Easter and Christian Culture

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher]

I agree with every single word of my hon. Friend’s contribution. As I said, this is not just about society’s relationship with Christianity; it is the individual’s relationship with Christ that gives them the strength to do wonderful things for society as a whole. My hon. Friend mentioned three wonderful people who were all devout Christians.

Our need for something to believe in is always present and if it is not in the Christian teachings and God, what is it in? If we have no faith or turn our back on faith, we search for something to fill the void. Often, we start looking inwards. We start to lust after things that are not good for us. Like a drug, we may get a quick hit of happiness, but it is soon gone. Some may ask, “Where is the proof?” Here is the proof: with all the ways we have to entertain ourselves and spend our time, how many people in the UK are struggling with their mental health? Despite all those wonderful things Google thinks make us British and that I have spoken about, we have so many unhappy people. Why?

The Bible is clear: it tells us that if we turn our back on God, He will give us up to our natural state. We become filled with all kinds of wickedness, evil and greed. We gossip and speak badly of one another. We become proud and boastful and, when young, disobey our parents. It teaches us that we lose our conscience and do not keep our promises. We show no kindness or pity for others and become unforgiving souls. If we turn our back on God, He will give us up, and I think that in many places in society he may already have done so.

How did this happen? I remember many people calling anyone who believed in Christ a Bible-basher, a God botherer, and many laughed; I was called one myself. Then Christians were told, “It’s okay that you believe, but don’t ram it down my throat,” so guess what? That happened. In many quarters, the Church listened, Christians listened, and I listened, too. Many of us stopped talking about God for fear of being accused of ramming it down other people’s throats—not that other people seem concerned about sharing their beliefs. What is worse is those who do not want a faith did appear to want others not to have a faith either. Christians have been ridiculed on the big stage across the country, and now many believers have been too quiet for too long.

In the recent 2021 census, for the first time in England and Wales, less than half the population described themselves as Christian and 37.2% of people said they had no religion. Is there a connection with there being so much unhappiness, so many young and old dealing with mental health issues, and so many searching for hope often through sources that are not healthy in any manner of the word? Many vicars may feel they are just going through the motions, even feeling lost in their work preaching to empty pews. We even have many denominations trying to become progressive, or “relevant”, to fill those empty seats, and many are moving further away from God’s word. The meaning of scripture is often misinterpreted to reflect current trends, instead of holding firm and letting the Bible be the guide for our people to look to. It appears that the loudest voices continue to win.

I am often told in this job, “Let’s look at the outcome.” That is a fair point, so let us do so. The outcome is that a vacuum has been created that was always going to have to be filled. The question is, with what? First, we have filled it with seven-days-a-week shopping, 24-hour TV, the internet, the iPhone and, for those who have really lost their way, a host of illegal activities. Secondly, it has been filled with contested views and so-called progressive ideologies that not only vilify our past but demand reparations. Ideologies confuse our present through the indoctrination of our children with gender questioning, and through climate change zealots who are not pragmatic in their views, but seem intent only on terrifying people about our world’s future. Really, we should be proud of our nation’s history, content in our present and optimistic for our future, especially when we have a faith grounded in Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, something that is not necessarily filling the vacuum, but is taking a place in our society is the beliefs of other people who have made Britain their home—our next-door neighbours. Their way of living, their faith and their culture are growing, not through force—most, like us, are kind people—but because they have something to believe in and maybe because they see nothing else. Many visitors must be amazed at the apathy with which many of us regard our own culture. We want people to embrace it, but have we let it go? Have we let it go because we have let God go?

If we continue on that trajectory or fuel it with even more secular views, we will no doubt see the swift end of what many believe is British culture. When I google British culture, it might instead speak of multiculturalism, which many will say is good, but I am sure it will also be even more of a mix of nonsense that is grounded in ways to entertain ourselves and those contested progressive ideologies. It does not have to be that way.

The Department that has responsibility for communities has a role to play here. It has an interest in helping to protect our history. The Government have a duty to protect our young people from the nonsense they see on their phones that creates their confusion. The Government have done much with the Online Safety Act 2023, but can and should do more. A Department that has responsibility for communities can surely use its budget to help Christian churches and community groups, not stop them receiving money because of tick-box exercises that do not match secular belief. It can bring the schools, churches and community together through the things that make us British—our King, a cup of tea, a game of cricket, a beer in the pub, David Beckham’s left foot. I am sure there must be a way the Department can do much more to promote faith and family and our Christian heritage, values and way of life.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on promoting this magnificent debate, so well timed in advance of Easter. I am sure he agrees with me that our entire heritage—the foundations of our laws, customs and conventions and our entire British way of life—is founded on the Christian heritage of these islands. Although we cherish the principle of freedom of religion for all and respect for people of no faith and other faiths, it is nevertheless the Christian foundations that have allowed a free society to develop, where anyone can choose the life they lead. We should therefore defend that Christian heritage because if we undermine it, we undermine the entire free society that so many generations have built.

[Nick Fletcher]

My hon. Friend said in 30 seconds what has taken me 18 minutes to say, so I thank him for his contribution. He is completely right.

As I was saying, I am sure there must be a way the Department can do much more to promote faith and family and our Christian heritage, values and way of life; encourage the country’s people to look out for each other instead of focusing inwards; embrace a culture of forgiveness and love for all our neighbours; and lead the nation to speak proudly of its past. The formidable Douglas Murray once urged people to have “an attitude of gratitude”. A nation that knows the boundaries of right and wrong sets them in stone so that we all know where we are and that no means no, not maybe, especially when speaking to and guiding our young. That is a nation where opportunity is available to all for the better of all. I want a nation’s people that believes what CS Lewis once stated:

“Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth ‘thrown in’: aim at Earth and you will get neither.”

Can we not do all that while letting those who have called our shores home enjoy their culture, too? I think we can and we should.

If our Christian culture with its faith and families shines like the beacon of hope that it should, the ideologies and desires that are often negative will be starved of oxygen and will fall away one by one. The new people we welcome will see our culture and maybe even want to be a part of it, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak in this significant debate in Westminster Hall, Dr Huq. I again commend my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for calling this debate as we approach the Eastertide period. May I also say what a privilege it is to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? Throughout his many years in this House, he has demonstrated clear Christian leadership in so many areas of British life. I thank him for the service he has given to this House and to our country, always standing up for the Christian heritage of the United Kingdom. It is that which I want to refer to today, because the title of this debate is Easter, Christian culture and heritage.

We can talk about religion, and we have done, and so we should—my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley rightly made that the focus of his speech—but the cultural side is also vital. Not everybody in these islands considers themselves to be Christian: many have no faith; many have different faiths; many are unsure where they stand. However, I believe that what most people stand strongly for is the upholding of the heritage that goes with the Christian faith—the culture; our customs; our way of life; our laws, which are founded on Christian teachings; our constitution; our monarchy; our flag. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough mentioned, all the great national symbols of this nation have Christian symbols embedded within them. One only needs to look at the crown that His Majesty wore in the coronation, only a year ago. On the top of that crown is a cross. It is there for a purpose, because it signifies the foundations of our society.

We have an established Church, and I am glad we do, because having the Church of England as our established Church protects all other religions and denominations to worship freely in a free society without being persecuted, belittled, sidelined or attacked in any way. We have a society in which freedom of religion is cherished and protected under the rule of law. Having an established Church prevents sectarianism and prevents different religions from vying for power or domination, because everyone accepts that our King is the head of the Church, and that the Christian faith has made the foundations of our society. Everybody can worship freely under that framework. That is why I strongly support the Church of England as both the religious leadership of this country and part of the culture of our nation.

It is right that in schools, young people are able to sing hymns. It is right that at the start of a meal, we say grace. That is part of our heritage as well. It is right that we celebrate Easter, Christmas, Whitsun and all the magnificent religious holidays that we officially recognise in this country. Long may that remain so. I would be deeply unhappy if there were ever a question of days such as Good Friday, Christmas day or Whitsun not being formally recognised as public holidays. Good Friday should be a day when people reflect, when there is solemn feeling, and when we consider why we are celebrating Easter and why we are sad on Good Friday, the day that Jesus was crucified.

[Robin Millar]

I was struck by the fact that my hon. Friend described Christianity as a source and not an addition, a bolt-on or a replaceable extra in the culture and heritage of our country.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that brings me to some of the points that I would like to make.

