Easter and Christian Culture

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the wonderful Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher). In the short time he has been in the House, he has proved himself a superb Member of Parliament and has become embedded in his community in Doncaster. I salute his courage in applying for this debate, the third such debate that he has secured. I am not aware of anyone else, in the many years I have been in the House, who has had the courage to promote such debates.

Politicians are naturally averse to talking about their faith. I suppose they think that if they talk about their faith, they may be putting themselves on some kind of pedestal and that, being sinners as we all are, they will eventually be brought down and mocked. But my hon. Friend expressed himself in such a humble, forgiving and self-deprecatory way that nobody could accuse him of putting himself on a pedestal. He was simply trying to make the very powerful point, which too few of us have the courage to make, that Christianity is at the very heart of our nation and its history. So much of what has made us such a great nation and a wonderful place to live is embedded in Christianity. So many of our freedoms relate to Christianity.

Of course, people will criticise the history of Christianity and the way Christians treated and persecuted one another in the past. We all know that, but undoubtedly what has made this nation is the Christian faith. That is not to belittle other faiths; one thing I liked about my hon. Friend’s speech was that he was complimentary about people of all faiths. It is no accident that the great religions of the world—whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity—all have the same kind of moral code. In promoting Christianity, he was not trying to downplay the importance and the wonder of all of the other religions.

Our forebears who made this building—I think a lot about this, because I serve on the restoration and renewal board—knew this. When we walk around this building, we see Christian iconography scattered all over it. Only this morning I was showing some visitors around the Robing Room in the House of Lords. The paintings on the walls depict compassion, mercy and forgiveness, all of which are Christian concepts.

My hon. Friend is very courageous. I know that Alastair Campbell once said, “We don’t do God,” and most politicians—certainly those who want to get to the top of politics—are very wary of the subject, but I think it is important that just occasionally there are people of courage such as my hon. Friend who are prepared to speak up.

There is such a rich and different tradition in Christianity. Only yesterday, my hon. Friend was telling me about the evangelical church he goes to in Doncaster, where there is a tremendous spirit. Some people might call it happy-clappy; I would not say that. He told me that his church is extraordinarily successful. The churches that are successful and growing are the ones that are self-confident and, as he says, rooted firmly in the Bible. During their services, they do not necessarily talk about our secular world and how we can make it a happy place, but they root themselves in the Bible.

I come from a Christian tradition very different from that of my hon. Friend. I am not an evangelical; I do not talk about Jesus in the way he does. I am a Catholic. But it is interesting that the successful Catholic churches in this country are those that are increasingly rooted in our ancient Catholic traditions. Many young people are flocking to the Catholic churches that are resurrecting the beautiful ancient mass. They seem to be self-confident. I am not a member of the Church of England, so I suppose it is not for me to offer it advice or even criticise it, but I think that there is a message there for our established Church.

We should be very proud to be one of the very few countries in the world that has an established Church. Above all, we should keep the established Church as established and we should keep bishops in the House of Lords. The Church of England leadership—I make no criticism of the people who are working on the ground—are wonderful people, and I quite understand where they are coming from, but sometimes, dare I say it, they feel that they have to wade in on politics. They have a right to do that, just as I have a right to wade in on religion, but perhaps they need to remember that in this country and in any country there is a tremendous yearning for spirituality.

One of the problems with the decline of Christianity and of faith in general—we have to accept that this is now one of the most secular countries in the world—is that if there is a vacuum, other movements step in and the whole country becomes unhappier and more difficult to govern. In a place like India, even though there are villages with levels of unimaginable poverty, they are not necessarily less happy than we are. In many ways they are happier, because they have that spiritual grounding that so many people in this country do not have.

There is so much of importance in what my hon. Friend says. I do not really want to inject a negative note, but—

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It strikes that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) are describing something bigger and more enduring than much of what we concern ourselves with as politicians. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a dislocation from those eternal and enduring beliefs or values is perhaps giving us a sense of drift or lack of purpose in society today?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Yes, we have to recognise that there is a sense of drift and pessimism in society. However, this debate is about Easter, which is the great feast of the Resurrection—the great feast of hope. It is wonderful that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has expressed himself in such a positive way.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), I represent the most beautiful and wonderful county in England, namely Lincolnshire. We have the finest medieval churches in the country: in every single village in my constituency there are wonderful expressions of piety, faith and hope, built hundreds of years ago. I sympathise with the Church of England, which has to maintain that huge structure. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has asked the Government to do many things. I think that even this wonderful Minister may find it difficult to recreate this country as a faith-loving community, but one thing that the Government can do is to help and enable the Church of England to preserve that amazing heritage. In France, for instance, all churches built before 1900 are funded by the state. The Church of England is on its own, which is a tremendous burden. It is to be commended for keeping this wonderful architectural heritage going.

I will, again, make a gentle criticism of the Church of England. I am very much on the side of the Save the Parish movement and on the side of the Church of England putting whatever resources it has into the parish ministry. There is some criticism that in the Church of England, resources are being diverted away from the parishes and into the centre, and too many people are being hired at the centre.

To give one example, the diocese of York is advertising for a racial justice education adviser. The job specification elaborates that the role will cover unconscious bias and diversity training. The concept of “unconscious bias” has no evidential basis in scientific, psychological or medical research. It has been years since the Government dropped it from the civil service. In 2020, the Government Equalities Office commissioned the behavioural insights team to summarise the evidence on unconscious bias and diversity training. Its report highlighted that

“there is currently no evidence that this training changes behaviour in the long term or improves workplace equality in terms of representation of women, ethnic minorities or other minority groups”.

It further pointed out that there is emerging evidence of unintended negative consequences of that training.

I know that the Minister cannot answer on behalf of the Church of England, but perhaps the Government have a role here. We see the Church, quangos, charities, civil society groups and corporations adopting this training. Perhaps the Government can take a lead in enlightening them not only that is it nonsense, but that it can often lead to the opposite of the intended result. Indeed, it may lead to something perverse. I have mentioned one example from the diocese of York, but I am sure that a search of the vacancies posted on the websites of other Anglican dioceses would find many such cases.

I am sorry to make that point; I do not mean to criticise the Church of England, which is a superb institution that is doing wonderful work all over the country. There is, however, a slight tendency at the centre of the Church of England to move in the direction that I have been talking about, which I do not think is central to its purpose of making us a more spiritual nation.

Before I sit down, may I pay tribute to the late Lord Cormack? Christianity, culture and heritage, in any combination, were his lifeblood. He was the founder of the all-party parliamentary arts and heritage group. In the real world, he was a valiant fighter. He co-founded Heritage in Danger in 1974. He was one of the central figures who prevented Hereford cathedral from selling off its magnificent mappa mundi in 1988 to pay for repairs. Lord Cormack was a warden at Parliament’s own parish church, St Margaret’s, across Palace Yard. He served for a decade on the Church of England’s General Synod. His compassion and service were not limited to the Church of England; he was a leading campaigner for Soviet Jews in the 1970s and 1980s, and was granted an honorary doctorate by the Catholic University of America.

Next Monday, we will gather at Lincoln cathedral to bid Lord Cormack farewell for the final time, and there could be no more appropriate setting for that great parliamentarian. I know myself from my decade serving on Lincoln cathedral’s council how pressed for resources the great churches of England are. I believe it is vital that the Government, whether through direct heritage funding or via agencies such as the national lottery, support our churches to protect their architectural heritage. Last year we celebrated the 39 different projects in Catholic churches that were funded thanks to Historic England’s heritage stimulus fund, part of the Government’s culture recovery fund. I was pleased to see Lord Parkinson, the Heritage Minister, there alongside the Lord Speaker and our own Mr Deputy Speaker. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales produced a splendid booklet called “Living Stones: A Celebration of Achievement”, detailing all the works completed thanks to that funding.

The important thing to remember about those buildings, whether they are great cathedrals or the tiniest gospel hall, is not the stones, bricks and mortar. As the First Epistle of Peter tells us, we Christians are to be living stones upon which a spiritual house is built. What we have to offer this country is not just an architectural heritage or a service of care and relief for the poor. The resurrection, and the faith built upon it, is the reason for all that. Without that, our history and our heritage is meaningless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that brings me to some of the points that I would like to make.

Christianity is everywhere around us. We may not be a Christian; there are people who are not Christians, but the Christian culture of British society is everywhere, and to remove that would undermine the foundations of our society. One only needs to think back in history. The Vikings came to these islands a thousand years ago, but it was the Christian faith that united England under the banner of King Alfred and then of King Æthelstan. It is St George who is the embodiment of England, and we will be celebrating St George’s day on 23 April. As chairman of the Houses of Parliament branch of the Royal Society of Saint George, I will be hosting, I hope, an event in Parliament for all Members to celebrate the heritage of England. That includes hon. Friends from other parts of these islands, especially Scotland.

