Edward Leigh
Main Page: Edward Leigh (Conservative - Gainsborough)(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I rise to talk about Lord Anderson’s report on Prevent and the death of our wonderful fallen colleague and my dear friend, Sir David Amess, which was published last week. It is obviously appropriate to make this speech today, in the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate, which is rightly named in his honour. However, it is sad that this speech aims to draw attention to the way in which he and his family have been and are being let down by the Home Secretary and this Government.
The House is well aware that the Sir David Amess family would like a full statutory public inquiry into the death of their beloved father and husband. Last March, they met the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary at 10 Downing Street. They were supported by their former MP Anna Firth, leading London lawyers, and public affairs expert Radd Seiger, all of whom continue to support and help the family on a voluntary basis. At that meeting, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister asked the family to go away and work with Lord Anderson, to see if he could answer the dozens of questions they still have about why the killer slipped through the state’s safeguarding nets. Against their better judgement, the family did just that. They met Lord Anderson, along with their advisers and Anna Firth, in his chambers in the Middle Temple. They provided Lord Anderson with all the questions that they still needed answering, and they waited patiently for his report, enduring several more months of stress and anxiety. Both the Home Secretary and Lord Anderson specifically promised the family that they would see the report first, and in good time, so that they had time to read and digest it, and take advice, before being subjected to the glare of the media. You can only imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, how deeply distressing the whole media circus is for the family.
Unbelievably, yet again, that did not happen. The family first learned that the report was imminent from an article in The Guardian, and when they received a text from a journalist saying that the report was due to be published soon. Clearly, rather than keep their word to the Amess family, the Government chose quite deliberately to leak the report to the press first. That is an absolute disgrace. The Amess family should have seen the report first, not last. That is a simply unacceptable way to treat any grieving family, let alone that of a distinguished parliamentarian. Once again, the Amess family were bombarded by the media, causing them great pain. All the media wanted, of course, was their individual soundbite, before the family had any opportunity to even read the 170-page report. The Home Secretary should feel thoroughly ashamed. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to apologise to Lady Amess and her family for this latest insult. The Government really need to do far, far, better on how they treat the victims of heinous crimes.
Critically, however, there is now no doubt whatsoever, following Lord Anderson’s work, that there must be a full public inquiry on why the string of failures that led to Sir David’s murder were allowed to happen, and on who was responsible, who will be held to account, and what will be done to ensure that there is no repeat. The Amess family have been told repeatedly by the Home Secretary and successive Ministers that lessons had been and would be learned by Prevent, including the lessons set out in the Prevent learning review, which took place shortly after Sir David’s death and was published earlier this year. Heartbreakingly, Southport happened three years later. The two cases are virtually identical. In both, the killer was well known to the authorities and to the Prevent programme, yet was allowed to slip through the safeguarding net. It seems, therefore, that lessons have not been learned.
The Amess family feel that both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister were paying lip service to their agonising search for real answers when they finally met them at No. 10 in March. The family were assured by both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that they took the family’s concerns extremely seriously, that they too felt the loss of Sir David acutely, and that they would leave no stone unturned to help the family find the answers that they needed.
I will finish with the words of Katie Amess herself—
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend finishes, will he give way very briefly?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I think the Father of the House was reaching his peroration. I am fully aware of the friendship between the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and Sir David, but he will have the opportunity to make his case shortly.
Sir Edward Leigh
In the words of Katie Amess herself,
“Despite Lord Anderson’s review, the vast majority of our questions about Prevent’s failures remain unanswered. We still do not know why basic checks like social media monitoring or verifying school attendance were not carried out before the perpetrator was released from the programme. He was meant to have seven sessions. He had one, over a cup of coffee at McDonald’s, and was then released. That is simply not good enough, yet Anderson skates over it, ignoring the catastrophic consequences that followed for my family, and our country.
Critical records, including minutes from panel meetings and vulnerability assessments, have either been withheld or were incomplete. That does not help any of us. Transparency is essential, yet we continue to face obstacles in accessing these documents.
Other than the killer himself, there has been no accountability for my family. The review revealed alarming gaps in the handling of the killer after he was referred. Unsubstantiated claims were made about his supposed progress, yet no one has been held to account. This isn’t about process, it’s about people’s lives and our right to see that those who let my dad down are held fully responsible.
