Representation of the People Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Clearly this was cynical, but judging by the by-election in Greater Manchester, perhaps the Labour party, when it comes to giving votes to 16-year-olds, should be careful what it wishes for.

[Sir James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am a believer in democracy, and being punished at the ballot box is a fundamental foundation stone of democracy. None of us should change the mandate for narrow party political advantage. I strongly suspect that the point he makes is right, but that is not the point that I am making.

This move will be perceived to be partisan and counterproductive. This Bill could and should be so much better. If the Government were serious about this issue, they would work cross-party to get it right, because democracy does not belong to Ministers; it belongs to the people, and the rules that govern it must be worthy of their trust. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment, and I invite the House to support it. I say to the Secretary of State that we will work with the Government to improve this Bill, but we reserve the right to vote it down during its later stages if the Government do not act in good faith and in support of the broader principles of democracy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Antisemitism is horrible, but will the Minister agree that there is nothing antisemitic in supporting the rights of the suffering Palestinian people and there is nothing antisemitic in opposing the actions of the present right-wing Israeli Government in making a two-state solution impossible? There is nothing antisemitic in that, because probably the majority of Jewish people throughout the world agree with me—and, actually, the actions of the Israeli Government in forcing Palestinians off their ground is fuelling antisemitism.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is very important for us to make a distinction between the antisemitism that we are seeing, which is rife and unacceptable and which we all have a duty to stamp out, and the plight of the Palestinian community, for which a lot of us will have great sympathy. As a Government, we are committed to delivering the two-state solution. We are committed to working towards peace—peace for the Palestinian people, and peace for the Israeli people and Jewish.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Marie Goldman]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

Manfred Goldberg went on to say,

“Last month I celebrated my 93rd birthday and I pray to be able to attend the opening of this important project.”

Tragically, Manfred passed away on 6 November last year, at the age of 95. My thoughts are with his family. He was an extraordinary man who gave so much to Holocaust remembrance and education in the United Kingdom. As a nation, we must continue that legacy and ensure that this memorial and education centre are built through proper process, with careful planning, strong security and quick delivery. In doing so, we will be commemorating the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust, honouring survivors, and creating a space that truly educates future generations, and that stands as a lasting commitment to remembrance.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There is universal recognition of the gravity of the Holocaust. It is widely and wisely regarded as the greatest crime in human history, which is precisely why this memorial should proceed only on the basis of broad consensus. No one wishes to create division around Holocaust commemoration, yet there is demonstrably no consensus in the Jewish and local community about the learning centre, or how it should be used. That was evidenced by the 2018 letter in The Times, signed by eight Jewish peers, expressing deep reservations about the current proposal.

The decision to site the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens was made with good intentions—the proximity to Parliament was in recognition of the importance of the Holocaust—but it was taken without prior consultation or proper investigation, and it was opposed by the local council. Subsequent scrutiny has revealed serious flaws in the choice of site, and we cannot have a discussion of what the learning centre will be used for without understanding that. I have taken part in several debates on the subject, including the previous one, in which Sir Peter Bottomley, the former Father of the House, spoke. That was on the day the general election was called. No satisfactory answers have ever been given.

The plans are for a substantial underground structure on ancient marshland beside the Thames. The water table is known to rise sharply after heavy rainfall. Significant flooding occurred on the site within recent memory. Do we want to have to wet vac our Holocaust memorial every few years? We have had no answers on that point. Victoria Tower Gardens is a public park, protected by statute. It is maintained by the Royal Parks, which has never supported a memorial on the site. The chairman of the Royal Parks warned that it risked damaging one of the area’s few open green spaces and set a dangerous precedent. Statutory protections dating back to a 1900 Act of Parliament are being undermined with little debate.

The park can realistically accommodate only a modest memorial without destroying its character. The current design would fundamentally alter the park. There would be an 80-metre ramp and a wide moat dividing the space, and large areas of grass would be replaced with paving. Rightly, the intention is for large numbers of visitors, particularly schoolchildren, to attend the national Holocaust memorial. No credible plans exist to manage coach traffic, drop-off points or parking, so the pressures on Millbank would be compounded. Local opposition is well documented, including from the Thorney Island Society. For residents and regular users, the park would largely cease to function as a neighbourhood green space; ordinary activities would become inappropriate in such a situation. Victoria Tower Gardens may also be needed to support the ongoing restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Reducing flexibility now risks increasing costs and constraining future options.