Of course, our national anthem is a prayer itself—a prayer to God. The de facto anthem of England is, of course, “Jerusalem”. It is not officially recognised, but nevertheless I think “Jerusalem” is the hymn that most people sing when we celebrate England, and English heritage and culture. Of course, our monarch is anointed in Westminster Abbey, and our royal motto translates to “God and my right”.

The Bible has transformed the way our civilisation has operated, through law, governance, art, architecture and so many other areas of life. It has shaped the way all Britons—everybody in this country, including those with no religion—think about family, community and morality. It was through the lens of the Christian faith that we were the first nation on the planet not only to outlaw slavery permanently, but to enforce that ban worldwide through the West Africa Squadron.

We do indeed have a proud history, based on our Christian heritage and our Christian customs—long may they continue. But it has not always been quite so straightforward. I have been a Member of Parliament for 23 years. In my second year as a Member of Parliament, there was almost outrage when some local authorities suggested that the hot cross bun should be banned, can you believe? I remember it happening; I think it was in 2003. There was political correctness even then. I think it is probably worse today: anything can offend anybody, and that is dangerous because then we lose our heritage.

I remember that in 2002, we had to table an early-day motion to defend the hot cross bun. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has left the room, as he was one of those who signed the EDM. I will remind the House of what it said:

“That this House is appalled at the decision by some local authorities in the United Kingdom to ban hot cross buns from schools; believes the hot cross bun to be a splendid Easter tradition that represents the Christian heritage of Britain; and encourages all schools in the United Kingdom to ignore such politically correct advice from local authorities and continue to serve hot cross buns.”

Only yesterday, I was delighted to enjoy the hot cross buns offered to Members of Parliament in the Tea Room, but I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley that that little thing, all those years ago, alarmed me—that so many perfectly innocent parts of our culture can be undermined by people who seem to want to take away so much of what we hold dear in these islands, and which our ancestors, our forebears, have fought to defend over so many generations.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I wanted to raise earlier. It is very important that we should defend the right of people to speak their mind freely about religion. So, we should defend the right of Richard Dawkins, atheist, to attack religious people or religions in general. We have got to also defend the right of religious people to have their space, whether it is Orthodox Jews, or devout Muslims, or evangelical Christians. We must also defend the right of people, not just to attack religion or religious people in general, but also to criticise particular religions. There is a sort of dumbing down of debate and people are afraid, increasingly, to express their viewpoint, but in a vigorous democracy there must be this freedom of expression.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend is completely correct. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand. It is of course right in a free society that anybody can criticise a religion for the teachings that it espouses, but equally, we have the right to believe something completely different and be tolerant to one another in a free society. That is the nature of religion. People do have different opinions; people do have different perspectives. People are raised in different ways; they come from different ancestry. People come from different heritage, different countries, and have other religions. I defend that. That is one of the fundamental things that make us British—that we defend freedom of religion. We should never lose that. We should not be afraid to debate these things or have different opinions, and to criticise people because they have a different opinion. We can discuss and debate, but we must always allow opinions to be expressed. For if we lose that ability to speak freely and to disagree with each other in a polite and gentlemanly way, I am afraid that we lose so much of what our society is about. So, long may freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand together.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to say one or two things about my constituency. I was christened and confirmed at the church of St Edward the Confessor, a most magnificent church in the centre of Romford market. Every year we have magnificent Easter celebrations. On Good Friday there has been a march of witness, which I have always attended since being a Member of Parliament. In recent times, we have had open-air services with all the churches within the town centre, led by St Edward’s church, which is the main church in Romford. On Palm Sunday in recent years, a donkey has appeared, making its way through the market square and into the church, as we have gathered for that significant day in the Christian calendar.

I want to pay tribute to the Reverend Father David Simpson, who was the parish priest for the last few years. Having retired two weeks ago, he is now working for the Mission to Seafarers. I pay tribute to his service to the people as vicar of Romford, leading our church and playing such a significant role in the community. I know that hon. and right hon. Friends will wish him well with his future career as he becomes a pastor to seafarers based in Felixstowe, carrying out his mission for the seafarers of our country, and indeed the whole world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

My apologies, Dr Huq—my mistake entirely. I meant the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). She said that the Government have not given sufficient support for the cost of living. I want to put it on the record that this Government have given more than £100 billion of cost of living support.

Turning to the subject before us, the importance of Christianity, I share the convictions of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley about the importance of faith as an essential pillar of our society, and I welcome the opportunity to celebrate the role that Christianity has played in shaping and nurturing the world we live in. I agree that we should be immensely proud of Britain’s history and culture. The Government believe that people need to feel strong in their religious identities, and we are ensuring that the voices of people of faith are being heard.

Our country has been built on Christian values. They permeate every aspect of our lives. Values such as respect for others, public service and the rule of law are supported by the overwhelming majority of people in this country. Those values have evolved over time to become an integral part of Britain today. For that, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Church of England and the Church of Scotland—the two established churches in the UK.

The Church has, from the first, been the bedrock of our Christian community. It underpins the spiritual wellbeing of individuals. The Church welcomes each of them into a sustaining community of faith, and it builds around them the cultural and institutional framework that promotes and protects their wellbeing. Those values are not unique to churches and their worshippers; they characterise the core beliefs of all our faith communities.

It has been mentioned that at this time of the year, many religions are celebrating important events. We are in the holy month of Ramadan, and I was privileged to attend an iftar at al-Manaar mosque in my constituency last night. Passover is coming in late April, and I will be visiting a synagogue in my constituency at the weekend. Each of our religions, through the commitment they make to serve their worshippers and in their efforts to build our society, helps to deepen and enrich the lives of all of us.

At Easter time, we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection signifies the promise of redemption and rebirth and the forgiveness of sin. So as Easter approaches, I am grateful for this opportunity to celebrate the role of the Christian Church in our history and culture.

I am proud of the United Kingdom as a place where people are free to practise their religion, faith or belief. We should all celebrate the diversity and richness of a society that has welcomed and supported those of all faiths and backgrounds. The latest census tells that the number of Christians living in this country has decreased, but Christianity remains the most prominent religion.

We may think of ours as an increasingly secular state, but the imprint and influence of Christianity on every aspect of our lives is unmistakeable. It is expressed in the very fabric of our buildings—our great churches and cathedrals, the Hall that we stand in today. It shapes the defining landmarks of our calendar—Easter, Christmas, saints’ days and holy days. It defines our working week, setting aside one day of each week to rest and worship; and it has long inspired our artists, composers, writers and poets, whose work enlightens and sustains our lives.

Christianity has shaped this country’s history and we should take this opportunity to celebrate the impact that those inspired by its teachings have had on the work of our Parliament. It was the Christian faith of the likes of William Wilberforce and John Wesley that led to the abolition of slavery. Elizabeth Fry devoted herself to the cause of prison reform. Lord Shaftesbury promoted care for people with mental illnesses. Charles Dickens, driven by his faith to work for a better, fairer, world, called his Common Lodging Houses Act 1851 “the best piece of legislation” that ever proceeded from this Parliament. Florence Nightingale, Charles Spurgeon, Harold Moody, Octavia Hill—all were committed reformers inspired by their Christian faith to drive reform and improve the lives of all.

Faith and belief continue to motivate people to acts of public service and to serve their local communities. As a nation, we continue to be made stronger by the work of those inspired by their faith. The tireless work goes on every day in our communities up and down the country, often without fanfare or fuss, quietly undertaken by those making an essential contribution to the common good. It is right that we celebrate and show our gratitude for this work and ensure that the perspective and voices of faith and belief are heard by Government.

Churches are often centres of community support, providing a range of services, including after-school care, youth clubs, financial advice, and addiction support to name a few. Many provide a safety net for those in need, running food banks or warm hubs, and the pastoral impact of the Church extends further into our society, with the provision of chaplaincy across the public sector, including Church of England schools, which we have addressed, prisons, hospitals and the armed forces.

Christian faith schools, like all other faith schools, also play an important role in our education system, providing high-quality school places for many children from all backgrounds, and choice for parents. Faith schools are some of our highest performing schools and are often popular with parents, whether they belong to the faith or not.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My intervention is on precisely that point. I do not expect the Minister to give an answer now, but I have had various meetings on this subject. We have had meetings with the Secretary of State for Education, and I know the decision is now in Downing Street. There has been a long campaign to abolish the so-called faith cap, which serves no purpose apart from limiting the ability of Catholic schools and academies to attract new pupils. As I said, I do not expect my hon. Friend to answer now, but can she promise to raise this matter with Downing Street and with the Secretary of State for Education, who I know believes the faith cap should be removed?

[Felicity Buchan]

I will certainly follow up and revert to my right hon. Friend on that. I have many faith schools in my constituency, but I will mention just two: St Mary Abbots Primary School, which has hosted many Afghan and Ukrainian children and made them so much a part of the school community; and Cardinal Vaughan, which is an exceptional Catholic secondary school.

