This evening, Andrew Rosindell MP spoke in support of his amendments, new clauses 85 and 86 to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It's time for the restoration of Essex’s historic and ceremonial boundaries to preserve local identity and heritage, with Andrew proposing a referendum for Havering residents to decide whether to remain in Greater London or join the new Greater Essex authority.
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.
We cannot have three definitions of counties—administrative, ceremonial and historic. The muddle is a nonsense, and we have to end that muddle. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider this matter seriously. I have raised it with Ministers over and over again in my 25 years as a Member of this House. She should consider putting the historic counties and the ceremonial counties together. That would deal with the historical and ceremonial side of things, which is part of our identity, and it would be completely divorced from any local government boundaries, which may change from time to time.
Essex was founded way back in AD 527 by the East Saxons, so there have been one and a half millennia of Essex. Members can therefore understand why people in Romford in Havering—and, indeed, in other boroughs to the east of the River Lea—frankly do not understand why their identity has been taken away from them. That does need to be resolved, and I really hope that the Government will use this opportunity to deal with the ceremonial and historical boundaries, which would mean that the lieutenancies were reconfigured to make sense, and to give people back their local identity, especially, as my new clause 85 says, in Essex. Essex could lead the way, so that other counties can do the same.
My second amendment, new clause 86, is completely separate. It is about local government, not about identity, counties or anything I spoke about in relation to new clause 85. It is purely about local and regional government, so it is administrative. In the 1960s—once again, because of the Local Government Act 1963—without the consent of my borough, we were taken out of the Essex county council area and placed under what was called Greater London.
As I have said, we are not really London; we are Essex. We are close to London, we travel to London and we go to London for lots of reasons, but our identity and our heritage are really Essex. I have to say that the mayoralty of London in the last period has not worked for boroughs such as Havering. It may work for inner London, but it really does not work for boroughs on the very edge of Greater London, which pay in colossal sums of money and do not get the services that we are funding.
If Members come to my constituency, they will not see the police stations we used to have. Indeed, they will barely see a policeman. They will pay the ultra low emission zone charge, even though we have clean air quality. We have the freedom pass for our pensioners, and rightly so, but we pay extra for it. We do not get it free from the Mayor of London. My borough pays into the scheme, so we buy into that system. To address that issue, I have a Bill about Transport for London concessionary schemes before Parliament at the moment.
With new clause 86, I propose to give a right to the people of Havering. We believe in democracy and devolution, so will the Minister please give the residents of my borough of Havering the right to decide in a referendum whether they would like to withdraw from the Greater London Authority, and instead have the option of joining the new Greater Essex combined county authority? I do not deny that this needs negotiation and would mean reconfiguration, but it is a serious prospect. We cannot be part of Essex for hundreds and hundreds of years, and suddenly be taken out of it without repercussions, particularly given that, as I have explained, it appears that my borough is in effect subsidising inner London. We have had enough, and we want the choice.
If we truly believe in democracy and if this Government are genuine about devolution, my borough could easily change and become part of the Greater Essex combined county authority. All I am asking is for us to have that debate, and to be given a choice. There are differences of opinion: some people think we are better off in Greater London, and others would prefer to be part of an Essex authority. Surely every Member of this House believes in democracy—I hope they do—and every Member of this House should allow boroughs such as mine, right on the extremities of Greater London, to at least have that choice. I am asking for a referendum to be considered, and I am asking for my constituents to have the democratic right to make the decision about where we truly belong and what best suits our local borough.
Andrew Rosindell M.P., Member of Parliament for Romford
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.
Dr. Ben Spencer M.P., Member of Parliament for Runnymede and Weybridge
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.
Andrew Rosindell M.P., Member of Parliament for Romford
I am interested in how far the hon. Gentleman would propose to go. Would he advocate the abolition for the Mayor of London?
Cllr. Alison Bennett M.P., Member of Parliament for Mid Sussex
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.
Andrew Rosindell M.P., Member of Parliament for Romford
