English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our fantastic parish and town councils, and I hope that Members from all parts of this House will support that new clause.

We have tabled new clause 70 because neighbourhood planning only works if communities can afford to take part. Without support, neighbourhood planning becomes a slogan. With support, it becomes genuine grassroots devolution. We believe that new clause 70 would plug that gap and ensure that real community voices are heard.

Finally, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to plug yet another gap that the Bill sadly leaves wide open, and we return to the theme of parish and town councils. Under the Bill, those could be sidelined, merged or absorbed without proper public consultation. New clause 41 closes that loophole by protecting parish and town councils from being swept aside in the rush to build bigger, centralised combined authorities. If the Government claim to trust communities, they must protect the governance closest to those communities, and new clause 41 delivers just that.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I like a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying, because I believe in communities, towns and villages being properly represented. However, names are important, too. Does she, as a Surrey MP, agree that instead of east Surrey and west Surrey, perhaps west Surrey and south Middlesex would be the correct name for the new authority, because of the area that is traditionally part of the county of Middlesex?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Blundell]

I truly support and welcome the Government’s commitment to national minimum standards, but I believe that they must be complemented by a restriction on out-of-area operations so that they can be enforced locally where necessary.

At a recent meeting of the Transport Committee, which is currently holding an inquiry on the private hire vehicle sector, we heard from a licensing officer from Blackpool council. When I asked whether his authority was able to keep track of the drivers operating within it, he stated:

“We are now at a stage where provisions on where an operator can operate vehicles do not seem to matter. We are not even in a position where an operator has to have a licence everywhere it operates; it does not.”

He went on to say:

“I know the limitations of my operational enforcement resource…chasing vehicles all over the country is not something we could deal or cope with.”

I know from conversations with Rochdale borough council’s licensing department that those sentiments are shared there, too. Standards are one thing, but without proper means of enforcement, they will not have the maximum impact on public safety.

I will now move to the substance of my new clause 83. Under the new clause, strategic authorities would have the power to require that journeys that start and end there are fulfilled by locally licensed operators. It would give local leaders power and the choice to adopt that as a solution. Considered together, new clause 83 and the Government amendments would encourage drivers to license locally and would ensure that if things go wrong, both drivers and passengers have the confidence that enforcement measures will be swift, considered and legitimate in the eyes of local authorities and local people. If reinforced by implementing national minimum standards, these two changes could revitalise the sector, and give both drivers and passengers the confidence and certainty they deserve.

I believe that there are no Members present today, no corner of society and, indeed, no drivers out there in the sector who believe the system as it stands is working well. It is oversaturated, with a lack of local accountability and an erosion of the ties between drivers and the communities they serve. The private hire and taxi sector is critical to our economy and for filling gaps in the local transport network, but for too long the safety of passengers and the ability of licensing authorities to do their job have been undermined for the sake of a model that is unfit for purpose. We must bring an end to out-of-area licensing and offer the sector the change for which it has been calling out for decades.

The Bill is about granting power to local people to make their own decisions that will change their communities for the better. This is one such a decision—one that we can no longer afford to avoid.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I rise to speak in support of my new clauses 85 and 86. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) for supporting both new clauses.

New clause 85 seeks to ensure that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex are once again aligned with the historic county, as they were for many hundreds of years—in fact, for well over a millennium. It was only in 1965, under the London Government Act 1963, that that changed. The entire history of the constituency that I represent has, except for in the past few decades, been a part of the historic county of Essex. New clause 85 would combine the historic Essex with the ceremonial Essex, which I believe would end the confusion and allow the people of my fine county to once again fully celebrate the rich heritage of the county in its entirety.

Let me explain a little further. Across the entire country, the identity of each county is very important to all our constituents. People are proud of their historic county identity, and it is reflected in so many ways—whether it is through sport, social activities, church or the local regiment. Whatever it may be, we are proud of our county identity, and it should not be muddled up with administrative councils, which chop and change, as we are now seeing again today. Historic and ceremonial counties are for cultural celebration and for historic purposes, so the lord lieutenants of the different historic counties and ceremonial counties really should be as one. That would end the confusion.

In my borough, which is the so-called London borough of Havering—everyone who comes to Havering knows that it is really Essex, not London at all—we are constantly confused about where we are. The people of my borough are tired of this, and they want the muddle and confusion, which was caused by bureaucrats in the 1960s, to end. It is a very simple thing to resolve. I say to the Minister that it would not affect any of the local government changes the Government are proposing. It is nothing to do with local government; this is purely ceremonial and historical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

My constituency is on the outskirts of London—we are not in London; we are very much in Surrey—but we suffer from the fact that many decisions that affect my constituents on a daily basis are made in London, often to our detriment, and we have absolutely no control over them. I recognise the strong point my hon. Friend is making, but even if he is able to withdraw from the administrative unit of London, he will not escape negative decision making by the current Mayor of London.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why fundamental reform of the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London needs to take place. Personally, I do not believe that we need the GLA. I believe we should transfer powers back to local boroughs, towns and communities. If we have some form of authority for London, it should deal purely with the capital—the central part of London. Frankly, do we need a GLA that goes all the way from Hampton Wick up to Havering-atte-Bower, and from Ruislip down to Biggin Hill? We do not; it is an unnecessary layer of government. I would prefer the authority, power and funding to go directly to our towns, villages and boroughs that are controlled locally by elected councillors, not a huge bureaucracy in City Hall that is unaccountable, undemocratic and has very little support among anyone I speak to.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I am interested in how far the hon. Gentleman would propose to go. Would he advocate the abolition for the Mayor of London?

[Andrew Rosindell]

Yes I would, personally. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall that our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, abolished the Greater London Council. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will remember that very well, because he sat on the GLC at the time. In 1986, the GLC was abolished and what happened? The power went back to each borough across London. We did not have to pay a huge precept. We paid our way for policing and the fire brigade and so on, but generally speaking the powers truly returned—as I hope the Liberal Democrats believe in—to local communities. We did not have an overarching bureaucracy interfering in everything we do, from planning to transport to policing. I would hope that the Liberal Democrats believe that powers should be held as locally as possible.

The overarching bureaucracy in City Hall, which is so unaccountable, really needs to go. No, I do not believe we need a Mayor of London. I believe we need to have local authorities working together where there are strategic matters to be discussed—transport, planning or infrastructure—but we do not need to create a monstrous bureaucracy. Margaret Thatcher was right to abolish the GLC and Tony Blair was absolutely wrong to bring back the GLA, with all its paraphernalia, bureaucracy and huge costs to the council tax payers of the Greater London area. On that note, I ask Members to please support new clauses 85 and 86 to restore our Essex identity and to give us the democratic right to decide our own future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]