Let me say again that as a Government we recognise the importance of faith and belief across our communities. My colleague in the other place, Baroness Scott, the Minister with responsibility for social housing and faith, continues to champion the brilliant work carried out by our faith and belief communities up and down the country. As hon. Members know, we published Colin Bloom’s independent review of faith engagement in April 2023. In his review, he examines engagement with faith in a broad range of public settings and makes a number of recommendations on how Government can improve engagement with faith groups, both to recognise the contribution of faith communities to our society and to address harmful practices. We are carefully considering the review’s findings and will respond in due course.

I want to pick up on a few points that were mentioned today. Religious tolerance was mentioned, and I want to make it very clear that freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law and equal rights are things that we all strive for and value. The rights that we enjoy in the UK extend to everyone. Any individual or group is free to express views and beliefs within the confines of the law, but we must all behave responsibly and respect one another’s fundamental rights. Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right and one that underpins so many other rights.

Regarding funding for places of worship, I want to be very transparent about the fact that such funding is relatively limited. Successive Governments have followed the principle that it is for faith communities themselves to be responsible for the management and upkeep of their places of worship. Nevertheless, there are some instances of Government support: for example, the Heritage Fund run by the national lottery is a scheme to help to restore buildings so that they can be enjoyed by the wider community. If a place of worship is listed, there is a further scheme called the listed places of worship grant scheme, run by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, local authorities can now pay small amounts of money for repair and maintenance of local churches where their buildings are being used to deliver services to the wider community.

I want to talk briefly about the Inter Faith Network. I took an urgent question on that a few weeks ago. I want to make it very clear that we value the contribution made by all organisations that are dedicated to bringing our faith communities together in order to strengthen the ties that bind us, and in my own constituency—[Interruption.]

Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I met them both in the preparation for the work we have done today. I think it was the case that the independent adviser on antisemitism, Lord Mann, whose work is outstanding, said on broadcasts today that he regarded this as an improvement on the existing definition. I am grateful for that support and for the hon. Gentleman’s question, which has given me the opportunity to relay that to the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am worried about this. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that nothing in this statement will add to the increasing culture, in what should be a free country, of the intolerance of the right to offend? I might be offended if people make extreme attacks on Christianity, but they have an absolute right to do so. People have a right to criticise religious people or particular religions. Equally, Orthodox Jews, devout evangelical Christians with a particular view of the Bible and devout traditional Muslims have an absolute right to say what they believe in a free society, even if it is very unfashionable.

[Michael Gove]

I could not agree more. It is the principle of Milton’s “Areopagitica” that governs my approach towards free speech: ideas should contend on the plain of argument and people should be able to discern good arguments from bad arguments.

All the statement does is to tighten the existing definition. The concerns that my right hon. Friend raises about definitions being used to marginalise speech existed with the previous definition, to an extent. Now, with this tighter definition, along with the fact that the Government will publish the reasons why they choose not to engage with a group, things will be clearer. As I say, this is purely about Government engagement and financing. I know that he, like me, would want to ensure that taxpayers’ money was stewarded wisely.

High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 26th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am inspired to say a few words in this debate, because I want to talk about my home town of Gainsborough, which is directly affected by this issue. Gainsborough is a traditional market and industrial town in north Lincolnshire. It is a small town that suffered from industrial decline in the 1970s. We had a fantastic scheme to redevelop the old factory right in the middle of the town, Marshall’s, which had been decaying for years. We turned it into a fantastic shopping centre, Marshall’s Yard—the whole thing is going really well. We also have Morrisons outside, and Tesco, which has been put up next to Marshall’s Yard.

That is all fantastic, but the problem is that it is sucking life away from the high street and the marketplace. A real issue for our town is that as we develop decaying industrial areas, or have more out-of-centre shopping centres, the inside of the town is decaying. It is a huge issue for all our towns. I have been fortunate enough to work with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and to get £10 million in levelling-up funding for the Gainsborough South West ward, which is directly helping us. In an old town such as Gainsborough, one of the keys is to use heritage. We had many decaying shops, and we put a fantastic amount of work into creating beautiful new shopfronts, which lifts the whole area.

Another point I want to make is that in the marketplace—which, again, has slightly suffered from the fact that the trade is being sucked into Marshall’s Yard—cars are not allowed to park. In France, Italy or Germany, cars are allowed to park in the marketplace, which brings in life. I know we are not supposed to have as many cars in the middle of towns as we used to, but Gainsborough is not London; it is a small town. Bringing in more life is quite important.

To sum all of this up, the Government have to work very carefully with the district councils at a very local level. West Lindsey District Council has a good record of working with central Government to try to ensure that we get development into the town, but I wonder whether having a Mayor for Lincolnshire is going to make a great deal of difference. As the Minister well knows, I am quite dubious about that idea: we are going to have a Mayor of Lincolnshire—a large rural area—as well as a county council, district councils, MPs and Ministers all competing for attention.

I am also worried about the consultation, which all veers towards the idea that we have to have a Mayor. When the Minister replies to this debate—this is one of the reasons I am speaking today—I want him to convince me that when he imposes a Mayor on Lincolnshire, who will need to have a salary and will be based in Lincoln, he is not going to suck power and resources from the really local authorities, the district councils, which are doing all the hard graft to improve our high streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

We have already heard examples of how high streets could be defined from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, but I look forward to such an application to the community ownership fund. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North for his regular plugs for the fund.

Once the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will issue guidance on developing improvement plans. We would, of course, welcome any input on what the guidance should contain from hon. Members or other interested parties. We recognise that it takes time to implement plans and see their impact. At the same time, it is important that the plans are meaningful and that they will not be neglected and left to gather dust. We believe that five years for reviewing and, if necessary, updating the improvement plans strikes the right balance, allowing enough time for them to take effect while ensuring that they remain relevant and central to the renewal and reinvigoration of our high streets. This is very much about local residents, businesses and communities seeing visible, meaningful improvements, but we recognise that that must not come at the cost of overburdening councils that are already under pressure. We will therefore ensure that local authorities have the extra funding they need to deliver the measures in the Bill effectively.

As I said earlier, the Bill builds on the extensive range of support we are already providing to truly level up our high streets, with local people in the driving seat.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On his point about putting local people in the driving seat, will the Minister assure me that any powers or resources given to the Mayor of Lincolnshire will not suck resources away from West Lindsey District Council, which is the primary promoter of improvements on our high streets?

[Jacob Young]

I was going to come to that, but my right hon. Friend has brought it to my attention sooner. He mentions the landmark devolution deal for Greater Lincolnshire and that it comes with a Mayor, but he fails to mention the three quarters of a billion pounds that comes with that deal. I can assure him that we are giving more power and funding to communities like his in Greater Lincolnshire, and I urge him to support the introduction of a Mayor, which will be transformational for Greater Lincolnshire.

We are giving local authorities more support to truly level up their high streets. That support means more money, and we are investing billions of pounds in high streets that are sorely in need of a helping hand to get back on their feet. That includes our £1.1 billion long-term plan for towns—I am grateful to the shadow Minister for plugging that in her remarks—launched in October, which will power ambitious regeneration projects across the UK over the next decade. Through the plan, each town will develop a long-term plan for regeneration based on the priorities of local people, and receive a 10-year endowment-style fund worth £20 million to deliver transformational projects, from boosting the look and feel of town centres to protecting local heritage, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, to cracking down on anti-social behaviour. The plan will also establish a new high streets and towns taskforce to provide hands-on support and expert advice on place making, planning and design.

Our new towns unit, which was announced last week, headed by Adam Hawksbee, the Prime Minister’s towns tsar, will ensure that local leaders have the control they need over decision making. This funding comes on top of the £2.35 billion we are investing through our town deals, £830 million in future high streets funding and the £4.8 billion being invested into communities through the levelling-up fund, unlocking the economic potential of communities across the country, like mine in Redcar.

In Redcar, £25 million of funding is being invested through the town deal in regenerating the high street, demolishing the old Woolworths and M&S buildings, and creating a new leisure facility on the high street, as well as rejuvenating our much-loved seafront. Down the road in Eston, some of the £20 million of levelling-up funding we received is being invested in regenerating Eston Square and the precinct buildings. Not long after I was elected, I was given a book about the history of Eston by the former councillor, Ann Higgins. In the book, there was a picture of Mo Mowlam, one of my predecessors as MP for Redcar, meeting residents and businesses at the old James Finnigan Hall to discuss the deterioration of Eston town centre. More than two decades and four Members of Parliament later, we are finally delivering on that.

