Business of the House
Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Judith Cummins(4 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Last week I visited Gina and Vincenzo, the owners of a fantastic local Italian restaurant in Hornchurch, whose much-loved business is struggling under the weight of extortionate business rates. They used to pay £2,200 a year, but are now having to pay around £6,800; however, according to the calculator on the Government website, they will have to pay an astonishing £19,000 in business rates in the future. The Leader of the House must know that pubs and restaurants across the UK are being ruined because of the Government’s anti-business policies, so will he at least make time for a debate on business rates reform? Can he really blame the owners of Umberto’s for banning Labour MPs from their premises?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The message about short questions does not seem to have got through. Can Members please shorten their questions, because we do not have much time?
British Indian Ocean Territory
Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Judith Cummins(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell
I will make some progress.
With assurances from the United States, and given precedents around the world where indigenous people live alongside military installations, in 2016 I tabled an urgent question calling for self-determination. The response from the then Conservative Foreign Office Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, was this:
“we do not consider that the right of self-determination actually applies to the Chagossians.” —[Official Report, 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 386.]
What a colossal disgrace. Sir Alan compared Chagossian resettlement to Pitcairn—another British community that the then Conservative Government were willing to discard to another nation, even though Pitcairn later proved strategically vital for our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
I am sad to say that the Government are correct that it was my Government—the Conservative Government at the time—that began this scandal, conducting 11 rounds of negotiations with Port Louis. I commend Lord Cameron, who rightly ended those talks, but they should never have begun in the first place. Why did my former party not repudiate that whole policy entirely afterwards? Why did they not say, “That’s the end of it. Never again.” and repudiate the failure of Sir Alan Duncan to give self-determination? Why did we not jettison that entire policy? We did not do so.
Even from within the shadow foreign affairs team, I argued very strongly that the policy was fundamentally and morally wrong, and that self-determination must be central to our response, but I was shut down. The Conservatives’ opposition to this Bill, I am afraid, does comes not from principle but from convenience. The cost of this surrender is indeed eye-watering and has been the focus of the Opposition for the last year, but no amount of money compares to the dishonour of selling out British people.
Self-determination is fundamental to everything I believe in—so fundamental that it rendered my position as shadow Minister untenable. I was pleased to hear the words of self-determination used earlier by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), because when I asked we take that position in the past, I was told it was not party policy. I am thrilled if now, at long last, self-determination for the Chagossian people is official Conservative party policy. I hope that is the case—if it is, then everything that I have been fighting for over the last 25 years has been worth it—but the Bill and its origins, under both this Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government, represents the moment that I had enough over this issue and needed to say clearly that country has to come before party; and I believe that the Chagossians deserve the same democratic rights as every other British citizen.
A few weeks ago, I was genuinely horrified and upset to be prevented, on Conservative Whips’ instruction, from voting for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is a fine addition to the House and has campaigned wonderfully for the rights of the Chagossian people. His amendment sought to guarantee a referendum for the Chagossian people. I went to the doorway of the Lobby, but was told that I could not go in and vote for it. I apologise to my Chagossian friends that I let them down on that, but I was told not to and I felt deeply upset that I did not. I made it clear to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that he had, and still has, my support.
Meanwhile, genuine opposition on the Benches from which I speak now has put aside party squabbles, because national interest must always come before party—there is not really much in common usually between the Reform and Liberal Democrat Benches, but this is a matter of principle. Colleagues in my new party voted for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and I commend them for doing so. It asked simply to give a displaced people the right of consent before their homeland is gift-wrapped and donated to a foreign country. That is all we are asking: let the people decide. Who can seriously disagree with that principle? We rightly insist on self-determination for the Falkland Islanders, we strongly uphold it for Gibraltar, and we defend it for every other British overseas territory and former colony. The Government are happy to support that principle over Greenland, it seems, but not for their own British Chagossian people. It makes no sense and it is morally reprehensible.
What took place in the House of Lords on Third Reading was shameful. Peers repeatedly called for a Division, shouts of “Not content” were heard again and again, yet the House was denied the opportunity to vote. A Bill of immense constitutional, financial and strategic consequence—one of the most important pieces of legislation of this Parliament—was nodded through on a procedural manoeuvre, squandering a chance to kill it.
I was further disturbed to learn from many very angry Conservative peers who contacted me that they had been instructed not to vote the Bill down, not because the arguments were weak or because the numbers were lacking, but because of a quiet understanding that sovereignty should not be defended too robustly today, lest it cause inconvenience for tomorrow. Many Members of the House of Lords contacted me absolutely in despair at the instructions that they were given by their Whips. This is not coming from me, because I am not in the Lords, but from those who were there who were deeply upset by that. That crossed the line. A Conservative Government denied the principle of self-determination.
This Labour Government have gone much further, surrendering the homeland entirely without the consent of the Chagossian people. This is a bipartisan failure. The legislation sells out the King’s islands, binds future generations to vast financial liabilities and ignores the rights of an exiled people. I could not in good conscience remain silent and complicit, disarmed of any meaningful say in the deliberations of my former party and ashamed that the party of Margaret Thatcher—the party that took back the Falkland Islands in defence of the principle of self-determination—would be implicated in this betrayal.
Perhaps the Prime Minister will keep to the word of his own Deputy Prime Minister, who stated on ITV last February:
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of pressures of time, and that he will bringing his remarks to a conclusion shortly.
Points of Order
Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Judith Cummins(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ replies to correspondence, but all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply when they write to any member of the Government, particularly when they are asking for information on behalf of a Select Committee on which the House has conferred formal powers to seek information and to hold the Government to account. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the right hon. Member’s comments, and I hope that the Business and Trade Committee will be provided with all the information it requires as soon as possible.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the decision in February 2010, our national flag—the Union flag or Union Jack—must fly from the Victoria Tower every day of the year, but in summer a much larger flag is flown; in winter only a small flag is flown. Can you please ask Mr Speaker to raise with the House authorities why the larger summer flag has been removed and replaced by the smaller flag? When I last checked, British summer time does not end until 26 October, so surely the larger Union Jack should fly at least until that date. May I also say that 26 October is also Essex Day, so maybe we can fly the flag of Essex as well?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of the flag flying from the Victoria Tower. I will ensure that his request is raised with both Mr Speaker and the House authorities and that he receives a response.
Business of the House
Debate between Andrew Rosindell and Judith Cummins(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I hope to end business questions at about 2 o’clock, so will Members please help each other out by keeping questions and answers short?
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Following the outcome of the UK-EU summit earlier this week, will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the state of British democracy? On 23 June 2016, 70% of my constituents in Romford voted to leave the European Union—as did the rest of the United Kingdom—yet this so-called EU reset is in fact a surrender of our hard-won Brexit freedoms, with rule taking from Brussels once again, the European Court of Justice back in charge, British fish handed over until 2038, and billions in payments back to the European Union. Will she please let the British people’s views be paramount, not the short-term views of the Government?