House of Lords Reform

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I have been a Member of Parliament for 25 years, probably longer than anyone else in this debate, and I believe that the House of Lords, for all its faults over the years, provides a balance to an elected Chamber. I am afraid to say that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) misses the point of the House of Lords. We do not want another elected Chamber to rival the House of Commons. We need a house of experts—or elders, if you like, Sir John—people with knowledge, expertise and experience who have served this country over many decades in different walks of life.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

In a moment. We need also those who represent continuity. Sir John, you will know better than most that continuity is the foundation of the success of this nation. To ignore what has gone on in the past and to lose all that continuous wisdom from the ages is pure vandalism. We do not want another elected set of politicians who we know will be, effectively, appointed by party headquarters—the leader’s favourites will be put on some list and put into the House of Lords, even though many of them would prefer to be in the House of Commons—as a second set of politicians.

I want a House of Lords that is depoliticised in many ways, so I am not keen on the fact that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have put so many people into the Lords who were friends of the leader at the time, or special advisers to Ministers and suchlike. What I want to see is more people who are truly representative of the whole country but can provide knowledge, expertise and experience to make our parliamentary democracy stronger and better.

It cannot be right that a political party that came third at the last general election has zero representation in the House of Lords. There are 80 Lib Dem peers, yet their party received 600,000 fewer votes than Reform UK. The Greens, I believe, have three representatives—

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Two.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Two? Okay. Plaid Cymru also has representatives. The Democratic Unionist party has six, but only five MPs. The thing is disproportionate. There should at least be representation of all political parties. Based on the votes at the last election, there certainly need to be a number of Reform UK Members of the House of Lords.

[Mike Martin]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, because there is just so much to feast upon there in one intervention. Just to draw out an inconsistency in his speech, he likes experts and history—I like them as well—yet he says that we should have an upper Chamber that is based on the votes at the last election. Presumably, those would be appointed by the parties, so how does he intend to balance those two tensions?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member will know that the way it works in the House of Lords is that it is based on party appointments. The Prime Minister will make nominations; so will the Leader of the Opposition; so will the leader of the Liberal Democrats; so will the leader of the Greens. They will nominate a sprinkling of new peers every so often, usually once a year. Well, where was the invitation for the leader of Reform UK to nominate a number of Reform UK Members of the House of Lords? The hon. Member must surely accept that that is very wrong when we consider that Reform UK was the third largest party in terms of votes at the last election.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will in a moment. I go back to my original argument: we are getting this wrong. We will regret the day that we become just one of two elected Chambers. We will regret that day. It will create a rivalry between two sets of elected politicians, who will both claim to be truly representative of the people who have put them there, instead of having the primacy of the elected House of Commons—ultimately, we are elected by the people of this country and we can make the final decision through the Parliament Acts. At the end of the day, we do not actually have to be obedient to the House of Lords.

What I do know is that, within the House of Lords, there is an opportunity to have people with enormous knowledge and expertise, whether they are former Cabinet Ministers, former ambassadors or high commissioners, heads of industry, heads of trade unions or representatives of the different faith groups. It is good to have people like that. It is right that we still have the established Church of England represented through the bishops; although, these days, they are rather more to the left than I would like, they still represent the established Church of this country.

[Dr Opher]

I thought that, in Reform’s manifesto, it was going to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a much smaller, more democratic second Chamber.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Well, I did not stand on that manifesto. I joined Reform UK after that manifesto. I can tell the hon. Member now that that is not our policy today. We are not going to abolish the House of Lords. We are not going to engage in constitutional vandalism.

Throughout the ages, we have evolved our constitutional and parliamentary democracy in a way that has given us strength and continuity, and has allowed us to change not in some radical direction, whereby minorities and people with vested interests can finish up controlling the institutions of this country, but in a way that is evolution rather than revolution. There is no requirement to abolish the House of Lords. There should not be an elected second Chamber.

New Zealand got rid of its second Chamber, so it has only one elected Chamber. I would prefer that, frankly, to a second load of politicians in the House of Lords who wish that they were MPs, but could not get there, so they were put in place by their friends in party headquarters. We do not want that. If we eventually do abolish the upper House, frankly it would be better just to have one Chamber than to have a second elected Chamber, because there would be rivalry between the two.

Look at it like this: if we choose carefully, change the system and make it more meritocratic in terms of experience, knowledge and the kind of people who we really want in the House of Lords, we will be buying in expertise at low cost. Otherwise, we will be paying consultants and experts that work for companies to do an effective job of scrutinising legislation. What is the point of that when we can give someone a peerage? That could be someone with vast knowledge, perhaps someone who has been an ambassador to another country, headed up an important institution or contributed to the establishment of an amazing charity, and who has vast knowledge from that. It could be someone like Sebastian Coe, the Olympic gold medallist who went on to run the London Olympics in 2012. Those people have value, but they will not stand for election, so we would lose all of them—[Interruption.] Well, they would not stand for election to the Lords.