Key individuals involved in the case were not interviewed, and the Coroner refused to engage with Lord Anderson, having already refused us an inquest. A full statutory inquiry would compel all those involved to give evidence under oath about the failings. My dad gave his all to this country, and yet he, and we, are being denied the most basic of human rights. It feels like they are trying to hide something, to shut this tragedy down.
A statutory public inquiry is the only way to compel witnesses to testify and documents to be disclosed… On behalf of my family, I now call on the current Home Secretary and Prime Minister to do the right thing and to order the inquiry, just as they rightly did for Southport. They told my mother and me and Anna Firth that we could come back to No 10 if we were not happy with Lord Anderson’s review. Well, we most certainly are not happy with it, and I will be asking my team to write to them to request that further meeting they promised us. A public inquiry would honour my father’s legacy by ensuring real accountability and preventing future tragedies.
Lastly, my father dedicated his life to public service. The very least he deserves is a thorough investigation into how his murder could have been prevented. We owe it to him and to every potential future victim to get this right. We have had review after review since my father died. We now call for a public inquiry.”
Let right be done.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Before I begin, may I associate myself with the remarks from the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) in respect of a public inquiry for Sir David?
I will raise an important issue that has been raised on a number of occasions by Members: private management companies, their management of housing estates and the outrageous charges that they make. The land management firm Greenbelt manages the open spaces of Scartho Top in the part of Grimsby that I represent. Many residents of Scartho Top have complained to me about the onerous fees they are required to pay for the upkeep of those public spaces.
The charges exacerbate the existing cost of living pressures that many residents face, and that is not to mention the unfairness of a subset of residents being tied into paying estate charges for public spaces. Some of the charges that my constituents have highlighted include tree works at a cost of £3,110, planting works at a cost of £2,989, site management inspections at £11,664, and the cost for contractors amounting to almost £45,000. As such, on behalf of my constituents, I am calling on the Government to address this unfairness and implement the recommendations highlighted by the Competition and Markets Authority following its study into house building.
As Ministers will be aware, the CMA called on the Government to implement mandatory adoption of public amenities on new housing estates. I note that the Government’s response to the CMA’s study states that while they welcome the CMA’s work, they
“intend to consult publicly on the best way to bring the injustice of ‘fleecehold’ private estates and unfair costs to an end”.
They intend to gather evidence to supplement the CMA report. I understand the Government will be inviting views from a range of experts, and I hope that can be concluded quickly.
The CMA also called for the introduction of
“enhanced consumer protection measures, underpinned by a robust enforcement regime, for households living under private management arrangements.”
These measures would include: increasing the amount of information that homeowners are entitled to receive to understand what they are paying for; introducing a right to challenge the reasonableness of housing management charges at the first tier tribunal in England, or at leasehold valuation tribunals in Wales; and, giving homeowners the right to apply to a tribunal to appoint a manager in the event of a serious failure. The Government accepted those recommendations in principle while highlighting that secondary legislation is required to implement them. Once again, a public consultation would be required.
Finally on this topic, I note that the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) made clear in a written ministerial statement on the issue during the winter that we need to act as quickly as feasible to implement these provisions. However, echoing the Government’s response to the CMA’s recommendation, the Minister noted that the provisions need to be enacted and detailed under secondary legislation.
Earlier today, there was an urgent question following the announcement that the Prax oil refinery in my constituency was likely to close, which will have an enormous impact on the local economy. That leads me to return to a subject that I have raised scores of times in the House. If the local economy is to thrive and the Government’s growth agenda is to be met, we must have more transport connections to northern Lincolnshire. The A180, which serves the ports of Grimsby and Immingham, is in an appalling state, consisting of only a two-lane dual carriageway. Its enhancement to make it a full motorway is essential. Access to our major ports is, I believe, still a Government priority—it certainly was when I was a member of the Transport Committee—and I hope that the Government will address this issue, as well as joining my campaign, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, for the renewed rail connection between Cleethorpes, Grimsby, Market Rasen and King’s Cross.
Martin Vickers
I knew my right hon. Friend would say that.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you and everyone else a very happy recess.