Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear from Mr Rosindell even if you don’t. Come on Andrew!
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We will certainly review the human rights system, but in the meantime there is something we can all do next Tuesday and Wednesday, because our Nationality and Borders Bill is coming back to the House after long gestation. The Bill gives us the power to make the distinction at last between illegal and legal migrants to this country, it gives Border Force the power to turn people back at sea, and it gives us the power to send people overseas for screening, rather than doing it in this country. I am not asking the Opposition but telling them: it would be a great thing if they backed our Nationality and Borders Bill and undermined the criminals.
Tributes to Sir David Amess
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It was a true privilege to have known David Amess. He was simply one of the best people I have ever known in my entire life. He was a true friend. He had time for each and every one of us. He looked down on no one. He was everyone’s equal. He was kind, he was generous, and he was sincere. He was a man of principle and courage. He was uncompromising in what he believed to be right. He was not one of those who change their views in order to progress. He knew what he believed in, and he stood firm for those things. He was a man of enormous integrity, but he was a true friend to so many of us.
I knew David for around 40 years. We became friends instantly, because we shared the same political views. We came from the same background. I am from Essex—some say east London, but I say Essex—and he knew that our instincts, coming from that neck of the woods, were the same. We hit it off from day one. We were committed to this country. We love our country. He was a passionate believer in Britain and a true patriot. He was a royalist. He was never afraid to fly the flag and to champion great British values. He was a Christian and was proud to be a Christian and uphold the Christian heritage of this country.
He also loved animals, as I do. He loved my dogs almost as much as I love his dogs. On many occasions, I would visit his home in Southend, often taking my elderly mother. He had an elderly mother who lived to 104. When his mum died, he spoke to my mother as if she were his mother. He treated me like family. My heart goes out to Julia and the five children, who are wonderful people. He had a fantastic family. He was so dedicated to his constituencies: Basildon and Southend West. He lived for them, and he did sacrifice everything else to put his constituency first.
I will say this: the one legacy that we must hold true to David is not to let his horrific murder and the horrific way that he left us change our democracy. I remember the day after the appalling Grand Hotel bombing in Brighton in 1984. I remember Margaret Thatcher—he was a dedicated supporter of Margaret Thatcher—saying, “It is business as usual, we must carry on.” I take the same view. Whatever happens and whatever we do to carry on and protect ourselves, we must not let our democracy be undermined by that kind of evil. We must stand up to evil, defend our democracy, cherish the freedom that gives all of us the right to be here and represent our constituents, and defend and cherish the freedoms and liberties that have held our country together for generations. David was a fine example of a parliamentarian, a magnificent constituency MP, a true friend, a gentleman and a truly wonderful human being. We are going to miss him, but I feel truly privileged to have known him. Thank you, David. God bless you.
Afghanistan
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Make no mistake: the British people are shocked at what they are seeing in Afghanistan today. After 20 years of British and American involvement, this is not the outcome we expected. Our presence in Afghanistan may not have continued indefinitely, but it needed to be handled in the right way. It has not been, and President Biden must be held to account for his actions.
My thoughts and prayers are with the British servicemen who lost their lives attempting to bring freedom and democracy to the Afghan people and all those who have been left with life-changing injuries. Their sacrifices must not be in vain. I also weep for the people of Afghanistan, who now face the brutal regime of the Taliban, which has shown no regard for human rights. Many innocent people will now undoubtedly be murdered, with many more suffering unimaginable treatment at the hands of that regime. This is indeed a sad day for humanity.
I visited Afghanistan in 2010 with the Foreign Affairs Committee, and met our troops and visited political leaders in Kabul and Lashkar Gah, including the then President Karzai. I was struck by how much progress was being made to turn that country into a better place as the people were given the opportunity, for once, to live in a free society. My heart goes out to all the good people of that country, who deserve better than the cruel ideology of the Taliban.
We must remember why we entered this conflict after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. The original mission was to defeat al-Qaeda, and that was achieved. The terrorist bin Laden and his criminal gang were obliterated, and rightly so. Today we must honour Her Majesty’s armed forces who fought to make the world safer by going to Afghanistan and achieving that objective, but I believe that the UK now has a moral duty to provide refuge and safety for those who are fleeing for their lives. We must assist them swiftly in leaving Afghanistan, and give safe passage to all those who are at risk because of their work with the British and allied forces. We must do everything we can, even as a staging post before they can be settled in third countries. All countries must play their part in helping to accommodate Afghans who cannot return to Afghanistan. Britain must fulfil its moral duty, but the global community must do so as well.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am proud of the roll-out of the ventilators—the 30,000 we delivered from scratch—[Interruption.] I am proud of it. I am proud of the decisions that we took. I am proud of what we did—criticised by the Labour party—to roll out vaccines at record speed. I am proud of what we did to support the people of this country throughout the pandemic, with an overall package of £407 billion to support them. We in this country will bounce back all the better and all the stronger because of the strong economy that we ensured this country had going into the crisis, which would have been impossible under a Labour Government. That is what the hon. Lady should tell her constituents.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Did you notice, Mr Speaker, how those on the Opposition Benches recoiled at the idea of the recapture of the Falkland Islands? We have just heard the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) say that she was ashamed of her country. It is no wonder that people take that kind of attitude. I think my hon. Friend is entirely right in what he says about President Reagan. He was a very distinguished president. It is not up to me to install a statue for him; I think that is for the Greater London Authority. I think he has to appeal to the current Mayor of London, although let us hope that there is a new one to do justice to the memory of Ronald Reagan.
