House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I invite the Speaker’s Chaplain to lead us in a minute’s silence.
The Speaker’s Chaplain, the Venerable Patricia Hillas, invited Members to rise and said the following:
We keep a moment of remembrance and respect, honouring Sir David Amess, the hon. Member for Southend West, colleague and friend. May the bright memory of his rich life ever outshine the tragic manner of his death.
Let us keep silence.
Mr Speaker
I am sorry that the House is returning in such tragic circumstances. Since we last met, we have lost two outstanding friends and colleagues: Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire. I know that hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House will share my deep sadness at their loss and will want to join me in sending our heartfelt condolences to their families. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
The circumstances of Sir David’s death were despicable and raise the most fundamental issues about how Members of this House are able to perform our vital democratic responsibilities safely and securely. In light of the ongoing police investigation I will not say more about those events, but I give the House my undertaking that I will do everything within my power to ensure that these issues are treated with the urgency and sense of priority they deserve. I know that whatever political differences there are in the House, all Members want to ensure not just that we and our staff are able to work safely, but that our democracy itself, with the local Member of Parliament at the heart of their constituency, is able to function securely. On that, I know the House is united.
The House will want to pay tribute both to Sir David and to James, and I hope it will be useful if I set out how I expect us to be able to do so. On Wednesday, after Prime Minister’s questions, there will be an opportunity for tributes to be paid to James Brokenshire. Today’s planned substantive business in the Chamber and Westminster Hall will not be proceeded with. Instead, we will have Home Office questions, followed by an opportunity to pay tribute to Sir David Amess on a motion for the Adjournment, to be opened by the Prime Minister. At 6 pm today, there will be a service of prayer and remembrance to commemorate Sir David at St Margaret’s church. I expect the House to adjourn at approximately 5.30 pm and for those Members who wish to attend the service then to proceed from this Chamber to St Margaret’s. I know that many Members will want to speak later, and if they bear that in mind, it will help us all to get this on the record. There will also be books of condolence for Members and staff to sign.
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I will pay my tribute shortly to our dear friend Sir David, but before I respond to the question, I want to echo your words, Mr Speaker, by saying that his killing is a terrible and sad moment in our history. It is an attack on our democracy and an appalling tragedy, and we are all thinking of David and Julia and their family. I also want to echo your words about our dear, dear colleague James Brokenshire, the Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who bravely battled cancer over the past year. James, Cathy and their children are in all our thoughts.
In response to question No. 1, these protests are extremely dangerous. They have caused great economic harm and caused misery and distress to the law-abiding public. They have also prevented members of the public from going about their daily business.
Mrs Murray
On Friday we saw the worst type of illegal protest, when my good friend was stabbed as he did his job. Mr Speaker, I hope to catch your eye later and give my own tribute to this most excellent fellow, and I thank you for making this possible. Sadly on this occasion it was one of our colleagues, but will the Government review how we can help to keep safe all those who work in public-facing roles?
Priti Patel
I echo the words of my hon. Friend. Of course we have a duty and a responsibility, and there is a great deal of work taking place right now with Mr Speaker and with police forces across the country to do exactly that. There will be further updates over the next few days, particularly for Members of Parliament but also for wider public protection.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Of course, I also pay tribute to Sir David Amess. I never managed to persuade him to support gay marriage, but he always asked after my husband. I think that was the character of the man.
The difficulty is in judging the boundary between legal and illegal protests, because some people who protest online think vile abuse is perfectly justifiable. We seem to have developed a toxic way of doing politics. How do we simply change it so that we become a bit more like Sir David and, for that matter, a bit more like James?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman captures the mood of the nation on the discourse we have in public life. Clearly we see far too much cruelty in the online space, and we all have a responsibility and a duty to work together, which is part of the solution here. In this place, in public life and in politics, I would use one word: respect.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I start by associating myself with the remarks of the Home Secretary on James Brokenshire, who I worked with over the last 15 years on all manner of subjects. He was a lovely man and a pleasure to know.
It is poignant to realise that Sir David would have spotted the subject of these two questions and, given his long interest in animal welfare, should in any just world be bobbing behind me now to ask a question.
Stealing a pet from its loving owner is a particularly cruel crime, causing heartbreak for the family and great distress to the pet. The Home Office is working with the police to ensure that pet thefts are recorded in a consistent manner and are readily identifiable within the information management systems of forces across England and Wales. The pet theft taskforce has recently made a series of recommendations, which we are considering, and we will introduce a new criminal offence of pet abduction.
Julian Sturdy
I add my tribute to Sir David. As the Minister said, he dedicated his career to better animal welfare. This topic was very close to Sir David’s heart, and I know he had been lobbying the Minister very hard on it.
As we continue to see a rise in pet thefts by criminal gangs who use the proceeds to fund further criminal activity, does the Minister agree that we have to bring forward legislation on this as quickly as possible? We cannot delay any further. Can he give a clear timescale for when we can vote on that important legislation in this House?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is right that, unfortunately, one of the effects of the pandemic, and particularly of the rise in the value of pets, particularly dogs and cats that are happily in demand by many families who look to them for companionship, has been a criminal phenomenon that we need to address. The taskforce has made a number of recommendations and, although I cannot give him an absolute timetable today, he has our undertaking that we are keen to move as swiftly as possible to give him the opportunity to put this offence on the statute book.
Simon Baynes
Like other hon. Members here, I am honoured to ask this question in memory of Sir David. I met local residents concerned about pet theft recently, in Hanmer, in my constituency. What message would the Minister give to those constituents, who have been worried about this issue locally?
Kit Malthouse
It is typical of my hon. Friend that he would gather his constituents together to give voice to their concern in this area. The message I would give them is that we recognise their distress and concern. As dog and cat owners ourselves, it is inconceivable to us that our pets might be stolen; the damage and trauma that would be caused to my family if that awful event were to happen is keenly in our minds. The policy development work on this offence has begun. As I said earlier, we hope to bring legislation forward as quickly as possible, so that he and the many other Members who are very interested in this subject and recognise the distress that has been caused in communities up and down the land by this crime can exercise their free democratic will and put the offence on the statute book.
Mr Speaker
I call Ian Paisley. He is not here. I call Crispin Blunt.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
We currently have no plans to reschedule psilocybin to schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recently published stage 1 of its advice on reducing barriers to research on controlled drugs. We will consider the advice, including its implications for psilocybin, carefully before responding.
Crispin Blunt
Does my right hon. Friend understand the emerging potential of the psychedelic class of drugs, with psilocybin to the fore, to treat depression, trauma and addiction? Some of this science was emerging in the 1960s, before our current drugs laws closed it down. In 2019, 90,503 of our fellow citizens were driven to suicide by their depression or trauma, or their rock-bottom in addiction has been death. If there is any scale of potential for these drugs, and it appears that there is, any further delay in getting the science and research going is not defensible—in fact, it is a morally disgraceful abrogation of our duty to the public good.
Kit Malthouse
As a founder of the all-party group on life sciences, I am well aware of the potential of any number of compounds to assist us in the constant battle against mental and physical illness, and of the need for this country to lead in research that might alleviate the problem, not just here, but in the rest of the world. My hon. Friend will know that we reschedule particular compounds where medicines are approved on the advice of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and of the ACMD. He will know that, for example, in June last year we placed Epidyolex, a cannabis-based medicine used to treat certain forms of epilepsy, in schedule 5 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, following exactly that sort of advice. There are ongoing trials and research studies into psilocybin taking place in the UK; a medicine has yet to be licensed by the MHRA, but if and when one is, we will consider rescheduling.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
To catch up on what was said there, can the Minister tell me on what research the UK Government are basing this current policy on psilocybin? Can that research be made available?
Kit Malthouse
The research is being undertaken in a number of academic institutions, as far as I am aware. I am happy to dig out the detail of where specifically this is being researched—I do not have it to hand. It is worth reinforcing the point that the process for the rescheduling of compounds is that approval is given for a medicine by the MHRA, and advice is then taken from the ACMD as to the rescheduling, as we did with Epidyolex. As soon as those medicines are approved by the MHRA for use, I would be happy to consider rescheduling.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
I would like to associate myself with the comments made by my ministerial colleagues on the sad loss of our dear colleagues.
Supporting victims of domestic abuse is a Government priority. Building on the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, published this year, we will also publish a dedicated domestic abuse strategy, which will drive action to prevent offending, support victims, relentlessly pursue perpetrators and strengthen the system as a whole.
Mrs Drummond
May I place on the record, on my behalf and that of my Meon Valley constituents, our deep and utter shock at the death of Sir David Amess, and also that of James Brokenshire? I pass on their deepest condolences to the families, constituents and many friends here and outside Westminster.
Over the past year, 26,785 domestic abuse offences were recorded in Hampshire, with a 14% year-on-year increase in the first period of lockdown. Will my hon. Friend continue her support for the police and crime commissioners, such as Donna Jones in Hampshire, who are tackling this dreadful crime as a priority?
Rachel Maclean
I thank Donna Jones for the way that she has prioritised domestic abuse, backed by an uplift in the Hampshire police funding settlement. I assure my hon. Friend that we will work closely with policing colleagues, including police and crime commissioners, and the new police lead for tackling violence against women and girls, Maggie Blyth, to drive forward improvements in the police response to such crimes. Furthermore, we will publish a refreshed national statement of expectations on violence against women and girls to support local commissioners, including PCCs, in the commissioning of effective services.
John Howell
Anyone can be a victim of domestic abuse, regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, sexuality or background, but how many men have been subjected to domestic abuse and what is offered to them that is different from what is offered to women?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that men and boys can be victims of domestic abuse and, indeed, the other crimes that fall under the umbrella of what we call violence against women and girls. For the year ending March 2020, the crime survey of England and Wales estimated that 757,000 men experienced domestic abuse—that is approximately seven men in every 100.[Official Report, 1 November 2021, Vol. 702, c. 4MC.] We did a lot of work to publish the first ever cross-Government male victims position statement to strengthen our response; we need to refresh that statement. We also fund the Men’s Advice Line, which is run by Respect, to provide specialist support to victims.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
May I, too, associate myself with the tributes that have been paid, and that no doubt will be paid for the rest of the day, to both Sir David and James Brokenshire? They were model parliamentarians and great friends, and we are far poorer in this House for their passing.
Illegal entry to the UK via small boats is unsafe, unfair and unacceptable. We are working tirelessly to make the route unviable through a comprehensive package of measures—there is no one single answer. Our new plan for immigration and the Nationality and Borders Bill will address the challenge of illegal immigration by increasing maximum sentences for people smugglers and making it easier to swiftly remove those who enter the UK illegally.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What urgency does my hon. Friend attach to the implementation of offshore processing along the Australian model?
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend will know that the provisions in the Bill are comprehensive, many and varied. As I said, there is not one single answer to the challenge that we face in relation to illegal channel crossings. We must make the route unviable and, of course, in the Bill we reserve the right to do exactly what my right hon. Friend advocates.
Sir David Evennett
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Nationality and Borders Bill is key to preventing the vile people-smuggling gangs from continuing to facilitate channel crossings and putting so many lives at risk?
Tom Pursglove
As ever, my right hon. Friend gets to the nub of the issue. I make the point again, because it bears repeating, that there is no one single answer to resolve the challenge that we face. In swift order, we require the comprehensive measures set out in the Bill, which are there to tackle dangerous crossings. Of course, we also need global assistance to help us to achieve our aims. We must put these evil criminal gangs out of business once and for all and preserve human life, which is exactly what the measures we have proposed seek to do.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I want to add my sincere condolences to Sir David and his family and friends. Sir David was kind to everyone in Parliament and he will be greatly missed.
Last week, Sir David and I were part of a parliamentary delegation in Qatar. During the visit, we met the unaccompanied child refugees who had been evacuated from Afghanistan and are now being housed in temporary accommodation in Qatar. As many as 13 of those children have family members in the UK and are desperate to be reunited with them. Will the Home Secretary now take steps urgently to facilitate the reunion of those children with their families?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are working across Government on these matters. I know that engagement is going on through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office with the authorities that he describes. We have a proud record and tradition in this country of providing sanctuary to those who find themselves in desperate circumstances. That absolutely continues to be the case. That is a firm commitment of this Government and it is perfectly in line with this country’s proud traditions. People across our country would expect us to continue to do that, and that is exactly what we will do.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I and my colleagues, from the bottom of our hearts, send our deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of both Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire. It is fair to say that, in short, everyone knew Sir David and everyone liked and respected him, without exception.
I shadowed James Brokenshire as Immigration Minister in my first year in this place, and he made my job 10 times tougher, not only because of his mastery of the brief, but because he, too, was a person whom it was impossible not to respect and to like and we will sorely miss him.
At the last Home Office questions, the Home Secretary suggested that I had not read the Nationality and Borders Bill when I said that it would see Uyghurs, persecuted Christians and Syrians fleeing war prosecuted and sentenced to prison, but I have read it and that is precisely what clause 37 will do. I welcome the Minister to his place, but if he does not want to see Uyghurs, persecuted Christians and Syrians prosecuted and imprisoned, will he take that clause out of the Bill?
Tom Pursglove
I would expect nothing less from the hon. Gentleman given that we are beginning line-by-line consideration of the Bill tomorrow in Committee. I have no doubt that he will have studied every single clause very carefully and will be interrogating me on each of them. We do not want to see anybody persecuted. As I have said previously, as a country and as a Government, we are absolutely determined to make sure that there continue to be safe and legal routes, so that people who qualify can continue to access sanctuary in this country. Also, of course, through our international engagement, we always press home that human rights must be respected and upheld at every turn.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Minister and, indeed, the Government’s forthcoming legislation on this issue, but may I urge on him the utmost haste and speed in delivering it to this House for our consideration? The trade, as it were, of human trafficking is a hideous crime. Lives are being lost now. It is making a laughing stock of the two systems on both sides of the channel. We need to put a stop to it. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government to do so.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has consistently raised these matters. He is right to say that we want to deliver the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Bill as quickly as possible, because we believe that they are fundamental to preventing these dangerous channel crossings as part of an overall package to deliver on that. I hope that the Bill will command support across the House.
My hon. Friend is also right to raise the issue of collaboration with our international partners; of course, the French are integral to that. We have an arrangement with the French. It is bearing results, but there is clearly still more to do. This issue cannot be resolved entirely without that collaboration.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
No illicit drug can be assumed to be safe.
Kerry McCarthy
I echo the tributes to Sir Davis Amess and James Brokenshire, and send my commiserations to their friends and families.
Over a single weekend in Bristol this summer, one young person died and 20 others were hospitalised, leading to police warnings about a lethal batch of pills circulating in the city. It just is not enough for the Government to say, “Don’t do drugs”; that clearly does not work. Will the Government work with organisations such as The Loop, which provides testing, or provide their own drugs testing service as the Welsh Government have been doing since 2014? That is the only way that they are going to save lives.
Kit Malthouse
We are obviously all distressed to hear the news from Bristol. Any life lost to drugs is obviously to be mourned. Anyone interested in lawfully undertaking activities that include the possession, supply or production of controlled drugs, including through the course of drug testing services, can already apply to the Home Office for a domestic licence, and they will be subject to the usual visits and considerations about the activities that they undertake. I understand the hon. Lady’s implication that we should look at this subject in the round. It is our hope that we will publish later this year a comprehensive, cross-Government strategy on drugs in the round, including on their impact and what we can do about them.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
Cases including the sickening murder of Sarah Everard and the appalling murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman have caused immense pain and understandably prompted huge concerns. That is why the Home Secretary commissioned an inspection of the police response to violence against women and girls, and why we supported the recommendation to appoint a full-time national policing lead to drive forward progress on this hugely important issue.
Laura Farris
I also extend my deepest sympathies to the families of Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire. Southend has lost two sons and we have lost two very special parliamentary colleagues.
I would like to recognise the work that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been doing over the past few, very challenging weeks, which have had damaging implications for the relationship between the police and the safety of women. Last week, The Times reported that more than half of the disciplinary hearings that had been conducted over the past three years were held in private and almost no force published the findings. We know how important transparency is to public confidence, so will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us what steps she is taking to ensure that members of the public can see what is going on with their local force?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that public confidence in the policing response is vital to tackling violence against women and girls. I am determined, as is the Home Secretary, to do all we can to combat these sickening crimes. We are committed to ensuring that policing is subject to stringent levels of transparency and accountability. Misconduct hearings are chaired independently of forces by legally qualified chairs. Sometimes those hearings must be held in private, for several legitimate reasons. We will be looking at the matter further to ensure that the system is accountable to the public.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Obviously, all of us on the Opposition Benches wish to be associated with the words of the Home Secretary, and send our love and best regards to Sir David’s family. He was kind and good, but for me, above all else, he was funny and he did not take himself too seriously.
As for James, as the Immigration Minister he was incredibly approachable and kind; he was a good and thorough Minister.
I wish also briefly to say from Members on the Labour Benches, who know how it feels to have someone fall, that our love—through you, Mr Speaker—is with all the friends and colleagues of those who have died.
I simply rise to ask the Minister whether her Department has decided whether it is going to implement all the recommendations and the timeframe laid out in last month’s report of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, in order to improve our national response to violence against women and girls. In September, the Minister told the House:
“The Home Secretary has committed to considering the report’s full recommendations and will update Parliament when she has done so.”—[Official Report, 22 September 2021; Vol. 701, c. 287.]
An update on that position would be welcomed.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for her words just now.
Clearly the report that the hon. Lady mentions is a very important one, and the Home Secretary and Home Office are considering it in detail. We have already put in place a number of important actions, including appointing Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth to her new role and chairing a new taskforce to drive cross-Government action. The Home Secretary has also announced an independent inquiry into the issues surrounding Wayne Couzens and the wider culture in policing.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
When we introduced the new skilled worker visa last year, we broadened the skills threshold from the academically focused graduate level under the previous tier 2 visa to school-leaver level, or RQF—regulated qualifications framework—level 3, to ensure that a wider range of skilled work was recognised. That change means that roles such as butcher, farmer and poultry processor qualify for the skilled worker route, allowing recruitment into them on a global level.
Carla Lockhart
I extend my thoughts and prayers to the families, friends, colleagues and staff of Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire. I trust that I will have the opportunity to speak further on that later.
I thank the Home Secretary for meeting me and party colleagues a few short weeks ago on the issue of labour shortages and for the actions taken since then to alleviate the labour supply pressures, but I fear that the short window of opportunity being offered will not be enough to attract the necessary workers. Additionally, our farmers, particularly our pig farmers, are in crisis as we speak in this House today. What additional efforts are being made, alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to support this industry and meet the pressing demand for labour, with farms backing up with healthy pigs and abattoirs cancelling 25% of their pig slaughter due to staff shortages?
Tom Pursglove
I note that the hon. Lady met the Home Secretary recently to talk about this issue. Events have moved on since; we have flexibility on visas and the issues around cold storage are being addressed. However, it is clear that this is a short-term fix, not a long-term solution. We must continue to focus—I think people in our country would rightly expect us to do so—on what more we can do to make sure that we improve skills, training, wages and terms and conditions so that the domestic labour market is able to fulfil these roles in the longer term. We have been responsive to industry’s asks, and of course our ears continue to be open.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It would have been very appropriate today if David Amess had been the first to welcome the new Minister to the Dispatch Box, because the three of us worked together on Grassroots Out, and David held the first rally for us. That is appropriate to this question: is it not right, Minister, that coming out of the European Union gives us the ability to decide on these issues?
Tom Pursglove
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his question. It will not surprise him to hear that only a couple of weeks ago I received a note from Sir David congratulating me on my appointment. It is something that I will absolutely treasure in the years ahead. His encouragement was always second to none. The truth is that people like he and I campaigned in the referendum for a global immigration system, which is exactly what we have delivered. I genuinely believe that that is the right approach to immigration for the years ahead, based on skills—recruiting the skills that we need, but making sure that we do right by the domestic labour market and people in this country by improving skills, opportunity, training and terms and conditions, and making sure that we can recruit more readily to these roles.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I, too, wish to pay my tributes to Sir David and James Brokenshire and pass on my deepest condolences and sympathies to their families. They were two of the kindest, most decent parliamentarians I have ever met. I will certainly miss my conversations with Sir David by the lifts in 1 Parliament Street, always with a smile.
The National Farmers Union has told MPs that there is a chronic shortage of butchers and agriculture workers that has led to 150,000 pigs being backed up on farms. Will the Government add butchers and agriculture workers to the shortage-occupation list, and will the Government agree to review the list earlier than 2022, as is the current plan?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question. He should know that the Home Office and Ministers in the Home Office are working constructively with DEFRA, which is regularly engaging, no doubt, with the National Farmers Union around these matters. Following last year’s SOL review by the Migration Advisory Committee, the Government set out their response, stating that the labour market is changing as a result of covid and that it is important to assess changes in the labour market before making widespread changes to the SOL. This is particularly true at a time when so many British people still face uncertain times with the ending of furlough. We are committed to addressing these challenges and we have taken steps in the short term to do so, but, as I say, such steps are really not the long-term solution to those challenges. Of course, we are responsive as the situation develops.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Although I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) to his position on the Front Bench, he might not welcome what I have to say after I congratulate him and echo the comments he made in condolence for our dear departed colleagues, David and James.
So far, we have not had any facts and figures. What are the numbers of shortages? How many applications have been made? How many visas have been granted?
Tom Pursglove
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I say, we have been responsive to the needs that have arisen in our economy. We have been engaging with the various sectors that have come forward to raise concerns. For example, there is a commitment to supporting visas for 4,700 HGV food drivers, up to 5,500 poultry workers and 300 fuel drivers. I think the key thing now is that those industries that sought that extra support and that flexibility through visas now get on and recruit to those roles.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
I, too, wish to associate myself with your words, Mr Speaker, and those of the Home Secretary in memory of our two cherished friends, David and James—outstanding parliamentarians both. James, among his many other accomplishments, was also an exceptionally effective and highly respected Security Minister, in which role he set the enduring example. As well as by colleagues in this House, he is very much missed by officials in the Home Office and by the agencies and partners with which he worked.
Online fraud and scams have a devastating impact, and we are taking action to protect the public and make it harder for fraudsters to operate. The online safety Bill will tackle some of the highest harm frauds online.
Cat Smith
I wish to put on record my own condolences to the families of James Brokenshire and Sir David. A lot of people have said that Sir David was a good support to new MPs, but he was also a good support to those of us doing things for the first time. Indeed, he chaired the Bill Committee when I was first on the Opposition Front Bench. He was a great support to me and will be dearly missed from the House.
Many of my Fleetwood constituents are seriously concerned about pension scams, which are on the rise. I pay tribute to the work of Age UK raising awareness of the risk of pension scams. Can the Minister tell me what steps he plans to take in the online harms Bill specifically on pension scams?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady is exactly right to identify the wickedness of pension scams picking on people, often at a time of weakness, which is part of a wider field of investment scams. As she will know, the online safety Bill is currently going through pre-legislative scrutiny, which is an opportunity for issues to be fleshed out. She is absolutely right that the Government focus remains very much on the pension scams that she mentions.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
May I express my deep sadness at the loss of Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire?
May I also ask the Minister what action the Government and the police are taking to protect the elderly in particular from scams? One of the most repellent aspects of such crime is that the criminals particularly prey on the elderly and vulnerable.
Damian Hinds
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question, which follows on from what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) was saying. It is very important that we raise awareness of how people can protect themselves from these scams and the things to look out for. We need to encourage reporting so that we can build up a wider picture. It is also very important that we focus on victim support when these crimes have occurred and that we prevent re-victimisation. We are increasing our efforts in that area.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I echo what has been said about Sir David Amess. When it comes to James Brokenshire, quite simply he was everything you would have wanted in an opposite number. He was co-operative, constructive, but occasionally combative, and I will miss him.
I congratulate the new Security Minister, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and I think we have already established a similar working relationship.
Online harms have been brought sharply into focus during the past 18 months. That includes not only fraud and scams, but extremism, radicalisation and terrorism. The police and the intelligence and security services are very concerned, and we sadly know the tragic consequences. Is the Minister satisfied that he can address that in the online safety Bill, or are specific and perhaps more urgent actions required? I assure him that if they are, we would seek to work with the Government in finding common ground to bring forward any necessary measures.
Damian Hinds
I thank the hon. Gentleman twice over: for what he said at the start and for his expression of support for doing what we must to ensure that we disrupt the terrible messaging, propaganda and ways of association that can have the most horrific outcomes and consequences, and thwart those efforts. There are important steps on illegal content in the online safety Bill that will improve our arsenal and toolkit. However, we must also work in particular on end-to-end encryption and platforms deliberately blinding themselves against being able to take down very harmful material. I look forward to working with him on that.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
May I pay respects on behalf of the people of Stroud to the families of Sir David and James Brokenshire?
On the BBC yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was compelling when she spoke about the challenges of tackling anonymous abuse and understanding that the public are looking to us to make changes. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss my verification campaign with Clean Up the Internet to see how the Department can assist that work?
Damian Hinds
I will certainly meet my hon. Friend, who I recognise has done a lot of work in this area. I want to make it clear that where people are engaged in illegal abuse, they can be identified and prosecuted via existing legislation—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016—but I accept that there are more aspects to this. I am happy to meet her and look forward to hearing her thoughts.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The whole country is horrified and shaken by the dreadful killing of our colleague and friend Sir David Amess. There has been a tidal wave of stories about David’s kindness and compassion from all quarters. To me, he was a dear and loyal friend. We are all utterly devastated for David’s wife Julia and their family and loved ones.
David, as we have already heard across the House, had a huge number of friends in this House, in his constituency, in the county of Essex and well beyond. The causes he supported were diverse, with so many relating to people and, of course, his much-loved animals. Many sittings in this House were enlivened, Mr Speaker, by his calls for city status for Southend. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is agonising to know that we will not see his wonderful smile again.
It took no effort on David’s part to conduct the business of politics in a civilised, good-humoured way, which came naturally to him. Decency ran through him like the writing in a stick of Southend rock. David represented all that was good about this place, so let us all carry his light forward and reflect his passionate commitment to making things better for the people we serve.
Kate Osborne
May I pay my respects to Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire and send my best wishes to their family, friends and staff?