Christianity is everywhere around us. We may not be a Christian; there are people who are not Christians, but the Christian culture of British society is everywhere, and to remove that would undermine the foundations of our society. One only needs to think back in history. The Vikings came to these islands a thousand years ago, but it was the Christian faith that united England under the banner of King Alfred and then of King Æthelstan. It is St George who is the embodiment of England, and we will be celebrating St George’s day on 23 April. As chairman of the Houses of Parliament branch of the Royal Society of Saint George, I will be hosting, I hope, an event in Parliament for all Members to celebrate the heritage of England. That includes hon. Friends from other parts of these islands, especially Scotland.

Of course, our national anthem is a prayer itself—a prayer to God. The de facto anthem of England is, of course, “Jerusalem”. It is not officially recognised, but nevertheless I think “Jerusalem” is the hymn that most people sing when we celebrate England, and English heritage and culture. Of course, our monarch is anointed in Westminster Abbey, and our royal motto translates to “God and my right”.

The Bible has transformed the way our civilisation has operated, through law, governance, art, architecture and so many other areas of life. It has shaped the way all Britons—everybody in this country, including those with no religion—think about family, community and morality. It was through the lens of the Christian faith that we were the first nation on the planet not only to outlaw slavery permanently, but to enforce that ban worldwide through the West Africa Squadron.

We do indeed have a proud history, based on our Christian heritage and our Christian customs—long may they continue. But it has not always been quite so straightforward. I have been a Member of Parliament for 23 years. In my second year as a Member of Parliament, there was almost outrage when some local authorities suggested that the hot cross bun should be banned, can you believe? I remember it happening; I think it was in 2003. There was political correctness even then. I think it is probably worse today: anything can offend anybody, and that is dangerous because then we lose our heritage.

I remember that in 2002, we had to table an early-day motion to defend the hot cross bun. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has left the room, as he was one of those who signed the EDM. I will remind the House of what it said:

“That this House is appalled at the decision by some local authorities in the United Kingdom to ban hot cross buns from schools; believes the hot cross bun to be a splendid Easter tradition that represents the Christian heritage of Britain; and encourages all schools in the United Kingdom to ignore such politically correct advice from local authorities and continue to serve hot cross buns.”

Only yesterday, I was delighted to enjoy the hot cross buns offered to Members of Parliament in the Tea Room, but I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley that that little thing, all those years ago, alarmed me—that so many perfectly innocent parts of our culture can be undermined by people who seem to want to take away so much of what we hold dear in these islands, and which our ancestors, our forebears, have fought to defend over so many generations.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I wanted to raise earlier. It is very important that we should defend the right of people to speak their mind freely about religion. So, we should defend the right of Richard Dawkins, atheist, to attack religious people or religions in general. We have got to also defend the right of religious people to have their space, whether it is Orthodox Jews, or devout Muslims, or evangelical Christians. We must also defend the right of people, not just to attack religion or religious people in general, but also to criticise particular religions. There is a sort of dumbing down of debate and people are afraid, increasingly, to express their viewpoint, but in a vigorous democracy there must be this freedom of expression.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend is completely correct. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand. It is of course right in a free society that anybody can criticise a religion for the teachings that it espouses, but equally, we have the right to believe something completely different and be tolerant to one another in a free society. That is the nature of religion. People do have different opinions; people do have different perspectives. People are raised in different ways; they come from different ancestry. People come from different heritage, different countries, and have other religions. I defend that. That is one of the fundamental things that make us British—that we defend freedom of religion. We should never lose that. We should not be afraid to debate these things or have different opinions, and to criticise people because they have a different opinion. We can discuss and debate, but we must always allow opinions to be expressed. For if we lose that ability to speak freely and to disagree with each other in a polite and gentlemanly way, I am afraid that we lose so much of what our society is about. So, long may freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand together.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to say one or two things about my constituency. I was christened and confirmed at the church of St Edward the Confessor, a most magnificent church in the centre of Romford market. Every year we have magnificent Easter celebrations. On Good Friday there has been a march of witness, which I have always attended since being a Member of Parliament. In recent times, we have had open-air services with all the churches within the town centre, led by St Edward’s church, which is the main church in Romford. On Palm Sunday in recent years, a donkey has appeared, making its way through the market square and into the church, as we have gathered for that significant day in the Christian calendar.

I want to pay tribute to the Reverend Father David Simpson, who was the parish priest for the last few years. Having retired two weeks ago, he is now working for the Mission to Seafarers. I pay tribute to his service to the people as vicar of Romford, leading our church and playing such a significant role in the community. I know that hon. and right hon. Friends will wish him well with his future career as he becomes a pastor to seafarers based in Felixstowe, carrying out his mission for the seafarers of our country, and indeed the whole world.

[Robin Millar]

My hon. Friend is being very generous and I thank him for giving way a second time. Again, it seems to me that, in rightly paying tribute to the institutions and individuals in his own constituency—something that every other Member present could doubtless do— he is showing again how much Christianity is a part of the fabric of our society, and how it is steeped in those traditions and rituals, many of which we will have forgotten or overlooked for their familiarity. They are there none the less and are an inherent part of British culture and society.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Indeed, they are part of our way of life, and long may that be the case. As Members of Parliament, we understand how important it is in our constituencies to engage with our churches and faith groups—of all religions, by the way—especially those that represent the local culture and heritage of our individual constituencies. I certainly do that in Romford: I am very proud to be a member of St Edward the Confessor Church and I pay tribute to its work over many centuries. In fact, Her late Majesty the Queen visited the church in 2003, a year after her golden jubilee, and I was very honoured to meet her in Romford on that occasion.

I also pay tribute to the parish church of St. Alban Protomartyr and the Reverend Father Roderick Hingley, who has raised hundreds of thousands of pounds to restore the church with magnificent artwork depicting the stations of the cross, with magnificent candlesticks and stained-glass windows, and to refurbish the church and its hall in general. What a magnificent leader of our community Father Hingley has been, and his extension by the Church of England to continue in post for a few more years has been most welcome.

However, I worry about the divisions that exist in the Church of England. I want the Church of England to be strong and to uphold the Christian heritage. Of course, there are different ways of worshipping within the Church of England, but we must ensure that the Church is still there for all people and that it is not allowed to become a divided organisation. We must try to bring the Church of England together, because it is the Church that represents the state. The King is the head of the Church and that provides an incredibly important structure to retaining the Christian heritage of our nation.

In closing, I would like to finally say that, when I became a Member of Parliament, I was proud to swear the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. I have done so ever since at each occasion, and I did so only recently to His Majesty the King. I believe in the importance of having Prayers at the start of our proceedings in the House of Commons, and it is vital that we retain those traditions and conventions. We all have a duty to protect people of all faiths in our constituencies, and to always remember that the law of this country affords us freedom of religion, which is there for everyone to cherish. That is the nature of the United Kingdom. It is a foundation of all parts of the British isles, and long may all Members of this House defend that heritage.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing the debate. It does not seem like it was that long since we were taking part in the debate that he led on the significance of “Christmas, Christianity and communities”, perhaps for the simple reason that it was not actually that long ago. The date of Easter, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) will well know, is calculated using a formula known as the computus, which identifies the first Sunday after the full moon occurs on or after the spring equinox. That means that this year Easter is almost as early as it possibly can be under that formula. We are about as close to Christmas as we can be since that last debate a little over three months or so ago.

It is not an accident that the two great feasts of the Christian calendar occur when they do. Christmas, which celebrates the birth of Jesus, who Christians consider to be the light of the world, comes just after the winter solstice, when the days begin to get longer and darkness is overcome. Easter, which marks the death and resurrection of Christ, follows the spring equinox, when new life begins to bloom in nature. The date of Easter is also linked to the Jewish observation of Passover, because the gospel tells us that the last supper, crucifixion and resurrection all took place around the time of Passover observations in Jerusalem. Just as Passover commemorates the liberation of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt, Christians mark Easter as the liberation of humanity from slavery to the trappings of this world, which would separate us from the love of God.

This is a particularly holy and special time of year for those who profess the Christian faith. Indeed, it is the time of year when many Christian Churches, particularly the Catholic Church, welcome new adults who have chosen to seek baptism and confirmation into full communion of the Church. It is a time of great joy for those individuals, their families and the communities and parishes that they will join, and I am sure that we want to keep all those making that journey this year in our thoughts and prayers.

Easter comes after the period of Lent, which is a time of reflection, prayer, fasting and almsgiving—practices also being observed at this time by our Muslim brothers and sisters observing the holy month of Ramadan. I always hold those who keep the Ramadan fast in the highest regard; I find swearing off certain food and drink for six weeks during Lent difficult enough, but I would find abstaining entirely from any kind of nourishment during daylight hours, including water, incredibly difficult.

