Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Last month, the Government buckled under pressure about their lack of consultation with the Chagossian people on the shameful handover of sovereign British territory to Mauritius. If the process is genuinely intended to inform policy, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the views expressed to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee are free from external interference? How will its findings inform the Government’s decision on the future of the Chagos islands?

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee is engaging a wide range of Chagossians to ascertain their views on the implications of the treaty and will produce a report before Christmas. We have seen no evidence of Mauritian interference, and it is important to recognise the wide range of views in the Chagossian community. I very much look forward to reading the IRDC’s report when it is completed.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I hope the Minister will check that there are actually Chagossians and not outsiders taking part in that consultation. Anyway, let us try something else.

Given last week’s report that the Chancellor had a £4 billion surplus rather than a £20 billion deficit as previously suggested, will the Minister explain why the Government are pressing ahead with this eye-wateringly expensive £35 billion gift of British sovereign territory to Mauritius? Does the Minister not agree that scrapping that atrocious deal would be a better way to help the Chancellor restore fiscal credibility and save British taxpayers’ money?

[Stephen Doughty]

No matter how many times the hon. Gentleman repeats his wild claims about the cost of the deal, they are no more correct. I have been clear on multiple occasions about the cost of the deal. We will not scrimp on the national security of this country. The base is crucial for our security and that of our allies, and we have set out the costs very clearly.

Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Thank you, Ms Butler, and Ms McVey before you, for chairing the debate; it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I also thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for bringing this debate to the House on behalf of the vast numbers of people—198,966—who signed e-petition 700682. I have listened to the debate carefully. I have been moved by the passion and the deeply held, sincere concern heard from Members on both sides of the House.

No human being should be subject to the kind of inhumane treatment that we have all seen in Gaza in recent times. I hope and believe that everyone in this Chamber, whether we completely agree or not, wants the same outcome: to see peace and stability returned, and to see women, children and others who have suffered living in peace and returning to normal life. We all want to see that, whatever our opinions.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. Of course, I am always moved by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and I listen avidly whenever he speaks—we do not agree on much, but we do agree on some things. I also want to thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), who spoke earlier. We share the same part of Essex and east London, and our constituents have similar views on many issues. I will not refer to everyone who spoke this afternoon, but I thank them all.

Speaking on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, let me firmly put on record our support for President Trump’s peace plan for Gaza. As I said during the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2803 represents a major step towards restoring order, security and a pathway to peace. I sincerely hope that prosperity and peace will be returned for all the people of Gaza as a result. The United States has brought leadership, and the United Kingdom must stand shoulder to shoulder with our closest allies, especially the United States and Israel, if we are to have any hope of ending this conflict and building something better.

Since becoming shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have not had the opportunity to speak on this subject, as other shadow Ministers have spoken instead of me. I would like to put on record that I have always believed that Hamas—an Iranian satellite and a terrorist organisation responsible for atrocity upon atrocity, culminating in 7 October—can play no part whatsoever in the future governance of Gaza, let alone in civilised global politics. I am glad that many Members have said things along those lines this afternoon. Hamas’s contempt for human life and dignity is matched only by what appears to be their absolute hatred of Israel and the Jewish people and, from what I can see, the wider free world.

We have nothing in common with Hamas. Their repeated rejection of peace proposals, their game-playing over the release of deceased hostages and their brutal campaign of summary executions against Palestinian civilians tell us everything we need to know.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the shadow Minister agree that we in this place can and should condemn all acts of horror, terrorism and injustice anywhere and everywhere, whether it is Hamas or Israel perpetrating them?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I hate what I have seen on our television screens for more than two years. I condemn all unwarranted acts of violence—self-defence, we understand. We are deeply sad to see what is happening. We all want to see an end to this, so I absolutely respect the hon. Gentleman’s position and agree with him.

However, Hamas seek only chaos. They are completely uninterested in co-existence with Israel. I understand the strength of feeling expressed by the petitioners and many Members present this afternoon. No one can fail to be moved by the scale of suffering endured by innocent Palestinians. However, any approach that sidelines Israel will do nothing to get aid over the borders. All crossings, with the exception of Rafah, border Israel, so there has to be co-operation with Israel to get aid into Palestine. I believe that the UK must work with Israel to ensure that aid is flowing through the crossings effectively, safely and securely. Last week, the Foreign Secretary mentioned that she is working with her Israeli counterparts on the reopening of certain crossings into Gaza. What are the Government proposing specifically for each of the individual crossing points? I am sure that the Minister will answer that question later.

The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is visiting Israel at the moment. She is seeing for herself the humanitarian aid operation at the Kerem Shalom crossing, where trucks have been crossing into Gaza with aid supplies from Israel, the World Food Programme and partners in the region such as the United Arab Emirates. Maybe not all aid is getting through, but a lot of it is. She has also met with COGAT, and I believe she is the first British parliamentarian to visit the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, where she met with General Frank, who is heading up the operations to implement the 20-point plan. That shows the importance that the Conservatives place on the ceasefire, ensuring that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza and ensuring that Hamas is eliminated, so that the region can have the promise of a more peaceful and secure future.

The CMCC and COGAT are focused on getting 4,200 aid trucks into Gaza each week. Can the Minister confirm that this level of humanitarian assistance is getting through? Does he recognise the aid supply figures from COGAT? Does he agree with those figures? We often hear Ministers quote the UN figures, but will the Minister tell us whether he accepts that COGAT efforts are bringing in thousands of trucks of humanitarian aid a week, including vital winterisation supplies? Will the Minister also tell the House whether he or the Foreign Secretary have any plans to follow in the footsteps of the shadow Foreign Secretary by visiting the CMCC and meeting with COGAT? If they have not done so already, it is vital that they do so soon, given where we are in the plans.

The previous Government did everything in their power to increase humanitarian access. Working with allies, they secured commitments from the Government of Israel to open Erez crossing and the port of Ashdod to get aid into Gaza. Israel also agreed to extend the opening hours of the Kerem Shalom crossing point, and we were able to achieve commitments to increase the number of trucks entering Gaza. For a period, we saw an increase in the quantity of aid delivered. The United Kingdom supplied vital food and medical aid for innocent Palestinians. With the help of the UN and Cyprus, we managed to secure infrastructure, including the floating pier off the coast, to help get aid into the territory. I respect the fact that this is an immensely complicated and tragic situation, but the Government need to focus on practical and even novel solutions for getting around the bottlenecks.