Today, on Anti-Slavery Day, statistics obtained by After Exploitation show that since 2016 more than 4,500 suspected trafficking victims have been referred for support only after leaving immigration detention. That shows a major failing and demonstrates how the trauma of detention prevents victims from disclosing their exploitation. Will the Home Secretary explain what work is being carried out to tackle the problem and why the Home Office is still planning to open a new immigration centre for women this month in County Durham?
Priti Patel
First, on the really important point that the hon. Member makes about modern-day slavery and trafficking, the Government are absolutely committed to undertaking every step and measure to provide support through the national referral mechanism, as well as support on victims and victimisation through much of our modern-day slavery work. I reassure her that more work is taking place through the current Nationality and Borders Bill on what measures we can put in place to safeguard victims and their testimony and ensure that they get the support that they need.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I commend my hon. Friend for engaging with his constituents on what, very often, is easily the closest subject to all of our constituents’ hearts. He will be pleased to hear that we are now approaching the halfway mark on our 20,000 extra police officers, which obviously represents a gross recruitment of something over 20,000. I hope that he will feel the effect of the now well over 100 police officers recruited by Derbyshire constabulary on the streets of his constituency in the weeks to come.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I first met Sir David Amess when I entered this House in 2015 and he approached me, as a new Member, to ask how I was and how I was settling in. That conversation captured the essence of Sir David, who was a kind, thoughtful and generous man, always cheerful and smiling. He was dedicated to the service of his constituents, he had passionate beliefs and he worked across party lines on causes that mattered to him and those he served. He was respected and held in affection across the House, and we on the Opposition Benches send our condolences to his wife Julia, and to all his loved ones and parliamentary colleagues.
Sadly, another Member of this House, James Brokenshire, was taken from us too young. I worked with James on a number of security issues, and he was a man of firm beliefs, staunch integrity and unfailing good humour. He pursued causes with passion and respect, and represented politics at its best. We on these Benches send our sympathies to his wife Cathy, and to all his loved ones and parliamentary colleagues.
I would also like to send my best wishes to Lynne Owens, thank her for her work as director general of the National Crime Agency and wish her a swift recovery from her recent surgery.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful to your office and to the Home Secretary for the work on MPs’ security since the heinous crime that was committed on Friday, but I wonder whether she Secretary could offer some more details on the review. Can she confirm when the review she has announced will be completed, and what she will do to ensure that any recommendations are applied consistently by police forces up and down the country?
Priti Patel
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about Sir David and James, and Lynne Owens as well.
Obviously, these are important points about Members’ security that the Speaker and I have been working on over recent days. I think it is absolutely right for all Members of the House to recognise that we want to see consistency across the board when it comes to the safety and security of Members of Parliament and our ability to conduct our public duties as democratically elected Members of this House.
The review is under way right now, and I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman and to all hon. and right hon. Members that the policing review itself will be concluding in the next few days. There will be more communications to all colleagues across the House about how to conduct their work publicly in a safe and secure way, while at the same time giving the public the confidence and the assurance that they need when they are coming to meet Members in forums such as surgeries. But the one-to-one contact that Members of Parliament require will be taking place—actually, starting from this afternoon.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful for that answer. The awful murder of Sir David follows the dreadful murder of our friend Jo Cox, an attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), a plot to kill my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) and the murder of Andrew Pennington, who was killed after an attack at the office of the now noble Lord Jones of Cheltenham. Any attack on any elected representative is an attack on our whole democracy, and it is with that imperative that we have to approach this. I appreciate that the current investigation is at a very early stage, and the Home Secretary will quite rightly be very guarded on the specifics, but could she comment more broadly on the issue of lone attackers? Can the Home Secretary set out what steps the Government intend to take to investigate this type of attack and the radicalisation of perpetrators, and will a strategy be put in place to reduce the risk of such attacks in future?
Priti Patel
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, with the live investigation taking place, I will not be drawn into any commentary whatsoever, and no Member should. The issue of lone attackers is not new, and across society and across our country and other countries around the world, sadly, we have seen too many lone attackers in previous years as well. There is a great deal of work taking place, and we will continue to discuss the work that takes place across intelligence, policing and security, prisons and probation to prevent these attacks, but also the data and intelligence sharing undertaken across our systems, across Government and across all aspects of various institutions and society. Of course, that is linked to some of the current inquiries that are also taking place.
So a great deal of work is under way, but it is also important to recognise—I would like all Members to hear this—that we have some of the best intelligence and security agencies in the world, and I want to pay tribute to them and our police forces today for the work they have been doing, specifically with regard to the current investigation but also the much wider work they do to keep us safe every single day.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and question. He is absolutely right, and I think all Members take pride in our constituency work and the ability for constituents to approach us and us to be approachable for them. A number of security reviews are under way right now and we are rightly looking at practical considerations to protect Members and the public to enable us to carry out our functions as democratically elected Members of this House.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Having expressed our condolences, can we also express our thanks both to you, Mr Speaker, and the Home Secretary for the work that is already ongoing to review and improve our security? I agree with the Home Secretary that we must make it our mission both to improve safety and to protect the close links between the public and their representatives, but does she agree that this must be true at all levels of democracy? I would mention in particular our local councillors, who are at the coalface and often doing surgeries alone week in, week out.
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I pay tribute to all elected representatives across the United Kingdom, because they conduct themselves with great determination day in, day out, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that work is taking place through the Cabinet Office to look at the right kinds of measures and support.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
I have made a commitment in this House before that we will introduce a new funding formula for police forces across the land before the next election. That is the objective we are currently working towards, although I would warn everybody that all cannot have prizes.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Priti Patel
I would like to speak to the hon. Lady separately on this case, if I may, because I did not fully hear her question, but I will certainly follow up on this.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
Unexplained wealth orders are a very important tool and, yes, we are absolutely making sure the resources are there to support their use.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady will be well aware of the extensive work that is taking place around the Windrush compensation scheme and the support that we have offered her constituent. If she would like to meet me to discuss this further, she would be very welcome.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Today we mark Anti-Slavery Day. One of the first people in Government to recognise the importance of that issue was our much missed colleague James Brokenshire. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that her priority will be to continue James’s work, making this issue a priority for her and making the UK a world leader in this area?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in the passionate way that she has put her question. We will continue that work and the legacy of the work that has taken place on modern-day slavery.
Tributes to Sir David Amess
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
In a moment I will ask the Prime Minister to move a motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will give an opportunity for us to pay tribute to Sir David Amess. As I said earlier, the issues raised by the circumstances of Sir David’s death will be looked at urgently and with the utmost priority. I remind hon. and right hon. Members that a police investigation is ongoing, so our focus this afternoon should be on Sir David’s life and his contribution to our democracy.
In nearly four decades in this House, Sir David was second to none in his determined commitment to his constituents, first as the Member for Basildon between 1983 and 1997, and since then as the Member for Southend West. He was tireless in making sure that the voice of Southend West was heard in this Chamber—it is difficult to believe that we will not hear him make the case for Southend achieving city status before the next recess.
Sir David worked equally hard outside the Chamber for his constituents, always going the extra mile to make sure their case was heard and their needs were met. He used his skills as a parliamentarian to pilot numerous pieces of legislation on to the statute book, reflecting his political priorities, such as fuel poverty and, of course, animal welfare. He was a much admired member of the Panel of Chairs, respected across the House for his fairness and expertise.
I would like to thank the Speakers from around the world who have sent messages of support, including—along with many, many more—Speaker Pelosi and Speaker Smith of Australia, who wanted to let us know that Congress and the Australian Parliament are thinking of us, David’s family and all at this time.
On a personal level, David was a lovely man. He was well liked by Members and staff alike, and during his almost four decades here built a reputation for kindness and generosity. Sustained by his faith, David was devoted to his family. As much as we will miss a much loved fellow parliamentarian, the loss felt by David’s wife Julia and their children is unimaginable. I know the whole House will want to join me in sending them our deepest condolences. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I call the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
The passing of 72 hours has done little to numb the shock and sadness we all felt when we heard of the tragic and senseless death of Sir David Amess. This House has lost a steadfast servant, we have lost a dear friend and colleague, and Julia and her children have lost a loving husband and devoted father. Nothing I or anyone else can say will lessen the pain, the grief, the anger they must feel at this darkest of times. We hold them in our hearts today. We mourn with them and we grieve alongside them.
Sir David was taken from us in a contemptible act of violence, striking at the core of what it is to be a Member of this House, and violating the sanctity both of the church in which he was killed and the constituency surgery that is so essential to our representative democracy. But we will not allow the manner of Sir David’s death in any way to detract from his accomplishments as a politician or as a human being. Sir David was a patriot who believed passionately in this country, in its people, in its future. He was also one of the nicest, kindest and most gentle individuals ever to grace these Benches; a man who used his decades of experience to offer friendship and support to new Members of all parties, whose views often confounded expectation and defied easy stereotype, and who believed not just in pointing out what was wrong with society but in getting on and doing something about it.
It was that determination to make this country a better place that inspired his outstanding record on behalf of the vulnerable and the voiceless. The master of the private Member’s Bill and 10-minute rule Bill, he passed legislation on subjects as diverse as animal welfare, fuel poverty and the registration of driving instructors. He was a prodigious campaigner for children with learning disabilities and for women with endometriosis, a condition on which he became an expert after meeting a woman at one of his constituency surgeries.
Behind the famous and irresistible beam lay a seasoned campaigner of verve and grit, whether he was demanding freedom for the people of Iran or courting votes in the Westminster Dog of the Year contest, whether he was battling for Brexit or fighting his way to the front of the parliamentary pancake race. And as every Member of this House will know, and as you have just confirmed, Mr Speaker, he never once witnessed any achievement by any resident of Southend that could not somehow be cited in his bid to secure city status for that distinguished town. Highlights of that bulging folder included: a world record for playing the most triangles at once; a group of stilt-walkers travelling non-stop from the Essex coast to Downing Street; and a visiting foreign dignitary allegedly flouting protocol by saying he liked Southend more than Cleethorpes—a compelling case, Mr Speaker. As it is only a short time since Sir David last put that very case to me in this Chamber, I am happy to announce that Her Majesty has agreed that Southend will be accorded the city status it so clearly deserves. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
That Sir David spent almost 40 years in this House but not one day in ministerial office tells everything about where his priorities lay. He was not a man in awe of this Chamber, nor a man who sought patronage or advancement; he simply wanted to serve the people of Essex, first in Basildon and then in Southend. It was in the act of serving his constituents that he was so cruelly killed. In his recent memoir, Sir David called surgeries a part of
“the great British tradition of the people openly meeting their elected politicians”.
Even after the murder of Jo Cox and the savage attacks on the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and Nigel Jones, he refused to accept that he should be in any way deterred from speaking face to face with his constituents. So when he died, he was doing what he firmly believed was the most important part of any MP’s job: offering help to those in need.
In the awful moments before we knew the full horror of the tragedy, a member of Sir David’s constituency association, her voice breaking with emotion, told an interviewer that
“we need him…the country needs him”—
and we do. This country needs people like Sir David, this House needs people like Sir David, and our politics needs people like Sir David: dedicated, passionate, firm in his beliefs but never anything less than respectful for those who thought differently. Those are the values he brought to a lifetime of public service. There can be few among us more justified than him in his deep faith in the resurrection and the life to come. And while his death leaves a vacuum that will not and can never be filled, we will cherish his memory, we will celebrate his legacy, and we will never allow those who commit acts of evil to triumph over the democracy and the Parliament that Sir David Amess loved so much.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
In the last few days, there have been many tributes to Sir David, from politicians of all parties, from his constituents and members of the public, from friends and from family, and from faith leaders, especially the Catholic Church, of which he was such a devoted follower. Each tribute paints its own picture—of a committed public servant, of kindness and of a man whose decency touched everybody that he met. Taken together, these tributes are a powerful testimony to the respect, the affection and, yes, the love that David was held in across politics and across different communities. Together, they speak volumes about the man that he was and the loss that we grieve.
Sir David was a dedicated parliamentarian and his loss is felt profoundly across this House. We are united in our grief at this terrible time. We are thinking of David and his family. We are thinking, once again, of our dear friend Jo Cox, who was killed just five short years ago. I know that hon. Members and their staff will have spent the weekend worrying about their own safety. The emotion is the same across the House, but I remember just how acutely Jo’s loss was felt on these Benches, so today, on behalf of the entire Labour party, I want to lean across, to reach across and to acknowledge the pain that is felt on the opposite Benches, and I do. Of course our differences matter—after all, that is what democracy is about—but today we are reminded that what we have in common matters far more.
I spoke to Jo Cox’s parents on Friday afternoon because I knew that they would be reliving that terrible day. They said to me they were thinking of David’s family and how their lives would be changed forever. So today, just as the Prime Minister has said, this House holds in our hearts David’s wife, Julia, his children, Katherine, David Jr., Sarah, Florence and Alex, and all of those who loved him. We cannot begin to imagine what they are going through, but our thoughts, our love and our prayers are with them.
I also thank those who did everything they could to save David’s life and our emergency services, who run towards danger to protect us. I also want to take a moment for us all to think about David’s staff and what they must be going through. This Parliament that David loved so much has lost one of its finest advocates, his colleagues have lost a dear friend, and the people of Southend have lost one of their own.
Sir David was a dedicated constituency MP. When I visited Southend on Saturday, I was struck by the affection and the regard in which he was held by everybody I met. He rejected ministerial office to focus on Southend; we remember his historic battle to see it given city status, and I am so pleased about the announcement that the Prime Minister has just made. It is a fitting tribute to Sir David’s hard work, it really is—fitting because David delivered on the causes that he championed and cared about. He introduced a Bill that forced action on fuel poverty, he paved the way for better standards of fire safety and he delivered protections for animal welfare.
No tribute has emerged in recent days that resonates more vividly than that of David’s former parliamentary staffer Edward Holmes. As he was in his first job out of university, Holmes forgot to tell Sir David about an urgent call that the then Prime Minister David Cameron had made. He said that he felt terrified until he finally plucked up the courage to tell David, whose response was typical: “Don’t worry about that, Edward.” So relaxed was David that Mr Holmes says that he suspects he never actually called the Prime Minister back.
That tells of a politician who had his priorities right: one who put his people before his party, and his patch before his personal advancement. Even as a political opponent, he was a man and a politician we can all learn so much from. I use that phrase “political opponent” very deliberately, because David held his beliefs passionately but gently. I believe not only that we can learn from that, but that we have a duty to learn from it. Civility matters, and it matters in politics.
We must not lose sight of the fact that David’s killing was an act of terror in our country. We cannot help but think of Jo Cox, Andrew Pennington and PC Keith Palmer, who lost his life defending all of us in this place in 2017. We thank God that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) is with us in the Chamber today, and that the would-be attackers of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) were stopped in their tracks. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I know that politicians across the country and across this House have their own experiences of threats to their security. Today is a chance to remember David, but in the weeks and days to come we must confront the threats and violence that everyone faces in enacting this country’s democracy.
It is too early for us to comment on the exact motivations and circumstances of David’s killing, but I want to finish by saying this: a cowardly attack on a public servant doing his job is an attack on our country and on our way of life—a way of life that prizes tolerance, democracy and respect, that accepts our differences but cherishes our commonalities, that refuses to succumb to the poison of extremism. No matter what perverted cause, faith or ideology these attackers support, their intention is always the same: to sow division among us. That is why our response must always be to show that we will never be cowed, that our bonds to one another can never be eroded, that the hatred that took Sir David’s life will never win.
Our democracy is precious. It has held firm against many tests, but it is also a fragile, living thing. Let us use the memory of Sir David’s life and his passions to nourish it, to recommit ourselves in standing for the things that he stood for, the things that extremists will never comprehend—for decency in our disagreements, for kindness in our hearts, for our great democracy, and for the hope that through it we can make our country and our world a better place.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Sir David Amess was my best and oldest friend in politics, so I confess that I am hurting terribly, and I hope the House will forgive me if, because of that, my contribution this afternoon is even more incoherent than usual. I certainly cannot match those two beautiful and, if I may say so, extremely moving tributes from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I thank them.
Everything that I ever learned about how to be a constituency MP, I learned from David Amess. He sponsored me for the candidates list, and he mentored me when I arrived. Without him, I would never have become a Member of Parliament, so some might well argue that he has much to answer for.
I grew up in Basildon when David was the local MP. I grew up on a working-class council estate which even the locals nicknamed Alcatraz. David helped me to campaign in 1991 to win election to Basildon Council—quite a robust place to learn one’s trade, and once described as the only local authority in Britain where at council meetings the councillors actively heckled the public gallery. I was there. Trust me: I’m a politician.
In return, I ran David’s ground war in his iconic defence of Basildon in 1992. During that campaign, the late Paul Channon came down from Southend to help, and we were out canvassing on a council estate in Pitsea. I will never forget that. We knocked on a door, and a monster of a bloke answered it. He looked at us both, and he looked at the blue rosettes, and he said, “Conservative? Tory? You must be bloody joking, mate— I’m voting for that David Amess!” I said, “I know when I’m beat, sir. Well done.”
My partner Olivia and I were due to be on David’s table at the Southend West Conservatives’ annual dinner on the day he was murdered. But David is now our fallen comrade. He was a devoted and a loving family man, and our deepest sympathies are with his widow, Julia, and his five children, who produced the most amazingly courageous statement, the essence of which was, I think, that love must conquer hate. I am sure we all agree with that. He was an animal-lover, a patriot, a Thatcherite, a Eurosceptic, a monarchist, a staunch Roman Catholic whose faith sustained him throughout his life, a truly great friend to those in need—I can vouch for that—and a fine parliamentarian. He was probably the best potential Father of the House we will now never have.
David had a zest for life, a joie de vivre. For him the glass was never half empty; it was three quarters full. He was a doughty champion for Basildon and then for Southend. So thank you, Prime Minister—and I thank Her Majesty and the Privy Council—for making Southend a city after all. It was the right thing to do; and our apologies to Cleethorpes! While you are at it, Prime Minister, perhaps you can help Southend United: they are going through a bit of a sticky patch, and they really need all the help they can get.
You never knew what David was going to do next. That Essex “cheeky chappie” smile, that impish Amess grin, always with a hint of gentle mischief behind it. He once even persuaded His Holiness the Pope to bless a boiled sweet, as my friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), will explain in a moment.
However, David also had a serious side, and it is that on which I want to focus the rest of my speech. In the last few years, he had become increasingly concerned about what he called the toxic environment in which MPs, particularly female MPs, were having to operate. He was appalled by what he called the vile misogynistic abuse that female MPs had to endure online, and he told me recently that he wanted something done about it. Three years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) wrote a powerful article about this on ConservativeHome in which she quoted the following social media post:
“I want to see you, trapped in a burning car and watch as the heat from the flames melts the flesh from your face.”
I ask you, Mr Speaker, what did she ever do to deserve that? Another fallen comrade, Jo Cox, whose sister now graces this place, said that we have more in common than that which divides us, and I think she was absolutely right.
All of us, wherever we come from, came here to try to help people. We may disagree, sometimes passionately, about how best to help people, but surely we could all agree that we came here to try. For this, we are now systematically vilified day after day, and I simply say to you, ladies and gentlemen, that enough is enough. We all have one thing in common: we are legislators. So I humbly suggest that we get on and do some legislating. I suggest that if we want to ensure that our colleague did not die in vain, we all collectively pick up the baton, regardless of party, and take the forthcoming Online Safety Bill and toughen it up markedly. If I may be so presumptuous, let us put “David’s law” on to the statute book, the essence of which would be that, while people in public life must remain open to legitimate criticism, they could no longer be vilified or their families subjected to the most horrendous abuse, especially from people who hide behind a cloak of anonymity, with the connivance of the social media companies for profit. The mood I am in, I confess that I would like to drag Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Jack Dorsey of Twitter to the Bar of the House, kicking and screaming if necessary, so that they could look us all in the eye and account for their actions, or rather their inactions, which are making them even richer than they already are.
Let us also do that for all our councillors, who are sick and tired of reading on Facebook after every planning committee meeting the night before, that “it must have been a brown envelope job”. Let us do it for all those other people who hold surgeries, including our GPs who have carried on tending to the sick throughout the pandemic but who are now being vilified online, along with their loyal receptionists and staff, just for trying to do their job. If the social media companies do not want to help us to drain the Twitter swamp, let us compel them to do it by law, because they have had more than enough chances to do it voluntarily. Please bring in this Bill, Prime Minister, and if you need any assistance in toughening it up, we are called the Back Benchers of the House of Commons and we are here to help. What better way to ensure that a fine parliamentarian did not die in vain than to enshrine one of his last wishes in legislation forever, for the benefit of all those in public life?
Many Members wish to pay tribute, so I will end with this: another thing about David was his legendary timekeeping, or rather lack of it. His constituency events always ran late because he was so popular and so many people wanted to speak to him. By the end of a busy constituency Friday, of which he had many, he was sometimes running up to an hour late—he invariably overran, and this afternoon, in his honour, so have I; sorry, Mr Speaker—but what better fault to have than that wonderful trait? Among some of his closest friends, he was known affectionately as the late Sir David Amess.
Well, now he really is the late Sir David Amess. I am absolutely determined—I ask for the House’s support in this—that he will not have died in vain. He is now resting in the arms of the God he worshipped devotedly his whole life, so farewell David, my colleague, my great friend—in fact, quite simply the best bloke I ever knew. I thank the House for its indulgence.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a considerable pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I do not think I have ever said this after any of his contributions, but I pretty well agree with every single word he said. I hope the House listens very carefully to what he said about the responsibilities we all have.
We are gathered here united in mourning and grief at the loss of a proud champion of Southend—now to be the city of Southend; a great Back Bencher, a beloved husband and father, and a dear friend to so many, particularly on the Government Benches. Sir David Amess was valued in so many ways, but I think the most powerful description of him was, in some ways, the simplest and most human: David was, above all else, a good and deeply decent man—a man who would always greet you with a welcoming smile whenever you met him.
For Members and staff across the House, it will take time to come to terms with the terrible shock of the senseless loss of another colleague. Just as our thoughts and prayers today are with the entire Amess family, we think too of the family of Jo Cox, who are forced to relive the nightmare of their experience all over again. Members of this House are being murdered while simply doing their job. That is the terrible reality we are faced with and, just as we face it together, we need to put an end to it together. In providing that security and safety, we need to protect all those at risk. We all know that it is often our staff who are on the frontline of the threats and abuse. I welcome the review of MPs’ security, but I urge the Home Secretary to include our staff as a central part of that security review.
The devastating loss of Sir David has once again laid bare the twin threat of terrorism and the toxic culture of hate and intolerance that has become all too common. Today of all days, it is crucial that we show the same spirit and speak with one voice across this House, as indeed we are.
I stand firmly with and echo the powerful and poignant words of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, but I also want to commend them for jointly going and standing together in Southend on Saturday. That was exactly the right image and the right message to send. People need to see Saturday’s image of unity, and it is an image and ethos of political leadership that we need to project in public far more often, of a healthy democracy that engages with passionate disagreement, as appropriate.
But we all know that, somewhere along the way, we have been badly diverted. For too long we have been dragged down a path where passionate disagreement has been infected by poison. We can all do better not to feed into that corrosive culture. We have all been a victim of it, and every single one of us has a responsibility to put an end to it.
It is the truest tribute to Sir David that he personified exactly what we need to get to. He was a person whose politics could be forceful, but he was always friendly. He was a person who could disagree without ever, not ever, being disagreeable.
I look forward to hearing the fond memories of many of Sir David’s colleagues and friends. The beautiful statement released by the Amess family last night put it better than I possibly could. David’s lesson and his legacy is to show
“kindness and love to all.”
All of our memories will be of a good man and of a life well lived. May his family and community know today the true depth of respect, affection and love that he enjoyed across this House, and may his gentle soul now rest in peace. God bless you, David.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
David was a man of faith and convictions—faith in his religion and convictions in his politics. He was, above and beyond everything else, a family man and a very funny man. He would often break all the rules, cutting through pomp and ceremony, and connecting with people. When introducing me, he would always make up a story: I was the “Strictly Come Dancing” winner at his annual party for people over the age of 100; before there was a raffle, he would describe me as a lottery millionaire at a charity fundraiser; and there was my favourite ice breaker, which was, “Meet James, he is my neighbour. He has recently got out of prison.”
David would hold the audience with his anecdotes and stories, and I would like to share the story of the boiled sweet. David was a regular visitor to the Vatican, given his faith. In the receiving line, people were getting items blessed, and David, perhaps slightly absent-mindedly, being used to these things, reached into his pocket for a boiled sweet—he had a sore throat. David got his timing wrong and the Pope took the sweet, thinking it was a revered object to be blessed, and blessed the revered object—[Laughter.] And David had to put it in his pocket. It was a holy sweet. When David would tell the anecdote, as he would do many a time—I suspect Members have all heard it—he would again reach into his pocket and say, “And this is the sweet that was blessed!” I suspect that many sweets have been passed off as the holy sweet, but there is only one chosen one.
As the neighbouring Member of Parliament for what we must now say is Southend city—thank you, Prime Minister, as it means a lot to everybody, it really does—colleagues would sidle up to me and say, “You’re David’s neighbour, aren’t you?” A bit tentatively, I would say, “Yes”, but I knew what was coming. It was always an outrageous story of his behaviour at a meeting or, in particular, on an overseas trip, which completely broke the ice. He was indeed a great man. David loved animals, but there will no longer be the infamous “dog of the day” tweets. He will never again dress as a knight in full battle finery, mount a horse and ride across the city of Southend, as he did after receiving a knighthood. That really is unbelievable; it seems as though I am making it up.
Mr Speaker, thank you for coming on Saturday. To have the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and yourself there sent a real message to the town—the city—that the nation cared and the nation was mourning with us. The impact of David’s death has been profound on the city. Southend is in shock and I am in shock. I am told that the pathway for the city will be difficult. Having spoken to people around Jo Cox’s family, I know that this is going to be a long process. We do not want to be the city where the MP was murdered; we want to be the city with the longest pleasure pier in the world, with a great airport and with a successful football team—even though David was conflicted on the latter, as a confirmed man of the east end and a West Ham supporter.