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) [V]
I join Members on both sides of the House in giving thanks for the life and service of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Prince Philip was a man who dedicated his entire life to duty—duty to his wife, Her Majesty the Queen; duty to his country; and duty to all nations of the Commonwealth. In this, the longest reign of any monarch in British history and across these islands, the Duke of Edinburgh was always there by the Queen’s side, defending and upholding the Crown, while at the same time showing his devotion to the people of this country through his work for so many wonderful causes, charities, the armed forces, sports, the arts and, of course, the protection of our natural environment and of wildlife in particular.
He was a good man—a man of character, integrity, courage and patriotism. On behalf of my constituents in Romford, I would like to offer my heartfelt sympathies to Her Majesty the Queen on this huge loss to herself and the entire royal family. A service of thanksgiving for the life of His Royal Highness will be held at the Church of St Edward the Confessor in Romford market later this week. It is a church that Prince Philip and the Queen visited way back on 3 March 2003, following on from Her Majesty’s golden jubilee tour of the United Kingdom.
I remember the day well. Upon their arrival in Romford market, Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh were greeted with rapturous applause from the people of my town. I had the pleasure of spending time with the Queen and His Royal Highness as the then new Member of Parliament for Romford, escorting them around our historic market town, meeting stallholders and local people, followed by community representatives and a lunch in the church hall, the Wykeham Hall. Prince Philip had time for everyone. He showed enormous interest in all things that were important to others, and with a great sense of humour at all times.
As chairman of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, I pay tribute to His Royal Highness for the part he played in the Queen’s state visit to Ireland in May 2011. He did so much to help bring our two nations together, strengthening that bond of friendship between all peoples across these blessed islands of ours. May I also pay tribute to His Royal Highness for his lifelong support for the 21 British overseas territories and Crown dependencies? The Duke visited so many of them over his lifetime. I especially recall that wonderful day in July 2002 at Tynwald Hill on the Isle of Man, where the Queen and Prince Philip came for the magnificent annual ceremony celebrating the Manx tradition of Tynwald Day. I was proud to be there myself.
The Duke of Edinburgh was indeed a man who made the most of his long life, but he did so in the service of his family, his country and the Crown. We owe him so much. Thank you, Prince Philip. God save the Queen.
Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michael Gove
I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman and his party colleagues have been assiduous in bringing to my attention and to the attention of the Secretary of State each of their individual concerns, and they have done so in a speedy, effective and low-key way, which has reflected their desire to resolve these problems. He is absolutely right; we need to see that resolution in order to ensure that people’s electoral representatives are heard and are effective.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
As someone who cares passionately about our United Kingdom and Northern Ireland’s permanent place within it, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that the European Union’s willingness to trigger article 16 as soon as it was in its interests clearly undermines its claims during the negotiations that a border in Northern Ireland was not something that it could tolerate? Does he also agree that the Government should now seek to replace the Northern Ireland protocol with the EU because the EU has clearly shown that it was not simply about the interests of Northern Ireland, but more about its own economic and political control? The EU has been shown up for what it really is, and it is time that we put the interests of the United Kingdom and the people of Northern Ireland first.
