Mark Francois
Main Page: Mark Francois (Conservative - Rayleigh and Wickford)(3 days, 2 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 Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I am delighted to have been called in the debate on the summer Adjournment, which I am very pleased is now traditionally known as the Sir David Amess debate, after our fallen comrade and great friend Sir David.
Following the brilliant speech by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), all I would say is that this matter is very close to the heart of the Amess family. If it is not possible to have a separate public inquiry, which is what they desperately would like, perhaps, as my right hon. Friend alluded to, the other alternative is to slightly amend the terms of reference of the Southport inquiry so that the matter could be investigated via those means. The additional cost would be miniscule, and the family could have their say. I merely repeat that request.
Perhaps the most pressing issue in Wickford in my constituency is the fate of the old dilapidated Co-op supermarket site. It was purchased several years ago by an overseas developer named Heriot, which singularly failed to find a new tenant. In fairness, it attempted to negotiate a deal with Morrisons, which fell through. It instead tried to negotiate a deal with Asda, which fell through too.
I am afraid that in the recent Wickford Park by-election, the Labour party claimed in its literature that a deal with Asda had been “secured”, and it was thus trying to take the credit. In fact, it turns out that that was simply untrue. I recently received a letter from Mr Allan Leighton, the chief executive of Asda, which unfortunately confirmed that after over a year of negotiations, it had reluctantly decided not to proceed with the redevelopment of the Wickford site. I have to say that that has not enhanced Asda in my eyes.
Nevertheless, back in February Heriot applied to Basildon borough council for planning permission for a new store, but the council repeatedly dragged its feet and failed to determine the application to the point that, I understand, a developer could appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination. It is absolutely vital that that planning application is passed by Basildon borough council in the hope that Heriot can find an alternative tenant, such as Lidl or another supermarket group.
Having tried for nearly four years to achieve that, if Heriot is not able to do so, perhaps the time has finally come for it to sell the site to an alternative developer with more experience, which might have more luck. Either way, I can report to the House that my constituents are thoroughly fed up with the whole drama of the old Co-op supermarket, as am I. For the sake of all my constituents in Wickford, I hope that we can somehow bring this prolonged saga to a successful conclusion and provide them with a new supermarket fit for the 21st century.
Let me end my contribution with a few remarks on so-called devolution and local government reform. This has been a torturous process in Essex, made more difficult by the fact that there is absolutely no public demand at all for the changes. I can confidently report to the House that in 24 years as an Essex MP, I have never once had a constituent tell me on the doorstep that they wanted a mayor of Essex. None the less, Ministers recently wrote to Essex MPs to confirm that they are going ahead with a mayor of Essex, loosely based on the Sadiq Khan model in London, with a related combined authority. That will result in mayoral elections across the whole of Essex in spring next year.
The Government’s proposals would in effect replace the current two-tier system with another two-tier system. At present, we have Essex county council as the upper tier and a lower tier of district, borough and city councils. Under the Government’s plan, that would give way to an upper tier of an elected mayor and a combined authority, with a lower tier of multiple unitary authorities beneath. The third tier of town and parish councils would remain unaffected. However, it is not yet clear whether the Labour Government still intend to press ahead with their plans to create several unitary authorities in Essex—a matter that has led to much consternation and considerable disagreement, not least among the potential constituent authorities themselves.
As of today, there are multiple different potential configurations. Essex county council seems to want three unitary authorities. Rochford district council and some other councils would prefer four. The Labour party appears to be agitating in favour of five. Contrary to the position of its own party, Labour-led Thurrock council has just announced that it would prefer four, the constituent local authorities of which it is yet to reveal. Indeed, at a meeting of council leaders earlier this week, some Labour council leaders were openly disagreeing with each other over all this. The whole process is rapidly descending into a total farce, and having followed this issue closely for many years, I have yet to hear a truly compelling case for why any of these new authorities would genuinely be more efficient. As ever, we are promised efficiency savings in year 5, but as a former Minister, I have to tell current Ministers from long experience that year 5 never comes.
To conclude, I say in all sincerity to Ministers that if they press ahead regardless and impose a solution via ministerial order with no consensus, it will still take a Parliament to implement. In the meantime, local government will almost grind to a halt, and many of the best officers will leave. It definitely will not save the money that has been promised, and therefore the game simply is not worth the candle. If I could offer Ministers in the Department some honest advice, it would be this: pull stumps now while you can. If you must go ahead with the mayor, do that, but drop the unitary idea and let the local district, borough and city councils get on with the job of representing their people, and let us have elections for those councils.