However, the joy of Easter is not confined just to celebrations in church buildings and parish halls. Those practices and observations are all about more than just what happens during the particular seasons. Christians, the Muslim community and those of other faiths who practice similar traditions see them as preparation for service throughout the year and, indeed, throughout their lives. Faithful witness is about not just words, but deeds. We can see examples of that in our communities already, and we have heard examples from Members who have spoken today. I assure the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that I will be happy to celebrate St George’s day with him, particularly in solidarity with friends in Catalonia, who also recognise St George as their patron saint.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the hon. Member for giving that commitment to celebrate St George’s day, on one condition: that he organises a celebration for St Andrew’s day on 30 November. I do not think that we have ever had one in Parliament; I have certainly not attended one. I am sure that we would be delighted if there was one for all patron saints of the British Isles.

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Member is right. We all know that each of the patron saints of the nations of the United Kingdom are depicted in Central Lobby. I do not think that any Church has designated one saint for the whole of the United Kingdom, probably for quite important diplomatic and theological reasons. If the House is sitting in November—who knows what might happen towards the end of the year that may cause it not to sit, or to cause some change in its composition—perhaps that is something to consider. Incidentally, SNP Opposition days quite often fall around St Andrew’s day; I will leave others to consider whether that is by accident or design. I also have some sympathy with what the hon. Member said about hot cross buns. I try to abstain from hot cross buns until Good Friday itself, then I very much enjoy them after attending the Good Friday services.

However, the debate is about all our different communities. In Glasgow North, such prophetic witness is visible in the activities of many of the Christian Churches and other faith-based organisations. I have spoken before about the food bank at St Gregory’s church in Wyndford, which is staffed by dedicated volunteers and gratefully receives donations from not just the parish community, but people of all faiths and none and businesses across Maryhill. However, it still struggles to meet demand. A particular proportion of the need that it meets comes from the refugee and asylum seeking community in the area—people who are hungry and looking for food, those who are thirsty and looking for drink, those who are sick and need visiting, and those who are strangers and need taking in. Some Members will recognise that Jesus says in Matthew 25 that those who carry out such works for “the least of” his brothers and sisters do so also for him.

I pay tribute to the work of the Maryhill integration network, which helps to provide access to culturally sensitive and religiously appropriate sources of food and nutrition to those who arrive in our city, sometimes with nothing but the clothes on their back. I also pay tribute to those in Glasgow North and elsewhere who are motivated by their faith to work for peace and justice around the world. I think particularly of the work of Christian Aid, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and Tearfund, who often use this time of year of Lent and Easter and the time that follows it to raise awareness of their campaigns for justice around the world and particularly the impact of climate change.

His Holiness Pope Francis has spoken powerfully about the impact of climate change on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people around the world, and says that a way of putting faith into action is to take action on that point. Another climate zealot, perhaps, is His Majesty King Charles, who said at COP28:

“I pray with all my heart that COP28 will be another critical turning point towards genuine transformational action…unless we rapidly repair and restore nature’s unique economy, based on harmony and balance, which is our ultimate sustainer, our own economy and survivability will be imperilled.”

These are important words. The role of the monarchy and of Christian leadership has been mentioned many times today and we should take those examples of leadership to heart.

I also want to acknowledge the work of our faith schools and their contribution to our communities. In particular, I congratulate the staff and pupils at St Mary’s Primary School in Maryhill, who are celebrating the school’s 50th anniversary this year. Their current building was opened on 26 February 1974. In recent weeks a number of events and activities have marked the occasion, including the pupils coming together to form a giant figure 50 in the school playground, celebratory reunions of former staff, pupils and chaplains, and an anniversary mass celebrated in the nearby Church of the Immaculate Conception by the Archbishop of Glasgow, Archbishop Nolan. I am sure all Members will want to congratulate the school on this very happy milestone and wish them all the best.

Successive Scottish Governments, led by successive First Ministers, have recognised the importance of the Easter celebration to the Christian community in Scotland. Last year, the new First Minister Humza Yousaf sent his first Easter message to those celebrating. He did so as the first Muslim leader of a Government on these islands and while he was himself observing the Ramadan fast. He said:

“For Christians, Easter is an enormously important time of year. It’s a time when family and friends come together to celebrate a story at the very heart of Christianity. A story of sacrifice, of hope, of renewal, that provides inspiration to people all around the world.

We see the results of that inspiration, of course, in the work of our Christian churches throughout the year. In all parts of our country, they play an exceptionally important role, offering spiritual guidance, helping those in need and strengthening our communities.

At the same time, they also continue to provide vital support to communities across the developing world. And that contribution is one which I hugely value and admire.

So I want to thank our Christian communities for the vital role that they play and send my best wishes to Christians everywhere and I want to wish all of those who are celebrating it a very happy and joyous Easter.”

It is also right to acknowledge that the Prime Minister, the first Hindu to lead a Government on these islands, has regularly recognised the contribution of Christianity to our heritage and to modern society, and has also sent messages of goodwill at Easter and Christmas.

That all recognises and demonstrates the importance of strong interfaith relationships and the importance of interreligious dialogue, which is why a number of Members from across the House, myself included, and a number of my constituents are disappointed at the UK Government’s decision to end funding for the Inter Faith Network. At a time when understanding and dialogue between faiths is so important, when in so many parts of the world and even in some parts of our own country people are using religion or belief as grounds for seeking division, it is important that resources and structures are in place to promote tolerance and respect.

As has been noted many times here in Westminster Hall, one thing that all the great religions of the world have in common is the golden rule of reciprocity—the teaching that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto ourselves. Very few of us would want to be bombing ourselves, destroying ourselves or causing any kind of trouble and hatred towards ourselves, so we should not be doing that to others. I hope the Government will carefully consider and review their decision.

This time next week, Christians will enter into the three most important days of their liturgical year—the celebration of the Lord’s Supper on Maundy Thursday, the commemoration of the crucifixion on Good Friday and then the joyful celebration of the resurrection at the Easter vigil on Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday itself —such a joyful occasion, in fact, that the celebration continues in the Church’s calendar for 50 full days until the feast of Pentecost. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Don Valley intends to apply for a debate to mark that date in the Christian calendar. The vice-Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), did say at business questions today that the Committee’s calendar is now pretty crowded. The hon. Member for Don Valley has nevertheless done a service to the House by securing this debate, and I wish him and all those who are celebrating a happy, joyful and blessed Easter when it comes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

In my own constituency, I bring together the leaders of many different faith groups. I bring together Holland Park Synagogue with Al-Manaar Mosque, with the gurdwara in my constituency and with many Christian churches. Valuing inter-faith networking is very important.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I rise to thank the Minister for her welcome when I visited All Saints’ Notting Hill in her constituency, I think three years ago, for the unveiling of the royal coat of arms in that wonderful church. Does she agree that it is magnificent that a church displays the royal coat of arms, and that all churches should be encouraged to do the same?

Furthermore, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Reverend Father David Ackerman of St John the Evangelist, Kensal Green? The church not only displays the royal coat of arms, but it raised £20,000 for windows to celebrate the platinum jubilee —magnificent stained-glass windows that depict flora and fauna from all over the Commonwealth. The windows were a unique tribute to Her late Majesty for the platinum jubilee. Will my hon. Friend visit the church to see how wonderful the windows look? They are a great testimony to our Christian faith and the importance of the monarchy and Commonwealth to our Christian heritage, which we celebrate today.

[Felicity Buchan]

I certainly agree with everything the you have said about the importance and unity of the Church, the state and the royal family. It was a great delight to see you in my constituency—

Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely take the hon. Member’s point. The key thing here is that sometimes there are organisations and individuals that seek to operate by presenting one face to one group and a different face to another. That is why we need due diligence. Mistakes have been made in the past. I think those mistakes were made in good faith and unwittingly, but as has been pointed out by Members from across this House, a number of people have expressed their concern about those past errors. That is why we need a tighter, more precise definition.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I commend the Government on what they are attempting to do to oppose and fight all forms of extremism and hatred in our country. Does the Secretary of State agree that what underpins Britain is our ancient liberties and freedoms, free speech and the rule of law, which uphold our democracy under the Crown? Does he believe, as I do, that we must defend all our British values and traditions? We must teach them in schools, and we must ensure that British values are the order of the day.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In our schools and other institutions, we should make sure that people from every background are acquainted with our history and taught the very British habits of scepticism, questioning and sometimes raucous expressions of opposition to Governments and others. That spirit of democratic challenge is core to this country, and no one better exemplifies being able to speak out without fear or favour than my hon. Friend.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 3 and amendments 12 to 14. A huge number of new builds have been built within my constituency boundaries over the last months, the vast majority of which have been flatted. There have been numerous difficulties over the years, many of which I will not be able to cover today due to the time limit and your exhortation, Mr Deputy Speaker, to stay within seven to eight minutes; as the first woman to speak, I intend to do so.

