Iran-Israel Conflict

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary knows that many of us have been prepared to speak up again and again on behalf of suffering Palestinians and be a critical friend of Israel, but will he agree that on this occasion we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our Israeli ally? The fact is, Iran is a death cult, and death cults like the Nazis or Iran cannot be appeased simply through diplomacy. Iran is cocking a snook at us—it is inches away from a nuclear bomb. I am sure he is going to make this absolutely clear, but will the Foreign Secretary therefore stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel and our American ally in proclaiming the right of Israel to exist at all?

[Mr Lammy]

Absolutely.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Thank you.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

A painful lesson of Israeli and, indeed, Jewish history is that when someone says that they want to destroy them, we must believe them. The Iranian regime has made its intentions to destroy Israel clear for decades now. We will all be familiar with the term “never again”, which came out of the concentration camps of Europe. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is one of those moments where we can say that never again is now?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I wish to speak to new clauses 16 and 17. Rather than giving my own views, I think that powerful testimony on behalf of someone who actually runs a care home should be heard by the House. I want to quote, as briefly as possible, Dan Hayes, who runs the Orders of St John Care Trust, which runs care homes in Lincoln generally and in my constituency:

“we believe that the Bill as drafted is flawed, and the risks to older, vulnerable people, residing within social care environments are substantial.

We believe that any assumption by those drafting the final legislation that it is not intended for use by those living with conditions regarded as part of the ageing process, would be mistaken. Any legislation would be immediately tested and assumed to be accessible to such a cohort of people.

To that end we believe that in order to provide the necessary protections to such a vulnerable part of our society, the Bill must be explicit in its reference to older people living in residential services.”

That is why these new clauses are so important. He continues:

“The Bill must take account of the current unfairness and instability at the heart of our social care system, and question whether such legislation can be introduced whilst such problems exist.

The Bill must recognise that an individual health/social care professional’s ability to remove themselves from the process of Assisted Dying is so difficult, that specific exclusion of the care home sector should be a feature of the Bill. In any case, organisations, and sites, should be given the ability to exclude themselves from the act of an assisted death without prejudice to their approval as providers of services to the state.”

We have experience of that, with regard to Catholic adoption agencies. There is a real risk that some care homes may feel they have to withdraw from this sector. I will carry on quoting:

“Those that fund their own care pay substantial sums, often saved for over a lifetime—including property wealth. These savings will have been set aside for retirement and to pass on to loved ones. Instead, they are used to fund the costs of their own residential care, and to substantially subsidise the state.

We see the real prospect that those that might fit the criteria for assisted dying under the Bill, but have no wish to accelerate their death, would feel an immediate dilemma between prolonging their own lives, and the future quality of life of their loved ones. For illustrative purposes, the six-month period stated within the current Bill would equate to between £25,000 and £40,000 of expense borne by an individual paying for their own residential care in the current system.

Failings in the system mean that older people who should not be in hospital are held there, causing a burden to the NHS, and Local Authorities face an ever-growing proportion of funding needed to support social care, without a proportionate increase in funding from central government.”

[Lola McEvoy]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I wish to be mindful of other people, so I will proceed and make this one simple point on behalf of care homes. Mr Hayes continues:

“During the pandemic, we saw the appalling attempts at a widespread use of ‘Do Not Attempt Resuscitation’ arrangements for older people. This is a clear demonstration that an existing broken system places a lower value upon the lives of older people than of others.”

This is the important point:

“Relationships within residential care for older people are both professional and intimate. Carers, Care Leaders, and Service Managers are all competent health and social care professionals, but they are also friends and confidantes of those that live within social care services. The relationships are familial in the sense of contact for hours each day and the extension of support to ordinary, everyday issues outside the scope of normal healthcare professionals.

Our employees deliver loving care and build relationships in a way that residents come to depend upon and take comfort from. Such relationships are key to excellent care provision, and these important relationships enhance and prolong lives by providing a sense of purpose and place to older people.”