As I say, we would lose good people. The great and the good would go and we would finish up, as I said earlier, with people who want to be politicians but would have to settle for being second-best. That is not good enough. We should do what we have always done in this country and allow our constitution and our parliamentary democracy to change—yes, change by all means—in a gentle and evolutionary way, so that we do not get rid of a tried and tested system that has lasted for generations and, with all its faults, done this country rather well over the centuries.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I shall call the Front Benchers from 5.10 pm. As you can see, a lot of people are standing, which gives you a feel for how long you have got. So, it is three or four minutes each, I am afraid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate.

When I became an MP more than five years ago, I entered this place with a very open mind about most things, which is perhaps just as well, including about to the role of the House of Lords. I did not feel strongly about the other place one way or the other, but since I have been an MP, I have developed not only a greater understanding of what the Lords do and how they do it, but quite a deep respect for the important role that they play in our democracy. I am supportive of a second Chamber. I believe in an upper House. It scrutinises and revises. It brings fresh eyes, new ideas and, if I may be so bold, decades of experience and expertise. It can make our legislation stronger and our democratic process more robust.

There have been many examples of that over the years. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was strengthened in the Lords, where an amendment introduced a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, closing a gap that had let abusers escape charges. Similarly, Cross-Bench and Opposition peers spearheaded amendments to create a powerful new corporate criminal offence to prevent fraud in the Economic Crime Act and Corporate Transparency 2023, in a significant moment in the fight against economic crime. That is what good revision looks like. It is responsible lawmaking.

However, I come to this debate with direct experience of when the second Chamber has sadly not behaved responsibly or appropriately. As the sponsor of a private Member’s Bill—I think it is fair to say a reasonably well-known piece of legislation, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—I ended up spending a significant amount of time in the Lords.

Following months and months of hard work in the Commons, including countless meetings with outstanding civil servants from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice, a comprehensive Bill Committee that heard from nearly 50 witnesses, and powerful and emotional debates on Second and Third Readings, the Bill made its way to the Lords. It had had over 100 hours of scrutiny. It was examined line by line. It was amended and strengthened, and it passed the elected Chamber with a clear majority on both occasions. Yet despite a clear majority of elected MPs, having engaged at length with their constituents and taken the issue extremely seriously, voting to send the Bill to the other place, what happened next was not what most MPs, however they voted—and more importantly, the public—either expected or deserved.

I was very grateful to the peers who engaged in meaningful scrutiny and discussion about the Bill, and there were many of those. I was in awe at times of their experience and expertise, and it was a pleasure working with them. In some instances we disagreed, but we did so respectfully. Myself and Lord Falconer, the sponsor of the Bill in the other place, were open to making changes to strengthen the legislation. There were amendments that we were happy to accept, and we engaged with peers in good faith. However, nearly 1,200 amendments were tabled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, around half of them came from just seven peers. Looking at the content of many of those amendments, which were inappropriate and at times cruel, it was clear to many that some peers intentionally used every tool at their disposal to bring the legislative process to a standstill.

As we know, the other place, unlike the Commons, is self-regulating. There are no selection of amendments or time limits, so every amendment tabled is likely to be debated. There was seemingly a desire from some peers to slow the process down and disrupt the usual legislative process. In the House of Commons we did our job, but given the shocking example of the amendments tabled in the House of Lords, the same simply cannot be said of the other place.

One peer spoke for four hours and 41 minutes. That is longer than “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” extended edition—a great film, but not the most succinct piece of cinema. I say that not to be disrespectful to the other place, but to ask a simple question: was that responsible behaviour and were Members there fairly and professionally carrying out their role as the second Chamber? I think not.

Then there is the cost. The Lords debate on the Bill cost the taxpayer over £1.7 million in attendance allowances—public money spent so that a Bill could go nowhere. The public have every right to expect good value from their institutions because we work for them. I do not think that anyone can say with a clear conscience that that was a good use of taxpayers’ money.

We also have to look at the make-up of the Chamber: 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords. I have no problem with religion per se, but nobody elected them. They sit solely because of the position they hold. The only other country in the world that gives clerics seats in its legislature in that way is Iran. In a modern, multi-faith, increasingly secular society, is that fit for purpose? We need a second Chamber that supports and challenges.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Is the hon. Lady also calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England? Is she asking that the cross be taken off the Crown so that the Christian foundations of this country are no longer part of our constitutional arrangements?

[Kim Leadbeater]

If I may say so, it is quite a leap of faith to go from the comments I was making about the unelected Chamber to the Church of England, for which I have the utmost respect. I have worked with many people of faith on an agenda around cohesion and the need to bring our communities together—something that I am sure the hon. Member would fully support.

In a multi-faith and increasingly secular society, is it right to have unelected faith leaders in our second Chamber? The Prime Minister himself said:

“I don’t think we can justify half of our national legislature being unelected. I think this is something that is, in many ways, quite scandalous… If you want to cut the cost of politics, that’s the first place to look.”