David loved his mum, who lived to 104. In Southend, we all assumed that David would go on forever. The late Eric Forth told me that David would be the Father of the House. I just thought it was going to be thus one day, but it was not so. In gathering my words, I thought of the phrase “cut short in his prime” and then smirked to myself; it seemed ridiculous, as he was aged 69. But he was sprightly, a secret gym goer, with a full head of floppy hair, and I just felt there was more ahead of him than behind him. Sadly, his future was stolen from us all, and Southend and this House are poorer for it. Over the weekend, I kept watching the news, hoping that the ending of the story or news clip would somehow be different from the previous ending.
At a vigil in Southend there were hundreds of people from all walks of life. Every story was very different, but at the same time every story was the same: David listened, David cared, David delivered—he had a knack of getting things done. Like others have said, I always expected him to turn up late, so I was not surprised when he was not there at the beginning of the vigil, but I really did expect him to be there, because he is always there.
It is unbelievable that David is not coming back. Members can think of the last meeting they had with him—I think of the last Remembrance Day service and the last Christmas with him dressing up as Santa Claus and going out and giving chocolates to the kids in the Neptune ward in Southend, whether they wanted them or not! I would bring the remainder to my kids, who would stick them to one side, despite all the rules about eating chocolate.
This is not the last of David: he lives on in us all. I do not think David would have seen himself as a mentor to people in this House—he would not have called himself that—but that is what he was, by demonstration and osmosis. David inspired great loyalty in his staff, and his office was always packed with people, paperwork and, as anyone who has been there would know, fish and birds, despite the House authorities’ ban on the subject. It was part office, part museum of decades of political memorabilia, part pet shop. It was an office like the politician: unique.
David is survived by a lovely family: Julia, his wife, and his children David jr, Katherine, Sarah, Alex and Florence. It is with sadness that the family comes from all corners to be back together in the city of Southend. We pray for them collectively. Their statement yesterday was poignant. They said:
“we ask people to set aside their differences and show kindness and love to all.”
That should not be beyond us all; it is not a bad instruction to this House. Let us take that message back to our constituencies. Let us make some good of this horror. To Julia: Southend thanks your husband for his service. Rest in peace, my good friend. Rest in peace.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say, to reassure the House, that the animals are being looked after and his office is being looked after?
I urge Members to think of others as we try to get through a very long list of speakers. I call the Mother of the House, Harriet Harman.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Beyond the horror that we all feel, Sir David’s family are first and foremost in my thoughts. I want to add my heartfelt sympathy to his wife and children. Their statement, released in their unimaginable shock and grief, shows such extraordinary dignity.
Sir David was one of the most dedicated but also the most affable of MPs. He looked beyond party differences to work with so many of us on a multitude of issues of common concern. That is why there are tears on all sides of the House this afternoon. To give just one example, most recently he took the lead on a cause that I then took up: the injustice done to young, unmarried mothers whose babies were taken from them in the 1960s and 1970s. We all have examples of when he worked with us. My tribute to him will be to redouble my efforts on that cause and to remember and work in the spirit that he exemplified: commitment to constituency, commitment to Parliament and a belief that he could and did make a difference. Sir David Amess, rest in peace.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford).
In 2010, David Amess made a speech in which he said it was extraordinary to listen to the then acting leader of the Labour party, now the Mother of the House. He said that she made a splendid speech, and that one of the jokes was fantastic and he was going to use it in the future.
David’s all-party group on fire safety and rescue worked with the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform—we had a number of meetings over the year. Alongside city status for Southend, may I put it to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that they could make his legacy the finding, fixing and funding of the problems on defective leasehold flats, while chasing those responsible and getting them to pay up? I think he would wish for that.
If we look around this Chamber, we can see the shields of those who have died—some in active service in the last world war. Ronald Cartland was the first. Other Members went forward knowing the risks. So did Police Constable Keith Palmer.
Jo Cox and her family are in our hearts, as we have been told, and we remember Andrew Pennington, the Liberal MP’s caseworker who also died in a constituency attack. A few of us were here when Airey Neave’s car was blown up. Robert Bradford and I were together in the Westminster Wobblers, the House of Commons’ football team. Tony Berry was my Whip, and Ian Gow and I canvassed together in Ulster. Gow’s death, I believe, was timed to make us forget the murder of the Sister of Mercy, Catherine Dunne, a few days earlier in July 1990.
In David’s first speech in January 1984, he said:
“Charity has been described as that amiable quality that moves us to condone in others the sins and vices to which we ourselves are addicted.”
When he made that first speech in the Commons, he was able to say that there with him were five people who had previously represented his own constituency, which must be some kind of a parliamentary record.
David was followed by the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), who cheerfully said:
“At the risk of inciting dissent from those behind me, I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on his maiden speech. I do not agree with what he said, but it was no worse than the speech of the Minister.”—[Official Report, 17 January 1984; Vol. 71, c. 219-20.]
That was the line that Douglas Jay used when he congratulated me in 1975, so the response must be in the Labour Whips’ booklet.
The right hon. Member went on to wish David well in the time that he had in Parliament. That time is well described by Trevor Phillips in The Times today. His leading words talked of
“the simplicity of a man who served.”
He said:
“He knew his constituents well and showed them what the Tory party could be.”
Mr Speaker, can we thank you and the party leaders for what you have said over the past three days? May I also add John Bercow who, in an interview I heard, represented the feeling of those who have served with David in this House?
Many of these attacks are done for calculated publicity and public reaction. We should try to make both act against the wishes of perpetrators. The only guarantee is that, when there is a gap, it will be filled. MPs are in the middle of a pack of people at some risk, including ministers of religion, mental health workers, public transport staff, lone shopkeepers, women police officers, journalists, fair employment builders in Northern Ireland and the judiciary, and especially women and girls going home and at home.
We should defend people in every walk of life, in politics and universities—here I mention mildly the philosopher Professor Kathleen Stock in my county of Sussex. St Margaret’s Church, Parliament Square, where I serve as parliamentary warden, is where we will gather later today and for the Roman Catholic service on Wednesday.
We have learned to stand with the Irish and the Northern Irish against violence. We stand with Muslims against Islamophobia, with Jews against anti-Semitism and with all the targets of fascists and white supremacists. We do have to be vigilant, but we also have to continue to be diligent in contact with constituents. Of course, we must review security risks, including the insecure location of the national holocaust memorial presently proposed in Victoria Tower Gardens.
At the opening of the Imperial War Museum’s holocaust galleries last week, I collected posters. David might wish us to remember their words, as if directed to us and to our constituents.
“Freedom is in peril. Defend it with all your might.”
Another, which brings his face to my mind, says:
“Your courage, your cheerfulness, your resolution will bring us victory.”
I end with the then Prime Minister’s first speech to the House of Commons:
“Let us go forward together.”—[Official Report, 13 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1502.]
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The grief, the sadness and the shock that we are all feeling today on the awful loss of Sir David Amess—this collective sorrow—unites us all today. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I want to reach across the aisle and say to every Conservative colleague who knew David much better than many of us on the Opposition Benches, as has been so evident in the brilliant speeches that we have heard: we feel for you.
David’s wonderful friendliness and his eclectic mix of campaigns that bridged the political divide were very special. From his campaigns on animal welfare to his championing of the fuel poor, David always spoke with compassion and authority, and often with humour.
Since Friday, I have spoken to a range of people about David, not least Liberal Democrat councillors from Southend. I have to confess to Government colleagues that not all Liberal Democrat councillors are always complimentary about their sitting Conservative MP, but about David Amess their affection was totally authentic. Carole Mulroney, a councillor in Leigh-on-Sea, told me how appreciative she was of David’s support for the Leigh Society and the local heritage centre that it runs. Local history was clearly a passion of David’s, as shown by his championing of the cause of Endeavour, the only one of Leigh’s little ships to have survived the years since Dunkirk. Endeavour has been brought back to Leigh and restored, and now takes part in Dunkirk ceremonies and local events, not least thanks to David.
As well as being proud of Southend’s past, David will always be deeply connected to its present and its future, particularly now that we will have the city of Southend. Carole told me how David would proudly boast of walking each road, street, drive, avenue and lane of his constituency, and how supportive he was of every community, not least the local fishing and cockling industry. Every community needs champions like David. The point is that we do not have to agree with each other across our political divides, but we can learn to be kind and warm, even when we disagree; David was.
Today is not the day for discussing the implications for MPs’ security and so on, but I want to reflect on what happened to one of my close Liberal Democrat colleagues nearly 21 years ago. Yesterday I spoke to Nigel Jones, a former MP for Cheltenham, who, as many will recall and a number have mentioned, was brutally assaulted during his constituency advice surgery. Nigel was saved that day by the bravery of his member of staff, Andrew Pennington. Andrew Pennington was killed. Andrew was a local councillor, who, Nigel told me, used to work seven days a week for local residents. He was Nigel’s right-hand person. As we reflect on the loss of David and on the threat to MPs, let us remember this too: our staff and many in public services face abuse, threats and violence on an alarmingly frequent basis. It is incumbent on us in this House to defend them all. I am sure that that is what David would have wanted.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
Laughter, service, compassion: these are three of the words that spring to my mind when I think of David Amess.
Laughter, because you could never have a conversation with David without laughter and smiling, whether that was because one of the outrageous stories that he was telling, perhaps about one of his colleagues or somebody else—[Laughter.] It was always smiles, always laughter, always fun around David.
Service, because he had an extraordinary record of dedicated service to his constituents. I suggest to anybody who wants to be a first-class constituency MP that they look at the example of David Amess. He was deeply embedded in his constituency and, as we all know, championed it on every possible occasion. I do not think that a question or speech from David went by in this House without his constituency being mentioned. But he did not just promote his constituency here in the House. He was a part of it: he understood it, he knew it, he was in the community, he was of the community, and he was respected and loved by the community. His death is tragic and the manner of his death appalling, but isn’t it fitting that his last acts were acts of service to his constituents?
And then there was David’s compassion, born out of and strengthened by his faith: compassion for the vulnerable; compassion for those in need. But he did not just talk about it; he acted. He changed laws. He went out there and made a difference to people’s lives, because he was also an accomplished parliamentarian and he knew that a Back Bencher who is dedicated and resolute can make a real difference.
To echo some of the comments that have been made today, first of all, I think it is a wonderful legacy for David that Southend is now a city. But we can also add to the legacy of David Amess by ensuring that in all our political debates and our political discourse we bring to those debates and that discourse the same respect, decency and compassion that were the symbols of his life. Because David Amess made a difference. His compassion made a difference to people outside of this House. His kindness made a difference to people inside this House. Our thoughts and prayers are with Julia and the family. Their loss is devastating. His constituency has lost a much respected and loved Member of Parliament, this House has lost a remarkable and valued parliamentarian, and every Member of this House has lost a friend. May he rest in peace.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As has been alluded to, Sir David was a man of deep Catholic faith. The Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 10, reminds us that the Lord came not just to give life but to give it in abundance, and David lived his life in abundance—a joyous service both to his constituents and here in this House. We would see him late at night, often in a tuxedo, going from charitable concern to charitable concern, championing the causes he believed in. He looked good in a tuxedo—no Daniel Craig, but this was no time to die either.
My wife reminded me of the time when we went to the beatification in Rome of John Henry Newman, just before lockdown—a beautiful service presided over by Pope Francis. We were whisked to the Oratorian College on one of the mountains of Rome overlooking Vatican City, where Prince Charles addressed us brilliantly. Then the royal cavalcade rushed out. Unfortunately, the parliamentarians on the trip were left stranded. The former Member for Ealing North, Stephen Pound, a former naval commander, decided to lead the vanguard in a military operation to get us back down to our hotel. Like troglodytes we entered a cave and ended up in a vast Franciscan monastery. Our party become separated; it was now more like an Ealing comedy under Stephen’s leadership. My wife reminded me that I abandoned her and her safety—a lifelong Labour activist, my wife—to three Tory MPs getting stuck in a lift, including Basildon Man, as she said, because he was still etched on our 1992 election memory. The other two MPs, by the way, were for North Dorset and Fylde, so I will catch Mark and Simon up about what went on in that lift, because my wife said, “What an utterly, utterly wonderful man.”
He participated fully in the liturgy of the Church. He participated fully in the sacraments of the Church. While I have the attention of those on the Front Benches, let me say that Catholics believe that extreme unction helps guide the soul to God after death, so maybe we could come up with an Amess amendment so that no matter where it is, in a care home or at a crime scene, Members, or anybody, can receive that sacrament.
David believed fundamentally in the social teaching of the Church: dignity, solidarity, subsidiarity to the nth degree when it came to Southend, a preferential option for the poor, and care for the environment. That meant that he came with unique views on things such as life, death, Europe and animal protection, sometimes in chime with his party, sometimes in chime with the country, but sometimes not. He channelled the 14th-century mystic Julian of Norwich, who said, “All things shall be well and all manner of things shall be well.” That is difficult for us all here today. His cheeky catchphrase was, “Don’t worry; it will be fine”—not quite Bruce Forsyth, but he was a friend of Bruce Forsyth and his family.
He did not die a martyr, but he died, as has been said, doing the things he loved and helping constituents. He would have known that the theologian Karl Rahner said that power is a gift from God. That portcullis on the top of our letterheads gives us all that power, whether on the Front Bench, in opposition or on the Back Benches. Let us recommit to Sir David today that we will use that power for the common good.
He died on the feast of St Teresa of Ávila. She said this, famously:
“May you trust God that you are exactly where you are meant to be. May you not forget the infinite possibilities that are born of faith. May you use those gifts that you have received, and pass on the love that has been given to you.”
David used those gifts, and he passed on that love.
Sir David, may the choirs of angels come to greet you. May they lead you to paradise. May the Lord enfold you in his mercy. May he grant you eternal life. Eternal rest give to him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It was a true privilege to have known David Amess. He was simply one of the best people I have ever known in my entire life. He was a true friend. He had time for each and every one of us. He looked down on no one. He was everyone’s equal. He was kind, he was generous, and he was sincere. He was a man of principle and courage. He was uncompromising in what he believed to be right. He was not one of those who change their views in order to progress. He knew what he believed in, and he stood firm for those things. He was a man of enormous integrity, but he was a true friend to so many of us.
I knew David for around 40 years. We became friends instantly, because we shared the same political views. We came from the same background. I am from Essex—some say east London, but I say Essex—and he knew that our instincts, coming from that neck of the woods, were the same. We hit it off from day one. We were committed to this country. We love our country. He was a passionate believer in Britain and a true patriot. He was a royalist. He was never afraid to fly the flag and to champion great British values. He was a Christian and was proud to be a Christian and uphold the Christian heritage of this country.
He also loved animals, as I do. He loved my dogs almost as much as I love his dogs. On many occasions, I would visit his home in Southend, often taking my elderly mother. He had an elderly mother who lived to 104. When his mum died, he spoke to my mother as if she were his mother. He treated me like family. My heart goes out to Julia and the five children, who are wonderful people. He had a fantastic family. He was so dedicated to his constituencies: Basildon and Southend West. He lived for them, and he did sacrifice everything else to put his constituency first.
I will say this: the one legacy that we must hold true to David is not to let his horrific murder and the horrific way that he left us change our democracy. I remember the day after the appalling Grand Hotel bombing in Brighton in 1984. I remember Margaret Thatcher—he was a dedicated supporter of Margaret Thatcher—saying, “It is business as usual, we must carry on.” I take the same view. Whatever happens and whatever we do to carry on and protect ourselves, we must not let our democracy be undermined by that kind of evil. We must stand up to evil, defend our democracy, cherish the freedom that gives all of us the right to be here and represent our constituents, and defend and cherish the freedoms and liberties that have held our country together for generations. David was a fine example of a parliamentarian, a magnificent constituency MP, a true friend, a gentleman and a truly wonderful human being. We are going to miss him, but I feel truly privileged to have known him. Thank you, David. God bless you.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I rise on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends to record the common and unified voice of the people of Northern Ireland, who share in the grief and sorrow at the loss of our esteemed and much-loved colleague and friend. My condolences and sympathy to the Prime Minister and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Words cannot adequately describe or suitably express our heartfelt sympathy, but I pray that the words spoken here today and across our nation in recent days sustain and give strength to David’s family. No one will feel the loss of David more than his family. To his wife Julia, his beloved children and the wider family circle, I offer my heartfelt condolences and deepest sympathy on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, and I trust and pray that almighty God, the greatest of all comforters, will draw near to all of them.
David epitomised the true meaning of public service. He was the model parliamentarian. He sought office not for self but to serve others, influenced by his deep Christian faith to champion the needs of the most vulnerable, to give a voice to the voiceless and to stand up for the interests of the people of Southend West. David’s greatest joy came not in holding office but in how he could use that office to improve the everyday lives of those he was honoured to represent. The people of his constituency and from the city of Southend have lost their greatest champion, and I, like Members on all sides of the House, have lost a dear friend.
The plaques at the entrance door to the Chamber and around the Chamber in memory of the late Airey Neave, Robert Bradford, Anthony Berry, Ian Gow and Jo Cox are a daily reminder to all of us of the threat that our democracy faces in modern times. In Northern Ireland, all parties in the Chamber have experienced these threats and the loss of dear colleagues at the hands of the enemies of democracy. Today, this House sends a clear message—a resounding message—that democracy in the United Kingdom will never be suppressed. Our voices will never fall silent. We will never allow evil to triumph over good.
David taught us all the true meaning of public service. He showed us the true value of public office and provided us all with a true example of faith in public life. His legacy lives on in all the causes and communities that he championed, the lives that he improved and those whom he inspired.
Mr Speaker, it now falls on us all to take forward the beacon of hope along the path that David led us and to ensure that the flame of his legacy is never extinguished. The House is the poorer for his loss, and this country—all of it—mourns the tragic passing of one of its most faithful servants. Our response collectively is simple. When one of us falls, another will step forward. Together, we will continue to defend the values and ideals that David stood for and that are the foundation stones of this great nation.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I think the whole House will be left in no doubt of the genuine affection in which Sir David’s constituents held him just by watching the TV footage this weekend. As a friend of his, I am hugely comforted by the genuine affection that has been shown today, in response, by hon. Members. For me, David was a great friend as well as great parliamentarian.
Last week, Sir David led a delegation of the Qatar all-party group on a visit to Qatar, and he led it with his characteristic good humour, dare I say great fun, and inclusivity. During the visit, we had the benefit of an audience with His Highness the Emir. As the meeting came to a close David, with a great flourish, referred to the need to present a gift, and with his characteristic self-deprecation, he said, “What could I give the man who has everything? Here is an inscribed copy of my book!” That was David.
I suggest that those hon. Members who have not yet read Sir David’s book go out and get a copy, because the proceeds go to some of the charities that he championed. Could I also say that, in actual fact, it is the authentic voice of David, with his pen portraits, some of which are humorous and some of which are quite barbed? It is actually a great insight into Parliament from somebody who, as we have heard today, spent all of his career on the Back Benches, but who loved this place. He genuinely thought it was a privilege to be a Member of Parliament. He loved his work on the Panel of Chairs, he was proud of the legislation he had secured, there were the end-of-term Adjournment debates—they will never ever be the same again, will they?—and he may have become the Father of the House.
I believe there is a serious point here. In the 38 years Sir David served as a Member of Parliament, one of the things he lamented was the decline in the respect for this institution and for the Members within it. The reason he lamented it was that he felt our constituents were the poorer for it, because as that respect declined we just became inconveniences to be managed by public authorities, rather than the genuine voice of challenge. I think that if we do anything to remember him, that is something he would wish us to work collectively to address, as that is what makes this place worthwhile.
In reflecting on Sir David’s memory, we must not remember the way in which his life was taken, but remember how he lived. His beaming face in 1992, when his victory marked a fourth election victory for the Conservatives, is of course iconic. However, I should say to the House that his biggest pride was not actually that result, but the one in 1983, when he won Basildon for the first time—a victory as much against the odds as the one in 1992. I would say that he held Basildon as a marginal seat for all that time because he was an amazing campaigner. He had time for everyone, as we have heard, and his megaphone was never too far away. I have to say that we enjoyed some visits by David and his megaphone in Thurrock over the years, and it was always great fun.
As an east ender, Sir David instinctively represented the politics of south Essex. He would describe himself as a working-class Conservative, and he very much epitomised the kind of person who embraced the politics of Margaret Thatcher. He would recount with great pride the occasion when, after everyone had written off his election prospects in 1992, it was Margaret Thatcher who came on the eve of the poll to support him, and he credited part of his victory to that.
Our thoughts are obviously now with Sir David’s family. Just as a final note, the last time I went to David’s house he was proudly showing me his wedding video. The reason he was doing so was not just to show me my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) and her dancing back in those days in 1983—he was hugely proud that she got here too—but that the exact wedding he had to Julia in 1983 at Westminster cathedral and then a reception here was what he repeated for his daughter only a few weeks ago. I hope the whole family receives some comfort from the fact that we all loved him.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I knew David for perhaps 25 years, and for eight years we were constituency neighbours when I was the MP for Hornchurch. Following on from one of the anecdotes given by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), I remember David telling me a few times that people had said to him on the doorstep, particularly in Basildon, “I’m going to vote for you, David, because you’re a good Labour man.” I once said to him, “Did you ever put them right, David?” and he said “Er...”. That was the closest I got to an answer, so I think we can all deduce that he probably didn’t put them right.
We all know that David was a hyper-assiduous constituency MP. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) mentioned the pre-recess Adjournment debates. For a long time, David and I were both contributors to every single—or so it seemed—pre-recess Adjournment debate. We used to call it whingeing gits day, and Members who have taken part in those debates can probably imagine why we did so. There used to be a bit of a competition between us to see who could get the greatest number of constituency topics into the debate. I think David won every time, covering perhaps eight, nine or 10 issues in his staccato way.
On a more general point, I want to say one more thing about David. There are profound and visceral issues that divide parties and individuals in this place, but they are minuscule compared with what divides us from the forces of darkness who brought this about.
Finally, on a deeply personal note—on behalf of my wife, Ellie, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), who is here, and myself—I will always remember that David always asked about our sons, our children, and how they were getting on. I will carry that with me for the rest of my life.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am going to be, or at least intend to be, brief; after all, pretty much everything about David has been said, but that does not mean I cannot repeat it.
I knew David for 29 years. When I first came into this place in 1992, he was outstandingly and unfailingly kind, conscientious and generous, even to new Members who had arrived here eight years after him. I remember that very clearly. Later on, when I got to know him better, I recalled that a constituent of mine had referred to David, when he represented Basildon, as somebody who would go to the opening of an envelope. I put this to him, saying, “You are accused of going to the opening of an envelope,” and he said, “I damned well hope so, because I wrote it to them so I could go there in the first place.”
When the Conservatives won Basildon Council—for the first time, I think—David was there. It was not enough for him just to be with the councillors when they went in; he formed a conga that took the whole of the newly elected council through the council buildings and into the chamber. His sense of humour was always there, preceded by that megawatt smile that he could turn on. For most of us in this Chamber, it is hard work sometimes being able to smile enough, but for David it was hard work not to smile, and he would smile even in some of the most difficult circumstances.
After I ceased being Leader of the Opposition—I have to say, with respect, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the current Leader of the Opposition that no matter how much he is enjoying it now, it really is not what it is cracked up to be—[Laughter.] I have to tell him that. [Interruption.] That is what I thought, too. I had to go and speak at an event for David, and he patted me on the shoulder and said, “Are you going all right?” I said, “Yes, fine,” and he got up and introduced me by saying, “I’m so pleased to have Iain Duncan Smith here; he has just slid down the greasy pole”—and then he carried on. [Laughter.] He did tell me directly afterwards that he had retired finally from a long time in government and thought that he would have more influence elsewhere; actually he spent a very short time in government, but that did not bother him in the slightest.
On a more serious note, I want to say that David has shown us the way—the way of co-operation. Most Members in this place know that we get things done by co-operating across the Floor. Little is talked about that, Mr Speaker, as you know, but it is the embodiment of who we are in this place. We cannot get stuff done by ourselves, so we form alliances. Whether it is on modern-day slavery or, in my case, gambling harms, we go on, we form alliances and we eventually move things and get them done. David was the architect of that. There was not an alliance that he could not form; even if there was not an issue on which he could form it, he would form it. [Laughter.]
My point is that this is who we are. We are often, as Jo Cox said, more united by the things we believe in than necessarily divided. The fact is that we are in this place because we argue with each other about our ideas. The important feature of this place is that we may disagree with arguments, but we do not disrespect the motives of those who hold them.
This is a lesson to us that we need to be careful here what we legitimise in what we say about our colleagues. They are not evil people. Nobody in this Chamber is an evil individual. They have strong beliefs. I was struck when the media had finished talking about David and then said, “And he was a man with very strongly held beliefs,” as though that was an aside that they wanted to bury. We come here because we have strong beliefs, and we should be proud of that. We argue with each other because we are the point where people can see us debate these things, have power of emotion and be angry about them—this place is a cockpit of that—so that they do not have to do it outside, violently, elsewhere. I believe the point that David was making was that we need publicly to show each other the respect that those ideas are greatly held. We respect each other, but we do not dislike or hate each other. That is not for us, and it is not for that that he lost his life.
I have been told that today, a document came through the door of my constituency office. The front page was all about David, and on it was written, “Like you. You bastard.” In fact, I did think he might have done it, because it was spelled “Barsted”. Even in that threat, I think there is a sense of irony.
In conclusion, let me say that for David’s family, this is a tragedy, which this deranged, hateful and violent individual has brought to them, unwarranted and without cause. David taught us something very important that they can remember. He believed not in the power of position, but in the power of purpose. Mr Speaker,
“They told me, Heraclitus, they told me you were dead,
They brought me bitter news to hear and bitter tears to shed.
I wept as I remember’d how often you and I
Had tired the sun with talking and sent him down the sky.
And now that thou art lying, my dear old Carian guest,
A handful of grey ashes, long, long ago at rest,
Still are thy pleasant voices, thy nightingales, awake”—
that is the important thing, Mr Speaker: he will be with us forever.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Can I just urge us to try to be brief to get plenty of others in? I call Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just briefly join the tributes that we have heard.