Michael Gove
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we have to put the interests of all the citizens of the United Kingdom, including the citizens of Northern Ireland, absolutely first. I also agree that it was regrettable that just 28 days after the protocol came into effect, it was the EU that decided to trigger article 16 in the way in which it did. I want to work with those in the EU who are genuinely committed to the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, such as Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, because the most important thing for me now is to do everything I can to help ensure that the lives of people in Northern Ireland are improved. My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the need to take a step back and look at all these issues in the round.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will study the plan he proposes with care, although I should tell him that a massive infrastructure programme is already under way, as the Chancellor will shortly announce, and it may be that in due time the scheme the hon. Gentleman proposes could benefit from those investments.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I have high regard for my hon. Friend, and he is right to call attention to the dangers and damage that lockdowns can do. Of course, they have to be weighed against the damage to health caused by a wave of coronavirus that drives out all other patients from our hospitals and affects the health of non-covid patients as well so very badly. We will of course be setting out an analysis of the health, economic and social impacts of the tiered approach and the data that supports the tiering decisions, as we have done in the past.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady appropriately points out the cross-border implication of the effect of coronavirus on Airbus, and I am very aware of that. That is why we are working together with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Welsh Government, other stakeholders and, in particular, with Airbus, which has been incredibly co-operative, forward-looking and—I would like to think—grateful for the support already given by the Chancellor to it in particular and to the industry. The plan is to ensure that there is a future for Airbus at Broughton not only for the next few months but for the next few years. All the planning is about having a sustainable business over a long period of time in addition to seeing people through this immediate period with the most limited amount of hardship that we can achieve.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The UK Government have been working closely with the Welsh Government and indeed all three devolved Administrations to tackle covid-19. We have had numerous meetings—in fact, we stopped counting at 200, because it seemed they were becoming so numerous as to be impossible to record. The co-operation has therefore been substantial.
Andrew Rosindell [V]
The Secretary of State will agree it is essential that any new coronavirus vaccine is both safe and effective and rolled out as quickly as possible in Wales and across the UK so that we can put an end to these disastrous lockdown policies and get back to normal. Therefore, what discussions will he have with Welsh Ministers on co-ordinating national vaccine supply chains and the UK-wide vaccination roll-out strategy?
Simon Hart
As my hon. Friend knows, an equitable spread of vaccination across the UK is absolutely essential. That is why we are having regular, daily meetings at official and ministerial level with the Welsh Government and others to ensure that that is achieved. In addition, the testing regime announced today for the county of Merthyr Tydfil, which involves, I think, 165 military personnel provided by the UK Government, is in indication of how we are determined to act collaboratively in dealing with this disease.
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Lady that everybody in this country can be immensely proud of the massive commitments that this country has made, and will continue to make, to tackling poverty and deprivation around the world. I think they can be even prouder of the commitment that we are now making, leading the world to tackle the threat of climate change. The investment we are making, whether through official development assistance or other means, in tackling that problem is second to none across the world. It is the UK that is leading the world in tackling one of the greatest problems that this planet faces.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is the current Labour Mayor of London who blew TfL’s finances, which were left in remarkably good condition by the previous Mayor of London, even before the pandemic struck. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department for Transport will be working with TfL to see what we can do to resolve the problem at Gallows Corner that he mentions, and we will update him in due course.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill
Andrew Rosindell ExcerptsTuesday 14th July 2020
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 View all Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 July 2020 - (14 Jul 2020)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The hon. Lady talks about keeping communities together and about breaking up wards. Why does it matter if a ward is broken up? Surely communities are created through small building blocks. By discarding this almost obsession the Boundary Commission has had with entire wards, huge changes could be avoided and communities could stay together. Will she not support the idea that smaller building blocks are the way to create better constituencies that are community based, rather than artificial communities based on entire wards?
Cat Smith
I would argue that the wards, which are obviously drawn by the Local Government Boundary Commission, do actually reflect communities to a great extent. If we are to go down the path of splitting wards, we will end up with the ridiculous situation, like we did at the previous review, where constituencies such as Port Talbot had a shopping centre in one constituency and the high street in another constituency. My new clause seeks to minimise the chances of such ridiculous situations occurring again. Under the current Bill, the Commission will struggle to respect the factors laid out in rule five, which, of course, Members will know, are the existing constituencies, local government boundaries, local ties and geography.
During the evidence sessions of this Bill, the secretariat for the Boundary Commission for England spoke about the difficulties caused by this small tolerance, which makes it
“much harder to have regard to the other factors…such as the importance of not breaking local ties, and having regard to local authority boundaries and features of natural geography.”
He said:
“Basically, the smaller you make the tolerance, the fewer options we have…The larger you make it, the more options we have and the more flexibility…to have regard to the other factors”.––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 7, Q3.]
So while the Government keep saying the boundary commissions will listen to the views of communities in the drawing of the boundaries, some communities will literally be wasting their time putting forward those arguments if the restrictive quota will mathematically prevent the commissioners from respecting their views and the community ties.
Chris Clarkson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is, as always, well-considered and eloquent. I completely agree with him. The Boundary Commission for Scotland has already demonstrated that it is perfectly capable of splitting wards using postcode data. There is nothing in the legislation that prevents the Boundary Commission from doing that; it is simply a choice not to act, and that cannot be a good enough foundation.
Andrew Rosindell
I totally agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. The absurdity of entire wards making constituencies that divide communities, particularly in places such as Greater London, where we have huge wards in my constituency of 10,000 or 12,000, means that changing that involves massive upheavals and breaking up communities, so he is absolutely right that the Boundary Commission must be more flexible on this point.
