would deliver what was promised, and I have consistently warned of the dangers of this ideological agenda. Sadly, too many in my party doubled down on it; some even wanted to extend it. I know that the shadow Minister here today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), is not of that view, but sadly, over the last 14 years, many in my party sucked it all up, carried on with it and wanted to extend it. That was a grave mistake, and Britain is suffering as a result. The Labour Government talk of introducing a new race equality Act—another bright idea from the same failed mindset. The Equality Act has caused so much harm; adding another layer of identity politics into the law will make matters even worse, and I urge the Government to rethink that idea. Likewise, we increasingly hear calls to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia. What kind of society do we want to live in? One where these proposed definitions conflate criticism of an ideology or a religion with hatred of people? Criticising Islam as a religion is not the same as hating people of the Muslim faith. Indeed, freedom of thought and freedom of speech require the ability to critique religious ideas, no matter what the religion may be. To criminalise such critique would be wholly inconsistent with the liberal, democratic principles that have evolved in this country over centuries. It is more important than ever that we as Members of Parliament, in the mother of all Parliaments, do not cower from taking decisions that, at face value, may seem unpopular. Trust me: the residents of my constituency of Romford, and in every corner of the United Kingdom, would wholeheartedly endorse the reversal of these laws, as the problems we face lie at the heart of the legislation itself. In my opinion, we should repeal the Equality Act root and branch, we should repeal the Human Rights Act, and the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European convention on human rights. Indeed, we should dismantle the Blairite constitutional reforms that have corroded our democracy and wedged our politics between a long-standing tradition of parliamentary sovereignty on the one hand, where power rests in this place—the Crown in Parliament—and an attempt at an American-style separation of powers on the other hand that has led to the outsourcing of Parliament’s ability to govern to so-called experts. Those systems are mutually exclusive, and we must pick one. As a Conservative and Unionist, I see the intrinsic value of defending the constitutional traditions that have embedded themselves in these islands for 1,000 years and that have been exported successfully around the world, to the Commonwealth nations in particular. We must return to the great principle that has served this country well for centuries: equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or background. That is the British way. That is our common law tradition. That is the true way to guarantee equality. The Equality Act is not bringing our people together; rather, it is driving them apart. It is fuelling an imported woke culture, an unmeritocratic DEI bureaucracy and a corrosive culture of grievance. We must therefore challenge the equality law house of cards constructed over previous decades and topple it to the ground—or face the prospect of an ever more divided society. We should be proud to identify ourselves as British first and foremost and be truly glad to live in a society where all are treated equally under the ancient laws and customs that have made these cherished islands the great nation that it is and must continue to be.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for chairing today’s debate, which has been extremely valuable. We have heard excellent contributions. There have been different opinions, but we have debated this issue in a respectful way. There are issues to be addressed, and all Members who spoke today have made extremely valid points, coming from different angles. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for his remarks. I took on board the point he made about caste discrimination, which is rarely spoken about. I thank him for drawing that to our attention. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes incredibly valid points in all the debates in which he speaks. He made the point that we may have differences—we all do, as we are all individuals; none of us are the same—but we have to live side by side, and legislation should empower the British people to live side by side in a free society, not pit them against one another and accentuate division by emphasising differences between us. We should be united as British people, rather than looking at how we can be more divided and act like we are victims. Too many in our society today are doing that because the Equality Act has created that culture. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made extremely powerful comments, and I agree with everything she said, particularly about the public sector—especially local government—and how diversity culture has taken over, wasting so much money, causing so many divisions and ignoring issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made the point about focusing on what matters to real people in the real world, rather than looking inwards. Let us focus on providing good, efficient public services rather than draining resources with the diversity agenda. I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). They also made extremely valid points, particularly about the division of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, which I have always opposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey got absolutely to the point of where this has all gone wrong. All of us want to see people treated fairly and decently in a society in which freedom is cherished, but it does not all have to be legislated for. Often things evolve; society changes in a natural way. If we try to legislate for everything, that is just a gift to the lawyers, judges and consultants, and all the people who will monetise legislation that gives them the opportunity to. I have always respected the Minister, and she spoke brilliantly today. She made points that I did not agree with, but many that I did agree with. I think we have all been subjected to hateful language—as Members of Parliament, we get that probably more than most people—and hatred is wrong in any context. We should always treat people with respect, kindness and generosity, but at the same time prevent those with bad intentions from causing more divisions, so our legislation needs to be minimal rather than opening up more opportunities for division in society. Ultimately, I believe in freedom—freedom with responsibility. I do not believe that diversity is always the right answer. It can cause division, and I think equality can sometimes be the opposite of freedom, so let us get back to basics. Let us be proud of our British heritage, which has always been based on fairness and equality under the law of these islands. I thank all Members for participating in this important debate and I say to those who have not had the chance: please get a copy of the Don’t Divide Us report, because it explains a lot of things that we as Members of Parliament should be addressing today. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. My local borough commander in Romford tells me how much valuable police time is being wasted investigating trivial social media posts and non-crime hate incidents. Should the police not be patrolling our streets rather than moderating the internet? Will the Prime Minister commit to urgently updating the Public Order Act 1986 to reflect the realities of the digital age, so that our police are focused on tackling real crime and upholding freedom of speech, rather than suppressing it?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to Lords amendment 11 and on the wider issue of pet ownership, which many other Members have spoken about. Pet ownership in rented accommodation is an issue on which I have campaigned for many years in this House. Some Members will remember the Dogs and Domestic Animals (Accommodation and Protection) Bill, otherwise known as Jasmine’s law, that I introduced to the House in 2020. It supported the principle of a pet in every home. The British people care deeply for the welfare of animals, especially in my Romford constituency. We all understand how important animals are to the lives of human beings. As the owner of two Staffordshire bull terriers, Buster and Spike, who are sadly no longer with us, I know just how important the companionship of pets is to so many people, especially those who live on their own. Owning a dog or cat, or any kind of household pet, improves both physical and mental health, provides vital companionship and helps to tackle loneliness. In fact, pet ownership is estimated to save our NHS around £2.5 billion a year by reducing the number of GP and hospital visits. Despite those clear benefits, housing issues remain the second most common reason for animals to be relinquished to animal shelters and sanctuaries such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which I was privileged to visit only a few weeks ago. I have had many links to that charitable organisation over the years, particularly during my time as shadow Minister for animal welfare some years ago. With growing numbers of people renting, it is absolutely essential that the Bill works in support of responsible pet ownership in rented homes, rather than putting further barriers in the way. That is why I must express my opposition to amendment 11, and any clause that makes it harder for tenants to keep pets. The introduction of large up-front deposits will only serve to price many people out from owning pets, especially in the ongoing cost of living crisis. It is absolutely wrong that someone should be prevented from owning an animal that they love and want to be with because of this situation. The law needs changing, as I have argued for many years, including with Ministers in the previous Government, whom I had to go and see before they eventually agreed that this policy was the right one. I hope that my shadow Front-Bench colleagues will reconsider their stance. I commend the hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for all their comments on this issue. What should have been a Bill to unlock pet ownership for those in millions of homes now risks excluding them altogether, entrenching the idea that pet ownership is a privilege for homeowners only—that cannot be right. I do not believe that is what the Government intended. Earlier proposals on pet insurance—I know issues to do with that have been raised today, but they can be overcome—provided a fairer balance between the concerns of landlords and the ability of tenants to meet the costs. Insurance spreads the expense more evenly across the year, and avoids the burden of large, one-off deposits. It is disappointing that that approach appears to have been set aside by the Lords amendment. Finally, I urge His Majesty’s Government to work closely with animal welfare charities, and the animal welfare sector in general, when developing the guidance that will accompany the Bill. I speak as an honorary member of the Kennel Club—perhaps I should have declared that at the start—and a supporter of the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats home, and of course Cats Protection; it is important always to remember our cats. We need a clear definition of what constitutes unreasonable grounds for a landlord to refuse a tenant’s request for a pet. That clarity will help landlords and tenants alike, and avoid unnecessary disputes ending up before the ombudsman or courts. Jasmine’s law has always been about the simple belief that people should not have to choose between a home and a beloved companion. We must not let the Bill, through the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 11, undermine that vital principle.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House will be aware of the outrage across the country regarding illegal immigration, asylum hotels and now the huge increase in the number of houses in multiple occupation. This is happening on a large scale in Romford, with a massive boom in HMOs. My constituents want to see an end to illegal immigration and the housing of asylum seekers in local hotels. However, transferring the problem to roads and neighbourhoods, and putting families and children at risk in residential streets, is not acceptable. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate on the Floor of the House on the need to adopt an urgent strategy to end the use of hotels and HMOs for this purpose?