Sir David Amess asked all of us about our families, and we now send our condolences to his family, not just from all of us but from all our families, who will very much be feeling the need to reach out to them at this difficult time. We pay tribute, too, to Sir David’s staff, who went to work on Friday morning to try to help his constituents, like all our staff do for every one of our constituents, and had to face the unimaginable.
Every one of us has a story of things that we worked with David on. There were so many different issues, but for me it was the work we did together on amendments to help child refugees reunite with their families, which was something he felt strongly about. You could never predict what issue he would feel strongly about next, but then you would look back and think that it made absolute sense that that was what he was championing, because kindness, compassion and helping others were so often at the heart of it.
David’s office is just above mine, so I would often chat to him while walking to vote and coming across here. Walking across today to come and pay tribute to him, I really felt it, knowing that I would not walk with him again and chat about our families. Coming out of the lift to David’s office, you could never get wrong which floor you were on, because, as many will know, there is, hanging on his door, a giant cardboard cut-out of a knight in shining armour with the helmet tilted in a jaunty way just looking at you. A knight in shining armour is what David will have been to so many of his constituents. Around the corner, there is a box of nodding reindeer decorations, ready to be spread across the corridors. That was what David would do at Christmas time: spread friendship and joy. If you stand by that knight today, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will also hear the ethereal sound of birdsong, for so many reasons, for David.
Jo Cox said to us that we
“have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
David showed us how to do that, because while he had disagreements with pretty much every one of us, he also had the unerring instinct of finding what it was he had in common with each and every one of us. When we face awful things happening and extremists try to divide us, we know the most powerful thing in our armoury against them and in defence of democracy is the powerful words said on all sides of the House in unity, in defence of democracy and, now, in respect for David.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I first met David Amess nearly 40 years ago, shortly after his historic election as MP for Basildon, the image of which, the picture of his smiling face, came to symbolise the Conservative victory under Margaret Thatcher’s leadership. He won because he embodied all that was best about Essex man: he was patriotic, he came from a working-class background, he was devoted to his family and he was passionately independent. I got to know him when I was working for Margaret Thatcher in No. 10 Downing Street. He adored her. He was absolutely furious when she was removed from office and, indeed, remained furious long after. In 2013, he held an Adjournment debate on her legacy, following her death. She, in turn, hugely valued him.
David championed many causes, as others have said, but most of all he loved his constituency and the people he was so proud to represent. My constituency is just about 30 minutes away from his, and a number of times I spoke for him at events and he spoke for me. The huge respect and affection in which he was held was always obvious. He loved meeting people and he made sure that he spoke to every single person at whatever gathering he was present. As has been referred to, it became a joke that for his first 14 years he would make sure that, in every question and every speech, he referenced Basildon in ringing tones, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) demonstrated in his contribution.
After David’s election to Southend, his campaign for Southend to become a city was mentioned at every opportunity. It is well known that he was a great animal lover and devoted to his dogs. Even when seeking support for his French bulldog, Vivienne, in this year’s Westminster Dog of the Year competition—as the Prime Minister referenced—the reason he gave as to why we should vote for Vivienne as Westminster dog of the year was that she is an enthusiastic supporter of Southend becoming a city. [Laughter.] So when, in 2012, Chelmsford, as the county town of Essex, was granted city status, David took the news reasonably well. [Laughter.] I can say, on behalf of my constituents in Chelmsford, how delighted we are that Essex will now have two cities.
I represent a part of the Chelmsford local authority area, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) represents the city itself. She is unable to be here today, as she is on ministerial duties abroad, but she asked me to say on her behalf how much she appreciated the kindness and gentle wisdom that David typically showed to her and other new Essex MPs when they were first elected. I also join her in paying tribute to the work that David did for all of us to improve our hospitals across mid and south Essex, a legacy that will continue to benefit hundreds of thousands of Essex residents.
David was, quite simply, the best of us. All of us are still in shock but our hearts go out to his family, and I hope that people listen to their words. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford spoke powerfully about the abuse that particularly Members of Parliament—but not just MPs; a lot of other public servants—suffer from online in social media. I have been heartened by the huge number of messages that I have had from my constituents and others, first, to express condolences and, secondly, just to express their appreciation of the work that we do in this place. I like to think—and I strongly believe—that those horrible, aggressive voices that sometimes seem to dominate social media are not representative of the views of the vast majority of people, who share all the qualities and would respond to the appeal of David’s family that we should show each other kindness and love, and that that should be his lasting legacy.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
We have rightly been reminded of David’s enthusiastic advocacy for the constituencies that he represented, but he was also an enthusiast for the London Borough of Newham, where he was born and grew up; where he attended the excellent St Bonaventure’s Catholic school, which he stayed in touch with for the rest of his life; where he supported West Ham United football club; and where his mother lived until her death five years ago, as we have been reminded, at the age of 104. I heard over the weekend from somebody who was in the sixth form at St Bonaventure’s with David but who, unlike David, supported the Labour party. He told me that the politics teacher, Mr Cunningham, predicted that David was going to be a Conservative MP. He also told me that in a period when he was not able to attend quite a lot of the politics lessons, David very carefully wrote out all of his notes so that his friend could copy those notes afterwards. Kindness was evident at that early stage as well.
David stood for election to the council in Newham in 1974 and 1978 and for Parliament in Newham North West in 1979, before finding more promising opportunities further east, but notwithstanding party differences, his supportive interest in Newham remained. As council leader from 1990, I pressed the Conservative Government to bring the channel tunnel rail link through a station in Stratford. David was our unwavering ally on the Government side. Singlehandedly, he made the campaign cross-party, and that was crucial to its success, leading to London 2012 and the regeneration that is under way at the moment.
Of course, David was not initially seen as a friend by my Newham Council colleagues, who have not seen a Conservative elected for 30 years. We all remembered David dashing our 1992 general election hopes by holding Basildon, but we invited him to our town hall celebration when the Stratford campaign succeeded. I was not quite sure how that was going to go, but David won over everybody with a beautifully judged speech. Newham has lost a great friend.
David was accessible to his constituents. Tragically, he has now given his life. We will rightly reflect on what more we can do to stop that happening again—I wonder if we might ask the police to review our appointment lists ahead of each surgery, for example—but we must not give up on the accessibility of Members of Parliament. If we do, the sponsors of those who attacked David and who attacked me will have succeeded. That must not happen.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We would all like to have a long time to hear more of these heart-warming stories and recollections of our dear lost friend, but we are due to go to church quite soon, so I implore colleagues: please take just two minutes or so each, because then everyone will get a chance to say what they would like to say.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
We have heard magnificent tributes from the Prime Minister, from the Leader of the Opposition, from David’s Essex colleagues and from many Opposition Members. I think we are all grateful for that, and the tone of the House is as it can be at its best.
I want to spend just a couple of minutes speaking on behalf of the remnants of the class of ’83. Of the 100 of us who came in, sadly only two remain with continuous service, along with another three who have come back after leaving the House briefly. We had all hoped and expected that in the fullness of time, once my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) had surrendered his position, by which time David would have been a very old man—[Laughter]—he would have become the Father of the House. He would have made a magnificent successor to my hon. Friend. Sadly and cruelly, that has been denied us.
The many of us on both sides of the House who had the privilege of working with David on his campaigns—on foxhunting, when campaigning on it was unfashionable; on the reunification of Cyprus; on Iran; on pensions for expat UK citizens; and on a whole range of other issues—know just how doughty a campaigner he was. That is clearly why he was so loved in his constituency.
Mr Speaker said at the weekend that David’s death had left a void in this House. He was absolutely right, and there is another void: in David’s family home. I hope that David’s wife Julia and his children will take comfort from the fact that across this House there is clearly nothing but affection for his memory. That must speak volumes for the man whose life we celebrate today.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I spent a lot of time over the weekend thinking about what to say if I were called today—and indeed whether to say anything at all, because I did not know David personally. It has been a traumatic few days for many people, and none more so than David’s family and friends; it is they who remain at the forefront of my mind this afternoon. Sadly, I know from my own all too similar experience that in reality there is nothing that anyone can say to make things all right for them—but nor is it any use to stay silent, so I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to someone who was clearly a well-respected and much-loved colleague to many people in this place.
For reasons that I would never wish on any other Member of this House, or indeed anyone, I have a unique perspective on what those closest to David are going through. I send them love, support and solidarity from me, my parents, our family and the people of Batley and Spen.
I have blocked out much of what happened when Jo was murdered, but I remember very clearly the moment when I took the phone call saying that she had been attacked. I remember physically trembling, and the visceral pain that overtook me. It breaks my heart to think that another family have had to experience that phone call and the nightmare that follows. It is a rollercoaster of deep trauma that no one should have to experience. I also know that David’s family will still be in utter shock, as I know many Members are, but I hope that at some point they will be able to hear at least some of the beautiful and very funny tributes that have been paid to him today, and that that will provide a morsel of comfort amid their pain.
I cannot talk about David on a personal level—as I say, I did not know him—but from what I have heard, he strikes me as the sort of MP I might well have come across in the coming months and ended up going for a cuppa with, to hear his thoughts on his work on a children’s Parliament, on animal welfare or on getting more support for people with learning disabilities. We would have been two Back-Bench MPs from different parties and different parts of the country discussing issues close to our hearts, and I imagine it would have been a lot of fun. Sadly, that day will never come.
I know that wider discussions will now take place about the safety of MPs, the awful abuse and intimidation that we face, the nature of political discourse and how we can deal with the evils of terrorism. It is quite right that they do, but today is about David and his family, along with his staff, his colleagues and the community he served so well; the service he gave; and the support we should show all of them in the coming days, weeks and months. It is up to us to make sure that we do that, because I know more than most that they will need it, and the powerful difference that it will make to them.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
David was indeed a great character, with a fantastic sense of humour, and I am honoured to have been able to call him my friend. So much has already been said about him that I do not want to do a repetition. We were both elected to Parliament for the first time in 1983 with small majorities, became firm friends during the 1980s, and shared an office until 1987 in Abbey Gardens. We also shared staff for a while. In those days the House of Commons sat very late, and I was fortunate enough to get to know David really well during that time. Cheerfulness and dedication were his hallmarks throughout his parliamentary career. As for his boundless energy, well, many of us could not keep up. When he took us canvassing and campaigning in Basildon, we certainly could not keep up.
Working in the office with David was quite an experience —we have already heard about the “menagerie” of things that were in his office—but he was also never backward in coming forward. I remember going to a No. 10 reception on the first occasion after we had been elected. Of course, I was in awe of every Prime Minister—including the current one, of course—but Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister then. I cannot do her accent, but “Ah,” she said, putting her head on one side, “the two Davids!” I just said, “Prime Minister, lovely to be here”, and all the rest of it, but David Amess said, “I have never been here before—can you do me a tour?” At that moment, I wished I had quietly died, but she said, “Yes, I will come and get you later.” And she did! We had a tour. Then she said, “I am going to take you upstairs to show you the flat.” She said, “Of course, this is where I cook Denis his breakfast.” “Really?” said David. “He has a cooked breakfast?” “Yes,” she said. “Well,” he said, “it is very poky up here, isn’t it?” He did not think much of it at all. He never had aspirations to be Prime Minister, I think.
David was a friend. I was privileged to know him, and privileged to work with him on so many campaigns. He was a great parliamentarian, a great politician, a fantastic advocate on behalf of his constituents, and a great champion of our nation. He was also one of the nicest, kindest and most genuine people I have ever met. He was always smiling, and was an indefatigable campaigner for all the many issues that he held dear. We are all devastated by his murder. I have been privileged to know his wife and family over the years, and we think of them and we grieve with them; but we will remember his legacy, and we will look on the positive side, because one thing that David Amess always was, was very positive. I am proud to have known him.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
If you had told me before I was elected in 2015, Madam Deputy Speaker, that just a few years later I would be sitting at home grieving over the death of a Thatcherite Tory MP, I would not have believed you, but my partner Nadia and I did just that, for it was David who had died.
David was the first cross-party friend I made in the Commons when I was elected. He was a joy to work with on Committees, and he roped me into all sorts of all-party groups and escapades. He will be sorely missed. He will not, however, be forgotten; when I think back on my memories in this place, my favourites will feature David. I should say that he already features in a number of my Burns supper speeches around the story of a haggis, but it is too long to tell in these short tributes—I hope that I can find the energy and enthusiasm to tell it with the fun that it deserves—so let me just pay my respects to David and send my best wishes to his family. I cannot believe what they will be going through at this time.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I will be brief because I know that many others want to pay their respects and tributes. It is right that I, as the chairman of the 1922 Committee, should pay tribute to David, who was a dedicated and effective Back-Bench Member of Parliament, but I also want to say a few words today because I had the privilege of his friendship for the past 24 years. I am deeply touched by the tributes that have been paid from across the House, including the moving tributes from the Prime Minister and from the Leader of the Opposition. I am also pleased to follow the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), and my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who was one of the first people to get in touch with me on Friday to offer his condolences. That was much appreciated.
We have all had so many messages of condolence from constituents and others since we heard the terrible news. I think that people across the country could sense the goodness, the kindness and the decency of the man we have lost. It is wonderful that we have heard tributes to David’s great achievements in politics, but it is also wonderful that so many references have been made, right from the start, to the joy that he brought into all our lives and those of so many others. He clearly enjoyed the House of Commons and politics, and he loved meeting people. I hope that that is something that will stay with us.
My recollection of David, over the past few years especially, is of seeing him coming towards me in Portcullis House and seeing his infectious smile. I knew that he was looking forward to starting a conversation. He would say, “What are they doing now, Graham? Why are they doing this?” I will miss that. Like others, I will still be looking out for him.
Finally, on a serious point, this is the most open and accessible Parliament of any major country in the world, and the right tribute to David must be that it remains so, and that while we take sensible precautions, we stay open and continue to connect with our constituents as he did so brilliantly.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
It is with incredible sadness and, I have to admit, some anger that I rise to pay tribute to my friend David today. I was fortunate enough to have known him as a family friend before he entered this House, and some three decades later as a parliamentary colleague. My mother Elizabeth was his association chairman and, at times, his election agent in Basildon before, during and after the 1983 election. He was of course the MP for Basildon as well as for Southend; he represented Basildon from 1983 to 1987. When I made my maiden speech last year, like for many other Members who were new to the House, he was here. He was seated just behind me and his face beamed with delight when I recalled that, as a teenager, I had been the Young Conservatives representative on the committee that selected him to become the prospective Conservative candidate for Basildon in 1983.
I remember him as a young, enthusiastic candidate in 1983, a good-looking unconfirmed bachelor with a flowing new romantic hairstyle. He fought an energetic election campaign with a very small team of helpers. We all had our jobs: I made cups of tea—I was 16 or 17 at the time—when we came back after a hard day’s canvassing. My father Tony often had to go and find him; he would be talking to somebody or, more often, he would just have run out of petrol. That was David. He was the recipient of constant motherly advice from my mother, who was his chairman. She would say, “Don’t worry, of course you are going to win”, “You had better get married now, David” and “You need to have some children”, right through to “You’d better get a haircut”. Of course he did win Basildon, he married the love of his life, Julia, and the children followed one after another in rapid succession, but he never did get that haircut.
I know David as a showman. I could tell you numerous stories, but I have had to throw most of the best ones away. What I will say is that, when I found myself on these Benches following the last election, he was delighted. He went out of his way to settle me into the institution he loved so much, and I know he mentored many others, not just me. I speak on behalf of all the 2019 intake when I say how very sad we are to lose him.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is an honour to speak on behalf of my party and to send commiserations to Sir David’s family, friends and colleagues.
The one thing I would like to emphasise is that people outside possibly do not appreciate how much we work together and how much of an honour it is to work together, and how by that we achieve so much. For all of us here, the reality is that democracy is what we have developed so that we no longer attack each other and use violence to achieve our aims. This terrible, abhorrent death has struck us so badly, as of course it has the constituents and so many other people who knew Sir David so well. When we stand up for democracy, we remember that we are standing up for civility, for good behaviour and for treating people properly because, historically, the alternative has been violence, and violence must never be allowed to succeed again.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I rise to pay respect to our dear colleague and my friend, Sir David Amess. I got to know David in 2017, when he reached out to me with his characteristic kindness. He had an extraordinary gift of knowing what to say and when to say it. His many kindnesses provided a firm foundation for our work together on the Dame Vera memorial project.
David was a Christian soul, a fellow Catholic, and his life fully reflected his beliefs. He also enjoyed life. He loved people and had that lightness, vivacity and enthusiasm that drew people to him, and it was infectious. For so many months, we worked together on the Dame Vera memorial on the white cliffs of Dover. He spearheaded this project from the very beginning. From similar working-class backgrounds, we shared a commitment to creating opportunity and social mobility. It makes sense that the Dame Vera project is the centrepiece of Dover’s levelling-up fund bid, one that brings together opportunity, jobs, culture and entertainment, for as the House knows David was a great entertainer as well as a great campaigner.
My enduring memories of David will be of both of us, arm in arm, around the piano singing to Dame Vera’s songs, and of him taking selfies at the white cliffs of Dover. The Dame Vera project was very close to David’s heart, and his family has made a call for public support for fundraising for the Dame Vera memorial in his memory, so let us get behind that, get the fundraising done and build the memorial, and let us include in it a tribute to the life of Sir David Amess, a lovely man who was a true friend to me, to Dover and to our nation.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I join the tributes to the hon. Member for Southend West, who was a kind and generous colleague and a committed and conscientious constituency MP. Just how conscientious he was can be seen in his record of speaking and action in the House.
I recollect Sir David speaking in a pre-Christmas recess Adjournment debate back in 2009, when I was Deputy Leader of the House and it was my job to respond. We heard earlier about his performance in such debates. I remember him raising many, many points that day to be answered or sent for action in Departments, so I looked back and found this amazing list of matters that he raised with me: his view of the then Labour Government; the state of the economy; small shops, having visited every small shop in his constituency during the summer recess; the pay of public servants and the scrutiny of public sector pay; communications with his chief constable and decision-making structures in the police; our forces serving in Afghanistan; the Chilcot inquiry; solvent abuse; compensation for UK users of Vioxx; tax credits and the tax credits helpline; the Southend Association of Voluntary Services and its funding; services for people with rheumatoid arthritis; and seatbelts and the risks to people who do not wear them.
As it was the pre-Christmas Adjournment debate, he concluded that impressive list by talking about the issues of unwanted pets at Christmas and the work of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) that that was 15 issues, not eight, nine or 10, which is the reason David beat him in these debates. That is why he won. [Laughter.]
I fast-forwarded to the most recent pre-recess Adjournment debate, on 22 July, to see whether there was a similarly impressive list, and there was: care costs, both for self-payers and council-funded costs; the accessibility of housing for people with disability; the use of tidal power; the safety of jet skis; single-use plastics; sewage discharge from storm overflows; the planting of trees in Southend for the Queen’s platinum jubilee; banning the live export of animals for slaughter; the pension ombudsman; approaches to working with vulnerable children; the public appeal for a permanent memorial in Dover to Dame Vera Lynn, which he helped to launch; good wishes for our Olympic and Paralympic athletes; praise for a constituent who had done a wing walk for charity; the centenary of the Royal British Legion; and, as ever, a plea to make Southend a city. How wonderful that his strongest campaign, for city status for Southend, will happen—it was the city he loved. Thanks to Her Majesty for approving that.
I will finish by saying this: there were so many causes that Sir David championed, and so many of us worked cross-party with him on issues such as support for people with endometriosis—there was going to be a debate on that today—and children with a learning disability. David’s family have asked us to renew our commitment to the many causes he championed. It is a heartwarming tribute to David’s work that Southend will become a city. We will continue that tribute by renewing and carrying on the work he started.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
May I begin by sending my condolences and prayers to David’s wife, Julia, and his five children?
Not only did Sir David represent the people of Southend West, being a dedicated campaigner on a broad range of issues and achieving some real meaningful changes, but he spent a great deal of time representing this House on overseas delegations. That is what I want to focus on this afternoon.
Sir David was an active member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and a number of all-party groups, including the all-party group on the Holy See. It was on such delegations that I first got to know Sir David well. It was well documented that Sir David was a devout Catholic, but even in the hallowed walls of the Vatican he did not lose his mischievous sense of humour. I think of a time when we were in the Vatican for the canonisation of Cardinal Newman, which has been referred to, and attended a highbrow theological seminar with cardinals. Midway through, David whispered to me, “Isn’t this fabulous? I can see you’re loving it”, to which I replied, “To be honest, not really, David. I am not really understanding it.” It was at the tea break that David and I slipped out, like errant schoolboys. I said to him, “David, are we not going to get into trouble walking through the Vatican gardens?” He said, “Nah”, and nor did we.
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, not all meetings are engaging or go according to plan. I remember vividly a meeting with a foreign Minister who demanded that the meeting take place in English, with the only problem being that that foreign Minister did not speak English and had instructed his translators not to intervene. Several minutes in, with only the Minister understanding what had been said and parliamentary colleagues becoming increasingly frustrated, I passed a note to Sir David saying that this was getting ridiculous. David simply smiled, in his usual way. About a minute later, Sir David leant forward and said, “Minister, your English is superb. Where did you study?” Tears were rolling down colleagues’ cheeks, and nobody was able to make eye contact, for fear of damaging the reputation of this House, but this was a perfect example of Sir David deploying his full sense of humour and ability to address serious situations with a polite and jovial tone.
Just last week, I and others in this House had the privilege of spending time with Sir David on a parliamentary delegation he was leading. He was at his very best, ensuring that colleagues of all levels of seniority were made to feel included and that they played an active role. Every day, we conducted serious business, but he made sure that we always found time to laugh. It will come as no surprise that, even there, he found time to demand that Southend be made a city.
This House has lost a great representative; his family have lost a father and husband. I have lost a dear friend, but it was a real privilege to be with him on his final adventure.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
If David had been here to hear the words spoken today, he would have loved the fact that there was so much humour in people’s contributions, as well as the obvious warmth and respect for his decency. It is just so obvious how genuine the tributes are.
I knew David fairly well through working with him on animal welfare issues. All I wish to do is to quote from some of the animal welfare groups that have paid tribute to him on social media. World Animal Protection talked about his support for calls for an end to the global wildlife trade. The Dogs Trust, with which he worked to support the end to the cruel puppy-smuggling trade, said it was “devastated to hear” of his death. Animal Aid posted a picture of David calling for a ban on game-bird battery cages, saying that it was “shocked and saddened” and describing him as a “friend to animals everywhere”.
I feel particularly for the Blue Fox campaigners—the Conservative campaigners against foxhunting. When the campaign was first established, only a very few MPs on the Conservative Benches supported it, but David was so integral to it. We are now at a place where whether there could ever be a successful attempt to overturn the foxhunting ban is a bit of a moot point, because we have managed to win the debate on both sides of the House rather than just on the Opposition Benches. David was so much a part of that.
The animal welfare campaign PETA—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—has said it is going to add a leaf with David’s name on it to its Tree of Life memorial, which
“celebrates individuals who made a difference”.
PETA said that he “did that in spades.”
Finally, Nick Palmer wrote a lovely tribute to David. Nick was a Labour MP whose time in the House overlapped with David’s for quite some time, but he is now at Compassion in World Farming. He wrote a lovely article in which he said:
“I was especially struck by Alastair Campbell’s comment that the first thing you noticed when David entered the room was his beaming smile, and that not many of us”—
in politics—
“are remembered especially for our smiles.”
I think that is fair to say. He concluded his article by saying:
“When animal sentience is officially on the statute book, when live exports end, when cages on farms are banished to history, all of us in the animal welfare movement will celebrate—and we shall remember the quiet idealism that made Sir David help bring it all about.”
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
In this debate, the life of David Amess keeps invoking one word above all: kindness. The family’s heart-rending statement reflected that word. The Archbishop of York wrote that his life
“showed the true meaning of kindness”.
It would be the greatest of all tributes to David if we, or even just some of us, who are engaged in the daily political battle made kindness our resolution from this day forward. There is much reaching across the Chamber in today’s debate, but which of us in this House can honestly say that, when we have looked across the Chamber—or at those in our own parties—we have never fallen prey to feelings of contempt, lack of respect or unkindness towards those who oppose us? Which of us can honestly say that we cannot do better?
Kindness is giving without any expectation of getting. Kindness inspires hope and optimism, which David also embodied. Like many on all sides, we had our disagreements, but nobody could doubt David’s sincere wish to make the world a better place with his kindness. I wonder why the seven principles of public life do not include the principle of kindness. Henceforth, let kindness be known as the David Amess principle of public life. He, Julia and the rest of his family could bequeath the nation nothing more generous. We could do no greater service to them and to David’s memory than to learn to live that principle more evidently in our daily political lives.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I rise to speak about the brutal killing of our friend, David Amess. I know that we have an adversarial workplace here—we have a face-off—but some of our best friends are often on the other side. I know that when I have been in a hole, it is people on the Conservative Benches who have helped me out and been friendly to me.
This killing was all the more shocking and painful to me because I was certainly the last Labour MP who saw him alive. It was on that delegation to the middle east last week—at the baggage reclaim as it happens. Everyone else had scarpered; everyone else’s stuff had gone. I had missed mine because I had been tying up my shoelaces or something. David said, “No, I will wait with you.” I said, “Come on, you’ve got to go to Essex. Be off with you.” That was the measure of the man and how kind he was. The next day, the last stragglers were saying, “We got back. It was a great trip, thank you.” His was the last WhatsApp message I saw, thanking everyone for their service. How shocking it is that he was taken in service—a public servant slain in the line of duty at his surgery.
Again, on the trip, his million-dollar smile, which we have heard so much about, won over everyone. To one of the dignitaries that I had to introduce him to, I said, “He has been a parliamentarian since the last century, but he never ages.” To another one, David said in his inimitable way, “Oh, you know what? I thought I had a lot of kids, because I have five, but you have 24!” On the coach, in advance of the meeting, he said to us, “Ladies, when we get there, I don’t want any ruffling of his hair, any sitting on his lap, any twiddling of his tie, because he already has three wives, and he doesn’t need any more.”