Chris Clarkson
Certainly, in some of the larger metropolitan boroughs, there is what I call the martini paradox, where three wards is not quite enough and four is too many.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Everyone on the Opposition Benches accepts that this parliamentary boundary review is overdue. I think we all also accept that what we want to achieve is equality in the weight of each individual elector’s vote. However, we found from the evidence that we took and our deliberation in Committee that that is not possible.
There are local circumstances that require flexibility in how we construct our parliamentary constituencies, and I very much favour flexibility for the Boundary Commission to be able to get on with its job. We heard from Mr Bellringer from the Boundary Commission, who said that greater flexibility allowed the commission the opportunity to facilitate local concerns and make the best of representations from local communities, and it allowed him to do his job more efficiently. We do not represent individuals alone. We represent communities. I firmly believe that if we create flexibility, we can protect the communities that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) referred to earlier. That is why the 5% rigid limitation that the Government want to impose is wrong.
The Boundary Commission wrote to the Committee with some additional evidence, in which it said that
“a ward is a unit of electoral administration”.
Breaking up wards therefore needs to be avoided because it creates difficulty in administering elections. But if that is true, it must also be true that to go across a local government boundary is even more disruptive. What we have to create for the Boundary Commission is the flexibility to avoid circumstances that force it to decide that a parliamentary constituency must take orphan wards from a neighbouring local authority area or bits of communities from a neighbouring area that do not really match up to the communities in the main body of the constituency. We must accept the need to minimise disruption of that kind, so we need to ensure that the people making the recommendations on parliamentary boundaries have the maximum flexibility to do their job.
Andrew Rosindell
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he agree that sometimes a ward is completely artificial, so to break up a ward can actually unite a community, rather than divide it? Therefore, the Boundary Commission should be more flexible about using smaller building blocks, such as polling districts, or even an individual road that it makes sense to transfer into a constituency?
Clive Efford
I agree, provided it is within a recognisable local government area and a recognisable community, and there is support from the local community. In additional evidence the Boundary Commission sent, it talked about the administrative problems of going down to polling district level. The commission referred to getting Ordnance Survey to map all the polling districts in the whole country, but it seems to me that all it has to do is ring up the electoral registration offices, which can tell it how many people live in every road in every polling district. Why go to a separate organisation to find out information that is already recorded on a given date when we start the parliamentary boundary review? If that is already recorded and kept, all the Boundary Commission has to do is refer to it; then, it could go down to sub-ward level where that makes sense locally. I think the commission is creating problems for itself.
Why 7.5%? We had evidence from Dr Rossiter, who has researched this issue. He explained that as we go up from 5% to 6 % to 7% to 8%, although each percentage point seems a small amount, it improves the quality of the outcome, and that there are benefits from moving from 5% to 6 % to 7% or 8% because it improves the decision-making process. He then said that, beyond 8%, that benefit diminishes. The amendment therefore proposes 7.5%, and the experts who gave evidence favour a figure close to 7.5%. I ask the Government to reconsider their position, as they no doubt will in the other place, to look at the evidence and to accept that 7.5% is a much more sensible figure than the rigid 5% which we know has created problems in the past.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jack
On the hon. Lady’s first remark about public health, it is absolutely imperative that we protect lives, but we must also protect livelihoods. On universal basic income, we do not believe it is the best way to deliver social security because it is not targeted at those who need it most. We believe universal credit is the best thing because it gets people back into work, and getting people back into work gets them out of poverty. Countries such as Finland and Canada have tried universal basic income and walked away from it. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation also found that it can increase poverty and it said that it is not the way forward in the report that it released two years ago, so we will not be moving towards a universal basic income.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
At the end of 2020, we automatically take back control of our waters as an independent coastal state. We will be out of the common fisheries policy and we can decide who can fish in our waters and on what terms. This Government will maintain funding throughout this Parliament to support both our seafood industry and the regeneration of coastal communities in Scotland and around the United Kingdom.
Andrew Rosindell
The Minister will be aware that taking back control of our waters and regaining our status as an independent coastal state was one of the reasons why 1 million Scots voted to leave the European Union, so can he confirm that the UK Government will not sign up to anything that will take away those provisions and put that status at risk?
David Duguid
Yes, I can indeed confirm that. For the first time in 40 years, we will be free to decide who can access our waters and on what terms. Any access by non-UK vessels to fish in UK waters will be negotiated annually, as is standard practice in many cases between independent coastal states such as Norway, the Faroes or Iceland. We continue to engage with the EU constructively, but we will be making sure our position is understood. We will always defend our rights under international law, just as any other independent coastal state does.