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Father of the House for everything he is saying; he sums everything up perfectly. This is constitutional vandalism, and it is destroying the continuity that has made this place so effective and so special for so many centuries. This is clearly being done with a political motivation, which I think is thoroughly wrong. If we make a constitutional reform, at very least the British people should have a say in a referendum.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What I am puzzled about is this: how does the abolition of these great people who have come to this place with a duty of service that they have inherited and served the country benefit the people of Stoke-on-Trent? How will our constituents benefit by this change to our constitution? Does the hon. Member really think that this country will be so much better for having got rid of our hereditary peers, who have such a great duty of service to our country?

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a small element.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman agrees that the hereditary principle is wrong and that no one should be in this Parliament by dint of DNA, surely he is saying that we should abolish the monarchy. The Crown is part of this Parliament and Royal Assent is part of the legislative process. If we go by his principle, the hon. Gentleman is basically saying that the monarchy itself is no longer relevant. Is that what he is saying?

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making the correct argument. The hereditary peerage in the House of Lords represents continuity in our country and wisdom throughout the ages. Most of the House of Lords is appointed, but that hereditary element is vital as part of the mix of our very successful parliamentary constitution.

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

  More

  I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady’s speech. She and I are both Essex MPs, and I agree that we should not create these huge unitary authorities, because local councils are truly in touch with local communities and local needs. However, does she agree that as Havering is also part of Essex, we should be part of that discussion as well? If my borough wants to be part of an Essex unitary authority—such as Central Essex, which would include Chelmsford—does she agree that my constituents should have the right to make that decision in a democracy?

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

  More

  My friend is making some excellent points. The best example, which is from when this started, is the creation of Greater London in 1965. Ever since then, areas like Romford have been paying money into central London and losing our local control, local identity and local democracy, and it has been costing us an absolute fortune. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a lot of red tape and bureaucracy and the wrong direction to go in?

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

  More

  Not in Greater London.

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

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?