Regarding UNRWA, we must not forget that it had to fire nine staff after investigations into their involvement in the appalling attack on Israel on 7 October. The testimony of Emily Damari about the location of her captivity is incredibly serious. UNRWA must sever all links to the Hamas terrorist group. It is critical that UN bodies ensure adequate vetting of personnel and activities, and that Catherine Colonna’s reforms be fully implemented as soon as possible. I hope the Minister will accept that Hamas has been using aid as a weapon by stealing and hoarding it, preventing Gazans from receiving it, and then profiteering from its sale. That is wholly unacceptable. What constructive steps are the Government taking with international partners to address aid diversion?

At the heart of President Trump’s peace plan is the establishment of an international stabilisation force. The United Kingdom has world-class peacekeeping, policing and stabilisation expertise. Will the Minister confirm that British expertise will not be wasted and that we have a plan to support the creation of that force alongside our allies? Does he have a view on what the ISF operating parameters should be? Does he think that it should move into the red zone? On the rebuilding of Gaza, what actions is the UK taking to support the establishment of alternative safe communities?

It is widely acknowledged that if the current ceasefire is to turn into a sustainable end to the conflict, Hamas must be removed from power and their terrorist infrastructure dismantled. What we need to hear today is how the Government intend to work with regional partners—Israel, Egypt, the UAE and the emerging Palestinian security structures—to achieve that essential objective. We also need to hear that Britain will play its part in creating security, peace and stability, and give the people of Palestine, Israel and the whole region hope for the future.

Gaza and Sudan

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the passing of the US-drafted resolution at the United Nations Security Council yesterday. The US has shown consistent leadership on the middle east, and for that we are grateful. Hamas must now release the final three deceased hostages. We keep their loved ones, and the families of all the deceased hostages, in the forefront of our thoughts. We cannot even begin to imagine what trauma they have endured.

Key to yesterday’s resolution was a mandate for the International Stabilisation Force, but can the Foreign Secretary set out exactly what Britain’s contribution will be to that force? The Government speak about the need for the force to be deployed quickly, to avoid a potential power vacuum being filled by Hamas. What is Britain’s contribution? Are we looking at technical assistance, the sharing of expertise or intelligence, funding, action on the ground, or all of the above? It is important that the Foreign Secretary is clear and precise about those details. Will she also update the House on which countries are expected to participate, and say what their contributions will be?

Of course, the removal of Hamas from power and their full disarmament are vital if we are to turn this ceasefire into a sustainable end to the conflict and the cycles of violence. Following yesterday’s vote, what practical contribution will the UK make to those efforts? The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there are several points in the US President’s plan specifically on that, so where does the UK dock into those initiatives? Has she identified which areas the UK will focus on as a contribution to the broader transitional day-after plan? Can she at least confirm that a fundamental curriculum and education overhaul in Gaza, and indeed the west bank, will be a key focus? We have seen huge strides elsewhere in the middle east in that domain, and this must now be a moment of reckoning for the curricula in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—that is vital if we are to build a sustainable peace.

On the immediate humanitarian crisis in Gaza, what practical actions is the Foreign Secretary undertaking with the Government of Israel to achieve the surge in aid for innocent civilians that we all want to see? Specifically, which crossings does she believe will need attention? What is the quantum of designated British aid that is not getting over the border into Gaza? Have specific proposals and solutions been conveyed by the British side to Israeli Government counterparts on how to address the bottlenecks that we all want to see resolved?

Turning to the situation in Sudan, in El Fasher and elsewhere we continue to witness atrocities, suffering and human misery beyond words, all in plain sight of a watching world. Accountability must be administered. In the immediate term, the UK should be trying to spearhead a step change in the level of pressure on the warring parties to agree a comprehensive ceasefire. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has argued, we need heavy new sanctions on key operators, and action to deter entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain the conflict. Will that be forthcoming, and what discussions is the Foreign Secretary having on that with counterparts in the US, the EU, the Sudan quad and others? Will she also update the House on the Government’s response to US efforts to bring about a humanitarian ceasefire, and say what role Britain is playing in that?

On the dire humanitarian conditions, it was confirmed at the Dispatch Box earlier this month that the shifting of frontiers in the conflict is affecting aid delivery. How has the situation evolved in the past two weeks, and what levers can be pulled to try and smash through obstacles to aid delivery? Finally, on day-after planning, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on efforts to build up the capacity and capabilities of organic civilian political groups, to give Sudan the best chance of moving to stable civilian government after a ceasefire? We have seen what the US has achieved through the UN Security Council on Gaza this week, and I hope that similar initiatives will be possible with regards to Sudan. As penholder, the UK Government have a special responsibility, so will the Foreign Secretary confirm her next steps on the UNSC? As the conflict moves from bad to worse, we must shift gear.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to the issues relating to Gaza and Sudan, and I will take his points in turn. We do not expect the UK to contribute troops to the international stabilisation force, but we are already providing military and civilian deployment into the civil-military co-ordination committee that is led by the US. It is drawing up practical arrangements for implementing the 20-point plan. On the nature of the role that we expect to continue to play, we already provide training for Palestinian police, for example, and I have met US military forces who are involved in that training. I met them in Jordan, and other countries are also offering to provide such training for Palestinian police, which will be critical to maintaining security and safety. We have also offered expertise on decommissioning. That is an area where, through the Northern Ireland experience, we have experience and expertise, mostly immediately around de-mining capabilities in terms of both funding and expertise.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of curriculum reform, which I agree needs to take place. That is a crucial part of the Palestinian Authority reforms, and I have discussed that directly with President Abbas. The importance of maintaining the commitments that the Palestinian Authority has made to curriculum reform must be central in both the west bank and in Gaza. On practical issues about the opening of crossings, we want to see all the crossings opened and restrictions lifted. The co-ordination committee, which has a UK presence, is working directly with the Israeli Government to seek to improve access and monitoring, and to improve arrangements to get more aid through. I continue to urge swifter action to get that desperately needed aid in place.