The funding demonstrates to the people of those towns, and others like them across the UK, that we are keeping the faith with them and delivering on the things that matter most to them. As I updated the House late last year, we have so far invested over £13 billion through all our levelling-up funding streams in regenerating communities nationwide, delivering real change in communities like Bury. I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North plugged the community ownership fund in the way he did. His constituency has benefited from £1.5 million of investment directly into communities there, on top of the levelling-up funding of £20 million for Bury market and the flexi-hall.

Communities in Crewe and Nantwich are benefitting from £37 million through the towns fund and the future high streets fund. I was surprised to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) about Labour’s new car parking charges. Sadly, Labour has done the same in Redcar, and I urge my hon. Friends to keep up their campaign on behalf of constituents and businesses in their communities.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for referencing the investment in his constituency, including in his cinema, and talking about the value of partnership working. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, whose Bill this is, mentioned the levelling-up partnership for Stoke. I assure him that, on top of the other funding that Stoke has already received, Longton remains part of our focus for the partnership.

Funding alone is not enough. To deliver real change, we are giving local people the power they need to make decisions on the ground about the future of their communities. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act introduces high street rental auctions to drive forward regeneration through changes to compulsory purchase powers; provides more flexible pavement licences for businesses; empowers local people to tackle symptoms of decline by bringing vacant units back into use; increases co-operation on regeneration between landlords and local authorities; and makes town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable, helping to attract new businesses to these areas and supporting the creation of new jobs and growth to sustain prosperity in the long term.

We are also making it a priority to get the fundamentals right. Tackling the causes and impacts of antisocial behaviour is key to ensuring that people feel safe, which is why we are using our wider antisocial behaviour action plan, published in March 2023, to make the heart of our towns better places to be. Measures to tackle the visual markers of decline include reopening boarded-up shops, improving the look and feel of public spaces, and giving tired public buildings a lick of paint. This includes the high street accelerator programme that I have the pleasure of leading, which will bring together businesses, residents and community organisations to develop a long-term vision for revitalising their town centre. Each of the 10 pilot schemes we have launched in towns such as Oldham, Scunthorpe and neighbouring Stoke will receive funding of £237,000 over two years to set up the partnership, develop the vision and begin to deliver change.

We have introduced significant planning flexibilities, so that local decision makers can make better use of the buildings in their town centre and ensure that our high streets remain places of social and commercial activity. Permitted development provides the freedom to change more premises from commercial to residential use, so that much needed homes can be created on high streets and in town centres.

Whether we are talking about smarter use of planning levers, getting boarded-up shops back up and running, making our streets safer, or investing billions in our town centres, we are breathing new life into our high streets, with local leaders, local people and businesses who know and love their communities best driving the changes that they know are needed to make a difference. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South builds on these significant efforts, and we are proud to support it. Like him, I appreciate just how much it matters to communities of the kind we represent. For them and for communities right across the country, this is about delivering on the commitments we have made to level up growth, opportunity and pride. We are sticking to our plans and staying the course, commencing the measures in the Bill at the appropriate time once the Bill has Royal Assent, and ensuring that local authorities have the right lead-in time and guidance to designate their high streets and create their improvement plans.

I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the Bill and to other hon. Members for their support and contributions during this debate. We are backing the Bill and backing our high streets. I commend the Bill to the House.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: a number of the people who have built, operated and retain the freehold on these estates levy service charges for all sorts of things that, in my view, are totally inappropriate. That is why the Bill makes clear that service charges have to be issued in a standardised format, so that they can be more easily scrutinised and challenged. It also makes clear that those charges can be challenged in such a way as to ensure that egregious examples, such as the one the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, will end.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am not against what the Secretary of State is trying to do, but philosophically there is a reason why the Conservative party has been the defender of property rights. It is to do with freedom and established rights, so it is nothing to do with the ECHR or anything like that. Before this debate becomes just about bashing landlords, what about the Duchy of Cornwall? There are excellent freeholders that have traditionally maintained properties and done wonderful work in ensuring that properties are well maintained and in looking after their tenants.

[Michael Gove]

I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. There are good landlords, and the Duchy of Cornwall has been a stand-out example, as have been the Cadogan estate, the Howard de Walden estate and so on—they are responsible landlords, absolutely—but an individual leaseholder should not have to rely on the good will and the grace of His Grace, as it were, to get the protection they need.

There is no stauncher defender of capitalism and property rights than me, but what has happened is that freeholds have become utterly torn away from the warp and weft of the capitalist system as we understand it in this country, and have become tradeable commodities that foreign entities are using to exploit our people who have worked hard and saved to get their own home. So whose side am I on—homeowners who have worked hard and saved up to secure a mortgage, or shadowy foreign entities that are essentially attempting to rip off British citizens? I am on the side of homeowners.

Levelling Up

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I shall write to him following the statement on exactly how much UK shared prosperity funding his area has received, and I hope that when I do, he will come back to the Chamber to update the House on the facts of the matter. He asked how much money has been spent since the National Audit Office released the figures in March: £1.5 billion has been spent since then, but I would be delighted to come up and visit the humble crofter’s constituency.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Pardon me for having an unfashionable Thatcherite point of view, but much better than Government, taxpayer-funded levelling up is private sector levelling up. Although I thank the Secretary of State for having released some money for Gainsborough, £300 million of private sector levelling up, namely for RAF Scampton, is at risk in my constituency. Will the Minister meet me after the court case to ensure that, whatever its result, we get on with levelling up? For instance, the roof of the officers’ mess alone will cost half a million pounds. The roofs of the hangars are decaying. The site will not be viable unless private sector investment is unleashed and the Home Office gets on with it.

[Jacob Young]

I would be delighted to meet my right hon. Friend, but one of the key ways to unlock private investment in the Greater Lincolnshire area is to progress with the devolution deal. I shall be delighted to meet him to discuss that further.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have no financial interest in the Bill. I am not a landlord, have never been one, and have no desire to be one. It sounds like a very stressful job. However, I do declare a personal interest, because I am the father of young people in their 20s and 30s, and I am increasingly worried about their lack of opportunities to buy their own home, or indeed rent a home. My generation was fortunate in experiencing full employment, a buoyant housing and rental market, and low levels of net migration. I was able to buy my first house—although it was a bit of a struggle—for £25,000.

The opportunities for young people are so difficult now. and I think they should be at the forefront of our thoughts. They are overwhelmingly reliant on the rental sector for accommodation. The housing crunch means that they have to rent for a larger proportion of their lives, and the Government benchmark for an “unaffordable” level of rent is 30% of income. As of last year, four in 10 under-30s in England, Scotland and Wales are now paying rents that the Government consider “unaffordable”. The crisis is driven by a massive shortage of supply. Policies such as Help to Buy only help to increase demand, while doing nothing when it comes to supply. Only massive, comprehensive planning reform can solve this problem. We have to build many more houses, and we have to free up the rented sector.

We need a public-spirited mentality. Many older people have worked hard and have purchased their homes, but they are undermining the ability of younger people to do the same by objecting to new housing proposals—and, of course, when they object, they are also objecting to the ability of their own children and grandchildren to get on to the housing market. Much opposition to new housing is due to the fact that it is often poorly built, and developments lack the upscaling in infrastructure that is needed to support it. We need to adopt a holistic approach. The housing shortage means that first-time buyers have little to choose from, and delays them from getting on to the property ladder. Young people’s wages have not kept up with the rising cost of living and housing. They are forced to spend more and more of their money on rent, leaving less room for savings, paying off debt, and spending money which will flow into the general economy. Rent increases are outpacing wage growth in most of the UK.

I know that many Members, and rental reformers, have argued in favour of getting rid of no-fault evictions to help give renters security, but I believe the reality is the opposite. Banning no-fault evictions will make the rental market even more stagnant, and will lead to its drying up further. I urge the Government, if the Bill becomes law—as I am sure it will, with Labour support—to allow a cooling-off period so that over the next year, more and more landlords do not just get out of the sector altogether. Apart from adding to the burden of landlords, we do not want to see what happened when Ireland did this. The regulatory burden on landlords there was such that the rental sector shrank massively and Governments have paid the price in terms of popularity. The number of available properties for rent in Ireland has shrunk to a record low. A temporary eviction ban there ended at the end of March this year and did nothing to alleviate the shortage.

No-fault evictions are in some sense a legal fiction. Evicting a tenant for fault is a complex process and the burden is on the landlord to prove a breach of tenancy, arrears of rent, nuisance or antisocial behaviour, criminal activity or substantial disrepair. Depending on the tenancy, the notice period could be as short as two weeks or as long as several months. Notice procedures are highly regulated and must observe the prescribed format. Failure to observe this down to the letter of the law can render a notice invalid, delaying eviction. If the premises are not vacated, it is up to the landlord to initiate costly legal proceedings.