I have been around these care homes. They are fantastic places, with such love and such care for the most vulnerable in society. My Hayes then continues:

“In such a setting, it renders the ability for an individual to refuse to partake…as useless.

In an environment such as a care home, there is no way in which a professional could be fully ‘separated’ from assisted dying, should a resident they work with closely seek to enquire about or make a request.

Imagine a scenario where an individual living in social care is at the point where they will be provided with the approved substance to bring about their own death: In a care home, this is likely to be in their own room, which will be in close proximity to many other older people who live within that setting. It will be commonplace and understandable that the magnitude of the event will mean that the individual will wish to have company and comfort up to and immediately before/during the period in which the substance is taken.

A request for the company of a care professional will create a substantial moral dilemma for that person, profoundly so if they are individually opposed to Assisted Dying.”

That is the choice that these loving care workers will have to make—that would be the pressure on them. He goes on to say:

“Even where they are not, it will mean that they will intimately witness the death of someone with whom they have a strong bond, with that death having come about through facilitation, rather than naturally.”

Imagine the pressure on the workers in that care home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will just make a little progress.

Amendment 60 may similarly prevent access to an assisted death for those residing within a care home or hospice, if that care home or hospice decided it would not allow such assistance on its premises.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Minister is making a very important point, and this is what I dealt with in my few short remarks. If, according to the Minister, care homes run by religious orders will have to provide this service, those orders will have to get out of care homes altogether.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I say, the Government do not take a position on the policy intent that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has set out. I would simply observe that if somebody has been in a home for a considerable period of time, that home is then considered to be their home. As such, any action to take them out of that home could engage article 8 of the ECHR, on the right to family life.

I now turn to the procedure for receiving assistance under the Bill, including safeguards and protections. First, I will speak to the amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley with technical workability and drafting advice from the Government.

Amendment 58 clarifies the duty on the Secretary of State to make through regulations provisions for training about reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and those with a learning disability. That remedies previously unclear wording in the Bill. Amendment 60 is required to make provision for circumstances where the independent doctor dies or, through illness, is unable or unwilling to act as the independent doctor. Amendments 67 and 68, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, clarify that an approved substance can be self-administered using a device should the individual be unable to self-administer without one. Amendment 91 gives effect to amendment 273, which was accepted in Committee, by ensuring that data will be recorded in the final statement to ensure coherence within the Bill.

I turn now to the amendments tabled by other Members on the subject of procedure, safeguards and protections that the Government have assessed may create workability issues if voted into the Bill. New clause 7 would limit the number of times two doctors can be jointly involved in the assessment of a person seeking assisted dying to three times within a 12-month period. In situations where there is a limited pool of doctors in any geographical location or area of medicine, that could limit access to assisted dying and create inequalities in access. New clause 9 would require the co-ordinating doctor, independent doctor and assisted dying review panels to apply the criminal standard of proof that requires them to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Cases considered by the panel are civil matters, and as such it would not be usual practice for the criminal standard of proof to be applied to their decision making—and it is a very high bar. The provision would also impose additional standards on the assessing doctor that fall outside the usual framework for medical decision making.

Gaza: UK Assessment

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have been a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel for over 40 years, longer than anybody here. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organisation that hides its own fighters under hospitals, but it is frankly unacceptable to recklessly bomb a hospital. It is unacceptable to starve a whole people. Is the Minister aware that many Friends of Israel worldwide, notwithstanding narrow legal definitions, are asking this moral question: when is genocide not genocide?

[Mr Falconer]

I have heard in recent weeks a series of powerful interventions from Opposition Members, and I take them seriously with the weight they hold, particularly from the Father of the House and my neighbour in Lincolnshire. We will not move towards making determinations from the Dispatch Box on questions of legal determination, but that does not mean we will wait. The preliminary judgments of the ICJ and the provisional measures it set out are important, and we will abide by them.

Middle East Update

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important questions. I have set out at the Dispatch Box the steps we have taken, whether it is in relation to sanctions, arms or goods, and I will not rehearse them here; I can see that many Members want to contribute. As she would expect, I will not comment on further sanctions.