On Sudan, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for sanctions. I have had personal direct discussions with all members of the quad, including most recently the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week, and I know how strongly he feels about the terrible, horrendous atrocities that are taking place in Sudan. We will continue to offer our support to that process.

On aid delivery, based on what the UN and Tom Fletcher have been saying, it looks as though some of the routes into the region are currently completely inadequate, so security and infrastructure need to be provided to get the desperately needed scale of aid into the area. We will need to look at air routes as well as truck routes. He is right to point to the need for the organic support for Sudanese civilian organisations. It is crucial that ultimately we have a transition to a civilian Administration in Sudan and an end to the horrendous fighting, abuse and sexual violence that we have seen, with reports on all sides of those sorts of atrocities taking place.

Finally, US leadership has been incredibly important in achieving the ceasefire agreement and the peace process so far in Gaza, but it has also depended on the international community coming in alongside the US and working together to deliver the progress so far. We need that same international commitment for Sudan and we need the whole international community to pull together to deliver progress in the same way.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Thank you Madam Chair. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and to those of His Majesty’s Government. I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation of the Bill, which we will all agree has been extremely helpful.

The Bill is a significant measure and commands broad support across the House. In plain English, if implemented correctly, the measures in the Bill could play a major part in protecting the two thirds of our planet that lie beyond any one nation’s control.

As I said on Second Reading, the United Kingdom has a proud record of global leadership in ocean conservation. Our island nation boasts the greatest maritime explorers and conservationists in history. I believe that we have always seen the oceans, which have been key to our national and international success story, as treasures that require protection.

However, as with all international frameworks, even those that are without controversy and especially those that confer upon our Ministers prerogative powers, the details really matter. The amendments proposed by His Majesty’s Opposition are by no means intended to undermine the Bill. Instead, they seek to strengthen it by ensuring that Parliament remains properly informed, ministerial powers are exercised accountably, and the new regulatory burdens placed on British science and industry are managed in a proportionate way.

The first of the amendments in my name relates to clause 7, which deals with reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. Those clauses concern, respectively, priorities of marine genetic resources and databases of digital sequence information. As drafted, clause 7 requires a separate report to be provided to the Secretary of State every two years from each repository and each database, detailing the number of times samples or data have been accessed, viewed or downloaded. Our amendment, simple though it may seem, would allow those two reports to be combined into a single report, provided that all the necessary information is fully included. It is a modest step to reduce duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy.

Many institutions, whether they be our universities, the Natural History Museum or the National Oceanography Centre, among many other institutions in this country, will operate both repositories and databases. It makes no sense to require two separate reports when a single consolidated report could serve exactly the same function. The scientists of our island home lead the world in marine biodiversity research. We should ensure that compliance with this new regime is as straightforward as possible, while still meeting our obligations under the agreement. The amendment, therefore, aims to strike a sensible balance between upholding the requisite protections prescribed by the treaty, while ensuring that we do not unnecessarily hinder our researchers, especially those belonging to smaller enterprises or university projects. I hope that the Minister will view it in that way.

Our second amendment introduces new clause 1, “Powers of the Secretary of State: review”, which would require the Secretary of State, within three years of the Act coming into force, to lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. The report would describe how those powers have been used, for what purposes, and, crucially, how effectively they have been implemented. It would also assess whether the use of those powers has aligned with the objectives of the international agreement itself

We live in a nation where Parliament is sovereign. While I respect that this is not a unique case, nevertheless Parliament is owed the right to proper scrutiny. The Bill grants extensive powers to the Secretary of State: powers to make regulations that could amend primary legislation, impose civil sanctions and even create new offences. Clauses 9 and 11, in particular, confer broad regulatory authority to implement future decisions of the international conference of the parties. It is entirely appropriate that Parliament should have the opportunity, after a period of operation, to review how those powers have been used. We have seen in other fields that delegated powers can expand far beyond what Parliament originally intended, so a statutory review clause would ensure that we learn from experience and recalibrate if necessary.

New clause 2 would enhance trust and, I think, trust in the treaty itself. The general public and Parliament want assurance that international obligations are implemented in the interests that have been set out by international agreements and, importantly, in our own national interest, and that the Government remain answerable to this House for the way in which they do so. I believe a report after three years is hardly an onerous expectation. It would create a constructive means of evaluating whether the mechanisms in the Bill are working as intended and strengthen rather than hinder the effectiveness of this legislation.

Amendment 5 concerns clause 12, which sets out the procedure for regulations under clause 11. Clause 11 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in response to decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement, including in relation to area-based management tools, such as marine protected areas, and emergency measures under article 24. Clause 11(3)(c) specifically allows the Secretary of State to charge fees in connection with the exercise of functions under those regulations. However, as currently drafted the Bill does not require those fee-setting regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Our amendment would correct that and ensure that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny.

Fees are in effect a form of taxation. They may affect universities, research institutes and private companies engaged in marine science or biotechnology. The sums may not be vast, but they are nevertheless material. It is only right that Parliament should have the chance to debate and, if necessary, amend or reject such regulations before they take effect. The affirmative procedure is a reasonable safeguard, and I hope the Government will agree.

Finally, I turn to new clause 2, which would require biennial reporting on the implementation and enforcement of the Bill. Under this proposal, the Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament a report every two years, beginning within two years of enactment, detailing how the Bill is being implemented and enforced. The report would include data on access to samples and digital sequence information; information on the number and nature of the enforcement actions; an assessment of the impact of the Bill on business, scientific research and the fishing industry; a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Bill; and an assessment of the impact of those changes. The intention of the new clause is to keep Parliament and the public informed about how this complex framework works in practice.

This Bill touches on sensitive and wide-ranging interests, such as environmental protection, scientific innovation, intellectual property and economic activity on the high seas. It is right that we protect biodiversity, but we must also ensure that the UK remains a place where science and enterprise can flourish, as they always have done before. Regular reporting would help us to understand whether the balance is being struck correctly.