He has also spoken about his desire to rewire how power works in this country, but we surely cannot do that without looking at the role of the House of Lords. I agree with the Prime Minister and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud: we need a national commission into the future of the House of Lords. I am pleased to speak in support of that today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Thank you, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) both on the way he opened this debate and on how he chairs the all-party parliamentary group on House of Lords reform.

The Liberal Democrats have called for a democratic second Chamber for decades. We simply believe that those who make the law should, at some point, be accountable to those who have to obey it. In the other place, that link does not exist. People across the country understand that; they see a Chamber filled by prime ministerial appointment, where a seat in our legislature can follow years of party loyalty or a generous donation. That system ingrains patronage. It feeds the sense that politics is run by and for a small elite and it is one of the reasons why so many people have lost faith in our democratic institutions.

In her excellent speech earlier, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) mentioned the Lords Spiritual—the 26 Church of England bishops who take their seats in the other place. It is not an excessive understatement to say that that arrangement feels a bit outdated. Britain today is a country of many faiths and none, and nobody should have a hand in making our laws simply because of the religious office they hold. It is surely long past time to modernise.

Peers may also be appointed because they are seen to be experts within a field. However, as there is currently no time limit on how long they sit within the Lords, someone could indeed have been an expert in something 40 years ago, but the field has moved on vastly. Yet they still legislate in that area and are viewed as a specialist.

Some say that this issue is not a priority; it does not come up often on the doorstep. But a quick look at my inbox shows that some of my Hazel Grove constituents do indeed care about it enough to contact their MP. I have had constituents write to me about this, including most recently Kellie from Offerton, who argued powerfully that we should have an elected second Chamber. I agree with her.

The Lib Dems supported the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Nobody can seriously defend a place in Parliament being handed down through a family line.

[Andrew Rosindell]

On that basis, would the hon. Lady abolish Royal Assent for Bills? Does she accept that our constitution is the King in Parliament—the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons? Is she actually arguing for the abolition of the monarchy?

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman has extended himself several times this afternoon—and I, for one, am here for it. There are many things I would change about the way our country runs. If we were designing a country from scratch, I do not think we would have a Parliament or a monarchy like this. The monarch and the royal family do an important job in all sorts of ways, but I would very much change the relationship between Parliament and the monarch. To answer his question, yes I would.

Removing the remaining hereditary peers on its own does not go anywhere near far enough. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) tabled an amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to replace every unelected Member with a fully elected Chamber. Sadly, neither the Labour nor Conservative party supported that, which feels like a missed opportunity to begin the transition. We continue to see events that highlight why we should have an elected and accountable second Chamber. The Mandelson scandal has shown how poorly the current Chamber copes when a Member appointed for life has lost the public’s trust.

According to an Electoral Commission study from 2025, only 14% of respondents trusted politicians. We must all work to improve that level of trust; increasing accountability in Parliament feels like an important place to start. In February, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), called for legislation to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage. Ministers told the public that reform was urgent and that they were talking to other parties. The Removal of Peerages Bill was included in the last King’s Speech, yet we are still to see any wide-scale reform. Can the Minister confirm if, and when, we should expect to see legislation to produce reform in the House of Lords—including, but not limited to, the Removal of Peerages Bill?

The Representation of the People Bill could have been a good place to start to make vital reforms to the way the second Chamber works. It contains welcome measures including votes at 16, steps towards automatic voter registration and a U-turn on the independence of the Electoral Commission—all changes that the Lib Dems have campaigned for. But it says nothing about the Lords or proportional representation, and far too little about the money that flows into our politics.

We want the Government to stop tinkering at the margins and to make the real changes needed to fix the broken political system in which we currently operate. They could take steps now: implement the 2017 Burns report; bring the House of Lords down to 600 Members; introduce the retirement age for peers that Labour promised in its own 2024 manifesto; put the ministerial code into law so that Ministers—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The question of House of Lords reform is obviously not new; successive Administrations of all political colours have grappled with it for decades—indeed, for more than a century. They have discovered that constitutional upheaval tends to be far easier to promise in opposition than to deliver successfully in government.

The history reminds us of a fundamental truth: constitutional reform must always be approached with care, caution, balance and a clear understanding of the consequences. We would all agree that the House of Lords is far from perfect—certainly, no one from the official Opposition would suggest otherwise—but it performs a vital constitutional function. It provides thorough legislative scrutiny, brings into Parliament unmatched expertise from the law, science, business and public service, and holds Ministers to account.

Crucially, the House of Lords serves as a vital check on the Executive, ensuring that legislation is properly stress tested and challenging Governments when they get things wrong. Having been a member of the Government Whips Office before the last election, I can say that that is not always convenient for Governments, but it is a core constitutional function. Any sensible reform must preserve and enhance that scrutiny, and never dismantle it purely for political convenience or advantage. That is where we have serious concerns about the Government’s approach.

As has been said, in its 2024 manifesto Labour declared that the House of Lords was too large and promised to reduce its numbers; since then, the Government’s actions have told a rather different story. Even after expelling the hereditary peers, the House of Lords has about 800 Members—more than when the Government first declared that it was bloated. Apparently, the second Chamber is too big unless Downing Street happens to be the one packing the red Benches. I hope the Minister can explain that contradiction. Appointments must reflect the expertise that Parliament requires, not serve as a patronage machine to manufacture a compliant legislature.