Everyone has so many Amess-isms. I was with him for a week and miss him dearly. I was shocked. I could not process the news. I had to go and do my own in-person surgery. When I got on the Panel of Chairs, he said, “You? You should be a shadow Minister by now”—no comment! He did not want party preferment and nor do I in that case. When our dear friend Jo Cox—it was so brilliant to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), who is a dear friend already in a short space of time—was taken from us, we all said that we should live by the diktat of “more in common”. I feel that, in life, we should all be a bit more like David. That means being less cross and more cross-party.
Mr Speaker
We will now follow the Serjeant at Arms to process to St Margaret’s Church for the service of remembrance. For MPs and staff who wish to watch the service, it will be live on the Annunciator channel 505.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Post Office counter services in North East Fife
Proposed Heath Common development
Proposed loss of Deangate Ridge
Written Statements
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Gibraltar: Future Relationship with the European Union
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
On 31 December 2020, the UK Government, together with the Government of Gibraltar, agreed a political framework with the Kingdom of Spain on how a future agreement between the UK and the European Union (EU) in respect of Gibraltar would function in the interests of all parties.
This represented the first stage of the two-part process whereby the EU would examine a request from Spain, in agreement with the UK, to initiate the procedure for the negotiation of a separate UK-EU agreement in respect of Gibraltar.
On 5 October 2021, the EU concluded its internal processes necessary to begin the UK-EU negotiations. While the EU mandate has not been published we understand it has been amended from the Commission’s draft mandate published on 20 July 2021. Importantly it now references the role of the European Border and Coastguard Agency (Frontex) in delivering the fluid movement of people between Gibraltar and the Schengen area. Both the UK Government and Government of Gibraltar have been clear that the operation of frontline Schengen external border checks on the territory of Gibraltar by Spanish officials would not be acceptable.
There remain, however, a number of areas where the opening EU position directly conflicts with the political framework agreed between the UK and Spain. These issues will need to be addressed in the UK-EU negotiations to ensure that the pragmatic and careful balance of the political framework is maintained. The UK is committed to working constructively to address these issues with the objective of concluding a treaty in line with the political framework. Formal negotiations began in Brussels on 11 October and further detailed conversations will follow in the coming weeks.
The UK Government continue to work side-by-side with the Government of Gibraltar. We agreed our joint approach to negotiations at the UK-Gibraltar Joint Ministerial Council held in Gibraltar on 29 March 2021. At the core is a shared aim to secure future prosperity for Gibraltar and the surrounding region. This can be delivered through a treaty which brings confidence, legal certainty and stability to the lives and livelihoods of the people of Gibraltar and neighbouring communities.
While fully committed to seeking a treaty based on the political framework, the UK Government and Government of Gibraltar are working closely to ensure robust plans are in place for all eventualities, including if there is no negotiated outcome. Although confident an agreement can be reached, it is only prudent to prepare for all eventualities. The UK will stand fully behind Gibraltar, its people and its economy in any scenario.
We remain steadfast in our support for Gibraltar and will not agree to anything that compromises UK sovereignty.
[HCWS316]
Investment in Green Projects
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Hands)
A year on from the publication of the ten point plan the Government can confirm more than £5.8 billion of investment in green projects has been secured, along with at least 56,000 jobs in the UK’s clean industries.
This major green investment boost helps to drive forward the Government’s ambitions to make the UK a global leader in green technology and finance. It includes more than £650 million in advancing offshore wind this year alone, supporting almost 3,600 jobs across the Humber and North-East, and over £900 million in accelerating the shift to zero emissions vehicles. As part of this Envision AESC will invest over £400 million in battery manufacturing, for example, as part of a £1 billion project with Nissan and Sunderland Council to create a flagship electric vehicle hub. ENI Spa has invested more than £400 million in offshore wind.
This week’s global investment summit in London is expected to attract almost 200 leading industry figures from around the world to invest in the best of UK green business and innovation. Securing private investment for clean technology is a core part of the Government’s strategy to meet our world-leading emissions reductions targets over the next decade and achieve net zero by 2050. Our upcoming net zero strategy, to be published this week, builds on the Ten Point Plan, setting out how we will deliver on our net zero commitments, giving businesses the certainty they need to invest.
Further progress since the ten point plan includes:
Securing around £1.5 billion of investment into our offshore wind industry, supported by the Government’s £160 million scheme to upgrade ports and infrastructure. Renewables now represent almost 40% of the UK’s total electricity generation.
Kicking off the biggest-ever round of our flagship renewable energy scheme for low carbon electricity—contracts for difference—with £200 million for offshore wind projects and £24 million for floating offshore wind.
Publishing the hydrogen strategy to grow the UK hydrogen economy, consulting on design of the £240 million net zero hydrogen fund, and announcing funding of seven real-world hydrogen transport pilots.
Committing £20 million to increase on-street charge points for electric vehicles and providing £50 million to support charge point installations.
Publishing our transport decarbonisation plan and national bus strategy, as well as supporting Coventry to become UK’s first all-electric bus city and consulting on world-leading pledge to end the sale of all new, polluting road vehicles by 2040 and net zero aviation emissions by 2050. This is on top of more than 300 new walking and cycling schemes.
Providing £1 billion to upgrade schools, hospitals, and council buildings with energy efficiency measures and committing £222 million to upgrade socially rented homes. Local Authorities through the Green Homes Grant scheme have also started installing upgrades to around 50,000 low-income households.
Announcing £19.5 million of grant funding for UK projects developing novel carbon capture technology and we have kicked off the process to decide the first carbon capture cluster locations in our industrial heartlands.
Launching the floods investment programme that is on track to better protect 336,000 properties.
Awarding 90 projects under the second round of the Green Recovery Challenge Fund, totalling £80 million of investment, and launched several schemes under the Nature for Climate Fund to expand our pipeline of tree planting projects in England.
Launching the £1 billion Net Zero Innovation Portfolio, providing funding for low-carbon technologies and systems across the areas of the ten point plan.
Launching our landmark North sea transition deal and industrial decarbonisation strategy.
[HCWS321]
Armoured Cavalry Programme: Ajax Update
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I wish to provide a further update to Parliament on the Ajax equipment project being delivered as part of the armoured cavalry programme.
Health and Safety
The review by the MOD’s Director of Health, Safety and Environmental Protection on the health and safety aspects of the noise and vibration concerns raised on Ajax is now in its final stages. The report runs through the chronology of the Ajax programme and key decisions made regarding safety in order to ensure a clear understanding of the current background and is being subjected to a formal Maxwellisation process. I look forward to the report being finalised. I will publish it in full.
Update on Personnel
The health of our service personnel is our top priority. At 30 September 2021, the total number of people exposed to noise and vibration from Ajax was 310, of whom 11 are civilians and 10 are now veterans. All 310 individuals have now been contacted and offered assessments for noise and vibration.
On noise, at 30 September 2021, 270 people have been assessed and 40 people have declined assessment or have so far been unavailable to attend. Of the 270 individuals who have been assessed, 231 have returned to duty having maintained or returned to pre-exposure levels of hearing. Of the 231, as an extra precaution, 166 people are receiving enhanced hearing surveillance. Of the remaining 39 people who have been assessed, 34 remain under specialist outpatient care at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham/Royal Centre for Defence Medicine; most of these are under-going a period of hearing rest prior to reassessment, at which point we expect a significant number to return to full duties. There are a remaining five individuals who have been medically downgraded—potentially requiring a change of duties within the armed forces—or discharged, either for reasons unrelated to hearing or with hearing loss as a major or minor cause. In the case of hearing loss being identified, Ajax may or may not be confirmed as a contributory factor. I am withholding a more precise breakdown of those downgraded or discharged because individuals could be identified resulting in a potential breach in medical confidentiality.
Vibration injuries is a highly specialised area, requiring a graduated assessment process. All 310 individuals exposed have been offered a vibration assessment, with around 125 having so far declined assessment. The process is ongoing but, at 30 September, 45 individuals have been referred for specialist assessment of symptoms which could be associated hand-transmitted vibration, nine individuals have been referred for specialist assessment of symptoms which could be associated with whole body vibration and nine individuals have been referred for both. None of the individuals exposed to Ajax have had a change in medical grading or been medically dischargeddue to vibration.
I will continue to update the House on the number of personnel affected by noise and vibration, including if any trends become apparent once the data has been further analysed.
Programmatic Issues
I have made clear that Ajax requires a full-time, dedicated senior responsible owner. I am pleased to report that we have now appointed David Marsh, who took up the role on 1 October with the endorsement of the infrastructure and projects authority. As the new SRO, he is now in the process of reviewing the armoured cavalry programme to determine what actions need to be taken to put the programme back on a sound footing.
On 6 September, following authorisation by the Ajax safety panel, the independent Millbrook trials recommenced. As planned, and following a further meeting of the safety panel, these trials continued at Bovington to provide a wider range of surfaces on which to test the vehicle. These trials involved General Dynamics crew and real-time monitoring of noise and vibration. Trials have been conducted on the turreted AJAX variant and on the ARES variant, both of which were Capability Drop 1 vehicles. The trials were run at the Millbrook Proving Ground and at Bovington. This has generated hundreds of gigabytes of data which is currently being processed. Subject to safety panel authorisation, trials of a second ARES Capability Drop 1 vehicle will commence shortly at the Millbrook Proving Ground. On 7 October the safety panel also authorised military personnel to conduct essential maintenance on the vehicle and marshalled movement.
Since my last statement data has continued to be gathered and analysed to determine the root cause of vibration in the vehicles. In parallel design modifications have been developed to reduce the vibration experienced by the crew. Testing continues to determine the effectiveness of the modifications and whether they would help ensure the vehicle meets the Army’s requirement.
Investigations into excess noise also continue. An in-line attenuator has been designed and we are now validating its effectiveness to address the noise transmitted through the communications headsets.
The focus for the MOD and General Dynamics remains on delivering long-term solutions for noise and vibration to ensure Ajax meets the Army’s need. Until then, it is not possible to determine a realistic timescale for declaration of initial operating capability or the later introduction of Ajax vehicles into operational service with the Army. We will not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose.
Ajax is an important capability for the Army and we are committed to working with General Dynamics for its delivery. We have a robust, firm price contract with General Dynamics under which they are required to provide the vehicles as set out in the contract for the agreed price of £5.5 billion.
[HCWS322]
Closure of Service Police Legacy Investigations
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
In February 2017, the then Secretary of State for Defence announced that the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) would close and any remaining Iraq legacy investigations would be reintegrated into the service police system. Service Police Legacy Investigations (SPLI), led by a senior Royal Navy Police officer, took over these remaining investigations at the beginning of July 2017.
I can today announce that the SPLI completed its investigative caseload in December 2020 and, following the completion of administrative functions, officially closed its doors on 30 September 2021.
In total, SPLI assessed 1,291 allegations, of which 178 were pursued through 55 separate investigations. The SPLI complied fully with the requirements of the Armed Forces Act 2006—in referring cases to or consulting the Service Prosecuting Authority (SPA)—and with the High Court’s direction to work closely with the SPA to ensure cases were completed as promptly as possible while maintaining the necessary rigour. None of the IHAT or SPLI investigations have resulted in any prosecutions.
One significant challenge throughout the investigations was the issue of the credibility of allegations made against UK service personnel. While we accept that some allegations were credible, this does not detract from the fact we know, from the investigations and from the Al-Sweady public inquiry, that some were not. We know that Phil Shiner, formerly of Public Interest Lawyers, obtained Iraqi clients improperly—through the use of financial incentives—and acted with a lack of integrity. In 2017, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found allegations of misconduct when representing claims against British soldiers—including dishonesty—proven to the criminal standard of proof and he was struck off the Roll of Solicitors.
The vast majority of the more than 140,000 members of our armed forces who served in Iraq did so honourably. Many sadly suffered injuries or death, with devastating consequences for them and their families.
However, not all allegations and claims were spurious, otherwise investigations would not have proceeded beyond initial examination and no claims for compensation would have been paid. It is sadly clear, from all the investigations the UK conducted, that some shocking and shameful incidents did happen in Iraq. We recognise that there were four convictions of UK military personnel for offences in Iraq, including offences of assault and inhuman treatment. The Government’s position is clear—we deplore and condemn all such incidents.
It is also clear that in some cases the original Royal Military Police investigations— conducted in arduous, battlefield conditions, with limited resources and under strict force protection measures—did not manage to secure all the required evidence, with the result that opportunities to hold those responsible to account may now have been lost. I apologise unreservedly to all those who suffered treatment at the hands of UK forces which was unacceptable.
The closure of SPLI marks the completion of the remaining investigations stemming from operations in Iraq. However, we are aware that further serious allegations may arise in the future, and that where credible these would have to be investigated in line with our obligations under international and domestic law.
Looking ahead, any historical criminal allegations will be referred to the Defence Serious Crime Unit. This was recommended in the Lyons/Murphy Review of the Service Justice System, and is further supported by Sir Richard Henriques, a retired judge who I appointed to conduct a review of how allegations on operations are raised and investigated. His review will help ensure we have the best possible framework, skills and processes in place, should this be necessary in the future.
The completion of the SPLI investigations brings us closer to the end of a decade of extensive litigation and large-scale investigations. While the Iraq fatality inspector continues to look at a small number of remaining cases, we can start to draw a line under the legacy of our operations in Iraq and to focus on the future.
[HCWS323]
Coronavirus Community Support Fund: Evaluation
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the National Lottery Communities Fund (TNLCF) have recently published a series of reports detailing the evaluation of the Coronavirus Community Support Fund. The reports will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The reports can also be found online.
The £200 million Coronavirus Community Support Fund (‘the Fund’) was part of the unprecedented £750 million of Government funding to support voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) organisations to continue their vital work during the covid-19 pandemic. The funding was provided by DCMS. TNLCF managed, distributed and oversaw the funding. Additional management support was provided by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC).
The purpose of the fund was to increase community support to people disproportionately affected by the covid-19 crisis, through the work of VCSE organisations; and reduce temporary closures of essential VCSE organisations, and so reduce the burden on public services.
The funding went to 8,200 organisations who in turn supported an estimated 6.5 million people. This included children and young people—supported by 39% of grant holders—people with mental health conditions (40%) and older people (32%).
Without the £200 million fund almost one fifth of recipients would have been forced to close their doors, while over half revealed that they would have delivered significantly fewer services if it had not been for assistance from the fund. Over 6,200 employees of these organisations were brought back or prevented from being furloughed, and over 4,200 new staff members were recruited. This is in addition to grant holders mobilising 136,000 existing volunteers and over 47,000 new volunteers that they had not worked with previously.
The CCSF has also played a major role in the Government’s commitment to tackling loneliness across all grants, with 63% reporting they had promoted ways of building social connections during the pandemic, 79% reporting that beneficiaries felt less lonely, and 70% reporting beneficiaries had more access to social contact.
The findings also underline the positive impacts felt by volunteers who were mobilised during the pandemic. 84% of people who volunteered through the fund felt like they were making a difference, and 66% people felt it gave them a sense of purpose.
[HCWS320]
Wireless Infrastructure Strategy: Call for Evidence
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made on 14 October 2021 in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Arts, the Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay:
The Government want to ensure that the UK has world-class fixed and wireless digital infrastructure as soon as possible, unlocking the huge economic and social benefits these will bring.
On 24 June 2021 the Government therefore announced that we will develop a Wireless Infrastructure Strategy—a long-term policy framework for the development, deployment and adoption of 5G and advanced wireless networks in the UK, ensuring the UK has the wireless coverage to meet our connectivity needs. It will build on the policies outlined in the 2018 Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review (FTIR), and subsequently the 2020 National Infrastructure Strategy, to transform the UK’s telecoms infrastructure.
To support this strategy, DCMS is launching a call for evidence to understand in greater detail:
the future wireless connectivity needs of the UK;
the extent to which the UK market is likely to be able to meet those needs up to 2030;
how the legal and policy framework can best continue to support investment, competition, innovation and adoption of wireless infrastructure;
how the Government can support the development and deployment of future wireless networks, including 6G.
We will use responses to this call for evidence to inform the development of the Wireless Infrastructure Strategy. This call for evidence will run for six weeks, closing on 24 November 2021.
Telecommunications policy is reserved and we will work with the Devolved Administrations to develop the Wireless Infrastructure Strategy.
[HCWS315]
Qualifications and Assessments: 2021-22
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for the School System) at the Department for Education (Baroness Barran), made the following written statement on 11 October 2021:
In April, the Department for Education committed to our intention that exams and assessments would go ahead in 2022. On 12 July, recognising that students taking exams in 2022 have had considerable disruption to their education, Ofqual and the Department published joint consultations outlining detailed proposals for:
changes to the assessment of GCSEs, AS and A-levels in 2022; and arrangements for vocational and technical and other general qualifications in academic year 2021-22.
The Department and Ofqual confirmed the permitted scope of adaptations for vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs) included in performance tables, Functional Skills Qualifications and T-levels in an announcement on 6 August following analysis of responses to the VTQ consultation. Depending on the purpose of the qualification, a range of adaptations for VTQs and other general qualifications have been or will be used including, but not limited to:
a reduction in the number of internal assessments, while ensuring all content is taught
longer and there are more assessment windows;
social distancing adaptations—for example, professional discussion in place of certain practical activities;
greater flexibility in invigilation rules—for example, to allow subject teachers to invigilate their own subject.
On 30 September, the Department and Ofqual published the decision document outlining the decisions taken by the Department and Ofqual following analysis of responses to the consultation on changes to the assessment of GCSEs, AS and A-levels in 2022.
The Department and Ofqual engaged with a wide range of sector representatives during the consultation period. The proposals that were set out in the consultation received a high degree of support and we have therefore confirmed a package of measures that includes four elements:
a choice of topics in GCSE English literature, history, ancient history, and choice of topic or content in GCSE geography;
the provision of advance information on exams in those subjects at GCSE, AS and A-level where there is no choice of content;
changes to the requirements for the delivery of practical activities in science subjects, and assessment in art and design;
the provision of support materials in the exam in GCSE maths, physics and combined science.
We have confirmed that DfE’s policy intention is for advance information to be published by exam boards in early February 2022 to support student revision. The Government retain the flexibility to deploy advance information at an earlier point if there is significant further disruption to education.
The changes for both general and vocational and technical qualifications will be for one year only.
Ofqual also set out its approach to grading for general qualifications, confirming that 2022 will be a transition year to reflect that we are in a pandemic recovery period and students taking exams in 2022 have experienced disruption to their education. Ofqual set out its plans for grading to be based around a profile that reflects a mid-point between 2021 and 2019 grades in 2022. In 2023, Ofqual plans to return to results that are in line with those in pre-pandemic years.
While it is our firm intention that exams will go ahead next year, supported by the permitted adaptations, we understand that contingency arrangements are also needed in the unlikely event that exams cannot go ahead fairly or safely. The Department and Ofqual plan for teacher assessed grades to be used in the event that exams cannot take place, and we have jointly launched a consultation on improvements to the 2021 process for GCSE, AS and A-levels and confirmed the contingency arrangements that will apply to vocational and technical qualifications. The consultation closes on 13 October and we will announce final decisions as soon as possible.
Finally, we have confirmed that in 2022 results days will return to their normal timing, on 18 August for AS/A-level and 25 August for GCSEs. Vocational and technical qualifications used to progress in a similar way to GCSEs and A-levels will be awarded on or before the same days, and other VTQ results will continue to be awarded throughout the year.
[HCWS314]
Blood Donor Selection Criteria
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
I would like to inform the House about changes that the Government will be making to the blood donor selection criteria. This announcement forms part of the wider steps the Government have taken to make blood donation more equitable.
In 2019, the Government commissioned the ‘For the Assessment of Individualised Risk’ (FAIR) steering group to consider whether changes could be made to the blood donor selection criteria to ensure it was as effective and inclusive as possible.
On 14 June 2021, in response to the FAIR steering group’s work, the Government implemented changes that enable men who have sex with men in long-term relationships to give blood. These changes put in place a gender-neutral selection policy, where deferrals are now based on higher risk behaviours associated with acquiring infections.
Following further work by the FAIR steering group, I can announce that the Government will be making an additional change to the blood donor selection criteria, which will increase inclusivity without compromising the safety of donated blood.
As part of its work, the FAIR steering group reviewed the effectiveness of the question prospective donors are asked about whether they have recently had sex with a partner who may ever have had sex in an area where HIV is endemic—including most of sub-Saharan Africa. In reviewing the evidence, the steering group considered the other questions that are already on the pre-donation questionnaire that help to identify high-risk donors and the associated deferrals already in place, as well as the effect of routine screening of all donations for HIV and other blood-borne viruses. The FAIR steering group concluded that the question could be removed without impacting the safety of the blood supply. Furthermore, they determined that removing the question would help to improve inclusivity and equity for Black African donors. This is especially important due to the ongoing need for more Black African donors who can have rarer blood types, which will help to improve and save lives in the UK.
The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) reviewed the steering group’s findings and agreed that the removal of this question poses no additional safety risks to the blood supply and recommended the change was made to the pre-donation selection criteria.
The Government have now reviewed the evidence presented by the FAIR steering group together with SaBTO’s advice and has accepted this recommendation. This means that the question asking whether donors had recently had sex with a partner who may ever have had sex in an area where HIV is endemic will be removed from the blood donor selection criteria. This is a progressive and welcome step forward, reducing limitations for people to donate blood and creating a fairer system for blood donation.
The Department of Health and Social Care is working with NHS Blood and Transplant to implement this change. We will have monitoring mechanisms in place to ensure the safety of donors and patients, including continued monitoring of both acute and chronic infections in new and regular donors. The changes will be reviewed in 12 months.
[HCWS312]
Coronavirus Test Device Approval Update
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
The UK is developing one of the most rigorous regulatory regimes in the world for coronavirus tests. The CTDA regulations have set high bars of specificity and sensitivity to ensure only high quality tests are available on the UK market. The CTDA regulations have set high bars of specificity and sensitivity to ensure only high quality tests are available on the UK market.
The Secretary of State and I have been impressed by the number of applications the regulator has received. This is a testament to the willingness of businesses to rise to the public health challenges set by this pandemic. However, some manufacturers have struggled to provide sufficient evidence in time. As things stand, this would mean they would have to be temporarily removed from the market whilst they complete their validation. This would create an unexpected contraction in supply at the start of winter. This could be particularly problematic for testing returning travellers.
In order to protect public health by ensuring availability of tests, the Secretary of State has decided to exercise the power under regulation 39A of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. He will publish a protocol today listing certain tests that have both passed a public sector validation, and have a pending application awaiting validation, to remain on the market up to 28 February 2022 or until their validation application is determined. This protocol is a short-term, proportionate and targeted measure to minimise a risk of serious harm to public health by ensuring that a supply of tests most likely to be of high quality, having passed validation as part of DHSC procurement or other public sector process, remain on the market on an interim basis.
Copies of the protocol will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and it will be published on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS324]
Anti-Slavery Day
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
Modern slavery is an abhorrent crime. Tens of millions of victims around the world are coerced, deceived, and forced into a life of abuse, servitude, and inhumane treatment.
This happens in the UK as well; to British citizens and to those trafficked from abroad. Today, on the UK’s Anti-Slavery Day, we pause to reflect on the trauma that victims suffer, the cruelty of those that exploit them and the bravery of survivors attempting to rebuild their lives.
This Government are committed to eradicating modern slavery. Over the past year we have continued to work towards this aim with our partners in the Devolved Administrations, in law enforcement and across the criminal justice system, with local government and our health and welfare sectors, with our international partners, with business, civil society, and academia.
Together we have continued to identify and provide support to thousands of victims of modern slavery through our contract with the Salvation Army. The number of law enforcement investigations has continued to increase. Conviction rates for cases prosecuted through the courts have also increased.
The Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service now covers in total two thirds of all local authorities across England and Wales; a key milestone to better support child victims delivered through our National Referral Mechanism Transformation Programme.
The HO has invested a further £1.4 million this year to support the police modern slavery response, bringing the total investment to £15 million since 2016. This funding has helped to drive the increase in modern slavery investigations and operations.
And during our G7 presidency, G7 members agreed to joint action on forced labour in global supply chains and reaffirmed their commitment to upholding human rights and international labour standards. Modern slavery and human trafficking is a global problem and we continue to provide global leadership to tackle it.
We are committed to driving greater transparency in supply chains to ensure the private and public sectors use their leverage to tackle the risks of modern slavery in the goods and services they procure and provide. In March this year we launched the Government registry of modern slavery statements on www.gov.uk to enhance transparency. Statements covering over 21,000 organisations have now been added to the registry.
This Government continue to lead by example. We have continued to progress work on public procurement that we committed to in the world’s first Government modern slavery statement that we published in March 2020. And we will soon publish further detail of the actions Government Departments have taken to prevent modern slavery in their supply chains.
We have continued to fund the Modern Slavery Policy and Evidence Centre to improve the evidence base on modern slavery and to help inform our policy response. And the Government have recently launched the Modern Slavery Prevention Fund to test and develop innovative approaches to preventing modern slavery in the first place, aiming to stop this harm before it starts.
Tomorrow, our landmark Nationality and Borders Bill will progress to Committee stage in the House of Commons, and the modern slavery measures in this Bill will seek to bring clarity for decision makers and victims, and maintain our commitment to ensuring victims of modern slavery are identified and supported as early as possible.
These actions demonstrate the Government’s relentless commitment to addressing this crime. We will soon provide further detail in our annual report on modern slavery.
But we are not complacent. The nature of modern slavery continues to evolve. We have committed to publish a new Government strategy for modern slavery next year to ensure we continue to lead the way with our partners in bringing an end to this crime.
[HCWS317]
The Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2022: Draft Legislation
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
As part of the Government’s EU transition programme, the Department for Transport, working with other Government Departments, has been negotiating bilateral arrangements with France to support the continuation of cross-border rail services, which provide significant economic and social benefit to the United Kingdom. The purpose of these draft regulations, which are being published today, is to provide for the continued recognition of EEA issued train driving licences (“European TDLs”) in the UK section of channel tunnel cross-border area, so that a bilateral agreement—currently agreed in principle at a technical level—for the mutual recognition of British and European TDLs will be able to be ratified once in place. Without making these regulations, and the proposed agreement they will implement, European TDLs would cease to be valid in the channel tunnel border area from 31 January.