Are our scientists able to conduct research without being bogged down in excessive paperwork? Are our marine industries able to operate competitively while meeting environmental standards? Those questions need to be answered. Are our enforcement agencies adequately resourced? That is another important question the Minister needs to reassure the House on. These are legitimate questions that will inevitably deserve answers. I believe that such transparency would demonstrate leadership internationally. The UK has always prided itself on being a model of good governance. By voluntarily reporting on our own implementation of the agreement, we can encourage other nations to do likewise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for guiding the Bill through Parliament and echo her thanks to all those involved in its passage. I am pleased about the cross-party agreement on the Bill—that is as it should be.

On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I state my support for the core purpose of the Bill. It is right that we act to safeguard the biodiversity of the high seas, promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources, and establish clear assessment and management tools to prevent harm to the ocean environment. It was on that basis that, as has been acknowledged, the previous Conservative Government played a key role in negotiating the treaty in the first place. The United Kingdom should meet the obligations prescribed in the treaty, with the leadership for which we are known around the world. As an island nation with a proud maritime heritage stretching back centuries, we understand better than most nations the value and the vulnerability of our oceans.

However, although the Bill enables us to fulfil our treaty commitments, it also assigns wide-ranging powers to Ministers to implement future decisions taken by international bodies—decisions that could, in time, have significant implications for British science, industry and innovation. Parliament must retain the ability to scrutinise, question and, where appropriate, challenge the use of those powers. That was the spirit behind our amendments, reflecting the fundamental principle that international co-operation must never come at the expense of proper democratic oversight by this House.

The United Kingdom’s long-established record as a custodian of the seas is strengthened by the extraordinary biodiversity of our overseas territories. The Blue Belt initiative—which includes many of our territories, including Pitcairn, Anguilla, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Falkland Islands and the British Indian Ocean Territory—has rightly made Britain a global leader in marine protection. I therefore welcome the Bill’s application to the overseas territories under clause 20—and now, through the Government amendment to clause 24, to the Isle of Man—but proper consultation with those territories and dependencies, which is essential, has been starkly absent from the Government’s shameful handling of the Chagos Islands. Our overseas territories are part of the British family and deserve to be treated with the respect and consideration that such a relationship demands.

The challenge of protecting the oceans is neither partisan nor subject to open conflict between nations. Our seas sustain every nation, and the success of such co-operation on the high seas will depend on the integrity of domestic implementation. If we are to lead internationally, we must first put our own house firmly in order, as we are doing in passing the Bill.

As we send this Bill to the other place, I hope that the Government will reflect on the constructive contributions made from across the House and ensure that the final Bill upholds our environmental responsibilities and our democratic principles. Britain can and must lead by example. We owe it to future generations to get this right. As Sir David Attenborough said:

“If we save the sea, we save our world.”

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Modern Day Slavery: Pakistan

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and especially today—thank you for saving the day by turning up to chair this important debate. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing another vital debate before the House in the characteristically noble fashion we have grown to expect from him. I also commend the other Members who have contributed to it, including the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), who always speaks with passion and principle. She rightly highlighted examples of the exploitation of children, women and vulnerable people in Pakistan today. She said we cannot stay silent on slavery, and she is absolutely right: Britain needs to have a voice on this issue. She is also right that there should be a link between UK aid to Pakistan and dealing with the atrocious issue we are debating, so that we can get rid of modern-day slavery in that country.

I commend the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who spoke about the Ahmadi Muslims. I myself have spoken about the way they are treated, and she is absolutely right that that is another area that needs to be highlighted and that we need to support that community. She said that Britain’s voice matters—absolutely it does—and we should use that voice strongly and clearly against the persecution and ill treatment we have been discussing this afternoon. I thank her for her comments.

Modern slavery is one of the greatest moral outrages of our time. More than 50 million people are estimated to be under the yoke of slavery across the world—more than at any point in human history. It is a sobering truth that while we in Britain debate our country’s historic involvement in slavery, millions of men, women and children are being born, sold and trapped into slavery today.

Pakistan is a Commonwealth partner and a friend of the United Kingdom, and only 70 years ago we shared the same head of state, Queen Elizabeth II. It is because of that close connection that Britain can raise, and ultimately assist in eradicating, the concerns we are debating. According to the Global Slavery Index, 2.3 million people are living in modern slavery in Pakistan, making it one of the top 20 worst affected nations in the world, and 10 or 11 people in every 1,000 are enslaved, which is an outrage. To contextualise that, throughout the entire 200 years that Britain was involved in the transatlantic slave trade, 3.4 million people were taken from Africa to the new world. In Pakistan today, 67% of that number are living in modern slavery.

As we have heard this afternoon, the brick kilns of Pakistan are perhaps the clearest example. There are over 20,000 kilns across the country, employing up to 3 million workers, many of whom are trapped in bonded labour, with entire families working 14 to 16 hours a day in suffocating heat and toxic fumes to pay off debts that can never actually be repaid. These are generational debts of forced labour, which are passed from parents to children, binding generation after generation to indentured servitude in many of these kilns. Workers are paid barely enough to survive, let alone escape. Children—some of them as young as five—mould bricks alongside their parents. Women, often from minority faith backgrounds, face harassment, violence and sexual abuse from their employers.

The majority of brick kiln workers are from among Pakistan’s poorest and least educated, and too often from religious minorities, including Christians and Hindus, who are disproportionately affected. Many families are lured into bondage by loans, which they take out as a last resort to pay for food, medical bills and dowries. Illiteracy means they rarely understand the exploitative interest rates or the false records maintained by their employers. Their debts are also recorded informally and arbitrarily, which means they are effectively impossible to contest. Unfortunately, these workers are invisible to the state.

As was referred to, Pakistan passed the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act in 1992, but over three decades later enforcement appears sporadic and ineffective. In the last Parliament, a report from the APPG for the Pakistani minorities, chaired by the hon. Member for Strangford, rightly said that

“successive governments have lacked the political will or capacity to enforce the law.”

The same report recommended that His Majesty’s Government use their aid budget to strengthen monitoring and compliance with International Labour Organisation standards, and even earmark £500,000 to hire inspectors to carry out unannounced inspections of brick kilns.

