Andrew Rosindell
MP for Romford · Reform UK · United Kingdom
“I understand entirely why His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar needed a new arrangement following our departure from the European Union. Gibraltar was excluded from the trade and co-operation agreement by the last Conservative Government and left high and dry, so it needed a new arrangement.”
“I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to join the people of the Isle of Man this weekend, as they prepare to celebrate Tynwald Day on Monday. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting the Tynwald day reception in Speaker’s House last night with the Chief Minister, the President of Tynwald and the Speaker of the House of Keys.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will know that my borough of Havering has the second largest number of older people in the entirety of Greater London. Nearly a quarter of my constituents are within that age bracket, and they are losing out.”
“T2. The Minister should know that although the triple lock remains in place, it is not as effective as it should be because of fiscal drag. A lot of pensioners are now paying tax, as the threshold has not been increased since 2021.”
“I feel sure that the Leader of the House will want to join me in celebrating with the people of Romford. We have a double celebration this week: Armed Forces Day, when there is a magnificent parade through the town centre with the Royal British Legion Band & Corps of Drums, ex-servicemen, cadets, and many others joining to salute our brav…”
“There is a consensus across the House that the horrific occurrences in Sudan are worthy of global attention and action well beyond what has been done so far. We spend a lot of time talking about Gaza in this Chamber, but very little time talking about Sudan, which is a far greater humanitarian crisis.”
The complete record
Every one of 608 lines we hold for Andrew Rosindell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 13.
“We should be proud to identify ourselves as British first and foremost and be truly glad to live in a society where all are treated equally under the ancient laws and customs that have made these cherished islands the great nation that it is and must continue to be.”
“We must return to the great principle that has served this country well for centuries: equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or background. That is the British way. That is our common law tradition. That is the true way to guarantee equality. The Equality Act is not bringing our people together; rather, it is driving them apart. It is fuelling an imported woke culture, an unmeritocratic DEI bureaucracy and a corrosive culture of grievance. We must therefore challenge the equality law house of cards constructed over previous decades and topple it to the ground—or face the prospect of an ever more divided society.”
“Indeed, we should dismantle the Blairite constitutional reforms that have corroded our democracy and wedged our politics between a long-standing tradition of parliamentary sovereignty on the one hand, where power rests in this place—the Crown in Parliament—and an attempt at an American-style separation of powers on the other hand that has led to the outsourcing of Parliament’s ability to govern to so-called experts. Those systems are mutually exclusive, and we must pick one. As a Conservative and Unionist, I see the intrinsic value of defending the constitutional traditions that have embedded themselves in these islands for 1,000 years and that have been exported successfully around the world, to the Commonwealth nations in particular.”
“It is more important than ever that we as Members of Parliament, in the mother of all Parliaments, do not cower from taking decisions that, at face value, may seem unpopular. Trust me: the residents of my constituency of Romford, and in every corner of the United Kingdom, would wholeheartedly endorse the reversal of these laws, as the problems we face lie at the heart of the legislation itself. In my opinion, we should repeal the Equality Act root and branch, we should repeal the Human Rights Act, and the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European convention on human rights.”
“The Equality Act has caused so much harm; adding another layer of identity politics into the law will make matters even worse, and I urge the Government to rethink that idea. Likewise, we increasingly hear calls to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia. What kind of society do we want to live in? One where these proposed definitions conflate criticism of an ideology or a religion with hatred of people? Criticising Islam as a religion is not the same as hating people of the Muslim faith. Indeed, freedom of thought and freedom of speech require the ability to critique religious ideas, no matter what the religion may be. To criminalise such critique would be wholly inconsistent with the liberal, democratic principles that have evolved in this country over centuries.”
“Some will say, “But you had 14 years in government—why didn’t you repeal it?” to which I say that I, the Member of Parliament for Romford, have opposed the Equality Act from the very beginning. I never believed it would deliver what was promised, and I have consistently warned of the dangers of this ideological agenda. Sadly, too many in my party doubled down on it; some even wanted to extend it. I know that the shadow Minister here today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), is not of that view, but sadly, over the last 14 years, many in my party sucked it all up, carried on with it and wanted to extend it. That was a grave mistake, and Britain is suffering as a result. The Labour Government talk of introducing a new race equality Act—another bright idea from the same failed mindset.”