There is then the Government’s more radical proposition: abolishing the Lords entirely in favour of an elected senate of the nations and regions. But ambition is no substitute for detail. What powers would such a body possess? How would it be elected? Critically, how would it relate to the democratically elected House of Commons? Those are not minor procedural queries. The fact that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), the mover of the motion, seems to answer the question by saying that an unelected panel should decide highlights the fact that Labour had no idea what the radical Lords reform in its manifesto meant and had no plan to deliver it.

If an elected second Chamber can claim equal democratic legitimacy, we invite constitutional gridlock, competing mandates and perpetual legislative paralysis. Our parliamentary system works precisely because it respects the primacy of this elected House, and has done for a century and more, while giving the revising Chamber the freedom to scrutinise. We should not discard that balance for an untested experiment. When will the Minister launch the proposed public consultation? Or are the Government expecting Parliament to sign a blank cheque on Lords reform?

Let me turn to immediate measures. The Opposition engaged constructively with the House of Lords Retirement and Participation Committee. We agree that peers must actively contribute; however, we hold grave reservations about an arbitrary retirement age of 80. The distinct value of the other place lies in wisdom, institutional memory and lifetime service, so we should assess peers on the quality of their contribution, not the date on their birth certificate. Sensible reform is possible, just as previous Conservative Governments enabled voluntary retirement and expulsions for misconduct. We are ready to discuss appointments, size and standards, but the constitution belongs not to the Government of the day but to our nation.

[Andrew Rosindell]

On the question of appointments, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is only right that the third largest party in this country should have some representation in the House of Lords today?

[Mike Wood]

It is beyond me to decide who should and should not be in the House of Lords any time soon, but I note that last month the hon. Gentleman’s party leader was talking about flooding the House of Lords with hundreds of new Reform peers, and he said that if that did not work to get Reform’s legislative agenda through, he would have a referendum on abolishing the House of Lords. Reform’s position seems a little confused.

The second Chamber exists not to make life comfortable for Ministers but to hold power to account. The test of any reform is not whether it delivers a pliant Parliament, but whether it serves the British people. That is the test against which His Majesty’s Opposition will hold the Government to account.

International Update

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. Obviously, different parts of the UK are more dependent on heating oil and that issue has really come to the fore throughout the course of this year, so I will consider what he has to say.

Just to clarify in relation to the previous question: yes, in no way am I considering a May 2027 general election.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I know that the people of the Falkland Islands will be reassured by the Prime Minister telling President Trump and the UN General Assembly that the clear and declared will of the islands is to remain British, but will he please afford the same rights to the people of the Chagos islands? Surely, all citizens of overseas territories should have the right of self-determination and the right to stay British.

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly uphold our obligations in respect of the Falklands Islands. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the issues related to the Chagos islands are different—they are not strictly comparable—but we will always take the right and fair approach.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms Butler. May I also congratulate myself on securing this debate? It came as a bit of a surprise to me. I thought that there would be an overwhelming clamour to secure a debate to celebrate the 10 years since the Brexit referendum. I thought people would be tripping over themselves to ensure that they could tell us about all the wonderful things that have happened. It would have been an opportunity to go wandering through the sunlit uplands to celebrate the dynamic economic growth and political stability that had been secured, the fact that immigration was under control, and all the wonders of our new-found freedoms.

Do you remember, Ms Butler? We were going to have our cake and eat it, we were going to secure the easiest trade deal in history, and of course we were going to take back control. From the lofty heights up there in the sunlit uplands, we could have peered down and admired all the shiny new hospitals that we had managed to build because of the £350 million we had saved weekly from the evil and wicked EU. Perhaps, in a more reflective moment, we could have thought back and wondered why we ever put up with those bendy bananas, the vacuum cleaners that lacked that extra Brexit suction, or EU lightbulbs that would not even light, and about how, thank goodness, the existential threat to the great British sausage had been removed and Brexit had saved us from all the barmy Brussels bureaucrats.

There are some anniversaries that we look forward to, such as birthdays and weddings, and some that invite solemn reflection, such as the end of wars, the passing of great men and women, and great historical events. Then, of course, there is the Brexit referendum anniversary, which somehow feels so different from all the other things that we mark. Brexit is a rather extraordinary anniversary to celebrate.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will just finish this point. It is 10 years since we embarked on what has turned out to be one of the most self-defeating exercises in political and economic self-harm inflicted in modern political history—a bizarre, destructive and economically illiterate political project that has made everybody in this country so much worse off. On that note, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am very confused. The hon. Gentleman seems passionate about independence for Scotland, so why does he not believe in independence for the whole United Kingdom?

[Pete Wishart]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman within a second that I am all for independence—but not for the bizarre notion that keeps on coming up that membership of the European Union means automatically losing independence. Tell that to the French, the Germans, the Italians or any of the other members of the European Union, who as far as I am concerned pretty much enjoy their own independence. That is what we want to do in Scotland.