I will start with Legacy Wharf in Stratford, where leaseholders have been stuck with a succession of management companies that fail them time after time. Under the former management company, shoddy—and probably overpriced—repairs were made by favoured companies at leaseholders’ expense over and over again, rather than any investment in long-term, high-quality maintenance. Residents were hugely suspicious about possible kickbacks from service firms to the management company and the use of companies under the management company’s ownership, rather than it seeking the best price and the best quality of service.

Thankfully, that management company has changed, but many problems remain. Residents have just been handed bills for 18 months of energy use all at once due to the management company’s mistakes. Service charges and insurance bills rocket year after year, with residents wondering what on earth has been done with their money: they have poor landscaping, broken lifts and inadequate fire doors; the security of communal areas is rubbish; residents have lost access to hot water and the boilers have not been serviced for as long as four years. Those are all serious concerns raised about just one building. Ultimately, when accountability is sought, there is absolutely no way to get a prompt response. When there is such as constant deficit of transparency, it inevitably looks like a way to cover up wrongdoing, mismanagement or incompetence.

I strongly welcome the provisions in this Bill on service charge transparency, and I add my support for the amendments tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). Amendments 12 and 13 would surely provide additional support to my constituents, because they would mean that leaseholders would not have to pay service charges unless basic transparency and accountability were in place. Amendment 14 would enable a maximum cost to be set for the provision of information to leaseholders, preventing the abuse of such costs to effectively obstruct accountability—it ain’t on.

Leaseholders in every part of West Ham have faced massive difficulties getting accountability. I am reminded of events in the Hallsville Quarter development in Canning Town, where residents in several buildings had to leave their homes after a sewage ingress and power cuts. The two management companies responded in totally different ways: Grainger offered £50 a day in subsistence payments, while FirstPort initially offered just £15 a day and only raised it to £25 after enormous pressure. FirstPort had to be chased by me for multiple basic actions, and responded so poorly to residents whose lives had been turned upside down by problems that were absolutely not of their making.

Next, I would like to raise the continuing concerns of the residents of Chobham Manor about their estate charge, which has increased rapidly over recent years. The charge is supposed to help pay for the upkeep of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, but many Chobham residents believe that it bears no relation at all to the amenities available to residents near the park. Despite my support, they have found it almost impossible to scrutinise the budgets they are paying for and to make sure that they ain’t paying through the nose for poor value for money. Chobham Manor residents frankly do not see what they are getting from the park in exchange for this charge, given that they are the only local residents who pay for it. I know that they will be grateful for an explanation of how they might benefit from the changes that the Bill will make.

I also want to mention, yet again, the continuing limbo of many residents of East Village in Stratford. Leaseholders there have lived under serious financial threat for well over four years now. The remediation needed to make their homes safe is still being held up because this Government’s previous legislation left the issue open to litigation. How can my constituents be reassured that this Bill goes further? The Secretary of State himself committed to using his planning powers to call in proposals submitted by irresponsible developers. I have to ask: will he make good on that promise and target those who are continually refusing to act on fire safety and leaving leaseholders on the hook?

In a final case from West Ham, diligent and determined leaseholders have successfully taken managing agents or freeholders to the tribunal for their dire failings. I am sorry to tell the House that these failings were across the board, including rat infestations, lack of insulation causing skyrocketing energy bills, no transparency on the huge service charges, building safety problems and a complete lack of accountability. Surely it should not have come to this.

We should not be depending on individual leaseholders to battle their way through obscure systems for their plight to get the attention it needs. MPs should not have to make dozens of detailed representations over and over again. It could not be clearer who has the power in these disputes, and in so many cases leaseholders are still paying the price for a system that is absolutely broken. Sadly, the legacy of years of failure to act creates understandable scepticism that change will come now, so I want to hear from the Minister today that he believes that the Bill will finally end this injustice.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown). We share a similar part of the world: Essex and the east of London. In Romford, just as in West Ham and the London boroughs to the east of the capital, we have seen a huge increase in the number of flats and high-rise blocks being built over the last 20 years. Havering is a town and country borough and we have not had many flats in the past, but suddenly we are seeing huge numbers of that kind of accommodation being built. This brings huge numbers of problems with it, including what we are debating today.

I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill forward. I hope that it will deal with many of the issues that colleagues across the House have raised today, because they are very real. I sense that there is consensus on both sides of the House that serious action needs to be taken, because this can really destroy people’s lives and ruin them; they have saved to buy a property and they have a leasehold, yet they are fleeced by sharks and managing agents who pile on the costs, and by armies of lawyers who make their lives miserable and threaten them with losing their property all together. This is not right for the people we all represent.

I am now dealing with these cases in Romford on a daily basis. The hon. Lady mentioned many of the problems in West Ham, and I have examples in the Steelway apartments in the centre of Romford. I visited those apartments only a few weeks ago and saw the problems that people there are facing. They are failing to get responses from the management agents and those responsible, they are paying money for no service, and they are being ripped off by management agents who are not doing the job they are paid to do. I went to Rubicon Court, a fairly new development built only a few years ago, and was shocked—absolutely flabbergasted —to see how badly the residents are being looked after. The service they are paying for has completely failed. I saw mould, rats, rubbish and CCTV cameras that do not work. That is not acceptable and, when the Bill is passed into law, I hope the Minister will ensure that it is effective. It is no good passing legislation unless it is effective and comes into force quickly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Order. Secretary of State, it is not fair to take advantage. I know you enjoy teasing them, but my problem is that questions and answers are meant to be short and succinct—that is why they are called topical questions—and Mr Rosindell is desperate. Come on Andrew!

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

T6. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Tenant Fees Act 2019 banned landlords from asking for pet deposits or pet damage insurance, but AdvoCATs has found that one in five landlords who previously allowed pets no longer do so since the Act was passed. He will be aware of the letter that I have sent him, signed by 41 MPs and peers, asking for this matter to be resolved. Will he please meet me, because this is in the interests of animal welfare and the animals that we love so much?

Public Houses (Electrical Safety) Bill

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

1st reading
Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require public houses to have annual electrical safety tests; to make associated provision about licensing, insurance and enforcement; and for connected purposes.

The Bill is vital—it will save lives. Had it been on the statute book earlier, the life of Harvey Tyrrell, a young boy from Romford who died in tragic circumstances, would have been saved. The Bill is designed to ensure that the circumstances of Harvey’s death will never be repeated. Harvey must not have died in vain. I dedicate the Bill to his name.

Harvey was a wonderful young seven-year-old boy who brought joy to all those around him. He had a passion for singing, dancing and playing sport, and he had a particular love of football. While I never had the privilege of meeting him, I know from those who did that he was a kind and caring young boy who would always look out for others and be there to support his family and friends. Following Harvey’s death, I spent time speaking with his mother, Danielle, who recounted many stories of her and Harvey endlessly laughing at the many jokes he would tell. By all accounts he was a lovely young lad with a wonderful future ahead of him, but his life was cruelly and suddenly taken away.

On 11 September 2018, Harvey and his mother went out for a pub lunch, as is such a great and treasured tradition, particularly in our beloved county of Essex. Tragically, Harvey did not come home that day. I am ashamed to say that the King Harold—a pub in the Harold Hill area of Romford, just over the border in the Hornchurch and Upminster constituency—was a death trap. When Harvey innocently placed his hand on a metal railing, electricity surged through his body. The horrified patrons of the pub could only watch as Harvey collapsed, before running over to help him. Paramedics were called and Harvey was rushed to hospital, but, tragically, he was later pronounced dead.

It was a deeply sad day for the Harold Hill and Harold Wood community, for Romford and for the whole borough of Havering. I thank Councillor Brian Eagling, Councillor Darren Wise and Councillor Martin Goode—the local councillors for the area—for the enormous support and kindness they showed to Harvey’s family. They were instrumental in working with me to ensure that the Bill could be placed before the House. Harvey’s death was completely avoidable and we must act now to ensure that such a wicked loss of life in these circumstances never happens again.

In the months prior to that horrific event, it was reported that the landlord had been electrocuted while on the premises and that, instead of resolving the issue, he joked with the regulars in the pub about the faulty wiring. That was a completely unacceptable way to operate a business. The safety of customers should always be at the forefront of an owner’s mind. Had the owner of the King Harold been conscious of safety or followed existing legislation, young Harvey would still be with us today.

Inspections in the aftermath of Harvey’s death revealed the true extent of the danger that customers faced when entering the pub. It was found that there were 12 defects at the pub, which posed a risk of injury, including by electric shock, and 32 potentially dangerous defects. It was also found that the faulty lights that had caused the metal pole to become electrified were attached to an unmetered supply, from which the pub owner had been stealing electricity.