“The NHS Confederation has indicated that DEI roles alone are costing the taxpayer nearly £40 million, and I am sure that is an underestimate of what is really being spent. That is just one sector; goodness only knows what the total bill is across the public sector, in local government, the police and educational institutions—and let us not forget the BBC. It is time to put the taxpayer first and end this costly charade. The private sector and the corporate world have also been sucked into this dangerous ideology, spending vast sums of money in ticking every woke box while engaging in constant virtue signalling. None of this is cost-free to the public either: ultimately, it all must be paid for out of the pockets of their customers.”
“The Equality Act has given rise to a sprawling industry, made up of an army of bureaucrats, consultants, trainers and lawyers, all feeding off the taxpayer. Repealing it, as I am advocating today, would mean considerable savings, as vast sums of public money are poured into funding this circus. Repealing the legislation would both restore common sense to our institutions and deliver real value for money to the taxpayer. Estimates suggest substantial savings, with annual reductions in compliance costs running into tens or probably thousands of millions—it is very hard to quantify, but it is a huge sum of money when we consider all the public institutions that spend money on promoting the DEI agenda, money that should be going to our frontline public services instead.”
“Human rights and equality existed long before these Blairite statutes. In fact, equality as we would define it today finds its roots here in these islands of the United Kingdom. The underlying ideology of diversity is not neutral, as many on the left of politics suggest. It treats diversity as an unqualified good and, by implication, majority identity—whether English, Scots, Christian or British—as a problem to be managed. That is why so many of our constituents feel that these laws are not written for them and certainly not in their interests. The majority who simply want to live by the law, pay their taxes and contribute to society feel increasingly alienated by a system that tells them they have privilege that must be checked, while others are encouraged to claim special treatment. That does not sound like equality to me.”
“The Equality Act is not simply a tidying-up of previous anti-discrimination laws; as hinted earlier, it represents a wholesale shift away from our common-law tradition where everyone is equal before the law towards a continental EU-style system based on substantive equality, group rights and bureaucratic enforcement. It was inspired by EU directives, in direct contradiction of our legal heritage. It hands enormous power to quangos, activist lawyers and DEI consultants, while eroding the space for free thought, free speech and personal judgment. Some right hon. and hon. Members suggest that repealing the Equality Act would mean enabling inequality, but that is simply wrong. Just as repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 would not abolish human rights, repealing the Equality Act would not abolish equality.”
“Yet only 5% have been upheld, which tells us something very important: either Britain is riddled with invisible discrimination that even our judges cannot detect, which, given the richness of our legal traditions, I simply do not accept, or the law is unfit for purpose. In practice, it has turned the workplace into a battleground of claims and counterclaims. Despite the small number of successful claims, the statistics demonstrate the damage caused in places of work. Victim culture has not only been allowed to dominate the workplace, but been actively encouraged by the legislation. To take one example, in the case of Williams v. Nottingham, the judge noted: “the claimant thinks the existence of a ‘racial disparity’ is in…itself proof of racism”. However, the damage goes much deeper.”
“Instead of treating every citizen as an individual equal before the law, the Equality Act elevates certain so-called protected characteristics and encourages people to see themselves not as fellow Britons, but as members of competing groups. Far from promoting individual merit, the Equality Act is simply state-sponsored identity politics. What has been the result? Our English legal system has sadly been Americanised through the introduction of a corrosive culture of litigation in the workplace. Since 2017, race discrimination claims in employment tribunals have tripled, with more than 200,000 cases.”
“The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right that in this country, sadly, we have divided our own nation by treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the kingdom. That was a huge error by, I am afraid to say, the last Conservative Government, which agreed to the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor framework. I am against both, and I look forward to a future Government repealing them so that we have one United Kingdom, where all people in these islands are treated equally and the same. As set out clearly by Don’t Divide Us, the truth is that the Equality Act should really be called the inequality Act.”
“Ultimately, I believe in freedom—freedom with responsibility. I do not believe that diversity is always the right answer. It can cause division, and I think equality can sometimes be the opposite of freedom, so let us get back to basics. Let us be proud of our British heritage, which has always been based on fairness and equality under the law of these islands. I thank all Members for participating in this important debate and I say to those who have not had the chance: please get a copy of the Don’t Divide Us report, because it explains a lot of things that we as Members of Parliament should be addressing today. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.”