In the 10 years since the Brexit referendum, we have had seven Prime Ministers. Even a new Labour Government with a majority of 172 have not been immune from the instability of the Brexit era, barely making it to the two-year mark before they had to replace their first Prime Minister.

Let us turn first to the economy. I am grateful, as always, to the House of Commons Library, which produced an excellent briefing for this debate. I really encourage colleagues to have a look at it. It is remarkably clear about the broad economic evidence. There is now substantial and significant consensus that the UK economy is smaller than it would have been had we remained in the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. We have had this issue for seven or eight years. I remember securing the first urgent question when it was recognised as a problem. We have had a long time to fix it. I see that the Minister is taking notes; one thing he could reassure the House on is that the music will move. Get it moving, because there is no reason why it should be stuck behind the English channel.

We are told that all this is happening—and I am afraid to say that we are going to hear it again today—because it is the wrong type of Brexit. Who knew? Apparently, it was the wrong deal. Variously, it was the wrong Government—the wrong everything—but the hard Brexiteers got everything they wanted. They got everything they asked for and more: no customs union, no freedom of movement, no single market, no European court jurisdiction, no EU institutions and no going back. What we have now is not an accidental form of Brexit that just happened to emerge out of the ashes. It was everything that they fought for decades to achieve. The conclusion is that there is no magic Brexit. There is no Brexit where we get all the benefits of membership without the obligations. There is no Brexit where we have frictionless trade without accepting that the rules are necessary for frictionless trade. There is no cake and eating it.

Lastly, there is the extraordinary position of this Labour Government. They know that Brexit is an absolute and utter disaster. There is no getting away from it. The evidence is right in front of them. I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday, and he was absolutely right to reference Brexit as one of the biggest issues that has damaged this country in the last 10 years. They know that our relationship with our largest trading partner is fundamentally broken, but they have tied themselves up in knots with these unnecessary and useless red lines. Instead of actually fixing the problem, they continue to tinker around the edges. There is a little veterinary agreement here, a little customs improvement there, a bit of mutual recognition, a bit of youth mobility, a bit of this, a bit of that—a bit of a big fat nothing, because that is what it is.

The Government have their reset plans, which I am pretty certain is what the Minister will almost exclusively tell us about, but they are nothing more than the same old tinkering.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. Sorry, but lots of people wish to speak.

None of the Government’s plans solves the real problem, which is getting back into the EU. The British public are so far ahead of them on this, it is almost unbelievable. Rejoining the EU is by far the most popular option when presented to the British public. According to Ipsos, 58% of voters would back rejoining the bloc, with almost half supporting a new referendum after the next general election. Only 33% think that the UK should stay out. If only the Government had that in their manifesto, they would be an absolute shoo-in to continue in government maybe not just for the next Parliament, but for the one after that.

Not everything that has gone wrong in the UK in the last 10 years is down to Brexit—of course not. We have had covid, the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, inflation and 14 years of the chaotic Tories to help make matters much worse. But Brexit is a slow puncture rather than a spectacular crash, and since 2016 we have had to navigate the increasingly difficult terrain of all these international difficulties with a flat Brexit tyre.

Brexit was sold as a moment when we would open our doors and regain our freedom, but all we have done is secure more paperwork. We were told that we would take back control, but immigration has skyrocketed to record levels. We were told that Brexit would free us from Brussels bureaucracy, but we have only created our own UK bureaucracy to deal with leaving the Brussels bureaucracy.

Perhaps the best thing that we can do today is remember what was promised and what was achieved. We in Scotland most definitely remember. We remember back in another referendum—the referendum on Scottish independence—being told that the only way to secure Scotland’s EU future was to vote to stay within the UK Union. What happened to that? Brexit has been an utter disaster. It is a shameless project that has made everybody worse off. Let us reflect on that again, and hopefully in 10 years’ time we will be back in the European Union enjoying the prosperity that we deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for allowing us to debate this issue, 10 years on from the sovereign decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave a political union—that is the important message that seems to evade most people in this Chamber today. We were not part of a simple trading arrangement: under the Maastricht treaty, which the Conservative Government of John Major signed us up to without a referendum, our sovereignty was handed away to a political union. When my parents voted to join a common market, or to stay in a common market, in the 1970s, that was about free trade; it was about co-operation and working together as neighbours. But over the years it became a political union, and our laws—the laws that we are elected to make—were overridden by a massive unelected bureaucracy in Brussels.

Our trade has to be global—

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

It is elected—it is a Parliament.

[Andrew Rosindell]

A Parliament that had no real power, as the hon. Member knows.

Our democracy and our historic constitutional rights and liberties were gradually being eroded. I want this country to be prosperous. The real prosperity in the world today does not come with a diminishing market in the continent. The global market is there for us to grab if we take that opportunity. Unfortunately, the political establishment of this country has failed in the last 10 years to grab the opportunities that being independent has given us.