Let us talk about the purpose of this memorial. I have been to Holocaust memorials. The most impactful Holocaust memorial internationally is the Washington model, which I visited. That Holocaust Memorial Museum is immensely successful, because it prioritises education through a dedicated museum that confronts the scale and the reality of the crimes. The most meaningful memorial we can offer is sustained education, to ensure that young people understand the Holocaust fully, and that its memory is never diminished. Had the learning centre been established years ago at the Imperial War Museum, as we have constantly suggested, and as the Imperial War Museum wants, hundreds of thousands of visitors could already have benefited from it, and there would have been no delay.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will finish, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

The House of Lords has wisely passed an amendment clarifying that

“The sole purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the Holocaust and antisemitism.”

It is a mystery to me why the Government oppose that, and why they have imposed strict time limits on debate. This much-desired memorial should be the result of clear consensus, not imposed in a way that stifles discussion. I am suspicious of why the Government are opposing this wise amendment from the House of Lords.

One of the reasons why an underground learning centre is inappropriate is that it is not a proper museum. I have been to the memorials in Israel and in Washington. They are huge structures, where people are taken through the whole process. We cannot understand the Holocaust unless we understand its beginnings, and how people came to be filled with such horrible hatred. This is basically just a bunker. It is totally inappropriate. It is also a security risk: there will have to be armed guards and railings. Just imagine the terrible nature of any appalling atrocity, perhaps a terrorist atrocity, that might be committed there. It is simply an inappropriate location. I do not know, but I suspect that the reason why the Government are resisting the amendment is that they are worried that this bunker—this totally inappropriate underground structure, which is not a proper museum—might become a target.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, on that point?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

All right, I will.

[Dr Arthur]

It is not that the Government are not giving way. The Government are showing leadership by negotiating with other parties to find consensus in this Chamber, and that is something we should celebrate. I am ashamed that, 81 years after the end of the second world war, we still do not have a national memorial. The Father of the House is talking about more debate, more time-wasting, and more Holocaust survivors dying before we even start work. Does he not recognise the need for this memorial? It makes absolute sense to place it next to the home of democracy in the UK, to celebrate what we did well during the war in terms of protecting the Jews, but also to mark what we got wrong.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The point is that we—it is not just me, by the way, but a large part of the Jewish community—want a proper museum of the type that exists in Washington, and this, I am afraid, is not a proper museum. It is a small underground structure in an inappropriate place, difficult to secure. If this Government and the previous Government had proceeded with consensus, and had wanted to build an aesthetic memorial that paid proper tribute to the people who died, this could all have been passed years ago. The whole debate has been about the underground learning centre, not the memorial. Everyone accepts that there should be a memorial. Everyone wants a proper museum, but this is not a proper museum, and I am curious about why the Government are resisting the perfectly sensible amendment from the House of Lords. There is a real danger that in order to allay security concerns, the whole purpose of this learning centre may drift from the Holocaust, which would be extremely regrettable. I am sorry if I have irritated the hon. Gentleman, but this is a debate, and we are all entitled to express a point of view.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I welcome the spirit of the amendment; I welcome the Bill, of course; I welcome the assurances that the Minister gave; and notwithstanding some differences of opinion, I welcome the civility of the debate, which is exactly what is needed when discussing such a sensitive issue.

I speak today not only to the House, but to those who will be gathering back home in Eastbourne on Holocaust Memorial Day 2026, 27 January. On behalf of our town —and those far beyond it—I pay huge tribute to a remarkable Eastbourne resident and Holocaust survivor, Dorit Oliver-Wolff, whose tireless Holocaust education work ensures that future generations never forget. She is a leading light, whether she is facilitating events such as Holocaust Memorial Day in Eastbourne, making school visits, or sharing her experiences through her book, “Yellow Star to Pop Star”—she is a published author. She also shared her story with masses of Channel 4 viewers when she appeared on “First Dates” in 2021, and told us more about her experiences. We thank Dorit so much for her advocacy, her service and her fabulousness.