“Often things evolve; society changes in a natural way. If we try to legislate for everything, that is just a gift to the lawyers, judges and consultants, and all the people who will monetise legislation that gives them the opportunity to. I have always respected the Minister, and she spoke brilliantly today. She made points that I did not agree with, but many that I did agree with. I think we have all been subjected to hateful language—as Members of Parliament, we get that probably more than most people—and hatred is wrong in any context. We should always treat people with respect, kindness and generosity, but at the same time prevent those with bad intentions from causing more divisions, so our legislation needs to be minimal rather than opening up more opportunities for division in society.”
“My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made the point about focusing on what matters to real people in the real world, rather than looking inwards. Let us focus on providing good, efficient public services rather than draining resources with the diversity agenda. I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). They also made extremely valid points, particularly about the division of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, which I have always opposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey got absolutely to the point of where this has all gone wrong. All of us want to see people treated fairly and decently in a society in which freedom is cherished, but it does not all have to be legislated for.”
“He made the point that we may have differences—we all do, as we are all individuals; none of us are the same—but we have to live side by side, and legislation should empower the British people to live side by side in a free society, not pit them against one another and accentuate division by emphasising differences between us. We should be united as British people, rather than looking at how we can be more divided and act like we are victims. Too many in our society today are doing that because the Equality Act has created that culture. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made extremely powerful comments, and I agree with everything she said, particularly about the public sector—especially local government—and how diversity culture has taken over, wasting so much money, causing so many divisions and ignoring issues.”
“Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for chairing today’s debate, which has been extremely valuable. We have heard excellent contributions. There have been different opinions, but we have debated this issue in a respectful way. There are issues to be addressed, and all Members who spoke today have made extremely valid points, coming from different angles. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for his remarks. I took on board the point he made about caste discrimination, which is rarely spoken about. I thank him for drawing that to our attention. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes incredibly valid points in all the debates in which he speaks.”
“Q11. My local borough commander in Romford tells me how much valuable police time is being wasted investigating trivial social media posts and non-crime hate incidents. Should the police not be patrolling our streets rather than moderating the internet? Will the Prime Minister commit to urgently updating the Public Order Act 1986 to reflect the realities of the digital age, so that our police are focused on tackling real crime and upholding freedom of speech, rather than suppressing it?”
“That clarity will help landlords and tenants alike, and avoid unnecessary disputes ending up before the ombudsman or courts. Jasmine’s law has always been about the simple belief that people should not have to choose between a home and a beloved companion. We must not let the Bill, through the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 11, undermine that vital principle.”
“Insurance spreads the expense more evenly across the year, and avoids the burden of large, one-off deposits. It is disappointing that that approach appears to have been set aside by the Lords amendment. Finally, I urge His Majesty’s Government to work closely with animal welfare charities, and the animal welfare sector in general, when developing the guidance that will accompany the Bill. I speak as an honorary member of the Kennel Club—perhaps I should have declared that at the start—and a supporter of the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats home, and of course Cats Protection; it is important always to remember our cats. We need a clear definition of what constitutes unreasonable grounds for a landlord to refuse a tenant’s request for a pet.”
“I hope that my shadow Front-Bench colleagues will reconsider their stance. I commend the hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for all their comments on this issue. What should have been a Bill to unlock pet ownership for those in millions of homes now risks excluding them altogether, entrenching the idea that pet ownership is a privilege for homeowners only—that cannot be right. I do not believe that is what the Government intended. Earlier proposals on pet insurance—I know issues to do with that have been raised today, but they can be overcome—provided a fairer balance between the concerns of landlords and the ability of tenants to meet the costs.”
“With growing numbers of people renting, it is absolutely essential that the Bill works in support of responsible pet ownership in rented homes, rather than putting further barriers in the way. That is why I must express my opposition to amendment 11, and any clause that makes it harder for tenants to keep pets. The introduction of large up-front deposits will only serve to price many people out from owning pets, especially in the ongoing cost of living crisis. It is absolutely wrong that someone should be prevented from owning an animal that they love and want to be with because of this situation. The law needs changing, as I have argued for many years, including with Ministers in the previous Government, whom I had to go and see before they eventually agreed that this policy was the right one.”