My hon. Friend asks the question that I know is on the lips of so many in this House, about recognition. What we see in Gaza and the announcements over the weekend are a very significant, immediate and practical threat to the viability of Palestinian life, and we are taking every practical step we can, alongside our allies, to try to focus on the ceasefire. That must be our most immediate priority, given the threats that hang over such a significant civilian population as we speak.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In his statement, the Minister said that the UK Government

“reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to recognising a Palestinian state”.

Up to now, the excuse has been that we have to wait until negotiations are complete. There are no negotiations—all we have is extremist settlers trying to force out Palestinian people from their villages in the west bank, which I have seen with my own eyes. In the name of God, why can we not give the Palestinian people some hope? Why can we not give them the same right to self-determination and recognise a Palestinian state now?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and my constituency neighbour for his commitment to these issues. The problems the Palestinian people face at this moment are acute, immediate and practical. As I have set out, we stand by our commitments. We want to make a contribution to practically improving the lives of the Palestinian people, and we will view recognition in that light.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T2. I am a simple soul, so I trust the Foreign Secretary completely. Will he assure me that nothing in the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which we are debating only this afternoon, will in any way nullify Brexit by limiting our ability to make our own decisions on regulation and to conduct our own free trade deals? Above all, as a great British patriot, will he assure me that nothing in the Bill will allow any Minister to ever abolish that most glorious of British symbols: the great British pint?

[Mr Lammy]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the British pint is safe under this Government, but I will write to him about the detail in the coming days.

Conflict in Gaza

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is a very sensitive and important debate. We need to ensure that language is temperate and respectful at all times. Our constituents are watching, as indeed is the world, so we must ensure that we in no way inadvertently misrepresent our colleagues. The right hon. Lady’s point is noted. We will now continue because we have a lot of people to get through. I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I agree with everything the Foreign Secretary has said, in particular that we have to give hope to the Palestinian people. To be fair to the Israeli Government position, Hamas could solve the problem now by releasing the hostages. Having said that, does the Foreign Secretary agree that is quite wrong for any member of the Israeli Government to say that the Gazan people could rise up against Hamas? If they did that, they would be tortured, at best, and probably killed. The people of Gaza are victims of Hamas as much as anybody, and it is quite wrong for the Israeli Government to inflict collective judgment on the people of Gaza: that will bring death, destruction, more radicalism and we will never get the hostages home.

[Mr Lammy]

The Father of the House speaks with tremendous authority. As I have said, none of us stands with Hamas; we all want to see Hamas removed, but an alternative to Hamas has to be provided. It seems to me that the alternative is the Palestinian Authority and working alongside people to undermine Hamas. We also have to see the end of Hamas. There are ways to bring that about—we did it in Northern Ireland, with de-arming —but they are best done through diplomatic and political solutions, not military endeavour.

Syria

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Christian community in Syria is one of the oldest in the world. Up to the civil war, it was about 10% of the population; now, it is down to 2%. Aid to the Church in Need has described Friday as a “black and painful day” for Christians in the Latakia area, with Christians being murdered in their cars and in their homes. Will the Minister—representing, as he does, a Christian country—call out the new Sunni Muslim Government of Syria and say that they have an absolute duty of care to all minorities: Christians, Druze, Alawites or others?

[Mr Falconer]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, and my constituency neighbour, that we do, of course, call on the interim Administration to ensure the full representation of every one of the minorities in Syria—Christians, Druze, Kurds, Alawites and many others.

Palestinian Rights: Government Support

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for Palestinian rights.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This will be a very personal speech. I declare that, with a number of colleagues from all parties, I have just returned from a trip to Israel and the west bank organised by Yachad, a moderate Jewish group that seeks to promote peace between Arab and Jew. I refer to my declaration of interests.