Let us look at what happened in the past. In 1952, under Harold Macmillan as Housing Minister, more than 270,000 new dwellings were completed. In 2019, the year before the pandemic, just 213,000 new dwellings were built. In the statistical year ending March 2019, 612,000 people came to live in the UK, with 385,000 emigrating from the UK. That is a net migration figure of 227,000 people, on top of the housing shortage that already existed. The post-covid statistics are even worse. The Office for National Statistics estimates that net migration to the UK in 2022 was 606,000. The same year, energy performance certificate data suggests that just 252,000 homes were built. The number of people we are letting into the country is 2.4 times the number of new dwellings we are building. This is a crisis and it needs to be addressed.

This does not take into account the fact that even without these newcomers there is already a squeeze on housing. We welcome the fact that we had 174,000 Ukrainians coming here, and perhaps we have not done enough but we have also welcomed people from Afghanistan. No one is claiming that we should not have taken in these refugees in genuine need, but we need to be realistic. If we are letting in these people in need, we need to severely curtail other migration—not just illegal migration but legal immigration—in order to stay afloat and give our own young people a chance to buy and rent houses. Younger and less well-off people are being left to shoulder the burden.

House builders face complex and lengthy planning processes that slow down development, and I cannot agree with the Government on removing housing targets. We need to reimpose housing targets on local authorities and we need a massive house building drive. We need to give many more people the opportunity to rent and we need to control net migration. For all these reasons, I cannot support the Bill tonight.

New Housing: Swift Bricks

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers]

One thing to say about this petition is that, while there are lots of petitions that people sign because it is in their own interests, for the 109,000 people who signed this petition, this was not necessarily in their personal interests but was something that they saw as being in our natural interest and as a huge game changer for the country.

We can combine that result from the “Big Duchy Bird Box Survey” with other large-scale installations that have taken place. Barratt Homes is leading the way and doing its bit, going above and beyond. It has installed boxes on a huge number of sites, and it reckons that as many as 96% are being used, with that percentage increasing over time.

There is plenty of climate anxiety to go round at the moment. Unlike Hannah, I am not going to take my clothes off, and nor am I going to go round chucking orange powder and confetti everywhere, but I will leave Members with this thought. In a survey carried out by Lancet Planetary Health into climate anxiety among children and young people, around 60% of those young people said they feel extremely worried about climate change and our natural environment. This proposal is an opportunity to help to save four species at minimal cost and inconvenience. It is welcomed by the public and by developers, and it is time to get on with it before it is too late.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

The hon. Member can always use the swift brick he has with him as a visual display and hold it up. I call Caroline Lucas.

Holocaust Memorial Bill: Committal

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Committal (to a Select Committee)
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Felicity Buchan]

The instruction motion, tabled in the name of the Secretary of State, sets out the matters that can properly be considered by the Select Committee when it hears petitions against the Bill. It is a custom of the House, and a well-established part of the process for hybrid Bills, that the Select Committee should not hear petitions that seek to challenge the principle of the Bill. The Second Reading debate that just concluded was the opportunity for this House to consider the principle of the Bill, and I am delighted that this House has given such support to the Bill.

It is familiar practice on hybrid Bills, for example with the current and recent High Speed 2 Bills, that the House should pass a motion giving instructions to the Select Committee on what precisely falls within the principle of the Bill. Such a motion helps to provide clarity for the Committee and, of course, for potential petitioners, so that no time should be wasted seeking to raise matters on the Bill’s principle, on which the House has already expressed such a clear view.

In this case, the motion specifies that

“the Committee shall not hear any petition against the Bill to the extent that the petition relates to—

(a) the question of whether or not there should be a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust or a centre for learning relating to the memorial, whether at Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere; or

(b) whether or not planning permission and all other necessary consents should be given for the memorial and centre for learning, or the terms and conditions on which they should be given.”

If the House agrees to pass the motion, the Select Committee would still have a good deal of scope to consider matters relating to clause 2 of the Bill—notably, the extent to which the restrictions in section 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 should be removed, and whether there should be any conditions on that removal.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is accepted that there is a principle to memorial, so what about my point on having an overground memorial—like other memorials—but not an underground learning centre? Will the Committee still be able to consider such a detail?

[Felicity Buchan]

The Committee can consider the extent and any conditions on the memorial in Victoria Tower gardens, so yes, that can be considered.

The established practice for Select Committees on hybrid Bills is that they consider petitions from people who are directly and especially affected by the proposals in the Bill. I understand that the House authorities will publish guidance for people who are considering whether to petition against the Bill. It will ultimately be a matter for the Select Committee to decide which petitioners to hear and which points in the petitions to consider.

The motion is a necessary and important measure that supports the well-established principles and processes for dealing with a hybrid Bill. The amendments proposed by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), risks undermining those established principles and processes, and could create confusion on the scope of the Committee’s work, which would be unhelpful to the Committee and all participants, including petitioners. For those reasons, the Government do not accept the amendments. I commend the motion to the House.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This has been a debate in two parts. First, we have heard moving testimony from Members on both sides of the House about the evils of antisemitism and some personal experiences, particularly from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). Everybody in the House agrees wholeheartedly with those moving testimonies, and everybody in the House accepts that we should have an appropriate memorial to the holocaust. That has been one part of the debate.

Then we have had two well researched, well thought-out speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken)—the local Member of Parliament—and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), which have not denied the need for a memorial, but in great detail have explained why this sort of memorial and the way it will be constructed are not appropriate for this site at this time.

This is such an important issue, and we are all united in wanting to do it well, so we should ensure that the memorial is done well. I have been to the holocaust museums in Berlin and Washington. They are the most comprehensive, moving, enormous edifices. People are taken through a whole series of rooms, explaining exactly how antisemitism originated and the final result of the holocaust. We should have that sort of holocaust museum in London.

The problem is that this site is so constrained that it cannot do justice to the cause and to the issue. We will have to dig down into the park and, while the centre will have two storeys, it will have only a couple of rooms, which will not allow the whole narrative to be developed. That is why the Imperial War Museum, which already has a good holocaust gallery, was quite right to make its offer. There is a lot of space next to that museum, and it was prepared—I am sure that it is prepared—to develop a world-class holocaust museum.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West in suggesting a compromise. I have asked a series of questions about this. I declare an interest in that I, like many Members of Parliament, live half a mile or a mile away and of course work in this building. I am conscious that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, this is one of the most overcrowded parts of the United Kingdom. Literally thousands of people live and work extremely close to this very small park. Anyone who goes there on a summer’s afternoon, like those we have had in recent days, will see every inch of it packed with people who work and live in Westminster trying to get a bit of sun and air and green.

I have suggested a compromise to the Secretary of State and to many others. I, and I think many others, am perfectly happy with the concept of having a memorial to the holocaust in the park. Such a memorial could be aesthetically pleasing, dynamic and express the whole issue in powerful terms. I am conscious of the superb monuments that we already have in the park, which, for instance, detail anti-slavery. This country led the world campaign against the slave trade, and the Buxton memorial explains that campaign powerfully in an aesthetically beautiful way. There is also the superb Rodin monument, the Burghers of Calais, which explains that story in a powerful way, and the superb Pankhurst monument, which powerfully proclaims the fight for votes for women. I have always argued that it would be perfectly possible to have a monument fairly close to the playground that would tell the story but not, as my hon. Friend said, overpower the park.

The trouble with the Ottawa monument, which we are importing, is that it is simply huge. It is a vast mound with great metal spikes sticking out of it. It is frankly hideous, and it would completely or partially block from that end of the park the iconic view of the Palace of Westminster, which is the subject of thousands of photographs and pictures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West said, if we had started the process without proposing a totally inadequate underground learning centre and just satisfied ourselves with a monument, that could already have been built. People give the powerful message that we should get on with this, so let us get on with building the monument. Whether we build it in Victoria Tower gardens or on College Green, as he said, let us get on with it. We do not need to start by building the underground learning centre.

The letter to The Times on 2 October signed by eight Jewish peers is worth highlighting. They expressed their concerns and reservations about the proposed project for Victoria Tower gardens, which is a grade II listed park, part of which is included in a UNESCO world heritage site that we are treaty bound to respect.

The gardens are under the purview of the Royal Parks, which has never supported siting such a prominent and large memorial there. Its chairman, Loyd Grossman, wrote to me specifically to clarify that. He said that the Royal Parks

“has concerns about the potential risk of such a building on the intrinsic qualities of a well-used public park in an area of the city with a limited number of open spaces.”

There are concerns that if that beautiful space is sacrificed, it would create a precedent that could be repeated in other green spaces under the management of the Royal Parks. Everyone knows that the park is frequently used on a daily basis by visitors to the city, those who work nearby and local residents. It would simply be impossible for Victoria Tower gardens to continue in its current, useful way if the plan goes ahead. The London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 introduced statutory protections for Victoria Tower gardens that are being decisively undermined. That Act of Parliament was solemnly created to provide a green space for working class people in the middle of Westminster.