During the trial of the owner of the King Harold, an expert described the pub as

“the most dangerous thing he had seen in 40 years”

and said that he was

“horrified the owner was able to ignore health and safety regulations, dodge his duty to seek planning permission for building projects and didn’t care about the dangers in the pub.”

So I am glad that the owner of the King Harold and his brother-in-law, who was responsible for the electrics in the pub, were both jailed for their involvement in this awful incident.

However, those sentences could not bring Harvey back to his mother, his family and his friends and there is no safeguard in place to stop that kind of incident happening again. As it currently stands, regulation of electrical safety in pubs is not fit for purpose. It is covered by regulation 4 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. This regulation requires businesses to ensure that electrical installations are constructed and maintained in a way that prevents danger. That includes having the installations regularly tested and keeping a record of this. However, at the moment, it is down to the duty holder within the business to provide the relevant checks. There are no organisations, whether Government or private, monitoring whether pubs have complied with that standard.

Customers must be able to enter a pub with the confidence that they are not at any risk of injury—surely a basic requirement that any business should adhere to. In the light of the catastrophic events surrounding Harvey’s death, I believe that we must urgently act to strengthen the enforcement of electrical safety standards throughout the United Kingdom. That is why, with Harvey Tyrrell’s law—the Public Houses (Electrical Safety) Bill—I am proposing comprehensive measures to ensure that customers can enter pubs with the confidence that they will be safe from injury.

My Bill would require pub owners to get the electrical systems in their pubs checked a minimum of every five years, to bring pubs in line with the regulations on electrical safety checks in rental properties. The Bill also requires safety tests to be conducted by a qualified person, such as a registered electrician, thus creating confidence for the pub owner and the customers that the checks have been followed correctly and that electrical systems are safe.

An electrical safety certification should also be linked to the pub’s alcohol licence and the local authority would have to do no more than check that the pub owner had submitted the documentation proving that their premises had been tested for electrical safety before approving an alcohol licence.

I know that many hard-working pub owners would welcome those proposals, which improve everyone’s safety, including their own. I am a huge supporter of the great English pub and want pubs to remain at the heart of our community, so I am not seeking to create unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy, but we must ensure that they are places where people can enjoy themselves in safety. I believe that the measures I have outlined in the Bill, Harvey Tyrrell’s law, will successfully achieve this and I call upon Her Majesty’s Government to act swiftly in this regard.

My Bill will create a firm framework to ensure that the shocking events that surrounded the death of young Harvey are never repeated. It will keep people safe and prevent needless loss of life. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Andrew Rosindell, Henry Smith, Alexander Stafford, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, Tom Hunt, Chris Grayling, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Jon Cruddas, Dame Margaret Hodge, Joy Morrissey, Ian Lavery and Robert Halfon present the Bill.

Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022 and to be printed (Bill 181).

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today marks the beginning of Islamophobia Awareness Month, a call to tackle this insidious hatred. This time last year, to mark this month, I wrote to the Prime Minister raising concern over Islamophobia and urging him to better safeguard British Muslims and to fulfil his promise to carry out an independent investigation into his party. A year on, the Prime Minister still has not responded. That is wholly unacceptable and an insult to British Muslims. Mr Speaker, is it in order for the Prime Minister to ignore Members’ correspondence? If it is not, what action can I now take? Perhaps the Prime Minister could come to this Chamber to make a statement on Islamophobia Awareness Month.

Town Deals: Covid-19 Recovery

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Good morning. I remind hon. Members participating, virtually and physically, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

In a letter to me, the hon. Lady described the Government’s Everyone In programme as “an incredible achievement” that helped to save “hundreds of lives”. She is absolutely right, and I would like to thank all the councils and charities that were part of that. That plan has not stopped; that work continues. We are backing it with £700 million of Government investment. We began planning for the winter in the summer. We have put more money in for housing. We have also asked every local authority in the country to draw up its own individual plan and backed that with £100 million of additional support. The Protect programme now once again asks local authorities to give everyone who is sleeping rough on the streets during this new period of national measures a safe place to stay. We will be working cross-party with councils across the length and breadth of England to make that a success.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

What assessment the Government have made of the transmission rate of covid-19 in places of worship where social distancing restrictions were in place.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)]

We are grateful to our faith communities for their efforts in ensuring that their places of worship are as covid-secure as possible. However, the view of the scientific community, including the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, is that there is a greater risk of the virus spreading indoors and where people gather. Regrettably, this means that places of worship are currently closed for communal prayer but remain open for individual prayer.

[Andrew Rosindell [V]]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Given the serious implications of criminalising worship and the hardship it has caused churches and religious communities, will the Government commit to publishing their evidence base and to consulting fully and widely with faith groups before any future decisions on applying restrictions to worship are made?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I do not underestimate the concern that this has caused for our religious communities, but the evidence from the scientific community, including SAGE, shows that the virus spreads quicker indoors and where people gather and interact. We are incredibly grateful to those who have taken part in the places of worship taskforce for their support and advice. We continue to call on their expertise and that of all major faith groups ahead of the regulations ending on 2 December, and we will continue to have those conversations over the next two weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

Given that Newcastle is one of the two mighty northern cities that made me the person I am, the hon. Lady will understand that I am keen to see that wonderful city, where I spent three fantastic years at university, achieve its aspirations. I know that the local authority has constituted a housing delivery board, and we are doing our best to give it the resources it needs to deliver housing from Ousemouth to Kenton Bank Foot to the Helix development in central Newcastle. I am certainly more than happy to help her in chivvying it on to fulfil the aspirations of the Geordies who need homes.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

16. What steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of former armed services personnel who are homeless.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)]

This Government are committed to ensuring that armed services personnel do not become homeless or end up rough sleeping. We have recently allocated an additional £1 million to support ex-members of the armed forces who are, or are at risk of becoming, homeless. That additional funding goes hand in hand with the £1.2 billion that has been set aside to tackle all forms of homelessness.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister will be aware that too many of our brave veterans, who have served this country, have been failed in post-service life. What discussions has the Department had with the Ministry of Defence, so that clear pathways are set out to prevent homelessness in the first place? Will she give a cast-iron guarantee that the military covenant will be upheld?

[Mrs Wheeler]

My hon. Friend is quite right. A joined-up response is essential to ensuring that veterans can access the prevention and relief services available to them. I am pleased to say that the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which was introduced by our hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State for Defence to refer members of the armed forces to local authority services for tailored support, including a personalised housing plan, to prevent them from becoming homeless. Where veterans are homeless and vulnerable as a result of having served in the armed forces, local authorities have a duty to house them. I sit on the Veterans Board, and it is my pleasure to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

As Harry Enfield and his chums would say about anyone from Liverpool, including me: “Calm down, calm down.” I can confirm today that we have announced £38.4 million for Liverpool. I completely refute the IPPR figures. They exclude 60% of spending across regional boundaries. They do not apportion spending where the benefit is felt. If the hon. Gentleman wants to give some advice to his chums in the left-wing IPPR think-tank, he might say that next time they produce such figures they should print them on softer paper.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to support people directly affected by the Grenfell Tower fire.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

The Government remain committed to ensuring that the survivors of the Grenfell Tower tragedy receive the support they need. This includes financial, practical and health support, as well as making sure that all survivors are permanently rehoused by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as quickly as possible.

[Andrew Rosindell]

It is 18 months since the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. Will the Secretary of State tell us what process is in place to deal with psychological and trauma problems still faced by the survivors of that horrific occasion 18 months ago?

Local Government Reform: Greater London

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Before we start, you can see that we are not oversubscribed. I would like the summing up to start in an hour’s time. Say everything you need to say, but please do not feel that you need to take all the time if it is not appropriate. I call Andrew Rosindell to move the motion.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered local government reform in Greater London.

Thank you very much, Mr Hosie, and good morning to all. I am grateful for this opportunity to open what I hope will be a wide-ranging debate on the structure and responsibilities of local government across London and the need to embrace the need for fundamental reform that will better serve the people of this great capital of our nation in the decades to come. I wish to begin a conversation involving both sides of the House with the constituents that we represent.

Our United Kingdom capital of London comprises an amazing patchwork of counties, cities, boroughs, royal boroughs, towns, communities, villages, hamlets and estates. I say “London” because that is the name of our national capital—in truth, in 2018, the lines of where London begins and ends are rather blurred. There is in fact much confusion between London as the capital of the United Kingdom, where Parliament and Government sit; London as Greater London, which was how our predecessors decided to construct the shape and boundaries of the city in the 1960s; and London as a wider region that includes what many people still call the home counties.