These regulations will provide for the continued recognition of European TDLs only in the UK section of the channel tunnel fixed link up to Ashford International Station and Dollands Moor freight terminal in Kent. This will be reciprocated in France with respect to British train driving licences up to Fréthun freight and passenger terminals in Calais.
The draft regulations make the necessary amendments to domestic train driving licensing legislation to support the implementation of the proposed bilateral agreement. This will be achieved by amending the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010.
The agreement, and by extension these regulations, are fully compatible with our fundamental red lines in these negotiations, which are to support the continuation of cross-border services, which provide economic and social benefit to the UK, while conferring no role for the EU courts or the European Union Agency for Railways in UK territory and avoiding dynamic alignment with EU law.
The bilateral agreement has now been agreed in principle at a technical level and is expected to be ready for signature soon. Subject to approval by Parliament, the intention is that the regulations will be made and come into force after the bilateral agreement has been signed. In the unlikely event that France is not subsequently able to ratify the bilateral agreement, we will look to revoke the changes and recognition of European TDLs put in place by these regulations.
The regulations are being published in draft 28 days before they are due to be laid for affirmative debate. This is required under the paragraph 14 of Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 because the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 were made using powers under the European Communities Act 1972.
The draft regulations and accompanying explanatory memorandum can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/amendments-to-train-driving-licensing-regulations.
[HCWS310]
Motor Vehicle Driving Licences
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The need to tackle the HGV driver shortage is a top priority for my Department and the Government are committed to finding solutions to mitigate the effect and take urgent action. With 25 proactive actions taken by my Department to resolve the long-term HGV driver shortage in recent weeks, we are already seeing results, with a 300% increase in the number of HGV provisional licence applications. This is a real achievement, but it is important that we continue to build on this success.
The haulage sector has been experiencing a chronic shortage of HGV drivers worldwide for some time. In Great Britain the issue has been further exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic, which meant that driver testing had to be suspended for much of 2020, delaying entry to the industry of potential drivers. In addition, there are longer-term issues surrounding attracting and retaining drivers to the industry such as: antisocial hours, poor diversity, relatively low pay and poor driver facilities.
The Department for Transport and other Government Departments have been working alongside the haulage industry to ensure that we attract, recruit, train and test drivers who want to enter the profession, including increasing capacity for testing candidate drivers through measures taken by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and prioritising licence applications within the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
Streamlining the HGV driving licence regime is an important step in getting drivers tested and into jobs quickly, relieving the pressure on the haulage industry from the driver shortage. On 10 September 2021, following public consultation, I announced a number of measures to simplify the HGV licencing regime and bring forward legislation that would remove the current staged process for getting an HGV licence in Great Britain.
It will mean that drivers will not need to hold a Category C—rigid lorry—licence before applying for a Category C + E—articulated lorry—licence, removing a stage in the process for those drivers who wish to acquire a category C + E licence. This measure will be addressed through a draft affirmative statutory instrument which is laid before Parliament today.
This legislation will help to make the process from learner to qualified driver quicker by removing certain steps and allow it to respond more rapidly to the acute need for drivers at the heavier end of the vehicle spectrum. High driving standards will be maintained through existing pre-test training and gaining on-road driving experience.
To make rapid progress on this, we are seeking to make use of the urgent procedure under paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As Secretary of State for Transport, I am of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, the requirements for the statutory instrument to be made after being published in draft together with a scrutiny statement should not apply.
Forgoing the 28-day publication period will allow earlier laying of the legislation than would have otherwise been possible and strengthen the steps we have already taken to increase testing capacity and ease supply chain issues as quickly as possible. Arrangements will be in place to ensure that the changes made by the legislation are operationally effective as soon as the legislation is in force.
Tackling the causes and effects of the HGV driver shortage is a top priority for my Department and the driving licence regime and its legislation must support our efforts. This as part of 25 measures we have taken so far, will help us to reduce the impact of this shortage on the people of Britain.
[HCWS311]
Updates to International Travel: Summary
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
As trailed in my oral statement on 20 September, as of the 4 October, we have:
Replaced the traffic light system with a single red list and simplified travel measures for eligible arrivals from the rest of the world based on passengers’ vaccination status.
Removed the requirement for eligible fully vaccinated passengers to take a pre-departure test, providing that they are arriving into England from a non-red list country or territory and have not been to a red list country or territory in the last ten days. The devolved Administrations have also aligned on this policy.
We have also made the follow changes in respect of international travel:
Lateral flow devices for arrival tests
From 4am on 24 October, arrivals into England who are considered fully vaccinated, along with most under 18s, who have not been in a red list country in the last 10 days will be able to take a lateral flow test on or before day 2 of their arrival, instead of a PCR test. This change will cut the costs of tests in time for travellers returning from half-term breaks and these tests can be booked from 22 October.
Passengers will need to take a photo of their lateral flow test result and send it back to their private testing provider for verification. Anyone who tests positive will need to self-isolate and take a free NHS confirmatory PCR test.
Red list review
The Government have conducted the first review of the red list under our new and simplified system of international travel. As of 4am on Monday 11 October, 47 countries including South Africa, Brazil, Mexico and Thailand were removed from the red list.
Given the success of the vaccination programme in the UK and the latest evidence of variants across the world, including the fact that the Delta variant is now dominant in many countries as it is in the UK, we have been able to significantly reduce the red list. However, we remain concerned about the presence of mu and lambda variants in the small number of countries we have kept on the red list. We will keep this list under review.
The following seven countries and territories now make up the red list:
Colombia
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Haiti
Panama
Peru
Venezuela
All passengers arriving into England from a red list country, or those who have been in a red list country or territory in the last 10 days, will have to quarantine at a managed quarantine service facility for 10 days upon their arrival in England.
Expansion of the inbound vaccination policy
As of 4am on Monday 11 October, we also expanded our inbound vaccination policy to include eligible fully vaccinated passengers who have not been in a red list country in the ten days before their arrival into England, to the below countries:
Albania
Bahamas
Bangladesh
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Colombia
Egypt
Ghana
Grenada
Hong Kong
India
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Maldives
Moldova
Morocco
Nigeria
North Macedonia
Oman
Pakistan
Serbia
St Kitts and Nevis
St Lucia
St Vincent and The Grenadines
Turkey
Ukraine
Vietnam
In addition, we have expanded the policy to a further set of countries and territories which were removed from the red list at this review:
Brazil
Chile
Georgia
Indonesia
Montenegro
Namibia
The Philippines
South Africa
Thailand
Our inbound vaccination policy now covers over 100 countries and territories, and eligible fully vaccinated passengers will be treated the same as those vaccinated in the UK. Eligible fully vaccinated passengers who have not been in a red list country in the ten days before their arrival into England will no longer need to take a pre-departure test before their departure, a post-arrival test on day eight or self-isolate upon their arrival. This now includes UN staff and volunteers vaccinated as part of the United Nations vaccine rollout.
Clinical trial participants
From the end of October, we will also recognise as fully vaccinated people participating in covid-19 vaccine clinical trials from countries and territories including Japan, Canada, Australia and the EU, provided they can supply adequate proof of their participation. This is in recognition of their vital work in helping to tackle the virus and builds on the agreements made at the meetings with G7 counterparts that I chaired in May and September this year.
Acceptance of UK Pre-departure Test Certification via the EU Digital Covid Certificate (DCC)
As of 4 am on Monday 11 October, non-vaccinated passengers arriving into England are allowed to present proof of a negative pre-departure test via the EU Digital Covid Certificate, in either paper or digital formats.
Changes to FCDO travel advice
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has lifted its advice against all but essential travel for over 80 countries and territories. The change means people will be able to travel to a larger number of destinations with greater ease.
The FCDO will no longer advise against travel to non-red list countries on covid-19 grounds, except in exceptional circumstances such as if the local healthcare system is overwhelmed. Many travel insurance companies use FCDO travel advice as a reference point in their policies, typically excluding cover for places where Government advise against essential travel. However, people will now be able to purchase travel insurance for a wider range of destinations across the globe.
The FCDO will continue to advise against all but essential travel for all red list countries and territories, where the risk to British travellers is “unacceptably high”.
While public health is a devolved matter, the Government work closely with the devolved Administrations on any changes to international travel and aim to ensure a whole-UK approach.
[HCWS319]
Household Support Fund
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Our £407 billion covid support package has protected jobs and livelihoods through the worst of the pandemic. With the UK economy rebounding, our plan for jobs is working, with the number of payrolled employees now above pre-pandemic levels and vacancies at record levels. Thanks to the formidable force of our jabs and jobs armies, and an expansion of the Government plan for jobs worth over £500 million, we are building back better—helping people to move into better paid work, progress, and increase their financial resilience. Our approach is boosting pay, prospects and prosperity for the long term.
However, we recognise that some people may require extra support over the winter as we enter the final stages of recovery, which is why vulnerable households across the country will now be able to access a new £500 million support fund to help them with essentials. The household support fund will provide £421 million to help vulnerable people in England and allocations to individual local authorities are set out below. The Barnett formula will apply in the usual way, with the devolved Administrations receiving almost £80 million (£41 million for the Scottish Government, £25 million for the Welsh Government and £14 million for the Nl Executive), so the fund totals £500 million.
The household support fund is available to councils in England from this month and will run over the winter to 31 March 2022. The funding will primarily be used to support households in need with food, energy and water costs, with flexibility to support with wider essentials. In cases of genuine emergency, where existing housing support schemes do not meet this exceptional need, the household support fund can also be used to support housing costs. At least 50% of the funding will be reserved for households with children and up to 50% is available for vulnerable households without children, including individuals. Local authorities have the flexibility to design their schemes to best suit local needs, within the parameters of the guidance.
This new fund will bolster existing measures that we have introduced for low-income households, such as increasing the national living wage, expanding the £220 million holiday activities and food programme, doubling free childcare for eligible working parents and increasing the value of healthy start vouchers by over a third. The household support fund also sits alongside the support available through the warm home discount, the cold weather payment scheme and the almost £30 billion that Government are projected to spend in 2020-21 on housing benefit and the housing element of universal credit.
The table for the household support fund indicative funding allocations per county councils/unitary authorities for the period 6 October 2021 to 31 March 2022, can be found at: Government launches £500m support for vulnerable households over winter - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
[HCWS313]
Plan for Jobs Extension
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Our plan for jobs is working. With the UK economy rebounding strongly, the number of payrolled employees is now above pre-pandemic levels and vacancies are at record levels. Our unprecedented £407 billion support package protected jobs and livelihoods through the worst of the pandemic and the formidable force of our jabs and jobs armies means we are building back better—helping people move into decent, well-paid jobs and get the skills they need to succeed.
We are investing a further £500 million to expand the plan for jobs to build on its successes to help people of all ages fulfil their potential, in particular younger and older jobseekers and those on low incomes.
We are extending our kickstart scheme until the end of March 2022, which has so far helped over 85,000 young people take a confident first step in their careers. This will allow thousands more young people to benefit and enable employers a further opportunity to apply for funding for roles, especially those who were unable to take on young people while covid restrictions were in place. New applications for roles will be accepted until 17 December 2021, though employers will be expected to move quickly to fill their approved roles.
We are extending our youth offer to 2025. This will ensure that young people can continue to benefit from intensive work coach support through the youth employment programme, specialised youth employability coaches and over 135 youth hubs, which are already providing support to thousands of young people across England, Scotland and Wales. We are also expanding eligibility, with 16 and 17-year-olds able to join alongside 18 to 24-year-olds claiming universal credit and searching for work.
For older workers, who often face specific challenges remaining in and returning to work, we will be funding a new support package. This will ensure they receive more intensive, tailored support during their work search journey, as well as information and guidance on later life planning, helping them make informed choices and supporting them to plan their career and stay in, or return to work.
And for low-paid workers, from April 2022, we will bolster our work coach support for people on universal credit to help them boost their earnings through a focus on career progression advice, with jobcentre specialists working with local employers to identify opportunities for people to progress in work.
We are also extending JETS—our job entry targeted support scheme—to September 2022, which has so far supported over 175,000 people across the UK by providing light-touch employment support for six months within the first year of unemployment. And our job finding support (JFS) scheme will continue to prioritise support for those coming off furlough through online, tailored, one-to-one support for those newly unemployed and claiming universal credit, including recruitment advice from a skilled adviser, support with CVs, and mock interviews.
This expansion of our plan for jobs and jobcentre network is an example of our commitment to invest in skills and jobs, helping people to move into well-paid work, progress, earn more and increase financial resilience —boosting pay, prospects and prosperity.
[HCWS318]
House of Lords
Minister for Intergovernmental Relations
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox of Newport
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Dunlop Review of Devolution, published on 24 March, influenced the creation of the post of Minister for Intergovernmental Relations.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities. (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations is committed to strengthening the union, as he was when he was previously responsible for constitutional integrity, as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office. My noble friend Lord Dunlop’s review considered ways to configure and improve the structures of government in order to strengthen the union, and it aligns with government thinking in this regard.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
In its report, the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee noted that
“relations between the four administrations of the UK are in a particularly poor state, and that UK intergovernmental relations need to be reset.”
Does the Minister accept that it undermines the devolution settlements when this Government bring forward initiatives, such as levelling up and community renewal funds, that have been drawn up without any consultation with the Welsh Government and are administered by UK government departments that have not operated in Wales for over 20 years? Will the new ministerial post address these problematic issues?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the Government have made clear that they intend to work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that funding is used to best effect and supports citizens across the UK. Discussions relating to specific schemes using the financial assistance power could take place in the relevant departmental interministerial group at the outset of the review of intergovernmental relations. There has been a very clear statement that the devolved Administrations will be part of the governance structures of relevant funds.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, given the comparatively minor disparities in the way that the pandemic has been tackled by Westminster and the devolved Governments, are the Government satisfied that they can prove to the eventual public inquiry that they have done everything to try to establish common policies? Will the Government now announce regular dates for joint ministerial meetings with the devolved Governments? When will the Prime Minister spare the time to chair one of those meetings?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I do not recognise the lack of engagement with the devolved Administrations. In fact, as we speak, the Prime Minister is in a meeting with First Ministers, and there have been many hundreds of meetings, across Whitehall, with the devolved Administrations—well over 300. The Secretary of State who has responsibility for constitutional matters meets them monthly. That is a framework that is currently working to ensure that the devolved Administrations are listened to very carefully.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Wales said that he had to “bite his tongue” when asked about matters relating to the devolved Government in Wales. Subsequently, he went on to criticise some of the health policies of the Welsh Government. On the need for mutual respect between the various Governments of this country, could the Minister tell the House the correct approach that Ministers should take to these devolved matters? Does it always involve biting tongues?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, clearly, there needs to be constructive engagement on devolved matters, and I believe that there is. In fact, the commitment to Wales is really quite considerable: there has been £352 billion of support for the whole of the UK, and, in Wales, this included protecting more than 460,000 jobs through the furlough scheme. We continue to recognise the need to work closely with all our devolved Administrations.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
It is important that the Government have appointed a Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. Could my noble friend say how the Minister is engaging with the devolved Administrations and supporting effective intergovernmental working across the United Kingdom?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right that there needs to be effective intergovernmental working. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is committed to continuing to work effectively with the devolved Administrations and supporting effective engagement across government. My right honourable friend will be writing to the devolved Administrations regarding the arrangements following on from the intergovernmental relations review and the formalised structures for engagement, as part of that.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, given our rather asymmetric constitutional arrangements, it is easy to forget that intergovernmental relations matter to Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. Therefore, does the Minister agree that, if we want fair handling of the four components, it is important that we gather and analyse data in all of them in a way which allows us to make proper and in-time comparisons?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I accept that it is important that all government decisions should be based on sound analysis and data, which I am sure will be the case as we look to work closely with the devolved Administrations to spend money that was previously as a result of our membership of the European Union.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that we can all agree that good intergovernmental relations are based on strong mutual respect, so will the Government please stop referring to the devolved Governments as devolved Administrations and call them Governments, which they clearly are?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, there is no sign of disrespect when we call a Government a devolved Administration, but I am happy to call them devolved Governments in future if that is seen as more appropriate.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, findings of the IPPR show that there are huge differences in regional economic performance and prosperity in the UK and that this is down largely to overcentralised and inflexible governance. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will devolve powers to local decision-makers as a key part of the levelling-up agenda and not allow this to be operated by the dead hand of Whitehall from London?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to devolution. On the levelling-up agenda and fund, it is quite clear that, where that money is spent in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we will have effective engagement and work closely with stakeholders to build on existing spending, using the economies of scale that we can achieve through expenditure at the United Kingdom level.
Lord Flight (Con)
Can the Minister please summarise what, if any, are the important differences between the Dunlop review’s recommendation for a new Cabinet post, a Secretary of State for intergovernmental and constitutional affairs, and the ministerial post created by the Government of Minister for Intergovernmental Relations?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank my noble friend for wanting that clarity. Day-to-day responsibility for constitutional integrity falls to the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. Individual Secretaries of State also have a critical role in representing the distinctive voices and interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in Whitehall and the Cabinet; in representing the UK Government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and in co-ordinating the UK Government’s work with the devolved Governments to deliver for all citizens of the United Kingdom.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there will be a strong UK union only if each of our constituent nations, regions and Governments has a relationship of equals, which, regrettably, has not been the case under this Government? Their high-handed arrogance over the internal market Act and the shared prosperity fund are just two examples. Will the Minister guarantee parity of esteem in the Joint Ministerial Committee, through shared chairing and agenda setting, an impartial secretariat and improved dispute avoidance and resolution?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I do not recognise that characterisation; there is huge esteem for the devolved Governments. We need to recognise that our United Kingdom is the most successful political and economic union that the world has ever seen, and we continue to build on its strengths.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, last Thursday we welcomed Her Majesty the Queen to the Senedd, and we all rejoiced in the work that the devolved Senedd was doing—but then we have the appointment of this intergovernmental Minister. I thought that there might be some hope there, but he is already Minister for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Is this not just something that is a fantasy for this Government?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The noble Lord is right that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a number of responsibilities, but he takes his ministerial responsibilities with regard to the union extremely seriously, with monthly meetings with all the devolved Governments and First Ministers. I also remind the noble Lord that the Prime Minister is the Minister for the Union and, at this moment, he is speaking to First Ministers. So that engagement is real, and we will continue to work very closely with all the devolved Governments.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, intergovernmental relations are a two-way street. Is the Minister aware that, in Scotland, the devolved Government are spending money on areas that are not devolved, including millions of pounds on overseas offices? Why are the UK Government afraid to bring them into line?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue. It is quite clear that you need to have the competence to spend taxpayers’ money. The best way in which to rein them in is, of course, to win at the ballot box.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the next Question.
HIV Action Plan
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cashman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what funding they will provide to support the new HIV Action Plan to end new HIV transmissions in England; and whether this will be included in the upcoming Comprehensive Spending Review.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I record that I am a member of the APPG on HIV/AIDS and a patron of the Terrence Higgins Trust.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
The Government remain committed to reaching zero new HIV transmissions in England by 2030, and we continue to make good progress towards this target. In September, the Government committed £36 billion over the next three years for the NHS and social care, but decisions on future funding for non-NHS and social care budgets, including for the new HIV action plan, are being taken as part of the comprehensive spending review.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. He hits the nail right on the head. He will be aware of concerns by NGOs, the Elton John AIDS Foundation, the National AIDS Trust and the Terrence Higgins Trust that the Government will back down on their financial commitments on HIV/AIDS. We need greater commitment to ending transmissions now, not less. Will the Minister therefore ensure that the Government keep their commitments, made at the height of the Covid pandemic in December 2020, by the Chancellor, to end new HIV/AIDS transmissions by 2030? Will he further commit to implement opt-out HIV testing in high incidence areas in England?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. We served in the European Parliament together for many years, where he was always a champion of LGBTQ+ issues and made sure that people were aware of the issue of tackling HIV. Funding for HIV treatment and care services is provided by NHS England and NHS Improvement through specialised commissioning. HIV testing and prevention is funded by local government through the ring-fenced public health grant. In March 2020, the Government announced that the HIV prevention drug PrEP would be routinely available across England. The public health grant in 2021-22 includes £23 million to cover local authority costs of routine commissioning, in addition to the £11 million made available in 2021. I give the noble Lord that statement.
Lord Fowler (CB)
Is not one of the chief challenges for the Government to combat the stigma and prejudice that still surround HIV and AIDS? Is it not therefore important that there should be a strong public education campaign, run by the Government, to improve public understanding and dispel the myths? Surely, countering stigma must be a key to ending the HIV epidemic.
Lord Kamall (Con)
As noble Lords will have seen, there is agreement with the noble Lord’s point. As part of the Government’s commitment to reaching zero new HIV transmissions in England by 2030, the department is currently developing a new sexual and reproductive health strategy and an HIV action plan. Officials will continue to engage in discussions with the Department for Education during the development of these publications to relate them to how HIV is covered in the statutory curriculum in schools and as part of the intimate and sexual relationships lessons under personal health and social education.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, HIV can affect anyone, as we know. Despite the success in combating it, further reducing the number of people who remain undiagnosed with HIV will become very challenging unless testing uptake is improved, as my noble friend Lord Cashman said. This is particularly the case for heterosexuals who do not consider themselves at risk of HIV. What assessment has the Minister made of why people who visit a sexual health clinic may leave without testing for HIV? Will he make it a priority to ensure that all those attending sexual health clinics are offered, and encouraged to accept, an HIV test?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid I do not have a detailed answer to the question from the noble Baroness, but I commit to write to her.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister was right to highlight the fact that sexual health funding comes from public health budgets through local authorities. The Terrence Higgins Trust and British Association for Sexual Health and HIV report from 2019 showed that five years of cuts to public health and sexual health funding have had a direct impact on access to sexual health services. So can I push the Minister to confirm that there will be a real-terms cash increase, to fully fund the HIV action plan, to local authorities’ public health budgets for the next three years?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The department is currently developing a new sexual and reproductive health strategy and an HIV action plan, as she referred to. We plan to publish the HIV action plan later this year to coincide with World AIDS Day on 1 December. The action plan will set out clear actions to achieve the interim target of reaching an 80% reduction in HIV transmissions in England by 2025. Publication of the detailed sexual and reproductive health strategy will follow shortly afterwards.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Do the Government accept that their forthcoming action plan should have four key features: the expansion of testing; greater support for those living with HIV; increased funding for HIV prevention; and new national prevention programmes? Will the Government provide sufficient resources to achieve all four aims and so enhance their reputation as a global leader in combating HIV?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The four features he referred to are aligned with the independent HIV Commission’s recommendations. The Government have welcomed the HIV Commission’s report and are currently considering its recommendations to inform the development of the forthcoming HIV action plan. Our specific decisions regarding resources for the HIV action plan are being taken as part of the ongoing comprehensive spending review.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, over a year and a half ago, Jo Churchill, the previous Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, said that the Government were seriously considering access to pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV in community pharmacies and GP practices. Will the Minister say when this will happen, and, if he cannot, what is holding this up?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Lord says, in March 2020 the Government announced that the HIV prevention drug PrEP would be routinely available across England in 2020-21. It is now routinely available in specialist sexual services throughout the country. The settings in which PrEP could be made available outside these health services, such as pharmacies, will be considered as part of the ongoing work on the development of the sexual and reproductive health strategy and the HIV action plan. We plan to publish the HIV action plan later this year to coincide with World AIDS Day on 1 December, and the sexual and reproductive health strategy shortly thereafter.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the fight against HIV/AIDS. Will he agree with me that NHS England, public health, local authorities and voluntary organisations should work together to fight against HIV infection so that it does not become fragmented? Because of the coronavirus infection, many people think that HIV/AIDS has gone away: it has not.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for reminding us that HIV has not gone away. This is why the Government have an action plan. All noble Lords will agree on how important it is to tackle HIV and to raise awareness. The Government hope, in their plan and strategy, to be able to do this as soon as possible, and we remain committed to the goals previously set out.