The aid budget might be a controversial topic at present, but I say to the Minister that if we are going to spend money on development aid, we should surely take up the mantle of our forefathers by taking the fight to slavery. When the Minister replies, will she tell us whether the Government will support the creation of a dedicated UK-funded inspection mechanism for Pakistan’s brick kilns? Will the FCDO consider making aid conditional on measurable progress in tackling bonded labour? Will the Department for Business and Trade issue clearer guidance to UK firms about the risk of slavery in supply chains linked to Pakistan’s construction sector?

Although we are focusing particularly on Pakistan, I am sad to say that it is far from unique. Across Asia, Africa and, shockingly, even Europe, cases of forced labour, human trafficking and child exploitation still persist. The ILO estimates that forced labour generates $236 billion in illegal profits every year, which in state terms is roughly the size of the Portuguese, Czech or Greek economies. It is huge.

As I alluded to, this is also very much a problem for the United Kingdom. British consumers unknowingly buy goods produced through forced labour in a range of areas, such as fashion, electronics, seafood and construction materials. Will the Minister therefore outline what steps are being taken to update, reform and strengthen the Modern Slavery Act? Do the Government agree that development aid must be conditional on the efforts taken by recipients to tackle modern day slavery?

This House must not shy away from the fact that our nation has been the ultimate force for good in the world. We should speak proudly of Britain’s historic role in abolishing the slave trade, not apologise for it. It was this country that led the world—at great cost—in suppressing the slave trade in the 19th century. The Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron rescued tens of thousands of enslaved Africans from ships flying other nations’ flags, and policed the eradication of the slave trade across the seas.

Today, the same voices that denounce our ancestors for slavery’s past—a trade that unfortunately predates civilisation as we know it—too often turn a blind eye to slavery’s present, as we have discussed. They are quick to pull down statues, yet slow to stand up for the children working in brick kilns, mines and sweatshops. It is easy to virtue signal about history; it is harder to confront the uncomfortable truth that slavery continues today in countries we trade with, partner with and fund, let alone in a Commonwealth nation such as Pakistan.

We should not therefore indulge in moral self-flagellation, but lead once again in the cause of abolition. The UK should prioritise anti-slavery measures in all development programmes in Pakistan; support NGOs providing legal aid, education and rehabilitation to bonded labourers; push for the digital registration of all brick kiln workers to bring them within the formal economy; and champion the global partnerships to eradicate slavery by 2030.

I suggest to the Minister that the FCDO publish an annual report on progress made against modern slavery globally. I emphasise that the UK should once again lead internationally, as we did two centuries ago, to ensure that every human can live in freedom.

Shamefully, modern slavery is not a relic of the past; it remains very much a stain on our present. The children in Pakistan’s brick kilns deserve the same rights, the same dignity and the same hope that we take for granted here in these islands. The Britain I know and love stands for freedom and for individual liberty, and is wholesale against oppression, whether that comes in the form of the state or the corporation.

If we are to influence affairs abroad, there is no finer crusade than the moral crusade to unchain children and their mothers and fathers from a life spent in forced labour and exploitation. Britain must lead this cause—just as we did before.

Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for securing this important debate, which is extremely topical, because this matter is being debated across the United Kingdom at the moment.

There is no doubt that the intentions behind the creation of the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights were noble. In the aftermath of the second world war, Europe lay traumatised by tyranny. It was with the backing of the then Opposition leader—indeed, one of the greatest figures in British and world history—Sir Winston Churchill that the United Kingdom took a leading role in constructing a system intended to ensure that totalitarianism could never happen again.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will not, because time is very limited.

Yet Churchill had the foresight to say, on Europe:

“We help, we dedicate, we play a part, but we are not merged with and do not forfeit our insular or Commonwealth character…we are a separate—and specially-related ally and friend.”

I agree with Churchill. I believe in a Britain that co-operates, not a Britain that is subordinate to foreign judges and international bodies with no democratic accountability.

Those who claim that by leaving the ECHR we are somehow rolling back on human rights do a disservice to their ancestors, for Britain’s commitment to human liberty did not begin in 1950. It began centuries earlier—800 years before the convention was drafted, there was the principle of habeas corpus. Two decades before common-law courts were housed in the very hall in which we are having this debate today, Magna Carta of 1215 reaffirmed:

“No free man shall be…imprisoned…except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.”

We produced, in succession, the Petition of Right in 1628, the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 and the Bill of Rights in 1689, among a long list of other achievements.

We were the first nation in history that not only abolished slavery at home but dedicated the full force of our political, military and economic might to its global abolition. The crowning achievement was the island nation’s establishment of the premise of parliamentary sovereignty under a constitutional monarchy, which has been the envy of nations around the world.

Those achievements were not bestowed upon us by foreign courts or organisations. On the contrary, it was because of these British achievements that the ECHR came into existence, to instil in the nations of Europe that lacked such traditions the same freedoms that Britons had been enjoying for centuries. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) introduced a Bill proposing our withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, which I was proud to sponsor.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked Lord Wolfson to conduct a thorough legal analysis of whether the United Kingdom can properly govern itself while remaining in the ECHR, with five core tests. It clearly indicated that the ability of the Government to control borders, to protect veterans from vexatious pursuit, to ensure that British citizens have priority in public services and to uphold Parliament’s decisions on sentencing and other matters without endless legal obstruction is significantly constrained by our ECHR membership. So a future Conservative Government will withdraw from the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act, so that the elected Government of the day can implement policies supported by the British people in a democratic election and uphold and strengthen human rights protections through our common law tradition, just as sovereign democracies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand do, based on institutions and principles that originate from this very nation.

This is about democracy. It is this Parliament that should decide, not international bureaucrats or international judges—it is the British people, via a sovereign Parliament. That is the entire history of this country, and to jettison and give away that power is a shameful negation of the democratic birthright of the United Kingdom.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Minister, the proceedings are due to conclude at 6.30 pm. You may wish to give Ms Eccles a few moments to wind up the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Last week, Labour voted against our amendment, which would have given the House of Commons a say on the Government’s reckless decision to surrender £35 billion of taxpayers’ hard-earned money to Mauritius for the privilege of giving away our own sovereign territory, but we still have no certainty from the Government about the fate of the vital Diego Garcia base after the 99-year period. What is stopping Mauritius demanding billions more if the UK wishes to extend the use of Diego Garcia for another 40 years? Would it not be more sensible to save the money, ditch the surrender deal and the keep the Chagos islands British?

