Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

Debate between Mark Francois and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[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 Francois]

All right. Sorry.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will end with the words of Katie Amess herself—

[Mr Francois]

Sir David was my best friend, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

He was.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Mark Francois and Edward Leigh

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not deny for a moment that the work has to be done. It has to be done properly, but we are in danger of creating a gold-standard operation in building a permanent replica Chamber. That is not just a worry for people like me, who perhaps share my political prejudices about public spending and spending other people’s money in the way we would spend our own. Many others share that worry. Simon Jenkins recently wrote an article in The Guardian in which he excoriated the cost of building a permanent emergency Chamber.

I do not deny that the work has to be done. I accept the vote of the House of Commons. I campaigned against it. It was quite a narrow vote. The debate has not reflected the fact that many Members of Parliament share my views on this, but we have decided to decant if necessary. I have accepted the will of the House. There will come a time when it may be necessary to decant. The point I want to make is that if there is a serious and imminent danger, we have to get on with the work now, and work may have to be done around us if necessary. It is said that this is impossible. I do not know, but so often in the private sector—

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise profusely to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I hope he will understand.

Yesterday at Defence questions, Mr Speaker made it very plain that, because of all the speculation in the media about changes to the legal protection of veterans, he expected the Ministry of Defence to make an oral statement in the House today. It elected not to do so and instead put a written statement on the Order Paper this morning. I have just treble-checked in the Library, and that statement has still not been made available at almost 4 o’clock. In all the years I have been in this House, I have never known a written statement not to turn up by 4 pm.

This is symptomatic of a three-way war between No. 10, the Northern Ireland Office and the MOD about who is in charge of veterans policy. Could you try to overcome this chaos in Whitehall and use your best offices to find out when today—if, indeed, at all—we will be given the written statement on this critical issue that we have been promised all day?

Ministry of Defence

Debate between Mark Francois and Edward Leigh

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

There is clearly a problem, one I hope the Minister will deal with later. Why does it take so long to recruit? Are we putting off potential recruits with our very slow processes?

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Just before my hon. Friend moves on from the issue of recruitment, does he agree that the performance of the Capita recruitment partnering project contract has been distinctly sub-optimal, and that if this continues for very much longer the Ministry of Defence would be wise to seek an alternative?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My right hon. Friend is of course a former Minister for the Armed Forces and really does know what he is talking about. The Government should listen to him.

There is a problem with morale. Those who perceive service morale as low increased by 12% on the previous year in the Army and 15% in the Royal Marines in 2017. The overwhelming majority, 74%, feel proud to serve—we are proud of them for feeling proud to serve—but only a third feel valued by their service. What is the point of training men and women if we fail to keep them?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Francois and Edward Leigh

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I am very happy, without recourse to IPSA, to pay tribute to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and the valuable work that it does in assisting Members of Parliament, particularly those who do not have previous military experience, to understand better the wonderful work that our armed forces do on our behalf. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work to update and upgrade the AFPS to ensure that it remains fit for the 21st century.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I will certainly raise the issue on our IPSA liaison committee, but can the Minister think of any other parliamentary fees office anywhere in Europe that would be, frankly, so mean and short-sighted as not to fund Members of Parliament to visit their armed forces abroad? That is so typical of IPSA. I very much hope that the whole House will join the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) in her campaign.

[Mr Francois]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is seeking to make. In fairness, neither I nor my ministerial colleagues are responsible for the decisions of IPSA. It sounds as if he is about to launch something of a flanking attack. If he does so, I suspect that some Members of the House may come to his aid.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Francois and Edward Leigh

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

13. What effect the Army 2020 review has had on the operational capability of the armed forces.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

Under Army 2020, the Army will be equipped to face future threats after more than a decade of enduring operations and will remain capable of operating across the full spectrum of military capability, either at home or overseas.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Minister said earlier this afternoon that the MOD cannot be “oblivious” to the country’s fiscal position, but the Treasury cannot have it both ways. If it insisted that the Army had to suffer dangerous cuts in a non-strategic review in 2010, surely in 2020, when the economy will be growing, the Army, in a dangerous world, is entitled to share in the proceeds of growth.

[Mr Francois]

Again, my hon. Friend tempts me to stray into what are perhaps Treasury matters. It is evident that the Ministry of Defence must live within its means, as must all other Departments. There is no national security without economic security. That said, we believe that with Army 2020 we have a credible and realistic plan, and we are determined to carry it through.