Dorit’s example serves as a testament to the need for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre that is the subject of this Bill. Education is our most powerful defence against hatred’s return, and the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day—“For a Better Future”—carries such profound weight. In that spirit, we remember the 6 million Jewish lives stolen and all victims of Nazi persecution. We honour their memory by confronting hatred wherever it emerges, including in the face of genocide in our world today, but sadly that confrontation requires vigilance.

Chinese Embassy

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is the national Parliament and it deserves answers. I have already asked this question to the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), and I got no answer at all. It may seem to be a subsidiary point, but it is important. On 14 January 2025, the Secretary of State wrote to the Chinese demanding an answer about whether there will be a perimeter wall so that the public can access the buried Cistercian monastery. With typical arrogance, the Chinese have not even replied. Why is that important? Because if Ministers insisted on what they wrote about last January, there would have to be an entirely new planning permission. The site is near the Tower of London, where so many prisoners of conscience died over the centuries, so—who knows?—maybe the prayers of medieval monks might finally stop this aberration.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid that all I can say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, is that all material considerations will be taken into account when reaching a decision on this case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We all know that rent inflation, like all inflation, is caused by over-demand and lack of supply, and we can agree on the need to address problems by building more houses and tackling immigration, but does the Minister agree that the more controls and regulations are imposed on landlords, particularly small landlords, the more they will get out of the rented sector altogether, causing less supply and rent inflation which will hit vulnerable people?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not accept that all regulation is bad, which I think is the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. In many ways, we have clarified and made simpler the grounds for possession that landlords can use under the Act, but he is absolutely right to say that we need more supply of all homes, including in the private rented sector, and that we need to support the build-to-rent sector, which will be an important part of the market in coming years.

Electoral Resilience

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I commend and congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaigning for the kidnapped children of Ukraine. We would expect representatives of all political parties to seek to support those children’s interests in being returned home to their parents and carers. Perhaps most shocking of all is the fact that, despite the widespread knowledge that that was going on, this individual chose to accept bribes from the Russian Government, who were responsible for those heinous activities, betraying his country into the bargain.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am curious to know in what respect our existing laws were insufficient to deal with this appalling case. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the best way to reassure the public on electoral resilience is never again to delay local council or mayoral elections?

[Steve Reed]

Well, I am curious to know exactly the same thing, which is why I have appointed Philip Rycroft to lead an independent review, so that we can find out.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I welcome this statement. We do need a massive house building programme, but I suspect the Government are going to have to strip away many more delays and controls if they are going to have any chance of meeting their own target. Does the Minister understand that there is a real lack of confidence in all this? The public see our own people on the streets without proper housing while people who enter the country illegally and migrants are held for months in comfortable hotels in idleness. If the Government were to be really robust and arrest, detain and deport those people, we could not only concentrate more resources on those genuinely in need, but actually save lives at sea.

[Alison McGovern]

As part of the strategy, I have worked closely with my colleagues in the Home Office to support their priorities, which are to secure our borders, deal with the dreadful criminality of people trafficking across borders and get the backlog down. That is the best way to achieve what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, which is to have the resources to support people who have fled conflict and need to rebuild their lives. We want to ensure, through this strategy, that we get help quickly to the people whose cases have been decided, with the outcome that they are a refugee and will be settling in the UK. That means councils knowing where the people are and the support being available. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for that approach.

Local Elections

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

But the Government could have done this right and come to Parliament with a statement today. Instead, once again we wake up to overnight briefings. Cancelling elections is always a bad idea, and there is a real suspicion that the Government are worried about being trounced in elections.

May make a local point about Lincolnshire? It is now in complete chaos, because we do not know what is going to happen. The Government have already forced an unloved office of mayor on us, our friends in North East Lincolnshire have withdrawn from the whole process, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) wants to carve West Lindsey—my district—in half by creating a greater Lincoln, and the county council under Reform leadership has a different proposal. Nobody knows what is going on. Just put local democracy first by allowing the people of Lincolnshire to have the district council system of local Government that they love and know, and stop throwing everything up in the air and wasting so much money.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I reiterate that these are inaugural elections, and therefore we are not cancelling elections. [Interruption.] These are inaugural elections that were always subject to us laying a statutory instrument and subject to the consent of places. To the right hon. Member’s specific point, it is really important that we bring the House back to why we are going through the process of local government reorganisation. We are not doing it because it is fun, or just for the sake of it; we are doing it because of the state in which local government was left by the Conservative party—[Interruption.] Absolutely—take responsibility! We had a decade and a half of under-investment, leaving local government on its knees. The Conservatives ducked the decisions they needed to make.