The purpose of the memorial is to commemorate victims of this great crime, and to teach current and future generations. That means that we want many people to go there. We hope that it will be well used. There are practical points: the existing pressures on Millbank will only be compounded by traffic related to people accessing the memorial. We have not been informed of any plans to deal with coach traffic and halting, which putting the memorial there would be bound to generate. There are no parking spaces or drop-off zones for coaches. The local Thorney Island Society has stated that it is

“obviously very concerned at the loss of this small valuable park, because it is difficult to imagine that a project of this size and importance would not dominate the space and transform it from a tranquil local park to a busy civic space”.

The subterranean nature of the plans for the holocaust memorial add a further layer of complication to using Victoria Tower gardens. This is a riparian location, right on the banks of the River Thames. As recently as June 2016, 50 local properties were flooded from underneath following heavy downpours. In such ancient marshland, it is all too easy for the water table to rise alarmingly when there is a period of sudden and heavy rainfall. Further objections can be raised on the grounds that Victoria Tower gardens is already home to existing memorials of a smaller but appropriate scale, as I have mentioned. Those incredibly important memorials to the slave trade and to votes for women will be overshadowed.

The design remit sent out to architecture firms competing to design the memorial included the criterion that the monument must

“enhance Victoria Tower Gardens—improving the visual and sensory experience of the green space”.

This plan simply does not meet that criterion. Instead, we will have an 80-metre ramp, creating a wide moat splitting the park, with paving areas replacing swathes of grass. Since it was created, Victoria Tower gardens has been associated with an uninterrupted sweep of grass between magnificent rows of trees, superbly framing the Palace of Westminster and Victoria Tower. If the plan goes ahead, that splendid view will be lost forever.

I sit on the programme board for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. The holocaust memorial project has a direct impact on this huge undertaking. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are also on the board, you will know those problems well. Renovating the Palace will take many years—almost certainly over a decade. To do the job well, effectively and with good value for money, we will need as much flexibility as possible. Some part of Victoria Tower gardens will be useful as a staging ground for the works that will be undertaken at the Palace. We need as much wiggle room as possible. The holocaust memorial would make working on the Palace more constrictive and possibly more costly in both time and money.

There are suitable alternative locations. I want to stress this point: instead of building an entirely new holocaust learning centre, why do the Government not take advantage of the Imperial War Museum, where there is plenty of room? This site at the Imperial War Museum is less than half a mile away from the current proposed site, so it would still be an accessible and prominent central London location. I repeat that almost nobody objects to having a memorial in the park but not the underground learning centre.

For all those reasons—especially those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) in her brilliant speech—the proposed design is simply the wrong design. In its complexity and controversy, it undermines what we are trying to achieve. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has now rejoined us in the Chamber, to try to achieve a compromise. This whole controversy, this whole delay, is doing no good to the cause. If he can work with the Father of the House and with Westminster City Council, I am sure that in a matter of months they could come to an agreement to build a worthy memorial. Then, in time, we could work with all interested parties to create a fantastic, world-class holocaust museum, which would explain the whole story properly. I am simply suggesting a compromise and a way forward. I hope the Secretary of State will agree that that compromise is worth considering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Like many others, I have been to Auschwitz. I went there with constituents and saw the true horrors—but today is not the day for remembering Auschwitz-Birkenau or any other camp; it is for dealing with the horrors of antisemitism.

My wife’s family fled Germany in the early 20th century; even back then, antisemitism was rife. Also in the early 20th century, way before the great war and before the holocaust started, my family fled France because of antisemitism and programmes in operation in that country. This problem is not confined to one particular country.

Most people would say the holocaust began around 1933, when the Nazis gained power in Germany; although they had a minority of the vote, they were ruthless. The German population were experiencing very tough times, with hyperinflation and severe reparations to pay in the wake of the great war. In such times, they sought a scapegoat, and in “Mein Kampf” we see exactly where the finger was pointed, namely at the Jewish population. Civilians had no qualms about turning their backs on Jewish friends or neighbours, and we should remember that. They isolated them from society. The momentum grew, and Jewish businesses were attacked, books were burnt, and stringent regulations restricted the freedom of Jews in the country. We should also remember, however, that of the 6 million Jews who were murdered by the Nazis, only 100,000 were German Jews. Most of those who saw this coming got out of Germany as fast as they could.

In 1938, on the awful “night of broken glass”—more commonly referred to as Kristallnacht—Nazi mobs, SS troops and ordinary citizens torched synagogues throughout Germany. They destroyed German homes, schools, businesses, hospitals and cemeteries. When the second world war broke out in 1939, the persecution escalated severely. The antisemitic undertones had now become grave systematic murder. There is no doubt that the holocaust is one of the most tragic events that the world has seen, and the brutal, wicked murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children by the Nazis and their collaborators during the second world war must never be forgotten.

The conditions undergone by Jewish communities during that time are incomprehensible today. The testimonies of survivors paint a grave picture of what happened in the concentration camps: initially forced labour, then starvation, gas chambers and minimal hope of survival. Maria Ossowski, a brave holocaust survivor, described the experience as one

“which will haunt me all my life.”

Even today, those survivors and their families must live with the remnants of their past, to which they were subjected simply because they were Jewish. It is essential that we commemorate the hardships that were undergone, to preserve the extraordinary stories of survival and give our future generations an accurate account of history in order to educate them and prevent such scenarios from ever occurring again. We must do all that we can to prevent genocides in any form and in any part of the world—the killing of innocent people simply because they are the wrong type of people.

The memorial will serve as a national monument to commemorate the men, women and children lost during the holocaust. Alongside it will be an education and learning centre, an accurate and detailed account of this slice of history with testimonies—this is an important element—from a British perspective. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) made a key point about what had happened to his family. As he said, there were undercurrents in this country of what was happening in Nazi Germany. Under Mosley and his Blackshirts, a dangerous energy was brewing in this country. They sought out members of Jewish communities, who were fearful to go on the streets—certainly after dark—and who were verbally and physically attacked during the organised rallies that Mosley held.

Many Members who are present will have visited memorials dedicated to the Jewish struggle, such as Yad Vashem in Israel. In 1992 I had the opportunity to visit the original Yad Vashem, which was even more powerful than the Yad Vashem of today, because it was more personal and intense. Today’s Yad Vashem is a much bigger, bolder museum, but loses some of the original, key intentions. However, the powerful audio-visual exhibitions and the stories told by survivors send an exceptionally powerful message to visitors, ensuring that those narratives will live on forever as a stark reminder. It is expected that our site will attract half a million visitors a year, which emphasises how wide the outreach of the project will be.

The holocaust is fast moving from living history to just history. Sadly, holocaust survivors are dying, and far too many have passed on already. It is therefore important that we build the memorial at the earliest possible opportunity to pay tribute to those who have suffered in both the past and the present. The longer we take with this project, the fewer survivors will be left to see the finished memorial. Prime Minister David Cameron began the process in 2014, some eight years ago, and we still have no memorial. Devastatingly, we have lost many survivors in the last eight years, including the iconic Zigi Shipper. We need to press on urgently to ensure that as many as possible can be there to see this important site opened. Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg BEM recently put the situation in perfect perspective, saying:

“I was 84 when Prime Minister David Cameron first promised us survivors a national Holocaust Memorial in close proximity to the Houses of Parliament. Last month I celebrated my 93rd birthday and I pray to be able to attend the opening of this important project.”

The Prime Minister at the time announced that the holocaust commission was to examine what more should be done in Britain to ensure that the memory of the holocaust is preserved and its lessons are never forgotten. The commission concluded that a national memorial should be built, stating:

“The evidence is clear that there should be a striking new Memorial to serve as the focal point for national commemoration of the Holocaust. It should be prominently located in Central London to attract the largest possible number of visitors and to make a bold statement about the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust. It would stand as a permanent affirmation of the values of British society.”

I could not have put it better myself. However, eight years on, we have made little or no progress, and with the complex parliamentary process it is predicted that things will take a further four years. That adds up to 12 years and counting—longer than the second world war and longer than the holocaust itself.

There has been much discussion of the proposed location of the memorial. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for her speech about the site. I understand completely her concerns as the local Member. I strongly believe that Victoria Tower Gardens—already home, as has been described, to another memorial—is the perfect location. With its close proximity to Parliament, it will both serve as a reminder to us decision makers to ensure that this never happens again, and attract large numbers of tourists to visit the site and learn the history. We should remember that large numbers of people come to this place already, so many will come to this place and go to the holocaust memorial centre too.

The Bill will permit Victoria Tower Gardens to house the memorial. No place in Britain is more suitable for a holocaust memorial and learning centre than Victoria Tower Gardens—right next to Parliament, the very institution where decisions on Britain’s response were made in the lead-up to the holocaust, during it and in its aftermath. I hope that we will see detail about the decisions that were made, what people knew about what was going on in the holocaust, and what we did as a nation as a result. The memorial will serve as a reminder of the potential for abuse of democratic institutions and its murderous consequences, in stark contrast to the true role of democracy in standing up to and combating racism, hatred and prejudice.