[Chris Elmore]

As the hon. Gentleman knows from the many questions that I have answered on this issue, and indeed the debate we had in this place that secured the Bill’s Third Reading, the cost of the agreement in today’s money is £101 million, and the net present value over 99 years is £3.4 billion. However much he comes up with other fantasy figures, they are simply incorrect; these are verified by the Government Actuary’s Department. If he wants to talk about spending and value, I will not apologise for spending on our national security and keeping this country and our allies safe. For comparison, he might like to reflect on the fact that the annual payment is 20% less than the cost of the festival of Brexit.

International Day of Democracy

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this timely debate to mark the International Day of Democracy. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition I absolutely endorse her words about Jimmy Lai; her constituent should be released immediately.

It is right that this debate has been brought to the Floor of the House today, and that we all pause and reflect on the centrality of democracy, which in various forms runs right the way through our own national story and to the principles that we the United Kingdom hold dear across the world. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the birthplace of parliamentary democracy. Our history, our institutions and our very identity as a nation are bound up by that great achievement of democracy.

The story of our constitution—the balance between Crown and Parliament, and the empowerment of the individual through common law—was a British innovation that has evolved organically over many centuries. By the good fortune of our history and the wisdom of our forebears, we achieved a parliamentary system that blends monarchy and an upper Chamber, and which includes the state Church, the judiciary, science, the armed forces, academia and business. Of course, we have the vehicle to represent the popular will of the people here in this democratically elected House of Commons. Despite what some would describe as anachronisms of history, I believe that we in this country have a model parliamentary democracy. At the heart of our democracy is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty: our people, through their elected representatives, are the final authority. That is the cornerstone of our freedom.

Britain’s democratic reach extends far beyond these islands. From the very outset of our imperial past, England, then Great Britain, and then the United Kingdom was able to replicate the best of our democratic traditions in the far reaches of the planet. In many of our former colonies, the right to vote was established and extended even more broadly than it was at the same time in the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth of Nations embodies these democratic principles: 56 nations bound together not by force, but by free choice and by the shared democratic values enshrined in the Commonwealth charter. I believe that the Commonwealth of Nations is an undervalued institution. To have its headquarters a mere few minutes’ walk from where we sit today surely makes us the envy of any western democracy.

I read with great interest ahead of this debate the briefing from the Westminster Foundation for Democracy —an organisation that I was proud to serve as a board member for nine years and have worked with for 20 to 30 years. It was established by John Major’s Government following the fall of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain, at the time when Margaret Thatcher was our Prime Minister. We commemorate the 100th anniversary of her birth next month, on 13 October. As we all know, Mrs Thatcher was a courageous leader, who was not afraid to oppose communism and stood up for freedom and democracy in Europe, resulting in an end to the communist tyranny that dominated the eastern side of the continent.

In 1993, I established a freedom training programme, with the support of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, through the Conservative party’s international office and the European Young Conservatives, which I chaired at the time, to help to spread the ideas of free people, free nations, free markets, democracy and the rule of law. We were doing all that via sister parties; the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, all political parties did the same. I worked with countries ranging from Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia to Belarus—where I launched the Free Belarus campaign in 1997—Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Moldova and Albania, as well as Ukraine and Russia, and even nations as far away as Argentina, a country that regained its democracy after Margaret Thatcher ensured the defeat of the military dictatorship in 1982 by the forces of the Crown in the south Atlantic.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am afraid not, because we are very limited for time.

Britain should do more to strengthen international democracy, and the Commonwealth is a perfect vehicle for that. We have seen a queue of nations, particularly on the African continent, that want to join the Commonwealth. A good example of that is Togo. I am proud to have assisted that nation’s accession to the Commonwealth, which formally took place in 2022, following my visit to Togo in 2019. Therefore I ask the Minister: what are the Government doing to assist the Commonwealth with its operations abroad? Surely the Commonwealth should be central to this Government’s strategy in promoting democracy and our democratic traditions abroad.

We are seeing the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world. I am thinking of, among others, the People’s Republic of China, Russia and Iran, the leaders of which came together in a show of force in Beijing only a fortnight ago. These countries pose a serious threat to democracy around the world. Therefore I ask the Minister: why are the Government willing to give the world’s leading authoritarian country the largest embassy in Europe and a base to spy on its dissenting citizens—those who simply disagree with Chinese communism? These nations have openly expressed their intent of reshaping the international system, so how is Britain making use of its seat on the UN Human Rights Council to push back against those who would seek to water down our democratic norms?

Also, of course, there is the matter of the Chagos islands. The Government denied the Chagossian people any form of serious consultation over the future of their homeland and ultimately decided to hand their islands, which belong to them, over to a nation in cahoots with China. Will the Minister reflect on the discussion we have had today and give the Chagossian people the democratic right, which I believe they are entitled to and which all of us, regardless of party, are supporting today—the right to determine their own future? That is democracy. Decolonisation must mean giving self-determination to those whose homeland it is. Why should our loyal and God-fearing British Chagossian friends be denied that right?

In closing, I will mention, as many Members have done today, the horrifying event that took place in the United States of America last week. Charlie Kirk’s murder was, I believe, an affront to the democratic values that have bound our two nations together for hundreds of years. Of course, Members across the House may not have agreed with Charlie’s views on a number of issues—we all disagree, on all kinds of issues—but this is a place where we can discuss our differences and the pursuit of truth in well-intentioned debate, without intimidation, hatred or violence. So I believe it is fitting to conclude with a quote from Charlie that sums him up best. He is someone who I actually met, when he came to the House of Commons in 2018—I gave him a tour and he went to Speaker’s House for a Christian celebration. Let me end my comments today by quoting from Charlie, because I believe that what he said encapsulates the very issue we are discussing today:

“When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group…What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.”

Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I welcome the opportunity to bring to the Floor of the House the issue of the impact on British society of the Equality Act 2010, a topic that I believe is increasingly being raised not only by my constituents in Romford, but more widely across the United Kingdom by people whose lives are affected on a daily basis because of this legislation. It has also been the subject of detailed research in the recent report from the think-tank Don’t Divide Us, which was co-authored by Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert and Dr Anna Loutfi, and which I commend to Members of all parties and to the wider public.