Building Safety Defects: Costs
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that victims of building safety defects are not liable for the costs of rectifying those failures.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer the House to my interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are investing £5.1 billion to remediate unsafe cladding in residential buildings over 18 metres. The Building Safety Bill will require building owners to consider other cost-recovery routes for remediation before passing them on to leaseholders. A new developer tax and levy will make sure that industry contributes. Finally, for the small number of 11-to-18 metre buildings with cladding remediation costs, our support offer will ensure that leaseholders are protected.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, that is a very disappointing and, frankly, repetitive response. There has been a clear failure on the part of the Government to protect the innocent victims of this scandal in building safety. The leaseholders need to be supported by their Government and they need to hear clearly from the Government that they are no longer expected to pay for other people’s mistakes. Why cannot the Government just say that and make it happen?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, perhaps there is repetition in both the Question and indeed the Answer. The Building Safety Bill, which is going through very close scrutiny in the other place, provides a legal requirement for building owners to explore alternative ways to meet the costs of remediation works before passing them on to leaseholders, along with evidence that this has been done. Of course, we will look at other ways of strengthening the redress mechanisms to ensure that, wherever possible, this does not fall on leaseholders.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, have the Government looked closely at the “polluter pays” principle as a way of recouping funds for remediation of building safety defects from those who were initially responsible? Will this, or something equivalent, form part of the Building Safety Bill?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we are looking very closely at the “polluter pays” principle and the amendments that have been supplied to us by Steve Day. I have asked my officials to meet on a number of occasions; in fact, I am meeting them this Wednesday. There are, however, some difficulties and hurdles that need to be overcome to make this potentially work. I do not exaggerate; they will be quite challenging to overcome.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, since we discussed this on 16 September, we have a new Secretary of State with instructions from the Prime Minister, so we read, to sort out the cladding crisis. While welcoming the new tax on high-rise development and the substantial support that the Government have already offered, this is not enough to prevent innocent leaseholders facing substantial hardship. Further to the suggestion of the right reverend Prelate, should there not be a substantial levy on the developers who built and sold these unsuitable flats?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have a new Secretary of State who is putting his fresh eyes on this. We recognise that the developers that put up these shoddy buildings need to pay. Indeed, we may need to look at other people—the cladding manufacturers may also need to contribute to this—because we want to do whatever it takes to ensure that leaseholders are protected as far as is practicable.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as outlined in the register. It is intended that there will be a new regime for shared ownership in terms of liability for new leaseholders. However, currently, many leaseholders who own only a quarter of their properties are being expected to recompense the costs for 100%. Can the Minister tell me what the Government intend to do about this? If he cannot, will he write to me, because there is considerable mental anguish among many shared owners—the majority of whom are essential public sector workers such as paramedics, teachers and nurses?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the plight that leaseholders in social housing face, particularly those who are shared owners and have only a proportion of the equity. We made it part of our approach to funding for unsafe cladding beyond aluminium composite material that those costs are borne by the registered social landlords if they are not able to recoup the money from developers. We will continue to urge that these people are protected wherever possible.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, given the multiple failures of organs of the state revealed in the Grenfell Tower inquiry—through failure to implement the findings of coroners’ inquests, failures of the building regulations, failures of building control and so on—surely the obvious answer is for the Government to establish a fund to pay out to all those who deserve compensation and to use those resources to sue those who are responsible.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I do not think it is as simple as that this was at the hands of failed regulation, although we recognise that there was regulatory system failure. That is why we are bringing forward the Building Safety Bill. We have put a substantial amount of money towards remediation costs, and we will do what we can to pursue those that have caused this crisis in the first place.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, a leaseholder in Leeds has received a remediation bill of £101,267—to be paid in the next 12 months. She has no access to the means to pay. What should Emily and thousands of other leaseholders do next, or are the Government accepting that thousands of bankruptcies will ensue?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to look at that specific case, because that sounds like an eye-watering sum of money. In the first instance, is full-scale remediation the answer? Has the freeholder looked at mitigation measures that may also achieve an acceptable way of improving things and lowering the fire safety risk? However, that does seem an extremely large sum of money, and I am happy to look into that case.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I do not want leaseholders, nor the taxpayer, to pay a single penny towards these remediation works, but I want the housebuilders to pay for every pound that it takes. I am afraid to say that the proposed levy is simply derisory. Will my noble friend campaign in government for a proper, full-scale windfall tax imposed on the housebuilders? In 2019, four companies—Barratt, Wimpey, Persimmon and Berkeley—posted profits of £3.8 billion. I repeat: one year, four companies, £3.8 billion. They should be made to pay from their profits for their shoddy work. Will my noble friend agree with that and just say, “Yes, Lord Blencathra”?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend knows that government is not quite so simple. In all seriousness, we have stated publicly that the new tax on developers will raise at least £2 billion over 10 years. We know that the amount of money required is far in excess of that, but there is no upper limit, and we still have not yet announced the detail. We take my noble friend’s point on board with regard to the windfall tax.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, as others have already said, it is important that the polluter pays, rather than leaseholders, who are victims. Can my noble friend the Minister provide further details regarding this residential property development tax which has been alluded to in previous questions?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend is right that we need more detail. Details of the residential property developer tax will be announced at the Autumn Budget on 27 October, so we will have to wait till then. However, I want to make it clear that the figure of £2 billion over 10 years is an absolute minimum and I hope that we will go far further than that when the rates are finalised.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
As has already been stated, social housing providers are having to pick up the bill for all of their properties. These sums are having a significant impact on their budgets and are detrimental to their ability to provide more, and better-quality, social housing going forward. Are the Government monitoring the impact of this on providers’ budgets, in particular the opportunity cost that is lost to the sector, and looking at how this will affect their ability to do the jobs that they want to do to improve their social, affordable and supported housing properties in the future?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we are working very closely with the sector. I point out that there was a £400,000 fund specifically for providers in the social sector to remove aluminium composite material, the most serious form of unsafe cladding. In addition, where social landlords are thinking of passing costs on to leaseholders, there is an opportunity for them to apply to the building safety fund, which many of them have indeed done.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Could the Minister answer my question in very simple language, because I just do not understand this? The leaseholders did not design the building, do not own it and did not apply the faulty cladding to it. So why are they paying anything at all towards replacing it?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
It is quite clear that the building owner and freeholder have responsibility for keeping the building safe. Whether the costs are passed on to leaseholders is a matter for the individual lease, but we are doing all we can to step in to help recoup the money that should rightly be paid by the developers and have also put forward taxpayer funding to the tune of over £5 billion at this point.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Horizon Europe
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what caused the delay to the United Kingdom’s application to join the Horizon Europe research programme; and when they expect research institutes to be able to bid for new project funding.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The UK and the EU agreed the terms for our association to Horizon Europe under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The UK stands ready to formalise our participation, but there have been persistent delays from the EU. I can assure the noble Lord that UK entities are already eligible to apply ahead of us formally associating, and we encourage UK researchers to take advantage of this opportunity.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, friends who are involved in this in Brussels and the UK say that there are delays on both sides. I believe that there are protocols which still need to be adopted by a joint EU-UK committee, which is responsible for the UK’s participation in these programmes. Could the Minister confirm this? Does this committee exist and has it met? When do we expect it to reach decisions so that the money can start being spent?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that the delays are not coming from our side. The TCA was ratified. It required pieces of EU programmes legislation to be in force, which is why we did not join Horizon Europe instantly when we signed the TCA last December. Iceland, Norway and Ukraine have all joined the programme recently but there is no such committee yet in existence and this Government continue to apply pressure to the EU Commissioner about this.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as so many of the issues and opportunities we face are global in nature, we need to look to all our international partners and friends across Europe and the Commonwealth and right around the world for research connections and collaborations? International research collaboration is the brightest, best and most transformative piece of soft power.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his—as usual—to the point question. The Government are committed to making the UK a global science and research superpower. We are a partner for choice for many world-leading and rapidly growing R&I nations. Through our interactions with other Governments, we know that there is significant and growing demand from world leaders such as the US and Japan to commit more funding to collaborative research. I could point my noble friend and the House to various examples, including the £12 million UK-Japanese LongOps project to help faster and safer decommissioning at Fukushima; the £20 million UK-US collaboration on the Thwaites Glacier; and the New Variant Assessment Platform, which is undertaking Covid-19 genomic sequencing at Porton Down for the whole world.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, in his speech in Lisbon last week, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, simply stated flatly that the UK’s request for participation in the Horizon programme had been blocked. That seems slightly at variance with what the noble Baroness said in her original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Which is the authorised version, and if it is blocked, what are the Government doing to get it unblocked? Is it anything to do with other issues which are not going so well between the UK and the EU?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the authorised version is that the delay is not coming from our side. The UK’s participation in the Union programme under the TCA and the Northern Ireland protocol—the issue to which he alludes—are completely separate issues. We see no legal or practical reasons why we should not be able to formalise our participation swiftly. The UK-EU joint declaration published alongside the TCA set out both parties’ intention to formalise UK association at the earliest opportunity, and we stand ready to implement that agreement. It is regrettable that, as regards the negotiations with Switzerland, Commissioner Gabriel has brought in other issues to delay its entry into the same programmes, notably in relation to the EU cohesion programmes which the EU wish Switzerland to pay for before it is allowed to enter Horizon.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s Question, just a couple of weeks ago the European University Association said:
“The lengthy process of associating the UK to Horizon Europe … is creating unnecessary insecurity within the European knowledge community, and this insecurity threatens plans for scientific cooperation—with negative consequences for both the EU and the UK.”
Does the Minister agree with that assessment?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that the delay is causing unnecessary insecurity within the entire European knowledge community, not just in the UK. Our participation in Horizon Europe will support these continued partnerships between UK and European research and science experts, which is a win-win for all parties, not just in Europe and the UK but globally as well.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, the Minister has pointed out that these are important collaborative activities. Could she say what the Government are planning to do, in addition to engaging in funding with Horizon Europe, about ensuring mobility for academics, which is also part of the European research framework? I declare my interests as laid out in the register.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to bring up mobility. We are committed to making the UK the most attractive destination in the world for scientists, researchers and innovators. The global talent visa achieves this. Through the Horizon Europe programme, UK research organisations and higher education institutions can continue to participate in world-leading programmes. There is no restriction on British academics travelling to Europe to access Horizon grants, and through the Turing scheme the UK Government are also providing funding for more than 40,000 participants from schools, colleges and universities to study and work across the globe during the 2021-22 academic year.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend join me in congratulating the University of York on the excellent work it is doing for BioYorkshire? Will she in turn use her good offices to ensure continuity of funding for the five missions agreed at COP 25, in particular those covering soils and oceans, to ensure that our global reputation is maintained?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I can indeed join my noble friend in congratulating the university on its work and confirm that Horizon’s five missions—cancer, soils, climate change, oceans and cities—are all issues with which we wholeheartedly agree and on which we are furthering research. We have always been clear that our priority is to support the UK’s R&D sector, and we will continue to do that in all future scenarios.
Baroness Bull (CB)
I declare my interests as set out in the register. The EU Research Commissioner recently told MEPs that, while British researchers’ participation in the current scheme is assured,
“For the next programming period, we need a little bit more time, a little bit more information to evaluate all this in a more in depth way.”
How do the Government interpret those remarks and, given that other agreements with the EU are now being revisited, what reassurances can she give the research community that the commitment to Horizon Europe will not be withdrawn or substantially renegotiated?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Any remarks that increase uncertainty among the research and knowledge community are obviously unhelpful. The UK’s participation in Union programmes under the TCA and Northern Ireland protocol are separate issues. We have negotiated those issues and provided all the information. I can but reaffirm that the delays are not coming from our side, and we see them as distinctly unhelpful for all concerned.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, despite the delays, can my noble friend confirm that the content matter of the health cluster of Pillar 2 remains a vital area of research for the UK—namely, to promote and protect human health and well-being—as that is exactly what was envisaged with the new centre for health promotion announced by the Prime Minister in March of this year? Does she agree that that remains a priority area for far-reaching research here in the UK, so that we help people lead active and healthy lives and are better able to prevent and fight illnesses?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My noble friend is right to concentrate on the health benefits of many of the Horizon Europe projects. Over its lifetime, we expect the Commission to set aside more than €8 billion for the health research cluster, to which UK entities will be able to apply. One example may be the Joint Programming Initiative on Microbial Resistance, a collaboration of 28 countries across the globe tackling that resistance. The UK’s association to Horizon Europe will enable the UK to continue to collaborate with European partners to tackle health-related global challenges, to the benefit of everyone.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, before we proceed to the Motion in the name of the Senior Deputy Speaker, it might be helpful to the House if I say a few words about the proceedings for the remainder of this afternoon. After the Motions in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, the House will adjourn during pleasure until 4 pm. This is to allow tributes to Sir David Amess to begin in the House of Commons and for the Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition to speak in the other place. The House will then resume for tributes to Sir David.
There is no speakers’ list, and any Member may speak from the Chamber. Arrangements have been made to allow those who are permitted to participate virtually to do so. There are three virtual speakers, and they will come after the most reverend Primate has spoken on behalf of the Lords spiritual. Tributes will last until 5.20 pm. The House will then adjourn until 2.30 pm tomorrow, and there will be no further business today.
At 6 pm, there will be a service of prayers and remembrance for Sir David at St Margaret’s Church. The Lord Speaker will lead from the Chamber to the church at 5.30 pm, after the House adjourns at 5.20 pm, so noble Lords who are attending the service in St Margaret’s should be ready to move from the Chamber by 5.30 pm.
St Margaret’s has limited capacity, and preference is rightly being given to Members of the House of Commons. There are limited places for Members of this House to attend. I am sure noble Lords appreciate the reason for this and, on behalf of the usual channels, I ask that only those noble Lords who knew Sir David best seek to attend the service this evening. For those going to the service, St Margaret’s has requested that face coverings are worn in the church and that those attending take a Covid test. Tests are available now in the Bishops’ Bar and in the atrium in Portcullis House. The Chapel of St Mary Undercroft remains open for private prayer and reflection, and a condolence book is available in the Royal Gallery.
The main business that was due to take place this afternoon—namely, the second day of Report of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill—will now be taken on Thursday.
International Agreements Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Goldsmith, and that Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town be appointed Chair of the Committee.
Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the Bill be referred to a Grand Committee on Tuesday 19 October for debate before second Reading.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, can the noble Lord the Chief Whip explain exactly what the procedure will be, as this Bill apparently is to go into Committee before it reaches this House for Second Reading? Can he elucidate on what would happen if the House does not give the Bill a Second Reading?
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
It is not going to Committee; it is going to Grand Committee. It will be rather like a statutory instrument. The debate will take place in Grand Committee and then it will come back to the Chamber for a vote to commit the Bill so that if—which I hope is unlikely—a Member wanted to vote on not giving the Bill a Second Reading, they would be able to do it in this Chamber.
Tributes: Sir David Amess MP
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, before I call the Leader of the House to begin the tributes to the late Sir David Amess MP, I would like to make some brief remarks of my own.
Sir David was not a Member of this House, but he was one of us. He was a true parliamentarian. He was also an exemplar of decency and courtesy. When I entered Parliament in 1987, Sir David had already served in the Commons for four years. I quickly found myself working with him on cross-party and international issues, as well as on social campaigns and causes that promoted the common good. David relished working across the party divides. He was not tribal. As an example to the society we live in, he embraced minorities and was tolerant, not intolerant. His willingness to reach out and engage with those he represented went to the heart of what he considered to be his vocation in life. He could never have been accused of being remote or detached.
He championed Private Members’ Bills on animal welfare and fuel poverty, always speaking up for his constituents and placing their concerns at the heart of his work here in Westminster. He was well known in his local area and was keen to engage the local press in his many campaigns; his frequent engagement with the sub-editors obviously paid off when, following a trip to Rome, one headline read “Pope Francis meets David Amess”.
His character was well known. At the weekend, I heard one TV commentator refer to him as a little eccentric. Well, if that was the case, I declare: long live eccentrics. Not once did I meet him in these corridors over the 34 years we served together without being met with an enormous smile as he bounded toward me with a spring in his step. He had an ability to make every encounter bright—something which reminded me time and again of the inherent goodness of humanity.
Today, Parliament mourns. We join with his family, his friends, his staff and those who knew him and worked with him. It is right that we conclude our proceedings today by joining together with the House of Commons to pray for him, remember him and celebrate all that he was and all that he gave to this place and to the nation.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
Like all noble Lords, I was shocked, shaken and saddened by the tragic death of Sir David Amess on Friday. He was killed while holding a constituency surgery in a place of sanctuary, serving the residents of Southend West as he had done proudly since 1997. As the Lord Speaker said, Sir David was a veteran parliamentarian of almost four decades who was admired and respected across both Houses of Parliament. Only three other sitting MPs have served the House of Commons and their constituents longer than Sir David had.
A working-class boy from the east end of London, Sir David was first elected in Basildon, in 1983. It was a bellwether seat for the 1992 general election which he held on to with the backing of Essex men—and women—providing the pivotal moment of the night that Sir John Major won an unexpected majority. At the 1997 general election, Sir David moved to the neighbouring constituency of Southend West, and our very own Lady Smith followed him as the MP for Basildon. She tells me that she soon discovered that one of Sir David’s traditions was giving students a spelling test on primary school visits. Apparently, he had a preoccupation with two words in particular, and the local schools had posters of them plastered all over the walls to ensure that their students were ready to impress their visiting MP. I understand that there is a certain cohort, educated in south Essex, who have Sir David to thank for being able to spell “yacht” and “unnecessary” correctly.
In his new seat, Sir David continued his tradition of campaigning in a motorhome, playing his song, which I assure noble Lords I will not attempt to sing but which went:
“Vote, vote, vote, for David Amess,
David is the man for you.
If you want to be true blue, and to air your points of view,
Then David Amess is the only man for you.”
Although his campaign style was compared to that of an ice-cream vendor, it was authentically Sir David, and it worked.
Throughout his parliamentary career, he was well known as a dedicated Brexiteer, a doughty animal rights campaigner, a devout Roman Catholic and a devoted constituency champion. It is true to say that he achieved more on the Beck Benches than many of us Ministers manage to achieve in government; he piloted numerous Private Member’s Bills into law, such as those on cruel tethering and warm homes, helped to ensure that the bravery of Raoul Wallenberg was recognised with a memorial statue, and organised 200 inspirational students from the Music Man Project to perform at the Royal Albert Hall and again at the London Palladium.
There cannot be anyone in this House who is not aware of Sir David’s campaign to make Southend a city, a campaign that he pursued doggedly and determinedly, but with the humour and warmth that characterised his approach, because above all, he was a kind, generous and decent human being. I am delighted to tell the House, if noble Lords did not know already, that the Prime Minister has confirmed that Her Majesty the Queen has agreed that Southend will be accorded the city status that it so clearly deserves.
I was not lucky enough to have known Sir David well personally. However, from the stories that I have read from colleagues, friends and strangers over the weekend, it is clear that he was a wonderful man who touched the lives of many. So many colleagues have commented on his love of being a parliamentarian. Whether in the House or in his beloved constituency, he had as much joy and enthusiasm in his fourth decade in the job as he did in his first, and that enthusiasm was infectious to all with whom he served. A former colleague of mine from Policy Exchange, who began his career working for Sir David, shared what many have commented was an accurate reflection of his character: not being bothered about missing or even returning a call from David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, yet turning his office upside down to find a missing local charity invitation for a duck race, and moving heaven and earth at all hours of the day for constituents in need.
My husband, James, joined the House of Commons following the last election, and experienced Sir David’s generosity of friendship first-hand. They spent some time together recently, during lockdown, discussing Sir David’s new book, Ayes & Ears, as part of his virtual book tour. Said with great humour and a big smile, it is fair to say that Sir David’s opening line of “Now then, James, someone told me that you sleep with a member of the Cabinet” was not the introduction that James was expecting. In his book, Sir David asked how someone like him, born into relative poverty and with no great political helping hand, became a Conservative Member of Parliament.
The many thousands of people that he helped, and the causes that he supported, will be for ever grateful that he made that journey from those humble beginnings in Plaistow. As would be expected from Sir David, the proceeds office book will go to three charities whose causes he consistently championed: Endometriosis UK, Prost8 and the Music Man Project.
I stand here today not just as the Leader of this House but as the wife of an MP. I see the vital work they do day in, day out, on the front line to help some of the most vulnerable people in society: listening and offering support, and speaking up for those without a voice, all to serve the people in their constituencies, regardless of how they voted. Of course, for many of your Lordships here today, that was your daily reality when you served in the other place.
Alongside Jo Cox, we now have had the horror of two MPs in the last five years killed while doing their jobs—simply serving their constituents, as they were elected to do. One of our own colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, was badly injured and his aide Andrew Pennington killed in a horrific act of violence. Any attack on any parliamentarian is an attack on our democracy. All of us, across both Houses, across all parties and groups, stand together in condemnation of these senseless and callous attacks. It is right that the security measures in place for MPs are reviewed, but we cannot allow these dreadful events to break the close link between MPs and their constituents which is so central to our democracy.
It has been a devastating week for our party, our Parliament and our country, with the loss first of our dear friend James Brokenshire, and now of the much-loved Sir David Amess—both men taken from us too soon and with so much more to give. But today, I know I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that our deepest sympathies are with Sir David’s family, friends and staff, especially his wife Julia and their five children. We have lost a dedicated public servant and a colleague, but they have lost a husband and a father. I hope they can find some comfort in our admiration and respect for the most decent of men.
Sir David’s family have called on everyone to set aside their differences and show kindness and love to all—something we should all reflect on. I know that there are many noble Lords who wish to speak today who had the honour of knowing Sir David much better than me. I look forward to learning more about him from them, but I have no doubt that we can all learn from Sir David’s example of compassion, kindness and public service.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I think the whole House welcomed the noble Baroness’s very emotional, genuine and fond tribute to Sir David.
As the news unfolded on Friday that Sir David Amess had been attacked, our hope that he had not been seriously hurt was mixed with that dreadful feeling we had in the pit of our stomachs that something deeply shocking and terrible had happened. When it was confirmed that he had not survived, it was hard to find the words to convey our feelings about this act of devastating horror.
We send our deepest and heartfelt condolences to Sir David’s wife Julia, their children, their wider family, and his many friends and colleagues. Their loss is profound and overwhelming. We also feel for the staff who were with him at the time; the emotional shock that they suffered will be deeply felt for a long time.
I also take this opportunity, as the noble Baroness did, to express our sadness and condolences on the death of another Conservative MP, James Brokenshire. It is a cruel connection that James also had strong Essex links, having been born in Southend and previously represented Hornchurch. As she said, both men have left us too soon and had so much more to give.
I first met Sir David Amess in 1983, when he famously achieved that remarkable victory that many thought impossible: winning the newly drawn parliamentary constituency of Basildon, where there was not a single Conservative councillor. At the time, I was living in Southend and working for the League Against Cruel Sports. David was one of the then small group from his party strongly supporting our campaign to ban fox hunting and hare-coursing. He remained passionately committed to the welfare of animals; indeed, his recent, final comments in Parliament—though none of us knew they would be so—were to urge for debate on animal welfare.
Over the years, our paths criss-crossed in Basildon, Southend and Westminster—and, just occasionally, on the same side of an issue. Leaving Basildon for Southend was both painful and an opportunity for him. As with everything else, he embraced his new constituency with enthusiasm, commitment and genuine affection, which, as has been clear from the responses of his constituents, was warmly reciprocated.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I begin by joining the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing my condolences and those of my colleagues to the family and personal friends of Sir David, and to his wider family, the constituents of Southend West.
For Liberal Democrats of my generation, the point at which Sir David first made an impression on us was general election polling day in 1992. I was with Paddy Ashdown in his cottage near Yeovil on polling night. Michael Buerk had a BBC camera in the street outside. The opinion polls were suggesting a hung Parliament and we were, naturally, extremely excited at this prospect—until the first result of the evening came in from a Conservative seat, namely Basildon, when the smiling features of Sir David confounded the predictions of the exit polls and our hopes. Michael Buerk folded up his equipment and slunk away. Sir David’s delight counterpoised our disappointment.
In the years since, I have had little personal contact with Sir David, but a surprising number of my colleagues in your Lordships’ House have—in work ranging from the Industry and Parliament Trust and the Iran Freedom Movement to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. They share the common reflection that he was a lovely person: courteous, entertaining and completely devoted to serving the public good and his constituents. In short, he had exactly the qualities that people wish to see in their elected representatives. He will certainly be greatly missed equally in Westminster and Southend.
Today, as we remember Sir David, our minds inevitably turn to the murder of Jo Cox, the deadly attack involving my colleague and noble friend Lord Jones of Cheltenham and the attack on Stephen Timms. After each of these terrible incidents, there was understandable soul searching on why the attack happened and how similar attacks might be avoided in future; and the same thoughts are in our minds today. It is obviously appropriate that there will be a review of the security of MPs to see what additional measures might be taken that are consistent with MPs being able to continue to meet their constituents and hear their concerns.
We in your Lordships’ House are in a somewhat more fortunate position than our MP colleagues. Although, like them, we may receive abusive emails—or at least I do, every time I make a speech about Brexit—threats to our physical safety are, I believe, pretty rare. We will therefore largely be bystanders in the formal security review. But, for anybody involved in politics at any level, this tragedy should give us pause to consider how we conduct ourselves and the contribution we make to the heat generated by public debate. As we do, we might start by heeding the words of the Amess family and thinking about how to embody them in the way we go about our business. The family have said that they want people to
“set aside their differences and show kindness and love to all … be tolerant and try to understand.”
In politics it is not always possible to set aside differences altogether—but it is always possible to show kindness and consideration to all. There could be no better way of respecting the memory of Sir David than to make tolerance and kindness our watchwords as we face the challenges of the months ahead.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, so many noble Lords know Sir David—or knew Sir David—that I shall be brief. On behalf of the Cross Benches, we respectfully and mournfully join in and associate ourselves with the expressions of condolence and sympathy to Lady Amess and her family on what is, obviously, a calamitous loss— made, I suspect, much more poignant by the time when it happened, the occasion when it happened and the cruel circumstances in which it happened.
An MP for 40 years was cut down while doing his job—an MP who, by all accounts, had that wonderful additional attribute, beyond serving the needs of every one of his constituents, of having an independent mind. Everything I have read about him tells me that he did. He was his own person, and we need Members of Parliament like that.
As I say, I did not know him. I know that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York will be speaking soon, and he was a personal friend, so noble Lords will want to hear from him and not me, but I must add something. Can we think about the way in which we deal with these issues ourselves? Can we reflect on the impact on the House of Commons, rather than on this place? Can we reflect—and I do, with sympathy and concern for the other place—on the troublesome paradox that it seems to require a catastrophic disaster, such as this murder or the murder of Jo Cox, to bring back to mind, and highlight before the public, the societal contribution and the contribution to the welfare of the nation that is going on with 650 elected Members of Parliament sitting in the other place? We owe them rather more, do we not, than a fleeting acknowledgement on an emotionally induced occasion? If we could retain, recover or find a way for the public to appreciate what our Members of Parliament do, we would be living in a much happier society. You do not have to agree with your MP, but you do have to respect him or her.
For today, though, noble Lords have heard enough from me. Our thoughts from these Benches are with Sir David’s family, his wife and his friends, many of whom are in this Chamber; and let us not overlook the unhappy people who were there, very close to the scene at the time.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, on behalf of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of the Church of England and, I am sure, all Christian people and all people of good will, I am here to offer the family of Sir David Amess and the constituents of Southend West my condolences and the assurance of the prayers of the Church. I am very grateful for all that has been said thus far, and, certainly, we on these Benches wish to associate ourselves with those comments.
As was said, I considered David Amess a friend. Leigh-on-Sea is my home town. Southend—now the city of Southend—is where I grew up. This appalling murder happened in streets I know well, just around the corner from where my mum lives. It was characteristic of David, whom I got to know during my time as Bishop of Chelmsford, that, when I was appointed, he was one of the first people to congratulate me. When I was translated to York, it was the same. He thought this was another way of putting Southend on the map: a boy who went to a secondary modern school in Southend was now the 98th Archbishop of York. He was so pleased. Last time I saw him, he asked to have his photograph taken with me.
I reckon that, now Southend has been declared a city today, forget about a statue of Vera Lynn at Dover; we are going to put a statue of David Amess at the end of Southend pier. He was—and I know this from the work I did with him—a deeply committed constituency MP. He exemplified what that means. He knew the people he served, and in the constituency he was completely colour blind to political difference. He just served the people he had been elected to serve.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I will call three remote contributions before opening up to the rest of the House.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jones of Cheltenham cannot be in his place today but has asked me to start by saying something on his behalf about Sir David Amess. As noble Lords have already heard, my noble friend Lord Jones was himself attacked, and his aide and friend, Councillor Andy Pennington, was killed, at a constituency surgery in 2000.