Those in the civil service, those in government under Theresa May and the establishment in this country did everything they possibly could to derail Brexit. Under Theresa May’s agreement, we would have been half in and half out of the European Union. That would have been a disaster. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), myself and others voted against that deal, and gave us a Brexit that actually meant something.

The opportunities are there for Britain to take if we choose to do so. The alternative is to go back into a political union and be subjected to rules, laws, regulations, the euro—all the things that come with being in the European Union—and free movement. If the people of Iceland had the good sense to say no, then we should have the good sense to think of the long-term future of our country, retain our independence, never go back to the European Union, but maintain good relations and trade co-operation with our neighbours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

If we chart it over the last two decades, particularly against German performance, on almost any economic chart we look at, it would be almost impossible to pick out the point at which the UK left the European Union. It is impossible to say from looking at those charts that our economy has grown more slowly than Germany’s, because it has not; it has grown more quickly. Our trade has not been disrupted more than Germany’s—[Interruption.] It really has not; they track almost identically across that chart.

Thirdly, where Britain is succeeding, we are doing so precisely because of our post-Brexit freedoms. The UK digital and tech flat white economy now represents about 15% of GDP—larger than the entire domestic goods sector. As the Growth Commission highlighted, our tech sector is flourishing and leading Europe in artificial intelligence, precisely because it is unburdened by Brussels’ heavy-handed Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act and restrictive AI Act.

Instead of backing British enterprise, the Government are proposing to pursue unilateral dynamic alignment, shackling the 92% of British firms that do not trade with the EU to Brussels’s rulebook, surrendering our precision breeding advantages and hiking domestic carbon costs by linking our emissions trading scheme, which threaten to add up to £100 per tonne to fertiliser prices at a time when they are already crippling British farmers, while paying administrative fees to Brussels for the privilege.

That is an astonishingly one-sided bargain, a masterclass in the art of the bad deal. The lesson of the past 10 years is that national prosperity is built by businesses working across the UK, not subcontracted to the EU. The economic catastrophe prophesied in 2016 simply did not occur.

[Andrew Rosindell]

rose—

[Mike Wood]

I will give way briefly, as I am drawing to a close.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and correct speech, offering the facts. Does he not regret that, in all those years of Conservative Government after we had left the EU, we did not seize the opportunities to be more radical, to ensure that the benefits of Brexit were properly realised? Does he also repudiate John Major’s Government for bringing in the Maastricht treaty, which created political union in the first place?

[Mike Wood]

It is one thing to look back over the past 10 years, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I plead that I was taking GCSEs in 1992 rather than paying attention to what John Major was doing. The next Conservative Government should certainly look at how to take better advantage of the freedoms available outside the European Union, because there are many opportunities. His Majesty’s Opposition will continue to champion our regulatory freedom, to back British innovation and resist any attempt to drag this country back into the EU’s regulatory orbit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Any death from suicide is a tragedy, as everybody across this House will know. We are bringing together students, bereaved families, universities and the NHS to strengthen the mental health support provided to students. We have also appointed a student support champion to drive improvement across our universities. The relevant Minister will be happy to discuss that and other matters with my hon. Friend.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

Q7. I wonder if the Prime Minister has had the chance to study the election results in Havering: zero Labour councillors were elected in Romford, zero Conservative councillors were elected across Havering for the first time since 1964 and it is the first Reform UK London borough. That shows people’s disillusionment with the political establishment. In his final days as Prime Minister, can he do something for the people of Romford and give us the accident and emergency unit at Queen’s hospital that the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said he would deliver, but failed to do?

[The Prime Minister]

We put record investment into the NHS to clear up the mess that the hon. Gentleman and others left behind. Since he brings up elections, I have studied the Reform candidate for Makerfield: a self-professed sexist who said women who get an abortion do it for “vanity purposes”, who encouraged people not to get the covid vaccine and who said Russia was “within its rights” to invade Crimea. Reform has nothing to offer but grievance and division yet again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

The simple fact is that those who oppose the building of renewable energy infrastructure risk blocking investment and job creation, while at the same time making their constituents’ bills more expensive. Upgrading and expanding the electricity network is not optional; is a national imperative and we cannot afford to delay—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, so he might want to listen to the answer.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

2. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the defence sector in Wales on the UK’s defence capabilities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)]

We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, investing £270 billion over this Parliament. Our £50 million defence growth deal in Wales puts us front and centre to lead the way in 21st century autonomous defence technology. Alongside supporting our thriving defence sector, that will deliver thousands of skilled, well-paid jobs and help keep our country safe.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister will be aware of the excellent potential of the defence sector in Wales. However, she will also be aware that the United Kingdom, under this Government, is woefully unprepared and uniquely vulnerable to global and geopolitical threats. What steps is she taking to ensure that her Department works with the Ministry of Defence in prioritising British firms in Wales over foreign suppliers so that we strengthen British capabilities and skilled Welsh jobs, rather than offshoring our security and our jobs to strategic competitors or, even worse, to our enemies?

