David Amess

Conservative Party | Southend West

Constituency matters

This speech was part of a debate in the House of Commons.

Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I should like to raise a number of issues on behalf of my constituents, the first of which concerns my constituent, Mr. Maajid Nawaz. That gentleman has been awaiting trial in Egypt since 1 April 2002. I and others attended a peaceful vigil on 1 April, this week, to mark the anniversary of the fact that Maajid Nawaz, Ian Malcolm Nisbett, Reza Pankhurst and 23 other people are waiting for their trials to continue in Egypt. Those people have been accused of offences relating to the membership of the Islamic Liberation party.

The Minister will probably recall that I have raised the case involving that gentleman before, but the reason why I am raising it again is that I am working very closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) because we are all affected, with our constituents, by this issue.

I am particularly concerned about the Egyptian ambassador's response to our request to meet him, which I would have though perfectly proper, following the meeting that we had with Baroness Amos. He wrote back just two weeks ago, saying:

"Reference to the letter ... co-signed by a number of Members of Parliament, including yourself, regarding the case of the British men detained in Egypt on charges of affiliation to the banned Liberation party, and further to our previous correspondence in that matter;

I would like to underline the fact that the case currently lies in the hands of the relevant judicial authorities in Egypt, and that there is no possible way the Embassy, or any other entity, could interfere to influence its development or outcome.

Let me reassure you that the case will be handled with the fairness and impartiality our judicial system is renowned for.

I will be happy to continue sharing with you any relevant information we receive from the authorities in Egypt regarding the development of the case."

But of course, in a cleverly drafted letter, the ambassador did not agree to meet four Members of Parliament, one of whom happens to be a Minister. We have protested about that sorry state of affairs, and I understand that Baroness Amos will shortly have a meeting with the ambassador, after which, I hope, he will rethink his inability to be more forthcoming and have a meeting with us. Clearly, we are not going to discuss the flower arrangements in his office or the state of the wallpaper. We will discuss our concerns about the issue. It would be very regrettable for the ambassador to refuse to meet us.

The situation has continued for more than a year. The trail was due to continue yesterday but, yet again, was adjourned, until 19 April. Many of the relatives and loved ones take the view that the judicial process in Egypt is, in itself, designed to be a punishment. Given that the Parliamentary Secretary was a Foreign Office Minister, I ask him to use his best endeavours to ensure that the meeting takes place.

I was going to dwell on the council tax, but my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) did that for me by saying what a wonderful council Southend was. He highlighted the financial arrangements there and compared them with those in the Labour authority in his constituency. I shall miss out that part of my speech.

I want to share with the House the position concerning Southend airport and, in particular, St. Lawrence church. It is another issue that the Parliamentary Secretary has heard me mention, but he will understand its importance. Last night, the council considered the airport's planning application. I am delighted to tell the House that the council unanimously rejected the application.

I say "unanimously", but I notice that one Liberal Democrat Member is present. This point is not directed at the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), but perhaps he will pass it on to his colleagues. The leader of the Liberal group on Southend council was unfortunately excluded from the meeting because he was considered to have predetermined the application in his public statements. He had talked about the issue even though the new Government requirements for planning applications mean that one is not supposed to talk about such issues publicly. It has been suggested that he spoke about the issue for the purpose of electoral gain on 1 May. However, he was unable to take part in the debate and to represent the people who voted for him.

The council has nevertheless rejected the application. St. Lawrence church is 1,000 years old and we were first told that it would be moved. It would be a complicated and expensive process to put a 1,000-year-old church on to wheels and move it a few hundred yards. A little later the word "demolished" was said to be among the issues that the council was considering, but we were eventually told that the church would be rebuilt. Whatever the circumstances, the council has decided that the church will not be moved. I salute the council, and I have been inundated with thousands of representations from not just local residents but from people throughout the country. People have loved ones buried by the church and others have moved to Southend for various reasons. They were very upset by the application.

I do not know, at this early stage, whether the airport owner intends to appeal against the council's decision. If an appeal is made, it will go before the Deputy Prime Minister, and no one in Southend wants the airport to close. The problem started because the safety organisation that is responsible for airports in this country decided that the church was too near the take-off point for aeroplanes. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will pass the issue on quietly to the Deputy Prime Minister. As I said, local residents do not want the airport to close.