My noble friend wants me to say on his behalf:
“To learn David’s life has been taken is the most unimaginable shock. I simply can’t believe this has happened again, and to the kindest, most decent of men.
He was a mate, David. We were on opposite sides of every debate, he voted the wrong way on most things and disagreed with me on just about everything. We were in different parties but always got on well. He was a wonderful personality and worked exceptionally hard for his constituents.
He was a proper parliamentarian, a dedicated public servant and a lovely man. If he bumped into me when he had visitors to the House, he’d say, ‘Oh and this is my friend Nigel, he was attacked, you know? Do you remember, he was on the television?’ I’m appalled that he has suffered like this.
David, like my friend Andy Pennington and I, was just trying to do the job to the best of his ability. Our democracy relies on an open channel between those in power and the people who we represent. It’s vital to be able to meet people face-to-face so they can feel we are here and working for them.”
Turning to my own tribute, I first got to know Sir David when I joined your Lordships’ House a decade ago and he quickly nobbled me—there is no other word—to join the all-party group for fire safety and rescue, which he chaired; I really did not have a choice. He had been a friend of my father, Tim Brinton, having met when they were MPs together, and David knew that my stepmother, Jeanne, had been a Conservative chairman of the Kent fire safety committee and that I had campaigned actively for sprinklers in schools. But that was David: every argument well researched, compliments paid and, before I knew it, I was even an officer of the all-party group too. To the utter bemusement of the much younger members of the all-party group and visiting experts, he usually introduced me as Tim Brinton’s daughter, which always made me very proud. Their friendship was based on rejecting preferment but loving the core job of being an MP, both in the constituency and in the House.
Over the decade that followed, I saw David’s campaigning zeal through the work of the all-party group, holding Ministers and sector professionals to account. Schools Fire Minister after Schools Fire Minister and Building Planning Minister after Building Planning Minister were truly held to account in David’s inimitable style. Of course, our work became even more important after the tragedy of the Grenfell fire and still is not over. We will carry it on in his memory.
Many have spoken since Friday of David’s kindness, decency, courtesy and humour. I have seen all in plenty. I was unwell for a large part of last year, and he rang me regularly to check on my progress. I want to send my deepest sympathy to Julia, their children, his wider family and all his staff and colleagues.
In this day and age of daily abuse—online and in person—death threats, attacks and even murders, David stood as an oasis of reasonable behaviour and genuine affection for all those who crossed his path. In 2017, Christians in Politics ran a campaign for learning to disagree well. I cannot think of a better example than David of always disagreeing well. In political terms, we were polar opposites, but, with him, that was never a barrier: he always found what we had in common, and we could stand together. His faith was intrinsic to every action, every word he uttered and every passing smile to faces that he recognised. May he rest in peace and rise in glory.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, we never discussed politics: David knew mine and I his, and it was always like that over the years we worked together. He succeeded me as chair of the Industry and Parliament Trust in 2014, having been a board member himself for a number of years previously. I always valued his contributions, if not always the way he put them.
I well recall him saying to me before one meeting, with that lovely crinkly smile on his face and his eyes twinkling, “Now, Angela, this isn’t going to take too long, is it?” The agenda was huge.
Nick Maher, the trust’s chief executive, told me a lovely story which epitomised David. He was introducing the Lord Mayor of London at an event and said, “I would like to introduce the lord mayor. Of course, none of us can aspire to be lord mayor because we don’t have enough money and didn’t go to the right school.” The room went very quiet. That was so David. You never really knew what he might say next. I know that Nick would also want me to say that David would always go that extra mile for the IPT, was adored by the staff there and worked enormously hard for the trust, which he continued to chair until 2017.
We also worked together on the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom. David was passionate about the Iranian resistance movement, and we shared many platforms together over the years. His commitment to everything he campaigned for was inspiring.
He was a kind, funny and thoughtful man, dedicated to his beloved Southend, which I often teased him about as I had worked at the airport there in my younger days. He was totally without malice or nastiness and always charmed everyone with whom he came into contact. It is almost impossible to believe that anyone would want to harm him, let alone attack him so brutally and fatally. He was a true parliamentarian, who lived for his family and for his constituency—in that order—and his loss to us is deeply felt and incredibly painful.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, as many people were, I was especially shocked and saddened when I heard of the terrible murder of David while he was helping his people. I had the privilege of working with him on liver disease and hepatitis C. He was always cheerful and good to be with. We shared an interest in animals and the same faith. We are the poorer for having lost two very good Members of Parliament while they were doing their work. I send my heartfelt condolences to his family. Could priests be allowed to attend a crime scene so that they can give the victim their last rites, especially when they are dying?
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, David Amess and I entered the House of Commons together at the 1983 general election. He was my colleague and friend for nearly 40 years. He was, as so many others have said, a really lovely man. He was one of that select band of people who are truly life-enhancing. When you left a meeting with David, even a chance encounter, you felt happier and better than you had felt before.
He was one of those rare human beings who looked for the best in others and, in doing so, brought out the best in them. He was a living antidote to the cynicism with which so many regard politics and politicians, and I join so many others in expressing my heartfelt sympathy to his family. He was, of course, a Conservative, and his conservative beliefs were deeply held and truly felt. However, as so many have said this afternoon, they did not in any way prove an impediment to his working with others across parties for the causes in which he believed.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I knew David Amess when he first came in because I was elected before him. For nearly 40 years, I was on good and friendly terms with him as a parliamentary colleague. I am as shocked as anybody in this House that such a man should come to such a terrible end.
We are all saying the same things about him and the tributes that were paid publicly last week by various people repeated the same points. As others will wish to join in, I will not repeat them all. The reason is that on this occasion the things are all true. We have a very good convention in this country that if you have to pay tribute to someone when they die, you find something polite to say. I have heard people say very moving things about people whom I know they thought privately were rather nasty pieces of work, but they were sympathetic when they died.
With David Amess, as everybody has said—and for the sake of others I will not just repeat it all—the first words that come to mind, or variants of them, when you think of him is that he was a very nice man. I cannot believe that a man like that ever had an enemy and that applied to his political life as much as to his private life. People from across the other side of the aisle from him, people from different parties who disagreed profoundly with him, have said these things. I, too, was a Conservative but it cannot be said that David and I were on the same wing of the broad coalition—as it is with all political parties in this country—that is the Conservative Party. He was a very fierce Eurosceptic. He was a great supporter of capital punishment. These are opinions which, to put it lightly, I do not share.
He was one of that group—the majority of British politicians—who would never have dreamed of allowing political disagreement to interfere with personal friendship. He respected the true right of free speech in a free society, which is that you respect the integrity and the sincerity of the person with whom you are having an argument and you maintain civilised dialogue. He was also an enthusiast—a hard-working, enthusiastic Back-Bencher who never betrayed the slightest interest in being such a keen party man that he was seeking preferment.
He always had campaigns. I shall not list the ones that I have encountered over the years but, at any given stage, he pursued quite a lot of campaigns, and he pursued them all with the same energy and enthusiasm. His personality was always amusing and engaging, and it was one of the things that forwarded what he was trying to argue for and helped recruitment to it.
I join noble Lords in all sympathies to his family, and I agree that the tragedy of this latest disaster for our democracy and our Parliament is that the victim is one of the very nicest political practitioners of any political view that I, and most of us, have encountered. It is a truly moving occasion.
On the wider aspects, you can never make controversial figures such as Members of Parliament totally safe—there is an element of minor and quite acceptable degree of risk for any Member of Parliament, however obscure and quiet. We have always had a fringe of violence in recent years; people have talked of the most recent four knife attacks, all by lunatic madmen. I think that through my time in the House of Commons I lost about six of my colleagues, who were killed by IRA terrorists and others. The most well-known occasions were the Brighton bomb and the murder of Airey Neave in the Palace of Westminster. There were others—I have not counted them all. We have to have precautions, and we have always had to have them. When I was a controversial and prominent figure, there were several weeks when the Nottinghamshire police advised me that they would like to have a Special Branch policeman sitting in the outer office of my surgery. Nothing ever came of it. The death threats that I got were usually from harmless lunatics who were just trying to frighten or offend me. But to a certain extent, it is difficult to minimise. I fear that, whereas the IRA was at least predictable, had a coherent political agenda and was determined to use terrorist violence to advance it, nowadays it is loners, fanatics and madmen, people with perverted views of their own, and it is very difficult to guarantee security against such people.
I shall only echo what everybody else has said about the contribution that political debate can make. The deteriorating tone of debate over the last 10 or 20 years is somehow encouraging these mad loners to start emerging and becoming active. There is an absurd cynicism among the public towards the political class. I fear that if you told the majority of the public in casual conversation that most MPs were crooks and only in it for what they were getting out of it, and it does not matter who you vote for, they would agree, although it is a bizarre, ridiculous and untrue allegation. Standards of honesty in the House of Commons are rather higher on average than the standards of honesty among the general public—although all groups have scoundrels, and the House of Commons has always had one or two.
The public exchange of views has become nastier and simpler. Politicians themselves are partly to blame, but social media has had a dreadful effect on the tone of debate, and the media give more courage to the lunatic fringe on the edge of perfectly good lobbies than they do to the people arguing the cause. As parliamentarians, we all have to maintain the standards, as we undoubtedly do, and mourn the loss of a very great, very nice and hard-working parliamentarian.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I associate myself with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, particularly about the declining standard of political debate. He is also right to remind us of the high price that so many in politics have to pay. I was elected to the House of Commons in 1979 on the very day before Airey Neave was murdered in the precincts of Parliament. It was with profound and aching sorrow that I heard the shocking news on Friday that Sir David Amess MP had been murdered. Over the past 40 years, David and I had become close friends, and I shared many platforms with him, in his constituency and elsewhere.
We both had our working-class origins in the East End of London and, indeed, were baptised within a year of one another in the same church by the same Franciscan priest. He often joked that there must have been something in the holy water. His faith was in his DNA, and it animated his belief in public service and the principle of duty.
I first met David when he came into the House in 1983. From across the House, we joined forces in taking up the case of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Jewish lives from the Nazis. In 1997, thanks to David’s assiduous campaign, a statue was erected to Wallenberg outside the Western Marble Arch Synagogue. There were other campaigns, about Soviet Jewry and the plight of Alexander Ogorodnikov, a Russian Orthodox dissident. We frequently shared platforms to highlight the persecution of people because of their religion or belief or human rights violations, especially—as we have heard from others—the situation in Iran.
David’s faith informed his passionate commitment to the very right to life, human dignity and the common good. But it was also rooted in his absolute conviction that an MP’s first priority was to their constituents. It was the death of a constituent from hypothermia which led to his successful Private Member’s Bill on fuel poverty.
Just a few weeks ago, David asked me to take part in the launch of his memoir, Ayes & Ears. Typical of David’s kindness and generosity, as we heard from the Leader of the House, the proceeds of the book were dedicated to three charities: Endometriosis UK, Prost8 and the Leigh-on-Sea-based Music Man project. David’s causes were rooted in the neighbourhoods and people he represented. He was committed to direct face-to-face engagement, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, was right to remind us, is at the very heart—the essence—of being a Member of Parliament. Indeed, the noble Lord contested the constituency I was ultimately elected in in a previous general election, and he knows, as I do, that it is a precious relationship you have with your constituents. But now it has taken David’s life, as it took the life of Jo Cox, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, reminded us, and Andy Pennington. If it had not been for a mercifully foiled plot, it would have also led to the murder of another friend since teenage days—Rosie Cooper, the Labour Member of Parliament for West Lancashire.
But as Mr Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, has rightly said, heinous crimes must not be allowed to drain the lifeblood from our representative democracy. This was an attack on democracy itself. We would be making a terrible mistake—and I know it is not what David would have wanted—for his death to simply lead to more barriers being put between the people and their representatives. We will all want to understand the killer’s motivations; to delve deeper into the failure of the Prevent programme; and to understand the radicalisation which takes place in our prisons and through the promotion of intolerant, toxic and violent ideologies, sometimes with the indulgence of social media. Our thoughts today should also be with every family in this country—far too many—who have lost loved ones to knife crime.
As David’s family said in a statement today, people of faith, from all the great religions, and people of no faith must work much harder to create a more respectful society which honours difference. Too often we have been in denial about the sources of the hateful threats to the foundations of a liberal, open and pluralistic society. As David’s horrific death demonstrates, notwithstanding all the good in the world, we still have the capacity to do truly evil things.
His death reminds us of the deep-seated challenges we face. Above all, it will have devastating consequences for his family and loved ones, and my principal thoughts and prayers today are with Julia and their children. May this good man now rest in peace.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I will be brief to allow other colleagues to say a few words.
On this sad occasion, when we mourn the death of our colleague, I remember a smile—the smile of David Amess. I have known David for some 15 years, and I never saw him without that smile on his face. In those years, I never heard a bad word said about him. How could there have been? He was, in the true sense of the word, a true and perfect Christian gentleman.
I remember fondly an all-party delegation to the Philippines led by David. It was an honour and privilege to be a part of it and to be with him. He moulded a very diverse group of parliamentarians into a very united group. His personality, charm and smile charmed the pants off all the Philippine members we met, both Ministers and parliamentary delegates.
As many have mentioned, Sir David had many interests; one was a keen and abiding interest in Northern Ireland. Each time we met, either the first or second sentence he would say was, “Well, Dennis, how’s Northern Ireland? How can I help?”.
Julia Amess has lost a husband. David’s children have lost a father. We parliamentarians have lost a colleague. Northern Ireland has lost a friend. David, we all miss you.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, as time is short, I will not say very much about David. So much has been said already. We both entered the House of Commons on the same day, along with my noble friend Lord Howard. David served for 38 years; I lasted 14 before I was asked to leave.
I am grateful for that in some ways, because I missed the cesspit that is social media. I used Twitter for about three months, but that was as much as I could stand. That is not to say that lots of negative material was directed at me, but social media is a cancer at the heart of our political system. The fact that people can write this stuff anonymously and without being accountable for it is something that needs to change.
David was an exceptional person, but there are many exceptional people at the other end of this building, as there are in this House. The role of an MP is not a job, but a vocation. At this moment, as we think of David’s family, we should think of the sacrifice they have made. There are the endless phone calls on a Sunday afternoon about drains, someone’s views or to say that “You’re not getting your message across”. Those who have been in the House of Commons will be very familiar with those. There are the distractions—the inability to go and see your children play sport and so on. It is a complete way of life and the support which David had from his family is something we should all be profoundly grateful for. That he should be robbed of the joy of retirement and the chance of seeing his children perhaps go on to produce grandchildren is a particularly savage thing to have happened to such a nice man.
I looked at Hansard for this year to see what David had been saying. He spoke on topics from endometriosis to forced adoption, from car charging points to the Maldives fishing industry, from motor neurone disease to night flying, from knife crime to Operation Yewtree, and of course the now celebrated campaigns for city status for Southend and a memorial for Vera Lynn. Both David and Vera were great patriots and supporters of our country and, to echo the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, David was also a fantastic supporter of the union of the United Kingdom.
The launch of the campaign for the statue of Vera Lynn included a song called “Irreplaceable”—how ironic. David is irreplaceable to the people of Southend; he was a one-off—I hope that will not be used by anyone in the by-election campaign. I began to think about which song would be appropriate for David. I thought of Vera Lynn’s “When You Hear Big Ben, You’re Home Again”, but then thought that, with David’s hugely energetic campaigns, it is probably “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition”.
David Amess and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, worked tirelessly in support of persecuted Christians around the world. We should honour that by tackling these issues and recognising that it is in all our interests and in our nation’s interests that we support freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief. David Amess was a champion of that.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard wonderful tributes by people who knew Sir David much better than I did, but I want to put on the record very briefly some messages that I picked up from his constituents. Jill Allen-King, aged 82, has written about her guide dog. Most recently, she asked me to write a foreword for her latest book about being blind in lockdown. In that book, she talks about Sir David, and when I phoned her a couple of months ago, she described what a wonderful man he was: attending charitable dos when it would have been a lot easier not to; helping her with fundraising; and being there at the drop of a hat. That was the measure of Sir David Amess.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I remember him from 1992, because two or three days before the Sheffield rally, I went to Basildon to campaign and it was patently obvious then that we had lost. I knocked on doors, and the response was not just about whether people were going to vote for Labour: they were going to vote for David. I went back and reported to headquarters that we were shot. Unfortunately for us, we were.
I say to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, “Yes, we must not let hate succeed”. There is a “Panorama” programme on BBC television tonight, “Why do they hate me so much?” Yes, social media has whipped this up and made it more prevalent and dangerous. However, apart from those who are seriously mentally ill, to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, referred, we have a phenomenon of hate that is about difference, intolerance and the way in which people can no longer have the dialogue that allows us to speak strongly, think emotionally and believe that our values are worth fighting for, but do so by upholding them in the spirit of democracy. So often now, the hate is about—with Sir David, it certainly was not about the individual—our system, our democracy and the world around us.
One thing that I picked up over the last few weeks about Sir David that is very close to my heart was his engagement with young people learning about politics, citizenship and democracy. If there is one thing that we can carry forward, which I hope will bring comfort to his family and close friends, it is being able to teach our young people how to do democracy, how to be understanding and how to have very strong opinions but express them in a way that is respectful to others as well as to themselves. If that comes out of this and people can have a dialogue across the country about how we could make that work better, Sir David’s life —wonderful as it has been—will also be remembered for making another contribution, like that of Jo Cox, to changing the way in which we do our politics.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will pay a very brief tribute to David, based on 32 years of shared friendship in the other place. As my noble friend Lord Howard said, he was basically loyal to his party. Speaking as a former Chief Whip, of the 876 votes in the 2010 Parliament, David supported the Government 97.6% of the time. No one could complain about that. However, he was a man of strong principle, impervious to the bait of ministerial office, as my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke said.
When he voted against the Government, he did so on a matter of principle. Your Lordships might be interested to hear that he voted against the Government on the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2011. He also voted against military action against Syria, when the Government were defeated, and he opposed the badger cull, animal welfare being one of his special subjects. More recently, he actually voted against the Government on leaseholder compensation post the Grenfell tragedy, on which many of us may share his views.
His sunny optimism, revealed by that broad smile, his basic decency, his generosity and his modesty made him a great colleague. We would see him walking briskly from engagement to engagement with a sheaf of papers under his arm, his timetable fractured both here and in Southend by his willingness to stop and talk to colleagues. The shadow Leader mentioned his insistence that the House of Commons should not adjourn for the Christmas Recess until it had answered 18 issues of great importance to the burghers of Southend. Just pity the Leader of the House replying to that debate.
I mention one other factor about David. He was generous with his time and happy to visit and speak in the constituencies of Conservative MPs—an obligation often overlooked by his more self-important colleagues. He was also capable of mischief. He once came to North West Hampshire, and the convention is that the visiting speaker pays a glowing tribute to the industry and energy of the incumbent, however well founded in truth that may be. But there was none of that from David. “Great to be here in George’s patch,” he began, “but I don’t want to waste time talking about him. I want to tell you about myself.”
Reading and listening to the tributes paid to David over the weekend, I asked myself whether people would join the dots and link the tributes we are paying to David today with those we paid last week to James Brokenshire and those we paid earlier to Jo Cox. I realised that those public servants, whom fate has cruelly taken from us too early, were between them more representative of this country’s often-abused public servants than the bad apples who get us unfavourable publicity. David’s family has expressed the hope that some good should come from this tragedy. David was essentially a generous man, and he would not mind sharing some of the tributes to him more broadly if it helped to change the perception of the profession to which he has selflessly given his life.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I was also elected in 1983, but I first discovered Sir David’s fundamental decency, integrity and courtesy when I was a junior Whip. Later, I was David’s Chief Whip for four years. I held him in the highest regard because he was the sort of MP we Chief Whips liked and rated—not because he sycophantically voted for us 96% or 97% of the time, but because he always told us well in advance on the 3% of occasions when he could not because his conscience and constituency priorities prevailed. Chief Whips can live with MPs who have that level of courtesy and decency.
As has been said, he was deeply religious. That clearly influenced his views on political issues, but he was always capable of seeing the other point of view. He always disagreed with the viewpoint, not the person making it; that is a sign of greatness and generosity of spirit. He followed the great commandment of Jesus to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself. Well, David loved 70,000 neighbours —all his constituents in Southend West—and people further afield in the UK and even further afield around the world, as has been said. In fact, those suffering in the world were David’s neighbours—and not just people; as the great hymn by Cecil Alexander says:
“All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.”
If the Lord God made them, David Amess defended them.
I say this carefully: I think that David died a Christian martyr. I mean “martyr” in the proper Greek derivation of the term meaning a witness and nothing else. He died a witness to his belief in the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity and to their practical realisation, including in working for others until the very end. He did his duty to his God, his family, his constituency and his country. What truer passport is there to eternal life? I am reminded of the opening to the anthem “In Paradisum”, which was sung at the funeral of Lady Thatcher. It begins:
“May the angels lead you into paradise”—
but there will be no resting in peace for David Amess in paradise, for even now he will be campaigning among the angels and archangels for heaven to be granted city status.
I pass on my sincere condolences to Lady Amess, David’s children and all those others who may have been traumatised by his awful murder. It was a privilege to know him and I really liked serving with him.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, there is one aspect of Sir David’s work that is perhaps not widely known. Every year for the last 30 years, he took into his office a young American student from the Catholic University of America. I had the honour of arranging the programmes over those years, so I worked closely with him. He gave those young people a wonderful insight into British parliamentary democracy. Those young people, who had perhaps met the Senators or Congressmen they had worked for on the Hill only once in a three or four-month period, saw Sir David every day. He took them to his constituency. They saw at first hand what it meant to be personally represented. They all benefited from that experience, and he made an intangible contribution to British-American relations in the process.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I had the pleasure of getting to know David when I first came into the House in 1986 after a by-election, and he was incredibly helpful to me at that time. Like my two predecessors in the Whips’ Office as Chief Whip, I got to know him over a period of time. It is fair to say that David followed two Whips: the Conservative Whip and the Whip of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church would always take precedence over the Conservative Whip. However, I am glad to say that they did not often collide, on parliamentary occasions at any rate.
David was a man of true belief and deep conviction. After what happened to him last week, his family will be asking, “Why?” I do not think there is an answer. It is random devastation—devastation that could affect almost any parliamentarian. As we have heard today, the issues that David covered, the projects that he raised and the campaigns that he fought for and fronted were so widespread that everyone could see what a superb constituency Member of Parliament he was.
One of the things about the House of Commons is that sometimes we come across some very strange people. They are well represented in Parliament overall, and Parliament is stronger for it. We have to come across those people, meet them and listen to them—although sometimes we might not listen for too long. I hope his family can come to accept that while their husband and father was taken from them and he cannot be replaced, this was a random attack by an evil person.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I also pay tribute to Sir David, whom I admired and with whom I had dealings over many years. It would be a fitting tribute to him if all in both Houses would emulate his gracious words and actions and avoid, as he did, aggressive words, false allegations and visceral hatred. Such an improvement should also involve the media. This would be a great tribute to a great man, a loyal friend and a fine Christian gentleman.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, it is almost 40 years since the first meeting David and I attended on our respective roads to Westminster, entering Parliament for marginal constituencies in 1983. Here was a man who was constructive, committed, amusing and always willing to go the extra mile for you, or indeed for anyone he felt he could help. We stayed close for many decades.
Last week, at his request, I was with him on a delegation to Qatar, where his charm and mischievous sense of humour, deployed in a way only David could get away with in front of the most elevated in society, was put to wonderful effect. It was so good to be with him. On asking the Father Emir how many children he had, and receiving the reply “24”, he promptly reached for a small House of Lords picture frame as a gift and challenged him to fit all 24 into the frame. When he told the Emir, who had just received a copy of David’s book, that he could “throw it in the wastepaper basket”, that led to more laughter and marked him out as being wonderfully self-deprecating. We flew out sitting together and flew back chatting away. The mission had been one of the most successful we had been on.
His sensitivity and determination to help rehouse the 13 unaccompanied Afghan children with British family connections; his strong Catholic faith; his work as a strong supporter of Israel, yet always welcomed and respected in so many Arab countries; his ability to bring together and unite members of many a parliamentary delegation; and the quips and asides that always raised a smile, were there for all to see.
As co-founders and co-chairs of the All-Party Group for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, we were planning a celebration for our Olympic and Paralympic medallists here in the Lords, an event he was much anticipating. It was no surprise, then, to receive the following tribute from the president of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, who yesterday wrote:
“Sir David fought keenly for sport and for all it could do. He understood that the Olympic Games are the only event this can bring the entire world together in peaceful competition … He worked tirelessly to keep the games free of politics and dispute.”
David was a true friend. He proved that politics was more than the collective DNA of ministerial ambition. It is, as has been said many times, not least in this House, about public service, about challenging and changing the lives of constituents, even in the smallest possible way; and to make a difference to your constituents and the causes you felt passionately about was everything that David stood for. He was a decent, uplifting, unstintingly hard-working, kind man with a mischievous sense of humour; an outstanding parliamentarian and constituency MP; devoted husband to Julia and loving father to their children; and such a loyal friend and colleague to so many of us. At the end, he was doing what he loved best and what he was brilliant at: helping his constituents, and not least realising his long-standing ambition that Southend, for which he long campaigned, should be a city, both on earth and, God willing, in heaven.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, as I explained earlier, we have to end now because the House is going to join the House of Commons and process at 5.30 pm behind the Lord Speaker to St Margaret’s. However, I am of course aware that many other noble Lords would have liked to pay tribute to Sir David today. Those Members who have not had a chance to speak may email their speeches to Hansard by noon on Friday. Those speeches will be included in a special collection of tributes published by Hansard which will be sent to Sir David’s family. I shall now adjourn the House so we can join the procession starting at 5.30 pm from the Chamber.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, Members who wish to take part in the procession to the service in St Margaret’s should wait in the Chamber as we prepare to leave in the next few minutes.