Only Parliament can change the law. It is right that Parliament should consider whether the unique significance of the holocaust justifies seeking an exception to the protections mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, which were put in place by Parliament more than a century ago. I am aware that, for many reasons, several of my colleagues oppose the development. I hope that I can defuse their concerns and persuade them that this significant project should get the backing it deserves and that current plans should be protected.

The proposals for the memorial include sensitive landscaping that will improve Victoria Tower Gardens for all users. More than 90% of the area of the gardens will remain fully open after the memorial is built. Local residents and workers will be able to visit and enjoy the gardens just as they do now. Further, it is important that the relevant section of the unique legislation that we seek to override—the 1900 Act—applies only to Victoria Tower Gardens, meaning that the Bill will not impact any future development rights at other sites.

In response to the many concerns about the environmental impact of the site, I am assured that landscape improvements to Victoria Tower Gardens will ensure that this important and well-used green space is made even more attractive and accessible than ever before. The new development will take only 7.5% of the current area, and all the mature London plane trees will be protected. Additional planting and improved drainage of the grassed area will increase the overall attractiveness of the gardens and reduce any potential risks of flooding. There will still be a clear and unobstructed view of Parliament from all areas of the park.

It is important to note that the holocaust memorial will not be the only memorial on the site. The Buxton memorial, as has been mentioned, was placed in Victoria Tower Gardens in 1957 to commemorate the emancipation of slaves in the British empire. For years, this well-placed memorial has attracted visitors and become a loved and popular part of the park.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

How many times bigger than the Buxton memorial is this proposed memorial? It is many times bigger, and it will completely overshadow it.

[Bob Blackman]

It is clearly a very different type of memorial. My right hon. Friend is referring to the holocaust memorial and the learning centre combined, but the learning centre will be underground. Only 7.5% of the park will be used for this purpose. The holocaust memorial will complement the Buxton memorial, being no greater in height and with bronze fins designed to step down progressively to the east, in visual deference to the Buxton memorial.

The Father of the House has suggested that the memorial would be better placed at the Imperial War Museum. Contrary to those comments, the Imperial War Museum has said it supports the current plans for the memorial to be situated in Victoria Tower gardens and that it has no wish for the memorial to be built on its site.

I reject the claim that the Jewish community does not want this memorial, which I cannot believe has been put forward and is simply untrue. Of course, as with any community, the Jewish community is not homogeneous—it does not agree on everything—and there will always be a difference of opinion to some degree. But the vast majority are in agreement that the proposals are good and that there is an urgent need to crack on with the project.

Prominent supporters of the memorial include the Chief Rabbi, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the chair of the Jewish Leadership Council and the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, as well as many holocaust survivors. Throughout this process, there have been multiple consultations with members of the Jewish and survivor community.

At every stage of the previous planning inquiry, individuals and groups were able to give written and oral evidence, which has been crucial to shaping the development. When we get through the parliamentary process, I hope they will have the same rights, as we would expect.

It is quite clear that the majority of the House agrees with the proposals, and we are determined, dedicated and devoted to ensuring the plans become reality as soon as possible. We must remember the horrors that people had to live through during that atrocious point in history, in order to ensure their stories are preserved as lessons for generations to come.

In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), who spoke earlier, I end with the words of Sir Ben Helfgott, a holocaust survivor and successful Olympic weightlifter, whose words should resonate with all of us when assessing the urgency of the project:

“I look forward to one day taking my family to the new national memorial and learning centre, telling the story of Britain and the Holocaust. And one day, I hope that my children and grandchildren will take their children and grandchildren, and that they will remember all those who came before them, including my mother Sara, my sister Lusia, and my father Moishe.”

Sadly, he died earlier this year, but I have no doubt that, with this memorial and learning centre, his memory and story will live on for his children, grandchildren and future generations to enjoy for many years. I support the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and a privilege to wind-up this Second Reading debate for the Opposition.

I start by thanking all the hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in this debate: the Father of the House; the right hon. Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb); the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) and for Harrow East; and my hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). Each made their respective case with both force and clarity.

The Bill concerns a matter that arouses strong emotions, and the debate has understandably reflected that fact, but everyone who has contributed this afternoon has done so in a considered and respectful way that has done justice to the significance of the issue at hand. Whatever differences might exist about precisely how we do so, we are united as a House in our commitment to remembering and learning from the holocaust.

The Opposition’s position on the Bill is clear and unambiguous. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State made clear at the outset of the debate, we support the construction of a national holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower gardens, and we therefore welcome the Bill as a means to facilitate its establishment. Many who have spoken in the debate have touched upon the rationale for creating a national holocaust memorial and learning centre. As we have heard, the idea was first proposed in 2015, and it has enjoyed cross-party support from its inception. In the eight years that have passed since the idea was first mooted, the case for such a monument and institution has only grown. That is not only because of the alarming rise of anti-Jewish hate in recent years, but because as the number of those who survived the shoah dwindles and those who still remain with us grow ever frailer, it is essential that we as a country do more to preserve the memory of this unique act of evil and those who perished in it.

It is also imperative that we continue to educate future generations about what happened, both as a mark of respect to those who were lost and those who survived, and as a warning about what happens when antisemitism, prejudice and hatred are allowed to flourish unchecked. Once constructed, the memorial will stand as a permanent reminder of the horrors of the past, and the need for a democratic citizenry to remain ever vigilant and willing to act when the values that underpin a free and tolerant society are undermined or threatened.

We on the Opposition Benches believe it is particularly important that the thematic exhibition that the proposed learning centre will house is not only engaging and reflective, but honest about Britain’s complicated relationship with the holocaust. The proximity of the proposed memorial and learning centre to this House cannot and should not be taken to imply that the United Kingdom and its Parliament have an unimpeachable record when it comes to the knowledge of, and response to, the systematic mass killing of Jews by the Nazi regime.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Let us put it on the record that, as Winston Churchill said, only one nation in the entire world fought Nazism and fascism from day one of the war to the last day of the war—it was this country and this Parliament.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with him, although he will know of the many voices of dissent both at the time of and in the years leading up to the moment in which we took that stand. As I was going to say, the proximity of the proposed site renders it all the more important to confront openly the ambiguous and varied responses—and there were some—of our country’s Parliament, Government and society to the still unsurpassed crimes that were carried out by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. We have heard about those examples today.

As the debate winds up, I want to take the opportunity, once again, to put on record our thanks to all those who have been involved in advancing this project, and holocaust education more generally, in recent years. The full list is far too extensive to read into the record, but they include the past and present members of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, including the right honourable Ed Balls, the right honourable Lord Eric Pickles and Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis; all those involved in developing the exhibition’s narrative, particularly Yehudit Shendar, who is providing the curatorial lead; all the organisations that have striven to embed holocaust and genocide education and commemoration in our national life, particularly the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust; and finally, all the holocaust survivors who have campaigned for holocaust education and personally championed the project, including a number who will sadly not now see it come to fruition. In that regard, those of us on the Opposition side of the House think in particular of Sir Ben Helfgott, and convey our thoughts and sincere condolences to his family and friends.

I have felt it necessary to dwell again at some length on the rationale for establishing a national holocaust memorial and learning centre, given the Bill’s ultimate purpose, but as has been mentioned, the principle of doing so is almost entirely uncontested and not an issue that arises directly from the Bill. Instead, the Bill is concerned with making provision for, and in connection with, significant expenditure related to the establishment of the proposed memorial and centre, and removing pre-existing legislative impediments that exist to the siting of it in Victoria Tower gardens, namely sections of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, so that progress towards construction can be made.

I want to make it clear once again that the Opposition appreciate fully that the selection of Victoria Tower gardens as the chosen location for the memorial and centre has attracted robust and principled criticism and, in some cases, outright opposition, including from prominent members of the Jewish community and holocaust survivors. Several of those who contributed to the debate today have articulated some of the criticisms and objections that have been made in that regard. The reasoned amendment in the name of the Father of the House sets out a number of them.

As we have heard, concerns about the proposed location include the impact on the construction process; rising build costs; the potential generation of additional traffic in the area; security risks; environmental protections; the loss of public green space and amenity; and the impact on existing monuments and memorials.

Christianity in Society

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. Obviously, lots of people throughout the entirety of history may not have used their faith or interpretation of the Bible in the way that I and many Christians today believe they should have. However, the list of people I just read out did some wonderful things.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is to be commended for bringing forward this debate, and I support everything he says. This building, the bastion of democracy, is full of Christian iconography, particularly at the other end near the House of Lords—perhaps they are closer to God than we are.