“Owning a dog or cat, or any kind of household pet, improves both physical and mental health, provides vital companionship and helps to tackle loneliness. In fact, pet ownership is estimated to save our NHS around £2.5 billion a year by reducing the number of GP and hospital visits. Despite those clear benefits, housing issues remain the second most common reason for animals to be relinquished to animal shelters and sanctuaries such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which I was privileged to visit only a few weeks ago. I have had many links to that charitable organisation over the years, particularly during my time as shadow Minister for animal welfare some years ago.”
“I rise to speak to Lords amendment 11 and on the wider issue of pet ownership, which many other Members have spoken about. Pet ownership in rented accommodation is an issue on which I have campaigned for many years in this House. Some Members will remember the Dogs and Domestic Animals (Accommodation and Protection) Bill, otherwise known as Jasmine’s law, that I introduced to the House in 2020. It supported the principle of a pet in every home. The British people care deeply for the welfare of animals, especially in my Romford constituency. We all understand how important animals are to the lives of human beings. As the owner of two Staffordshire bull terriers, Buster and Spike, who are sadly no longer with us, I know just how important the companionship of pets is to so many people, especially those who live on their own.”
“The Leader of the House will be aware of the outrage across the country regarding illegal immigration, asylum hotels and now the huge increase in the number of houses in multiple occupation. This is happening on a large scale in Romford, with a massive boom in HMOs. My constituents want to see an end to illegal immigration and the housing of asylum seekers in local hotels. However, transferring the problem to roads and neighbourhoods, and putting families and children at risk in residential streets, is not acceptable. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate on the Floor of the House on the need to adopt an urgent strategy to end the use of hotels and HMOs for this purpose?”
“I commend the Father of the House for everything he is saying; he sums everything up perfectly. This is constitutional vandalism, and it is destroying the continuity that has made this place so effective and so special for so many centuries. This is clearly being done with a political motivation, which I think is thoroughly wrong. If we make a constitutional reform, at very least the British people should have a say in a referendum.”
“If the hon. Gentleman agrees that the hereditary principle is wrong and that no one should be in this Parliament by dint of DNA, surely he is saying that we should abolish the monarchy. The Crown is part of this Parliament and Royal Assent is part of the legislative process. If we go by his principle, the hon. Gentleman is basically saying that the monarchy itself is no longer relevant. Is that what he is saying?”
“My hon. Friend is making the correct argument. The hereditary peerage in the House of Lords represents continuity in our country and wisdom throughout the ages. Most of the House of Lords is appointed, but that hereditary element is vital as part of the mix of our very successful parliamentary constitution.”
“What I am puzzled about is this: how does the abolition of these great people who have come to this place with a duty of service that they have inherited and served the country benefit the people of Stoke-on-Trent? How will our constituents benefit by this change to our constitution? Does the hon. Member really think that this country will be so much better for having got rid of our hereditary peers, who have such a great duty of service to our country?”
“The Government have now been forced to admit the real cost of the catastrophic Chagos surrender deal: it is not £3.4 billion—oh no, Mr Speaker—it is a mind blowing £34.7 billion, which is 10 times more that we were told. No wonder Mauritius is planning tax cuts of its own, and it is British businesses and families who will pay the price. This deal leaves our country poorer, our defence capabilities damaged and our standing in the world weakened. Will the Minister now apologise to the British people for this epic failure in diplomacy, withdraw his Chagos surrender Bill and keep the islands British?”
“I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady’s speech. She and I are both Essex MPs, and I agree that we should not create these huge unitary authorities, because local councils are truly in touch with local communities and local needs. However, does she agree that as Havering is also part of Essex, we should be part of that discussion as well? If my borough wants to be part of an Essex unitary authority—such as Central Essex, which would include Chelmsford—does she agree that my constituents should have the right to make that decision in a democracy?”
“Will the hon. Lady clarify if she would support the people of Havering if they chose to be part of an Essex unitary authority—if that was their democratically chosen wish?”
“My friend is making some excellent points. The best example, which is from when this started, is the creation of Greater London in 1965. Ever since then, areas like Romford have been paying money into central London and losing our local control, local identity and local democracy, and it has been costing us an absolute fortune. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a lot of red tape and bureaucracy and the wrong direction to go in?”