We went to a couple of the kibbutzim that were attacked on 7 October, which was of course incredibly moving. I want to start, in order to have a fair balance, by unequivocally condemning Hamas and all their dealings, and the way they even killed women and babies. It is not my purpose to apportion blame or take sides. I am pro-Israeli and pro-Jew, and I am pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian.

What was most moving about the trip was to be in a kibbutz listening to an 80-year-old lady. On that day in October she was cowering with her husband; her daughter was down the road. Next door to her daughter, people in their eighties were deliberately burned to death. What did that woman say to us? She said, “All my life, I’ve striven for peace, and I will go on striving for peace. I even took my driving test in Gaza. I have many friends in Gaza.” What an inspiring moment that was.

Later, we talked to another Israeli woman, whose son had been shot dead by a Palestinian sniper when he was simply doing his military service. She too said, “I’m absolutely dedicated to peace.” We talked to the brother of a hostage who was a conscript dragged from his tank—he is still a hostage—and he also talked of peace. We talked to a youngish Palestinian, whose father is very well known and has been imprisoned by the Israelis for a very long time, and they also talked of peace. We talked to the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, who also talked of peace.

The purpose of this debate, if we have any moral authority at all, is to convince our moderate Israeli friends that it is simply not in the long-term interests of Israel to hold down in occupation some 5 million Palestinians—2 million in Gaza and 3 million in the west bank. There are many moderate Israeli citizens—I would say a majority—who agree with that supposition. However, there are some extremist settlers who have the completely wrong idea that somehow they can expel people who have lived for centuries in the west bank from their ancestral homelands. That is something that I know our Government and everybody in this debate will unequivocally condemn.

On our visit, we spent time in the west bank. It was incredibly moving to visit a small Palestinian settlement on dry lands to see how they were coping. We saw a beautifully turned-out little girl, the same age as my granddaughter, living in those appalling conditions. In that very hot and dry climate, they traditionally sheltered in caves to protect themselves from the heat, and from the cold in winter, and extremist settlers had deliberately smashed the caves. We went to another village nearby where the hall had been deliberately smashed. The moment that we turned up, two young settlers—I can only describe them as punks—turned up with sub-machine-guns, in a clear act of intimidation.

The purpose of this debate—and I agree that our influence is only moral—is to draw attention to what is happening on the west bank, because so many eyes are fixed on Gaza. I will not talk a lot about Gaza; it is incredibly important, but I have very little time and I want to talk about the west bank.

Data from the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs suggests that there were 1,800 incidents of settler violence on the west bank between 7 October 2023 and 31 December 2024, which is an average of four a day. With the whole world’s attention on Gaza, perhaps there has been too little attention on the west bank. The Nablus governorate saw 411 incidents. These incidents vary in nature; they include up-front violence but also other forms of harassment.

The olive harvest in October and November has been a particular time of tension. Harvests have been interfered with and crops damaged. Often the police, army and armed settlers, organised as civilian security co-ordinators, are either physically present or alleged participants. Settlers and soldiers have attacked, beaten or threatened harvesters. There are even eight cases of live fire being directed at Palestinian farmers. Soldiers shot and killed a 59-year-old Palestinian woman from the village of Faqqu’a. Agricultural equipment has been stolen, property damaged, and crops taken or destroyed.

The west bank is economically precarious, and destroying crops or preventing a harvest is extremely damaging. Hundreds of Palestinian-owned olive trees have been torched, sawed down or destroyed. Because of the deployment of Israeli troops in Gaza and Lebanon, settlers have been drafted into the army to protect other settlers. As a consequence, some settlers have committed violence while in Israel Defence Forces uniform.

A delegation of British rabbis organised by Yachad witnessed young settlers spitting at and kicking a Palestinian woman in Hebron. And so it goes on. We went to Hebron; again, it was unbelievably moving. On the main road, right in the middle of this ancient city, it is completely deserted. A small settler movement has moved into Hebron and there are 800 Israeli soldiers protecting them. The Palestinians are prevented from even walking down the main road in their own town.