It is time to reassess whether Greater London, as created in 1964 with the formation of London boroughs, or the particular form of London government that was created in 1998 with a Mayor and Assembly, are fit for purpose in the years to come. We have reached a point where serious reform is needed. I hope all Members agree that we should not dismiss change as too difficult to tackle. We have a duty to look at how we can evolve London government to better suit the needs of Londoners and the wider region around our capital. Let us not be afraid to reconfigure how London government works and to embrace reform and renewal—in doing so, let us return power to local communities, where it belongs, and restore local identities that are rooted in English history but are now in danger of being lost.

As colleagues will know only too well, I am deeply proud of being the Member of Parliament for my wonderful home town of Romford, a traditional Essex market town that has existed since medieval times. Since 1964, it has fallen under the remit of the London borough of Havering, the borough on the most eastern side of what is now called Greater London. Let me tell the House that, despite more than 50 years of being a so-called London borough, Romford, and Havering generally, is still very much part of Essex. Whatever local government structures and boundaries are imposed by Whitehall, the true identity of local people has never been lost and never will be. People in my borough are Essex through and through, and they are proud of their heritage—indeed, becoming a London borough did not mean that Romford and Havering stopped being part of Essex.

Essex is a real place that has evolved over many centuries. It is a historic county with its own identity and distinct culture, combined with religious, social, sporting and business networks. Our postal address is “Romford, Essex”. We cheer for the Essex county cricket team. Our local regiment is the Essex Regiment, which has been awarded the freedom of Havering. Our Church of England parishes fall within the diocese of Chelmsford. Our identity is defined by geography, not by local government structures, which change regularly, depending on Government policy at the time and ever-moving electoral boundaries. A change in the administration of local services in the 1960s did not end our town or borough’s connection with the county of Essex. Today we fall under a London-wide authority, but my constituents continue to cherish their Essex identity. Good for them—I feel exactly the same.

This is not unique to Essex or any other part of Greater London—people from Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire and indeed Middlesex also value their county identities. London boroughs may no longer fall under the remit of county councils, but we are still very much part of what are known as the traditional or proper counties of England. These are real places with historical, geographical and social identities that have existed throughout the ages and that should be fully recognised as integral to the identities of our towns and boroughs today, irrespective of local government structures at any given point. These structures have come and gone in London over the years, with the London County Council, the Greater London Council, the Greater London Authority, and now the Mayor of London—just as Havering was once under the Essex County Council, followed by the GLC and then the GLA. I hope hon. Members agree that none of those changes should be allowed to erode true local identities.

I raise that issue because it forms the basis of my next argument. Local government in London should be just that: local. It should be as localised as possible, so that local people are able to control what happens in their communities and towns or on their doorstep. Remote and centralised regional government that fails to understand local identities and that rules from the centre, forgetting about the needs of the wider areas of the London region, is never going to be popular. Just like the GLC before it, I fear that the GLA is heading in the same direction. The Greater London Authority and Mayor of London are failing to serve all areas within Greater London effectively. It is clear that the project has expanded too far, grown too powerful, and has become too interfering, too centralised, too bureaucratic, too costly and utterly remote from the needs of the real people, particularly in areas such as Romford and other parts of outer London.

Since the creation of a directly elected Mayor and an Assembly in 2000 provided for a so-called strong mayor model, there has been a clear contrast between the powers of the Mayor and those of the Assembly. The subsequent Greater London Authority Act 2007 accorded the Mayor even greater powers in respect of functions, spanning across planning, housing, large developments, skills and training. While it is true that the Assembly’s powers were also strengthened in 2007, the provisions were too little and too late to provide a proper check on the mayoralty. A comparative analysis of our friends across the pond in New York and of other cities such as Tokyo and Berlin show that their councils enjoy actual powers of scrutiny, which ours in London do not.

It is time to reform the whole structure of local government. I shall set out what the Government and we in the House should consider as a basis for reform. First, the powers of the Mayor should be strictly limited to what borough councils cannot do effectively for themselves. The so-called London plan should be dumped completely, and the power to decide how best to plan and develop our communities and boroughs should rest with the people who are elected to do that job. The Government can help by allowing the development of new towns beyond London, but councils must also play their part in ensuring we build the homes that are needed. Let us give boroughs back the power and trust them to make true local decisions in their local communities.

Why do we need a second tier for planning, when what is required is a more effective means to make local decisions in the interest of local communities, with a faster turnaround, so we can build the homes we need across the region? I accept that there is a need for co-ordination across the entire London region on things such as transport and major infrastructure projects, but the Mayor should be a facilitator or an organiser who brings together local authorities and public bodies to make things happen. Funding for projects should go directly to the boroughs, bypassing the bureaucracy at City Hall.

Secondly, policing should go back to being truly local. Each borough should have its own borough commander, and the tri-borough system should be ended or reformed. The leader of each council or their deputy should have the political responsibility for policing within that borough. Powers currently centralised in City Hall should come back to the town hall. I believe that leaders of boroughs are better placed to respond to the needs of their communities and to work with a dedicated police force, which knows and understands its patch better than anyone else.

Thirdly, the London Assembly should be replaced with something like a council of London, comprised of elected council leaders from the region. I say “the region”, because this goes way beyond the now outdated boundaries of the 1960s model of Greater London. Transport affects the people of a much wider area—I would call it “the UK capital region”. The slimmed-down, London-wide authority should primarily focus on transport, which clearly must be considered regionally as it goes way beyond the London boroughs. The M25 extends way beyond Greater London, and motorways, A roads and an expanding road network lead into London. The London Underground stretches from Amersham to Epping, neither of which falls within the Greater London boundaries, yet they have underground stations. Trains bring in commuters from across the south-east and other parts of the region. Airports stretch from London Heathrow to London Southend, and include London Luton, London Stansted and London Gatwick, most of which are not in Greater London. There needs to be a serious rethink of transport in the entire region, and that is what I believe should be the focus of the newly restructured authority for the London region. It is no longer relevant to think of transport just in the context of Greater London. That outdated model needs to go.

The new council of democratically elected leaders would have real authority to speak up for their areas, and they would cost a lot less than the current Assembly. They would understand what is required locally because they would be elected locally and would have an incentive to make things work for their boroughs. With a much stronger hand, they would also be empowered to scrutinise the Mayor—or the first leader, as I would rename the role—to ensure that everything they do is for the purpose of facilitating services rather than becoming an alternative centre of political power away from local communities.

We must also respect and appreciate the distinctiveness of London’s areas. It is ludicrous that the Mayor of London has such an expansive and supreme authority over a vast swathe of southern England. The City of Westminster, with all its grandeur, has very little in common with boroughs such as Havering, Hillingdon, Bromley or Enfield. Across our region are districts with totally different needs, but as power has become more centralised, local needs have become more neglected. It is time for reform.

The unfair allocation of funds is also a major issue in boroughs such as mine—the London Borough of Havering has been scandalously impacted by inadequate funding settlements over the decades due to flaws in the current formula and funding system. The Minister may not be aware that Havering is the lowest-funded east London borough per head of population. Some London boroughs receive more than twice as much per head. How can that be right? That is despite Havering’s having the highest proportion of elderly people across London, many of whom are deeply reliant on social care provision. That dire funding shortfall has forced my council drastically to reduce spending or increase council tax just to stay afloat, yet we send £400 a year per head of population to City Hall. The result is that council tax on a £4.5 million property in Westminster is substantially less than it is on a £365,000 property in Havering. How can that be right? That huge disparity must be addressed. It punishes lifelong residents of the borough and leaves many pensioners—it particularly affects elderly people—struggling to get by.

Devolving power back to local councils is exactly what a Conservative Government should be aiming to do. Why should councils not have the ability to come together to take on the management of public services in the area for which they are responsible? If Havering Council wishes to take over the management of the NHS, why should it not be given the opportunity to do so? If it prepared a business case, worked out the finances and submitted a bid to the Government, and if—and only if—the bid stacked up, why should it not be able to manage health services in the borough?

It is unlikely that one council could do that alone, but a group of councils could. For instance, if Havering formed a group with Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge, with Brentwood and Epping—the boroughs on the Essex side of my constituency—or with whatever other grouping came together, and put in a bid for an integrated service to operate the NHS, an adult college or some other public body, would that not be the obvious way to devolve power back to our local communities? That would give real democratic control over large areas of the state and allow many different models to be developed. Let us think out of the box and embrace such new ideas. I believe we must empower local boroughs in London to take back control—they know what their local communities need best—and end the never-ending centralisation of power in City Hall or Whitehall.