I want to ask my hon. Friend one question. There will inevitably be pressure for us to disestablish the Church of England. I am not an Anglican, but the fact that we have an established Church is an important symbol of our commitment to Christianity. Will my hon. Friend say a word about the importance of keeping the established Church established?

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. As my speech goes on, I will of course make that point.

Many of our laws are based around the tablets given to Moses on Mount Sinai and the ethical teaching of the Old and New Testaments. The great biblical institution of marriage is recognised by social science for the emotional and material blessing it brings to spouses and their children. The Christian faith is woven into the social and physical fabric of the United Kingdom. The beautiful and symbolic church buildings across this land, with their tall steeples reaching for the heavens, are part of our history and culture, not just our skyline.

The place in which we stand took its name from the noble abbey church of St Peter’s—the minster in the west. The bishops play their part in the House of Lords, reflecting hundreds of years of having an established Church. Prayers are said every day in the Chambers of both Houses. Above each entrance to Central Lobby, the patron saints from all four parts of our United Kingdom are celebrated in murals. The tiled floor contains the words of psalm 127:

“Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labour in vain.”

At the coronation, His Majesty the King will be anointed in the name of God as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, as well as Head of State. St Edward’s crown, which will be placed on his head, contains a cross and orb symbolising the King and our world under the authority of God. Many people who do not have a personal faith in Christ still value this history and the benefits it has given us.

Of course, some want to rewrite history, but everywhere we look we see our Christian heritage, and nowhere more than in this place. It matters to our national life; it is the air we breathe. Although many deride and misrepresent it, the reality is that it has been a source of great benefit. Much of what makes Britain great stems from that heritage, and many others from around the world recognise that. Why do we not? We should be proud of our Christian history and values. It would be a constitutional disaster to try to erase it—even worse, it would be a spiritual disaster.

That brings me to the main reason why we should cherish the Christian faith, because I, like many others, believe it is true. Let me speak of the basics of Christianity. The foundational premise of the gospel is that we are all sinners. We do wrong: wrong against God and wrong against one another, and we know it—I know it. I am not proud of it, but it is true. If we were all really truthful with ourselves, we would all admit that we are not the good people we like to think we are. We might not all be out stealing and assaulting people; however, I am sure we have all said things that we wish we had not said and done things we wish we had not done. We have been unkind instead of kind and greedy instead of generous. We have broken promises instead of keeping them. We have told lies instead of telling the truth. We have done the things as parents or partners that we know we should not have.

People in the Old Testament covered their sins with sacrifices—their prized lamb or goat sacrificed to God. However, God knew we would never be able to meet his hopes for our lives, which is why the events of Easter happened. John 3:16, probably the most famous verse in the Bible, says:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his…only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

At Christmas, we celebrate Christ’s birth. He came into the world as a unique person—one who was fully human like us, but also divine and therefore perfect and sinless. On Good Friday, we remember the cross where Jesus was sacrificed to cover our sins. On Easter Sunday, we celebrate the fact that he rose from the dead to sit at the right-hand side of God, defeating death for the sake of everyone who believes in him. The Christians who have had such a great influence on the life of this nation knew those things to be true because they are written in the pages of the world’s best-selling book, the Holy Bible. Those of us who believe in that book might not perfectly understand it—sadly, we might even sometimes misuse it—but it is still true and still perfect, and with the help of God’s Holy Spirit, anyone can understand it.

Christianity is not a religion only open to clever people. In fact, one reason why the Christian faith is sometimes derided and rejected is that it is disproportionately a religion for the kind of people that elites look down on—the poor, the weak, the uneducated. But as the Bible itself says, God uses the weak “to shame the strong”. The Bible is a book of truth, love and grace—a book written by God through his chosen people; a book that gives someone like me the promise of eternal life and wise guidance about how to be a better person.

I became a Christian in my mid-30s. I knew of Christ many years before, but never thought I was good enough, and I was right—I wasn’t. The Bible is shockingly plain that we cannot make ourselves good enough for God, no matter how many good deeds we try to do. But that is the beauty of Christianity and the Easter story. Forgiveness is given to us by God, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This good news is offered to everyone, everywhere. All our sins past and present are forgiven once we make that decision.

It is a wonderful feeling to be forgiven, blessed and certain of the promise of eternal life. It is wonderful knowing that my maker is with me at all times, right here, right now. He is with me in my triumphs—there have been a few—but, more importantly, in the dark times too. I could not do this job without my faith. I would have had some lonely walks over Westminster bridge to my hotel after a long and difficult day without God at my side.

I am not sure how this speech will be received. Some people are very hostile to the idea of Christian politicians, so let me try to reassure them. The two greatest instructions are taught in Luke 10:27. Jesus said:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbour as yourself.”

He said that my neighbour is everyone in here, from all parties, and everyone out there too. That does not mean that I have to agree with them—thank goodness for that—but it does mean that I must love them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) is making a very moving and beautifully written speech, which we never normally hear in this place. I think that a lot of politicians who may have religious belief are frightened of talking about it because they think that they will put themselves on a pedestal and that, when inevitably they fail—or, if the worst comes to the worst, there is some scandal—they will be doubly denounced. However, I am not sure that that is a good reason for not talking up about one’s faith. In talking about his faith, my hon. Friend admits that he constantly fails—that he is a sinner and all those sorts of things—so, even if he does fail in the future, that is absolutely no reason for not talking about his faith publicly.

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I have known about Christianity all my life—I was brought up in a Christian home—but I did not want to make the commitment, because I never thought that I was good enough. I thought that the mistakes I made would be too many and that a Christian person should be this wonderful person with a halo. As one learns about the Bible, one realises that that is not true. It is because I make mistakes that I became a Christian.

I hope that I have not offended anybody. I hope that I have given a true account of the need for Christianity as a nation and as individuals. The west as a whole is under threat from many foreign aggressors, and many a commentator is saying that the west is under threat from itself. Whether we see Christianity as part of our history, or whether we embrace it as our own personal faith, it matters to all of us. Whether or not we are believers, our way of life is built on Christianity, and I believe that to let it fall by the wayside, thinking that it does not matter, would be a terrible mistake.

I thank hon. Members for listening. I hope that some of those watching and listening have learned something new about the great history of our nation, but most of all I hope that they have heard the Christian message of faith, hope and love, and that some of them might start on the same wondrous journey as I did, with God at their side. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ thoughts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I entirely agree. There is a reluctance among the public to be open about their faith because they genuinely fear potential repercussions.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend was talking about the way that Church leaders speak up. I remember asking for a meeting of MPs with the Bishop of Lincoln, and at the top of a long list of subjects he wanted to talk to us about was the widening of the A15. I just wonder whether our Churches—whether we are talking about Catholics or bishops—should concentrate more on talking about spirituality. Although Christians might be in a minority in this country, people of faith are still in a very big majority—that includes Muslims, Hindus and many others. Does my hon. Friend agree that we want to hear more from our bishops about the deep value and well of spirituality, in addition to all the good causes they talk about, which are perfectly valuable in themselves?

[Martin Vickers]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I can recall many of those meetings from when I acted as his constituency agent in years gone by, and it would have been rather nice had they concentrated on spiritual matters. Having said that, I believe that, on the whole, the Church of England does speak for the decent silent majority who recognise that the Church plays an important part in society and, although they may not attend church regularly, like to think that it is there.

I am reading a book called “God in Number 10”; other Members may have obtained a copy when it was launched here in the House a few months ago. Its author is Mark Vickers—I emphasise that he is, to the best of my knowledge, no relation.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

But he is also from Lincolnshire.

[Martin Vickers]

Yes, indeed. In the section on Stanley Baldwin, I was struck by a reference that he made. The former Prime Minister reportedly said to King George VI that the average working man—I am sure he would say woman, as well, if he were alive today—might not go to church him or herself, but was glad to know that his monarch did. I suggest to colleagues that the average working man and woman probably think the same about their Member of Parliament. We should not be afraid to “do God”, as Alastair Campbell didn’t say. I certainly get more criticism for being a Conservative than for being a Christian.

Incidentally, another extract from the book refers to a comment by Charles Gore, who was Bishop of Oxford between 1911 and 1919. Apparently, he said in a letter to The Times that he doubted that

“the cohesion of the Church of England was ever more seriously threatened than it is now.”

Well, he could have said that yesterday, rather than a century ago.

We are blessed in this country in that we can—despite the thoughts of some keyboard warriors and others—practise our faith in safety, with few exceptions. As we know, that is not the case in many parts of the world. I praise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) in her role as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We should welcome the fact that the Prime Minister, and indeed his predecessor, made such an appointment. I also commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for all his work with his all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief.

Faith plays an important part in the lives of billions of people across the globe, and we must do all we can to ensure that they can practise their faith in safety. Here in the UK, I sincerely hope that the Christian faith lasts for very many more centuries to come.