For centuries, our common-law tradition has been at the vanguard in the defence of what we consider our liberties as Britons. Ushered in 900 years ago and emboldened by Magna Carta in 1215, common law enshrined the once revolutionary principle that all individuals are equal before the law, judged not as members of groups, but as subjects of the Crown, with inherent rights. From that tradition came trial by jury, which has its origins in Anglo-Saxon England, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. Were those gifts from Brussels or Strasbourg? Of course not. They are the hard-won fruits of our own history and the innovative quality of our forebears and the generations that have come before us.

When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, we were told by the now Baroness Harman that it would end discrimination, give everyone a fair chance in life and bring transparency. Those are fine words indeed, yet they give the impression that Parliament can, through sheer willpower, eliminate some of the more damaging and derisive aspects of human nature. Fifteen years on, the reality is, I am sad to say, very different. The Act has not united our country; it has divided it. It has not reduced discrimination; it has fuelled grievance. It has not strengthened our traditions of fairness; it has undermined them. In fact, it has fanned the very flames that it sought to extinguish.

In the first instance, the Act is woefully drafted. Let us take as an example the alleged definition of race. Section 9 defines that as including, but not limited to, “colour; nationality; ethnic or national origins.” That is imprecise and confusing and has generated a grey area in law. Simply put, it is a poor expression of parliamentary intention, whatever that was at the time. We are also seeing absurd contradictions. Section 13(5) bans racial segregation, yet guidance under the Equality Act allows organisations to create separate spaces based on combinations of protected characteristics. In practice, that could mean the state sanctioning racial segregation in Britain in 2025, all in the name of equality.

The Act and the imported ideology that underpins it have created a culture of division and victimhood. It is the legislative foundation of what today is called DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion—and the ever-expanding industry of woke training sessions and quotas.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

As bad as that situation is, it is in fact accentuated and worsened by the prevailing situation in Northern Ireland, where not only have we equality legislation, but, pursuant to article 2 of the protocol governing post-Brexit arrangements, there are applied additional so-called rights that have been used by activist judges to strike down already two pieces of legislation from this Parliament—the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Whether one agrees with the content or not, is it not quite appalling that within one part of the United Kingdom there are foreign jurisdictions imported through the protocol that give different so-called rights from elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Before I call Andrew Rosindell again, I remind Members that if they would like to make a significant contribution today, they should bob, and I will get them in for the debate. I call Andrew Rosindell.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right that in this country, sadly, we have divided our own nation by treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the kingdom. That was a huge error by, I am afraid to say, the last Conservative Government, which agreed to the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor framework. I am against both, and I look forward to a future Government repealing them so that we have one United Kingdom, where all people in these islands are treated equally and the same.

As set out clearly by Don’t Divide Us, the truth is that the Equality Act should really be called the inequality Act. Instead of treating every citizen as an individual equal before the law, the Equality Act elevates certain so-called protected characteristics and encourages people to see themselves not as fellow Britons, but as members of competing groups. Far from promoting individual merit, the Equality Act is simply state-sponsored identity politics.

What has been the result? Our English legal system has sadly been Americanised through the introduction of a corrosive culture of litigation in the workplace. Since 2017, race discrimination claims in employment tribunals have tripled, with more than 200,000 cases. Yet only 5% have been upheld, which tells us something very important: either Britain is riddled with invisible discrimination that even our judges cannot detect, which, given the richness of our legal traditions, I simply do not accept, or the law is unfit for purpose. In practice, it has turned the workplace into a battleground of claims and counterclaims. Despite the small number of successful claims, the statistics demonstrate the damage caused in places of work. Victim culture has not only been allowed to dominate the workplace, but been actively encouraged by the legislation.

To take one example, in the case of Williams v. Nottingham, the judge noted:

“the claimant thinks the existence of a ‘racial disparity’ is in…itself proof of racism”.

However, the damage goes much deeper. The Equality Act is not simply a tidying-up of previous anti-discrimination laws; as hinted earlier, it represents a wholesale shift away from our common-law tradition where everyone is equal before the law towards a continental EU-style system based on substantive equality, group rights and bureaucratic enforcement. It was inspired by EU directives, in direct contradiction of our legal heritage. It hands enormous power to quangos, activist lawyers and DEI consultants, while eroding the space for free thought, free speech and personal judgment.

Some right hon. and hon. Members suggest that repealing the Equality Act would mean enabling inequality, but that is simply wrong. Just as repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 would not abolish human rights, repealing the Equality Act would not abolish equality. Human rights and equality existed long before these Blairite statutes. In fact, equality as we would define it today finds its roots here in these islands of the United Kingdom.

The underlying ideology of diversity is not neutral, as many on the left of politics suggest. It treats diversity as an unqualified good and, by implication, majority identity—whether English, Scots, Christian or British—as a problem to be managed. That is why so many of our constituents feel that these laws are not written for them and certainly not in their interests. The majority who simply want to live by the law, pay their taxes and contribute to society feel increasingly alienated by a system that tells them they have privilege that must be checked, while others are encouraged to claim special treatment. That does not sound like equality to me.

The Equality Act has given rise to a sprawling industry, made up of an army of bureaucrats, consultants, trainers and lawyers, all feeding off the taxpayer. Repealing it, as I am advocating today, would mean considerable savings, as vast sums of public money are poured into funding this circus. Repealing the legislation would both restore common sense to our institutions and deliver real value for money to the taxpayer. Estimates suggest substantial savings, with annual reductions in compliance costs running into tens or probably thousands of millions—it is very hard to quantify, but it is a huge sum of money when we consider all the public institutions that spend money on promoting the DEI agenda, money that should be going to our frontline public services instead.

The NHS Confederation has indicated that DEI roles alone are costing the taxpayer nearly £40 million, and I am sure that is an underestimate of what is really being spent. That is just one sector; goodness only knows what the total bill is across the public sector, in local government, the police and educational institutions—and let us not forget the BBC. It is time to put the taxpayer first and end this costly charade.