London, as the UK’s capital, needs clearly defined boundaries. The City of London has always been the heart of our capital for trade and finance, with the City of Westminster as the centre of Parliament and Government, but our capital is wider than that. It includes some or all other central areas—boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, and parts of Camden, Lambeth, Southwark, Islington, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and so on. That is the central capital area. It is simply not right to say that the entirety of Greater London is the capital of the UK—that is a big confusion. Very few people living in towns such as Romford, Sutton, Enfield, Bexley, Croydon or Ruislip consider themselves to be living in the capital. Greater London is not the capital; the central area is the capital. It is time we properly defined where the capital actually starts and ends. It should be the central area that I have described. It should include the central areas where special measures for policing, security, transport and development are required to suit the needs of a global city. Beyond that, different priorities are needed for the wider London region beyond the actual capital. I urge the Government to take powers away from City Hall and restore them for towns and boroughs beyond the central London area.

Finally, I believe that it is also time to review the boundaries and names of London boroughs. So many anomalies divide communities because old boundaries have not been reviewed for decades. They are no longer relevant and it is time they were reviewed to suit local communities. To give examples from my own area, Rush Green, where I was born, is divided between Havering and Barking and Dagenham—it is a ludicrous boundary that runs down a road and divides a community. Those areas are all part of Romford, but we stick to these old boundaries from years ago that are no longer relevant. Another example is Chadwell Heath, another part of Romford that is not in my borough but divided between the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London Borough of Redbridge. I know hon. Members representing constituencies across London can come up with lots of examples of similar situations in which pointless divisions exist. Those should be resolved with local consultation to ensure that boroughs fit local communities and meet the needs of local people.

I believe that restoring local identities as well as renaming boroughs where local people wish to do so should be on the reform agenda. Shepway District Council in Kent was quite sensibly renamed as Folkestone and Hythe District Council, dumping the pointless, artificial name that had no resonance with people. A borough such as Havering—that is the nice name of a small country village in my constituency, but a name that does not represent the communities of that London borough—could be renamed the London Borough of Romford and Hornchurch, which is more representative of the borough’s two major towns. We should have a general review of names that match local towns’ identities to those of local people, so that they can feel pride in their boroughs.

I can talk about other boroughs but I am hesitant to do so because MPs representing those boroughs are not here. The London Borough of Waltham Forest has a completely artificial name—a bit of Walthamstow and a bit of Epping Forest—while the area of Redbridge is actually Ilford, and Hounslow is Chiswick and Brentford. We need to go back to sensible names so that people identify with the communities that they live in. Those 1960s names need to be reviewed and it would be incredibly popular if the Government led a review and gave local people the chance to decide their boundaries and restore traditional names. Who knows, Minister? Perhaps names like Hampstead, Paddington, Stoke Newington, Wembley or Finsbury could be restored. Replacing the names of boroughs that do not resonate with the history and identity of their communities would be extremely popular.

I have floated many new ideas for a reform of London government, some of which I hope hon. Members and the Minister will consider seriously. Whatever our views, let us begin a debate on and work towards the change that will bring about better government across the whole of the London region, the capital of our United Kingdom, and, I believe, the greatest city on earth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a really interesting debate, which is broader than London. It could be argued that if we develop a real settlement that pushes power down to communities, that ought to benefit every community in England. That will be the spirit in which I approach my response to some of the points that have been made.

A lot of the devolution debate and discussion, certainly over the past five or six years, has been about trying to get power from Westminster down to the next level, wherever that might be; in London, it is the capital, but elsewhere it will be metro areas or even some county deals in which counties have come together. That has been necessary because we are still a very centralised country, and too much power is contained not in this place—people who work here who believe that they are powerful are seriously deluded—but in Whitehall, where it still sits. We want to wrestle as much power as possible from civil servants, who are disconnected from the communities that are affected by the decisions that they make, and give that power back to local people.

That has to be at the most appropriate level, because the organisation of services is complex. Some are absolutely rooted in a localised geography, but in other cases it will make far more sense for a service to be decided and delivered at a different level—whether it is a district, a metropolitan or London borough, London itself, or a regional grouping—but it has to be right for that circumstance and for the decision that is being devolved down. The assumption should always be local.

If any power is devolved, a test should be in place to ask the question: where is it best to place this new power that is being devolved? For example, in places where we see devolution of the adult education budget, there has not really been a conversation about whether a combined authority or even a Greater London arrangement is the best place for that budget to sit, versus a local authority. That is odd, because that debate is taking place in other areas—such as Greater Manchester, which has the most advanced health devolution settlement in England; that settlement is devolved to the 10 local authorities, not to the combined authority or to the Mayor.

This move that we are taking as a nation is interesting, but it is not neat, it is not pretty and it is massively confusing for a lot of people. That does not mean that it is not necessary. We need to prove concept and prove that devolution can be made to work. We need to prove that to people who do not believe that devolution can work, and who believe that to get fairness and equity across the country, we should organise from the capital so that everyone gets the same. They are the people we need to convince.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman is making a lot of good points, and we agree on many things. Does he accept that an area such as mine, right on the edge of Greater London, is totally different from places such as Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, or Islington? More powers should be given back to us in our area so that we can work with the Essex councils; that is where we are. Does he agree that centralising everything in London is not the way forward? A central area is obviously needed as our capital, but the wider London region has different needs and priorities. That should be much more decentralised.

[Jim McMahon]

I agree with that point. If the assumption is devolution, the bar to sending something up to a higher level should be high. There should be a proper and rigorous test in place. A danger in the development of new structures or institutions of local government in city regions—perhaps this is more of a danger outside London than in it—is that if real power is not devolved from Westminster and Whitehall to those regions, they will, by the nature of government and politics, take up power to justify their existence.

To me, the responsibility for that lies with local politicians who must ensure that they are absolutely clear about what a devolved settlement looks like for their neighbourhoods and communities. There is, however, also pressure on the Government to prove that they can really devolve power and responsibility down. In a lot of the country, people do not believe that the Government are listening to what they say. I shall not stray from the subject of the debate, but anyone who speaks to people in Lancashire at the moment will find that they are massively frustrated that their local decision to reject fracking was overturned by a Government hundreds of miles away. If we are serious about devolving power, it has to be the power that people are asking for: the power to determine what type of place they want to live in and their families to grow up in.

That is different from identity and people’s sense of belonging. I feel strongly that that is a complex debate—we could have a debate for an hour and a half on what identity is and means, because it is complex. Devolution so far has not been about trying to rewrite people’s historical and rooted identity, or about changing the entrance signs to places where people live to names that they do not recognise. That is very different from the 1974 reorganisation outside London, which tried to do just that.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point. That is exactly the problem we face. A “Welcome to Essex” sign has been placed on the boundary between Romford and Brentwood. Suddenly, we have been told that we are no longer Essex, because Essex County Council will only put the sign on the boundary of its area. That is nonsense. The traditional identity of the counties is being lost because of a failure by local government bureaucrats to understand true local identities. I would understand if the sign read, “You are now entering the Essex County Council area”, or whatever they want to call it, but instead it reads, “Welcome to Essex”. In my area, we are Essex, and a lot of people resent that identity being removed because of a failure to put signage in the correct location.

[Jim McMahon]

Perhaps I may prove my credentials. When I became the leader of Oldham Council, it stood out to me just how frustrated people were about their historical identities being challenged by a local authority that was artificially created in 1974. It did not work for either party: Oldhamers were frustrated that people in the surrounding district seemed to have an angst about them, because of this issue; and people in the district were frustrated because they did not feel that their identity was valued by the local authority. One of the first things I did on taking control of the council, therefore, was to change all the boundary signs back to reflect the district crest and the local identities of those places, which I believe are important.

That is sometimes a cause of confusion. The lines we draw on maps for administrative convenience—basically, we are talking about the most efficient administrative area for delivering and organising our public services—are often adopted to create a new brand identity for a place. I see that happening where I am. Oldham, as a place, has one foot in Lancashire and one foot in the west riding of Yorkshire. Some people think they are Mancunian and others think they are Oldhamers, but identities travel even beyond that. It is true of every community in England, including every borough and town in London and Essex, that people do not stay in one place. They travel to work. Their relationships with places, communities, neighbouring towns and the heart of the capital, which the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) referred to, are complicated.

Let me make some practical suggestions. Power has been given to communities through the neighbourhood planning process. Communities can self-organise and decide what physical developments take place in their area, and they get some sense of being able to control what their community looks like at the end of that process. We do not do the same for revenue spend in local government. Think about the scrutiny we give to capital investment. When a capital project is initiated, it has to go through a number of gateways to get sign-off and be approved, and it then goes through evaluation and monitoring. We do not do that for revenue spend. We spend billions of pounds of public money every year, but we do not make the same assessment of whether it is invested in the right place or have a clear view of what return on investment we should expect. Equally, communities generally are not involved in organising that.