“A successful Sudan, then, is not distant from our national story; it is, in part, a reflection of ourselves. None of this happened in a vacuum; our knowledge of the region, long-standing diplomatic channels and moral voice on the world stage place the United Kingdom in a position to lead. We must honour that tradition in Sudan. The world may not be watching, but Britain must not look away.”
“Finally, although this Westminster Hall debate is crucial for raising awareness and pressing for much-needed action, the gravity of the situation in Sudan demands the highest level of Government focus. I therefore urge the Foreign Secretary to come to the House at the earliest opportunity—probably not until September now—to make a comprehensive statement outlining the Government’s full and proper plan of action to address this ongoing catastrophe. We need to see a clear, unified strategy that matches the scale and urgency of this crisis. Britain has long played a role in Sudan, with deep historical ties that stretch back centuries. From the days of General Gordon in Khartoum, and our administration of Sudan during the Anglo-Egyptian condominium, Britain has been intrinsically involved in the shaping of Sudan’s modern identity.”
“It cannot be a substitute for a full and proper strategy, which I hope the Minister will outline later in her remarks. We, on this side of the House, call on His Majesty’s Government, first, to provide a full and transparent update on the disbursement and impact of the £120 million pledged in April; secondly, to clarify how the UK is supporting frontline humanitarian agencies and set out its diplomatic engagement with regional actors; thirdly, to push for stronger co-ordinated action at the UN and with our allies, including support for a ceasefire and accountability for atrocities committed; and finally, to clearly set out their position on where they could do more on the possibility of sanctions.”
“What is the Minister’s assessment of the current effectiveness of such processes and of the Jeddah process? What action does she propose to take on external factors influencing the war? The House would also welcome clarity on whether the Government are exploring replicating the approach of our American allies to sanctions. The United States recently imposed further targeted sanctions. The previous Government recognised that those measures send a clear message that those who commit appalling acts will be held accountable, which is why we implemented a number of sanctions on those supporting the activities of the Rapid Support Forces and of the Sudanese Armed Forces. I welcome the appointment of the UK special envoy for Sudan, but that cannot be the sum of our response.”
“Is there deconfliction to ensure that it is distributed to the innocent civilians who require that funding? As the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations, the United Kingdom holds a unique and vital responsibility, but I must ask whether the UK is currently doing enough. Are we using our position at the Security Council to its fullest extent? What will the UK do through the United Nations Security Council in the time ahead to push for action on humanitarian corridors and for independent investigations into war crimes, and to hold the perpetrators to account? More broadly, will the Minister tell us what new measures the Government are taking to compel the warring parties into a much-needed ceasefire? How is the UK supporting Sudanese civilian and political forces to engage in constructive dialogue processes such as the Cairo conference?”
“Hospitals and aid convoys have come under attack, entire communities have been displaced, and reports continue to emerge of ethnic cleansing, gender-based violence and mass killings, particularly in Darfur. In April, as has been mentioned, the United Kingdom co-hosted an international humanitarian conference on Sudan. It announced that £120 million would be spent in humanitarian funding, supplementing the tens of millions provided by the last Government. However, nearly three months later, we must ask—and I hope the Minister will respond—what that money has been used for. Where has the money gone? Has the funding reached frontline organisations and local civil society actors working to deliver urgent assistance? Is it getting over the border at the scale required?”
“It is a shame that she is not still in her place as a Minister, but we thank her for continuing to take an interest in this very important subject. Like other Members today, I wish to express my deep and growing concern for the people of Sudan, a nation in the grip of one of the most harrowing and shamefully overlooked humanitarian crises of our time. The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has torn this ancient country apart. According to the United Nations, more than 25 million people—over half of Sudan’s population—are now in need of humanitarian assistance. The World Food Programme warns that 18 million people face acute food insecurity, with 5 million in serious danger and over 750,000 children suffering from severe malnutrition.”
“It seems that it is now common practice in conflicts that the withholding of humanitarian aid is being used as a weapon, which is dreadful and appalling. I was particularly struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor), who spoke about war crimes and crimes against humanity, and about how justice is needed in such cases. She paid tribute to the diaspora here in the UK. She said that the Sudanese people are not forgotten and that we must stand with them. I agree. She summed up the mood of the House this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who did a fine job in her time as Minister, spoke today with knowledge and experience of the topic.”
“Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and other colleagues spoke about the importance of the diaspora in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke about the use of gender-based violence as a weapon of war; he was right to do so. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as chairman of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, spoke passionately about the issue and gave examples of where we need to highlight it. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) talked about the denial of humanitarian aid as a weapon, a point that was taken up by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed); I thank both Members for highlighting it.”
“They have done an excellent job; I commend them for all their work. I would like to refer to some, although not all, of the comments that have been made this afternoon. I have just said that the world is regrettably silent, but this House has not been silent this afternoon. I have heard some very passionate speeches and comments from all parts of the House. Considering how much is happening in the world today and how many issues we do talk about, we have not spoken as much as we should about Sudan. The nature of the conflict and the dreadful repercussions on the people of Sudan is absolutely horrendous, and we are right to debate it. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about the health risks in the region. The hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Dr Huq. It is appropriate that, as someone who has always stood up for humanitarian causes, self-determination and the rights of peoples around the world, you are chairing this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall this afternoon, on the last day of term. She has been a principled voice on the issue in Parliament for a very long time; I commend her for it. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on Sudan and South Sudan—not least Glen Promnitz of its secretariat, who is here today—for keeping parliamentarians briefed and informed on the ongoing situation in the region, especially when so much of the world appears, regrettably, to have fallen silent.”
“It is our historic county. Romford and Havering are geographically tied to the people of Essex, yet we are forced against our wishes to be under the artificial construct called Greater London. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will relook at this and give the people of Romford and Havering a chance to have a different form of local government so that we can focus on what is best for our borough of Havering and rekindle the links to our historic county of Essex. I ask all Members to look at the wonderful historic county flags on display in Parliament Square. What a wonderful display it is of the fantastic historic counties of the United Kingdom, in which the Essex flag is the most prominent.”
“Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) referred a few moments ago to the late Member for Eastbourne, Ian Gow, a dear friend of mine who was also murdered. He was murdered by an IRA bomb on 30 July 1990, 35 years ago. Ian was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher, and he first introduced me to Mrs Thatcher in 1982. He was cruelly murdered by the IRA in 1990. In the 35th year since his murder, let us remember him as well. He was a great man and a bulldog of a politician—a great British bulldog. We still miss him today. As Members will know, I am proud of being from the county of Essex, as indeed was Sir David Amess, and if I may, I will take a few moments to say this: Romford is Essex and Havering is Essex, but we have been denied the right to play any part in the discussions about Essex devolution. Essex is our county.”
“The process should have been followed more diligently, and the Amess family should have been treated with significantly greater dignity. Having lost their father and husband, who was a wonderful friend to us all, the Amess family should have been first, not last, in the pecking order. His Majesty’s Government should show some more respect for the memory of our late dear colleague, and as I have said before, there must now be a full public inquiry, not only matching the Government’s words with appropriate action, but ensuring that lessons are learned. From the Government, we must see an urgent effort to establish the full facts, learn the full lessons from the failings of Prevent, and determine what will be done in future to avoid a repeat of such a crime against this House and, indeed, democracy. The hon.”
“Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the family were petitioned to work within Lord Anderson’s process. Again they tried to do the right thing; again they tried to comply with the Government’s approach; and again, as it turns out, that was a grave mistake. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and, indeed, Lord Anderson, promised to keep the grieving Amess family front and centre of the process. The family were meant to have a guiding—indeed, a leading—role, but that did not happen. Instead, they were kept to the sidelines, and were not treated as being in a unique position; and the media received information before they did. The treatment of the Amess family has been simply outrageous.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this summer Adjournment debate, fittingly named after my dear friend and colleague, the late Sir David Amess. However, it is with regret and sadness that I feel the need to draw to the attention of the House the way in which Sir David’s family has been continuously mistreated. As I have said time and again, including at Prime Minister’s questions, there must be a statutory public inquiry into what happened to David. Last March, the Amess family met the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary at No. 10 Downing Street, supported by their former MP Anna Firth, who continues to do commendable work for the family and their campaign for justice. As many have noted, particularly my right hon.”