[Anna McMorrin]

To be quite frank, the hypocrisy is astounding. It is—

Middle East

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I acknowledge the concern of my hon. Friend’s constituents, as many of our constituents will be concerned. That is why it is our duty to take measures to protect them first and foremost, and to de-escalate the situation.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I hope the Prime Minister agrees that current events show how vital military infrastructure is in the middle eastern region of the world. However, at the very moment when Diego Garcia is relied on as a critical asset, the Prime Minister proposes to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius and to lease back the airbase for our use. Does he not realise what a catastrophic policy this is? Will he abandon this misguided plan and ensure that the Chagos islands remain under British sovereignty?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Mr Speaker, there is obviously a great deal of interest on the Liberal Democrat Benches in their ten-minute rule Bill, which I look forward to reading in due course.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to help improve the cyber-security of national infrastructure.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)]

The Government recently introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to strengthen the resilience of UK critical national infrastructure. Yesterday, I visited BT, which has worked with the National Cyber Security Centre to block almost 1 billion attempts to access malicious content in just six months. In spring, the Government will publish a business-first national cyber action plan, and we have already engaged with over 400 stakeholders as part of its development.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The United Kingdom is increasingly and uniquely vulnerable to malicious cyber-activity targeting national infrastructure and democratic institutions, including Parliament itself. That poses a serious risk to our national security. Experts have warned of a critical data leak, a new scale of severe blackouts, transport disruption and even Government being brought to a halt. What action is the Minister’s Department taking to ensure that the Government are prepared and sufficiently resourced to meet this pernicious national security threat?

[Dan Jarvis]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises this issue, and he is right to do so. The Government take the threats we face incredibly seriously. That is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister took the decision back in September to ensure that the Security Minister sits across both the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, so we are better placed as a Government to co-ordinate our national security response in the areas the hon. Gentleman outlined. I can give him and the House an absolute assurance on the seriousness we attach to these issues. We take them very seriously and we are working at pace to address them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Hefin was a proud Welshman and a champion for Caerphilly. We send our love and support to his partner, Vikki, and his daughters, family and friends.

Wales has a thriving defence sector and I am delighted that it will host one of our new defence growth zones. That is investing £250 million to make defence an engine for jobs and growth across the United Kingdom. That is what we get when we have a Labour Government in both Cardiff and Westminster working together to deliver for Wales.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

I have been clear on a number of occasions: I do want the police to concentrate on serious crime and on crime that matters most to our communities in each of our constituencies. I have said that before, and I say it again today.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

There are always arguments about age, but I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and I am glad we got rid of the ageist principle—there is nothing wrong with people over the age of 80, or indeed in their 70s—they are just as useful. Indeed, a lot of people in their 80s and 90s do a brilliant job, and some people in their 30s or 40s are completely useless—not, of course, in this Chamber. I think I have made my point.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Well, the Whip is looking at me. He wants me to sit down. My hon. Friend has made the point brilliantly, and I shall now sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards]

I congratulate the hon. Lady for having so many friends in the other place. I could not agree with her more—it is almost as if she has read my speech and hence made her timely intervention.

[Andrew Rosindell]

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

[Mark Sewards]

All I would say is, “Long live the King.” What we do with our hereditary peers today does not affect what we do with our monarchy. As I was saying, no one should serve in the other place and make our laws simply because of the family that they were born into. No one should—not them, not me, not my children and not theirs. That is a basic principle that I hope we can all get behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

My right hon. Friend is right. Our national story has brought us to a place where this House is rightfully dominant among the three parts of Parliament in exercising the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, but we should be careful of the wholesale execution of one of those arms. Let us be clear: that is what the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers would do. The other place without them is no more a House of Lords than my terraced house in Sunninghill is. A Cromwellian purge, it would leave that place the preserve of political cronies and failed advisers. Is that what we want? Is that progress?

The House of Lords today is difficult to justify, but it works. This place has the attention span of a TikTok-addled teenager, as we jump to half-hourly news cycles driven by Twitter and rolling news.

[Andrew Rosindell]

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

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend’s point is right, and I thank him for it.

We walk through the Division lobbies, directed by the Whips, often having had no time, because of the impossible juggling act, to develop real knowledge of the topic in question or to think through properly the implications. Some of the stuff that leaves this place with a massive majority might have well been written in crayon. Thank God for the other place. Do not remove long-serving public servants and outstanding legislators. Do not pick at the threads of our constitution. The other place is one of the parts of our constitution which works best. We should retain Lords amendment 1 and 8.

I talked of a tension, a conflict in my thinking. I have tried to articulate a deeply conservative instinct, but I also feel excitement, as I will explain. My view is that the British state is way off course, dangerously off course. It needs deep and radical change. To take one issue, immigration, almost nothing is now too radical to consider. Whether we look at the asylum system or legal migration, the radical change that the country needs will be of significant scale. None of that will be possible in the Blairite constitutional straitjacket that is at direct odds with our historic constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

It is hard to overestimate the valuable contribution that the Cross-Bench peers make to the House of Lords, not least the number of retired members of the judiciary who come in to fulfil certain judicial or pseudo-judicial responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman probably has an element of a point that I would almost agree with: there is a conversation to be had about how we ensure that the Cross Benchers continue to have representation that reflects the breadth of the country and the skills that Parliament needs. Obviously, there is a role for the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which can make recommendations for new Cross-Bench peers. How that works going forward I am sure is something that will be considered.