There is no reason why people at neighbourhood level—whether that is a ward or a collection of wards that make up a town’s identity, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—could not organise a community plan to corral all the public services in their area and decide where the local GP practice ought to be or how the police ought to organise. Local people should be able to decide how public servants work together to ensure that services are delivered in the right context for that place.

Clearly, there will always be a role for local authorities, and for strategic authorities that cover issues that naturally transcend local boundaries. We have already heard about transport, but policing now transcends those boundaries, too. Policing is far more complicated than it was before the 1960s, when we had local police forces with their own identities. We need a police force that can meet the challenges of cyber-crime, terrorism, cross-border crime and many other issues, but not at the exclusion of neighbourhood policing.

In some places, because of austerity—let us be clear that it costs money to do this well—and the demands of terrorism, cyber-crime and all the other new crimes that are really stretching the police force, resources have been transferred from neighbourhood level to the centre so the police can meet significant cost demands. People see that, because of austerity, public services are becoming more and more removed from the communities in which they live, and that hugely affects the connection they feel. We should look at that.

We need a clearly articulated devolution framework for the whole of England—London would be a beneficiary of that—rather than ad hoc deals that are agreed behind closed doors. We should not pit one place against another but have a comprehensive settlement—a framework for power to be devolved. We should start at the grassroots and work upwards, with an assumption in favour of devolution. That should be supported by fair funding to meet need and demand in local areas.

That at least would allow us to test the ideas we are debating and to see whether one framework for the whole of England works. Without that, we will always be looking in the rear-view mirror at the consequences of what has been agreed. We need to get organised. We need a plan. This offer has been made before, but Labour Members are willing to work across party lines on the issues that are not party political. Much of this is not party political—it is about people and place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

I will take your guidance, Mr Hosie, and segue neatly from history to geography, which was always my favourite subject at school, but let me say briefly that the Labour party does not like the fact that the mask slipped. We should take every opportunity to inform the public in London and in our wider United Kingdom what lies behind that mask.

I move on to the geography of the Greater London Authority. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford has noted that, in fact, the GLA and the Mayor have had some notable success since their establishment. I am sure that he, like me, celebrates the London Olympics hosted by the former Mayor of London, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson).

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister ought to be aware that the so-called London Olympics took place in Stratford, which is a traditional part of Essex. I do not object to its being called the London Olympics, but it is a perfect example of a national event in the London region, even though the reality is that the town of Stratford is traditionally part of Essex. There was no mention at all of the county of Essex. That is an example of where things have gone wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

I assume the shadow Minister is talking about the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the transfer of power up from local authorities to the Mayor across the country. In areas of devolution, it has been done by consensus; he was a leader of one of those local authorities that are now part of the combined authorities, so I guess he would support that.

This debate is very important when looked at in the wider context of English devolution. The Government will shortly publicise their devolution framework, in which we will talk about what devolution should look like in the rest of England and give a clear roadmap for devolution across England, in compliance with a Conservative party manifesto commitment.

In London, there is an opportunity to talk about how we might improve the scrutiny and accountability of the Mayor of London and of Mayors in general. For inspiration, my hon. Friend could look to the mayoral model put in place by our Government in Manchester, where rather than having an additional tier of GLA governance, it is a combined authority, with representatives—the leaders of those borough councils—working with the Mayor in a collaborative partnership, but with a strong voice for their borough in that relationship. London should look at new solutions like that, on the proviso that they are always ground-up and locally supported.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am delighted by what the Minister has just said, because that is exactly what I said earlier: it would be far better to have an assembly or council of leaders from each borough who have a genuine understanding of what is needed in their local communities. I am afraid I do not think that the London Assembly fulfils that task in the way that is needed.

In the London Borough of Havering, the legitimacy of the Mayor and the GLA is hanging by a thread. If there were a referendum in my borough to opt out of the GLA and become a unitary authority, in my view there would be an overwhelming vote to exit—as it has been termed—the GLA. Most people would overwhelmingly want a separation and to restore control to our local communities. An area such as Havering feeds money into central London and pays far more for services from which we do not benefit; at the same time, the Mayor is able to interfere with our local area and override the council on planning. I hope that the Government will take this seriously and look at what reforms can be brought forward.

[Jake Berry]

The Government take this issue absolutely seriously. My hon. Friend made a brilliant speech that has been widely supported, in which he made the argument very well. To be clear, it is not the Government’s position that the GLA should be abolished, replaced or reformed; the Government welcome the discussion that my hon. Friend has led. If there is a drumbeat or a clarion call from his borough to look at reform of the GLA, he is quite right that he and his council should lead that debate, and on a ground-up basis come to Government and have that discussion with other boroughs. Our door is open for those discussions, but they must come from the ground-up, be locally supported and have consensus because it is his long-term political ambition to seek reform.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for that invitation. Is he therefore willing to meet the newly elected leader of Havering Council, Councillor Damian White, who is the youngest Conservative leader of any council in the country, and me, to talk about how a borough such as Havering can change in a way that benefits our local community, with the support of our Government?

[Jake Berry]

Yes, I am. I hope that is helpful, and I congratulate my hon. Friend’s new council leader on winning the election.

Another reason why it is appropriate for boroughs to lead the conversation about whether the existing GLA boundaries and structures are appropriate is simply that they have not changed since the 1960s. Our world has changed very much since the 1960s. A lot of the debate about English devolution is driven by a wider debate about the future of our country after Brexit. There is an ambition and desire out there for what I refer to as “double devolution”—taking a very European idea of subsidiarity and embedding that in the relationship between local government and national government.

The Government have committed to come forward with the devolution framework to try to stimulate the debate about what devolution should look like across England. As we start with year zero of creating a new, ambitious, globally competitive country, what part can the constituent local authorities—in some cases, parish councils and unitary authorities in our local government family—play in driving forward our nation’s ambition?

I will touch on some of the specific points made by my hon. Friend in his excellent speech. When he started speaking, I wrote at the top of my piece of paper that the people of Essex want to take back control, although he got round to saying that himself. That plays into a much wider debate we should be having about people’s identity. As a proud Member of Parliament representing Lancashire, I am aware of the strength of the Lancashire identity, which in many ways was undermined in local government reform when we lost the city of Liverpool, the city of Manchester and large parts of Greater Manchester. There is a real role for Members of Parliament and local councils in reinforcing those historic county boundaries.

My hon. Friend spoke passionately about his identity as someone born in Essex and representing Essex but having been sucked into the London agglomeration in some way. I feel similarly about Lancashire. Of course, Lancashire is one of the few county palatine boroughs in our United Kingdom, having been awarded the status by the King for protecting England from marauding Scots—something we occasionally see today. We in Lancashire are deeply proud of that county palatine status. We love our friends north of the border, with whom we have a great relationship, but we also like to be cognisant of our history.

My hon. Friend was edging towards saying, without realising it, that the GLA may be better represented or reformed with a Manchester model: a combined authority with a strong voice for the boroughs. The late, great Tony Wilson, of Manchester music industry fame, said:

“This is Manchester—we do things differently here.”

Where Manchester leads, many parts of the country can follow. The GLA was set up in 2000, and the debate has simply moved on. That is why the Government, and I as a constituency Member of Parliament, see this as a welcome time to debate the future of the GLA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

This has been a worthwhile debate. I hope that colleagues who represent London constituencies will take the time to read some of the interesting, useful arguments put forward on a range of topics and that they, too, will think about how London should develop.

I have thought deeply about this. I have lived in London/Essex my entire life and I care about our great UK capital city, which I want to be a success as a global city that attracts investment, trade and tourism. However, I also want this region of the UK to be seen as a place where people live, based on communities in towns and villages. The identities of those areas are really important to local people. I welcome the Minister’s offer to have a meeting to talk about how we can take this agenda forward. I hope we can organise that soon.

I urge the Government to take this issue seriously. My fear is that if we do not push for change, sit together and work out a new model for how London can be governed, nothing will change, and in years’ time this will be seen as another debate where nothing really changed. I hope this is the start of that debate where we can come together and find solutions, recognising—this is the crux of my argument—that London is not just the central part. What the capital is should be defined, but there is London way beyond Greater London and the existing boundaries. That is what we must focus on. It has all changed since the ’60s, and we cannot carry on any longer with the existing structure.

Let us be radical but also consistent with what local people truly desire for their local towns, local communities and local boroughs in our great capital.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered local government reform in Greater London.