It was moving, when we went to Ramallah, to talk to a grandmother—actually, she is a very distinguished banker—who cannot even see her grandson in Nablus, because although it is a very quick drive to Nablus from Ramallah, there are so many checkpoints that it takes seven or eight hours to get there. Everywhere in the west bank, there are checkpoints.

Virtually every application—over 90% of them—to build or extend a settlement is granted, but virtually every application by Palestinians to build is rejected. This is totally one-sided. It is intolerable, and we should speak out about it in this Parliament. That is what I want to do today.

I know that it has become unfashionable to talk about the two-state solution; people say that it is just western politicians going on about it and it is never going to happen. It must happen. There is no solution other than a two-state solution. As a young MP 40 years ago, I sat in the office of Abba Eban, a distinguished former Israeli foreign minister. He said, “It is completely absurd and ridiculous for us to hold down 5 million people.” That was his view, but unfortunately there are now people in the Israeli Government who actually believe that Palestinians can be ejected.

There is a role for us, and it is not just moral. We had a very good meeting with our Foreign Office civil servants in the West Bank Protection Consortium. I say to the Minister that I hope he will give them more resources, because they are doing a tremendous job in calling out some of this settler violence.

We were anxious to get both sides of this issue, so we also had a meeting with the Israeli foreign service. They were very reasonable and charming people. They knew all about us—fair enough. Of course, I raised the issue of settler violence—why would I not? They said, “Oh, it’s illegal.” Of course it is illegal, but the Israeli Government could stop it tomorrow. They choose not to.

So many people make suggestions, but if I may make one, it is in the absolute interest of Israel to try to calm this down, to clamp down on illegal settlers, to stop all new settlements and to come to a settlement. I will end on that point. It is in our interest to go on encouraging this process, to have the moral courage to remember these people and to say that this debate is about peace. I know that everybody is depressed and full of doom and gloom that it will never happen, but people often thought that way in history. People thought the Soviet Union would last forever. I am confident that, eventually, logic and peace will break out, and these two great peoples—Arab and Jew, Palestinian and Israeli—can live side by side in peace.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thank you, everybody, for taking part in what has been a very powerful debate. We are completely united. We condemn Hamas, but we stick up unequivocally for the rights of the Palestinian people. Everybody, from all parties or from no party, has made that point—it has even united the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and me.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for Palestinian rights.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

A week ago, I was in a Palestinian village with colleagues, including the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). We went to a school that had been demolished by illegal settlers. Immediately, two punks turned up with sub-machine guns, intimidating us—that is happening all over the place. We went to Hebron. It is completely closed down. This is appalling. The whole House should unite against the extremist Jewish settlers and the illegal settlements, because it is not in the interest of moderate Israeli opinion. It is directly contrary to peace and we must fight this. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Mr Falconer]

The Father of the House, my constituency neighbour, can hear the strong support for his remarks from Members on the Government Benches.

Middle East

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I think the Foreign Secretary has spoken for the whole House today with his tone. I am sure he would agree that it is possible to be four-square behind the Israeli Government in their right to defend themselves and defeat Hamas and at the same time to care about the suffering of the Palestinian people. Will the Foreign Secretary use his charm or whatever influence he has on the incoming Trump Administration to persuade them to use their power to convince the Israeli Government that these illegal new settlements in the west bank must stop, and the pressure on the Palestinian people in the west bank must stop, because it is fuelling a sense of despair and future extremism?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing his tremendous experience in the House to bear. He is absolutely right. He will be pleased to know that when I discussed these issues with President Abbas on Monday, he was complimentary about the conversation he had had with President-elect Trump on these matters, and of course, he has an existing relationship with President-elect Trump. That left me very hopeful indeed.

The right hon. Gentleman is right: the expansion particularly undermines the 1967 settlement, and it makes it very difficult to achieve the two-state solution. Those who try to thwart the possibility of a two-state solution are saying that their belief is either in no state at all, which is entirely unacceptable, or it is in one state, in which case they had better get on and ensure equality for all.