Again, there will still be 151 Cross-Bench peers even after the number of hereditary peers have been expelled from the House. That is a large number of peers, all of whom bring an expertise to the House that should be looked at. If there are new Cross-Bench peers to come in, I am sure that the commission will make that recommendation.

The idea that the House of Lords will somehow cease to function by virtue of the immediate abolition of hereditary peers does not hold water or make sense. We should simply say, “We are going to have a clean break. Thank you very much for your service—we appreciate it. If you wish to come back to politics or to Parliament, you can be nominated to the House of Lords for a life peerage, or you can seek election to this House.” If the Conservative party really wanted to ensure that some of those hereditary peers were able to come back to this place, they could say, “We’re going to make sure you are our candidates” for the 25 safest Conservative seats—if there are 25 safe seats for any party these days. It could say, “You can make a valuable contribution to politics in a way that gives you a seat in one of the two legislatures.” There are ways of doing it that simply do not allow for the withering of the situation that we have.

[Andrew Rosindell]

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

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman poses a fair question. I would argue that having a ringfenced number of seats reserved almost exclusively for white men sends the wrong message to my constituents. I fully accept that there are Members of the House of Lords at whom my constituents can look and think, “They have done something spectacular with their lives.” [Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire jumps up, there are Members who have come in through the by-election process after making good contributions in their careers, and their being there does bring something, but I do not believe that my constituents would be diminished or harmed by their expulsion. I cannot see any justification for keeping 92 people in this legislature by virtue of appointments made many decades ago.

[Andrew Rosindell]

It is a small element.

[Gareth Snell]

It is a small element, as the hon. Gentleman says, but by that same logic, the removal of that small element will not have a big impact. We are grasping at straws.

Let me address the suggestion that this is an attack on the hereditary principle. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is probably one Member of the House who understands quite well the role of the Earl Marshal. He will continue to be an officer of the House of Lords, and the role will still be intrinsically linked to the families of the Duke of Norfolk, but he will simply not be able to vote in Divisions or participate in debates. I do not believe therefore that this is necessarily an attack on the hereditary principle per se; it is simply about saying that there is no place for the hereditary principle in a modern-day democracy.

I will move on the point about giving out titles as rewards. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary to achieve the Conservative party’s aims, not least because the monarch, as the font of all honour, can create whatever titles and styles he likes, with whatever caveats he likes, through letters patent. It does not immediately mean that one has to become a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of having a life peerage if the letters patent say something different. I am sure that the shadow Paymaster General is well read up on the Wensleydale decision of 1856, when a life peerage was created for Sir James Parke but it was specified that he could not be a Member of the House of Lords. The principle of establishing titles and styles for reward and recognition without tying them to seats in the Lords already exists, so the amendment is entirely unnecessary.

My final point, which has not been the subject of much discussion—as it is not a party knockabout issue—relates to Lords amendment 4, on the capacity of colleagues in the House of Lords. It is clear that many Members of the House of Lords have served our country and their communities well, but some find themselves in old age and declining health. They deserve the dignity of being allowed to retire from that place without it becoming a story of capacity. The amendment, which was accepted by the Government and the Opposition in the Lords, is an important way of recognising that we can make small changes every day to the House of Lords, as the previous Government did on the ability to retire and take a leave of absence. This Government are ensuring that resignation can be granted for Members subject to power of attorney—that is an important change and I hope that it gets cross-party support.

To summarise what my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) said, this legislation has been a long time coming and is part of the evolution of the House of Lords. The Opposition amendments do nothing to improve the Bill; they would simply slow the pace of reform and add bits that do nothing more than frustrate the passage of the Bill when it goes back to the other place. I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments and to support the Government in bringing dignity to those who need to retire with capacity issues, so that we can progress with building a more modern and successful democracy.

Trade Negotiations

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

The United Kingdom is a leading advocate for human rights around the world, and we remain committed to the promotion of universal human rights. When we have concerns, they are raised directly with partner Governments, including at ministerial level. The horrific recent terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir was utterly devastating, and my thoughts remain with the victims, their loved ones and the people of India. It is, however, for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution and resolution to the Kashmir dispute, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Today’s news of a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and India is wonderful—some of us have argued for greater free trade arrangements with Commonwealth countries for many years. Mr Modi, the Prime Minister of India, should be commended for adopting a free-market system that has brought wealth and prosperity to India, eliminating poverty and enabling India to work with countries like the United Kingdom. Will the Minister accept that none of this would have been possible had we not been sovereign and able to negotiate our own free trade agreements following our departure from the European Union? Was Brexit not the right thing to do?