The private sector and the corporate world have also been sucked into this dangerous ideology, spending vast sums of money in ticking every woke box while engaging in constant virtue signalling. None of this is cost-free to the public either: ultimately, it all must be paid for out of the pockets of their customers. Some will say, “But you had 14 years in government—why didn’t you repeal it?” to which I say that I, the Member of Parliament for Romford, have opposed the Equality Act from the very beginning. I never believed it would deliver what was promised, and I have consistently warned of the dangers of this ideological agenda. Sadly, too many in my party doubled down on it; some even wanted to extend it. I know that the shadow Minister here today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), is not of that view, but sadly, over the last 14 years, many in my party sucked it all up, carried on with it and wanted to extend it. That was a grave mistake, and Britain is suffering as a result.

The Labour Government talk of introducing a new race equality Act—another bright idea from the same failed mindset. The Equality Act has caused so much harm; adding another layer of identity politics into the law will make matters even worse, and I urge the Government to rethink that idea.

Likewise, we increasingly hear calls to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia. What kind of society do we want to live in? One where these proposed definitions conflate criticism of an ideology or a religion with hatred of people? Criticising Islam as a religion is not the same as hating people of the Muslim faith. Indeed, freedom of thought and freedom of speech require the ability to critique religious ideas, no matter what the religion may be. To criminalise such critique would be wholly inconsistent with the liberal, democratic principles that have evolved in this country over centuries.

It is more important than ever that we as Members of Parliament, in the mother of all Parliaments, do not cower from taking decisions that, at face value, may seem unpopular. Trust me: the residents of my constituency of Romford, and in every corner of the United Kingdom, would wholeheartedly endorse the reversal of these laws, as the problems we face lie at the heart of the legislation itself.

In my opinion, we should repeal the Equality Act root and branch, we should repeal the Human Rights Act, and the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European convention on human rights. Indeed, we should dismantle the Blairite constitutional reforms that have corroded our democracy and wedged our politics between a long-standing tradition of parliamentary sovereignty on the one hand, where power rests in this place—the Crown in Parliament—and an attempt at an American-style separation of powers on the other hand that has led to the outsourcing of Parliament’s ability to govern to so-called experts.

Those systems are mutually exclusive, and we must pick one. As a Conservative and Unionist, I see the intrinsic value of defending the constitutional traditions that have embedded themselves in these islands for 1,000 years and that have been exported successfully around the world, to the Commonwealth nations in particular. We must return to the great principle that has served this country well for centuries: equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or background. That is the British way. That is our common law tradition. That is the true way to guarantee equality.

The Equality Act is not bringing our people together; rather, it is driving them apart. It is fuelling an imported woke culture, an unmeritocratic DEI bureaucracy and a corrosive culture of grievance. We must therefore challenge the equality law house of cards constructed over previous decades and topple it to the ground—or face the prospect of an ever more divided society. We should be proud to identify ourselves as British first and foremost and be truly glad to live in a society where all are treated equally under the ancient laws and customs that have made these cherished islands the great nation that it is and must continue to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for chairing today’s debate, which has been extremely valuable. We have heard excellent contributions. There have been different opinions, but we have debated this issue in a respectful way. There are issues to be addressed, and all Members who spoke today have made extremely valid points, coming from different angles. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for his remarks. I took on board the point he made about caste discrimination, which is rarely spoken about. I thank him for drawing that to our attention.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes incredibly valid points in all the debates in which he speaks. He made the point that we may have differences—we all do, as we are all individuals; none of us are the same—but we have to live side by side, and legislation should empower the British people to live side by side in a free society, not pit them against one another and accentuate division by emphasising differences between us. We should be united as British people, rather than looking at how we can be more divided and act like we are victims. Too many in our society today are doing that because the Equality Act has created that culture.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made extremely powerful comments, and I agree with everything she said, particularly about the public sector—especially local government—and how diversity culture has taken over, wasting so much money, causing so many divisions and ignoring issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made the point about focusing on what matters to real people in the real world, rather than looking inwards. Let us focus on providing good, efficient public services rather than draining resources with the diversity agenda.

I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). They also made extremely valid points, particularly about the division of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, which I have always opposed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey got absolutely to the point of where this has all gone wrong. All of us want to see people treated fairly and decently in a society in which freedom is cherished, but it does not all have to be legislated for. Often things evolve; society changes in a natural way. If we try to legislate for everything, that is just a gift to the lawyers, judges and consultants, and all the people who will monetise legislation that gives them the opportunity to.

I have always respected the Minister, and she spoke brilliantly today. She made points that I did not agree with, but many that I did agree with. I think we have all been subjected to hateful language—as Members of Parliament, we get that probably more than most people—and hatred is wrong in any context. We should always treat people with respect, kindness and generosity, but at the same time prevent those with bad intentions from causing more divisions, so our legislation needs to be minimal rather than opening up more opportunities for division in society.

Ultimately, I believe in freedom—freedom with responsibility. I do not believe that diversity is always the right answer. It can cause division, and I think equality can sometimes be the opposite of freedom, so let us get back to basics. Let us be proud of our British heritage, which has always been based on fairness and equality under the law of these islands.

I thank all Members for participating in this important debate and I say to those who have not had the chance: please get a copy of the Don’t Divide Us report, because it explains a lot of things that we as Members of Parliament should be addressing today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The Government have now been forced to admit the real cost of the catastrophic Chagos surrender deal: it is not £3.4 billion—oh no, Mr Speaker—it is a mind blowing £34.7 billion, which is 10 times more that we were told. No wonder Mauritius is planning tax cuts of its own, and it is British businesses and families who will pay the price. This deal leaves our country poorer, our defence capabilities damaged and our standing in the world weakened. Will the Minister now apologise to the British people for this epic failure in diplomacy, withdraw his Chagos surrender Bill and keep the islands British?

[Stephen Doughty]

How ever many times the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) or the Conservative party in its emails to supporters make this claim about the cost, it does not mean that it is true—it is not. The £30 billion figure is inaccurate and misleading. It is wrong to ignore the cost of inflation and the change in the value of money, over the real cost of a deal that lasts 99 years. The figures are verified by the Government Actuary’s Department, drawing on long-established methodology. I have set out the costs. We will not scrimp on national security. Quite frankly, the brass neck from Conservative Members, after they disinvested in our armed forces and our defence over the entire time they were in office, is quite extraordinary.