Now we are gripping the mantle, and at the heart of the reorganisation process is the simple premise that we want stronger unitaries. We believe that is the way in which we can organise services to deliver for communities. The Conservative party should have got a grip and done that. It did not; it ducked that. We are now having to pick that up, so I will not have Conservative Members talking to me about the pros and cons of reorganisation. We are doing it because we understand that we need to. If they were more serious, they would have cracked on and got on with it themselves.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards working people deserve. That is why it has always been this Government’s No. 1 mission. This landmark Bill, which will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, is integral to the success of that mission, and it will play a vital part in delivering the Government’s plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. The Government are therefore determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible, and I am pleased that the House has an opportunity today to renew its commitment to this vital legislation and express its firm opposition to attempts to undermine its core principles.

Before I turn to the amendments before us, let me put on record once again my heartfelt thanks to Baroness Taylor for her prodigious efforts in guiding the Bill through the other place, and my gratitude to peers collectively for the comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny to which they subjected it. The Government made a number of important changes to the Bill in the other place, with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended, that its full potential in respect of unlocking economic growth is realised, and to provide further reassurance that a number of its key provisions will achieve the beneficial outcomes that we expect. In the interests of time, I will update the House briefly on the two most significant areas of change.

The first concerns the package of measures we introduced last month to maximise the growth potential of the Bill. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill’s impact assessment estimates that it could benefit the UK economy by up to £7.5 billion over the next 10 years. That is an assessment, it should be noted, that was made prior to the incorporation into the Bill of several important pro-growth measures, including the removal of the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure project applications—a change that could result in cost savings of over £1 billion across the pipeline of projects in this Parliament. The package introduced last month further bolsters the growth impact of the Bill. It included provisions that further streamline the consenting of reservoirs, clarify Natural England’s strategic advisory role, and facilitate the deployment of up to three additional gigawatts of onshore wind and secure the billions of pounds’ worth of investment into UK services that come with that.

The second area of change concerns the package of amendments we tabled in July in respect of part 3 of the Bill, which directly addressed a range of issues that were highlighted in the advice the Government received from the Office for Environmental Protection on the new nature restoration fund. They provided for a number of additional safeguards, strengthened and made more explicit those that were already in the Bill on its introduction, and further clarified how the NRF will operate going forward. I emphasise that none of the changes made will affect the process by which house builders interact with an environmental delivery plan, namely by paying a levy to discharge specific environmental obligations through it, and nor do they undermine the strategic approach that underpins the model.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The housing market is absolutely flat and we desperately need to build more housing. What is stopping all this new building, people moving and creating a healthy housing market? It is the appalling stamp duty that everybody acknowledges is the worst tax. The Minister is not the Chancellor, but will he approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the autumn statement and see whether she can steal our clothes and promise to abolish stamp duty?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Chancellor will set out her decisions on the Budget in fairly short order and the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. I am going to be quite strict in sticking to the contents of the Bill and what is in scope, rather than ranging more widely, as he tempts me to do.

The amendments we tabled in the summer package provided greater confidence that the NRF delivers the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. I take the opportunity to thank all the hon. Members who engaged in constructive discussions with the Government about the NRF during Commons stages, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for his thoughtful participation in Committee, which helped shape my thinking about the package of amendments in question.

I should also make clear that the Government tabled further technical amendments in the other place to ensure that the NRF works effectively across borders, as well as ensuring it is able to operate in the marine environment. Those amendments also ensure that the NRF can be used to support the impact of development on Ramsar sites. In addition, the Government supported an amendment tabled by Lord Banner in the other place to ensure that the NRF can accommodate the development processes associated with large strategic housing sites that are phased.

Turning to the amendments made by peers in the other place, I want to make clear that the Government welcomed the scrutiny and challenge provided, and that we are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. However, I am afraid that most of the amendments sent back to this place seek to undermine the core principles of the Bill, and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely why, in each instance where that is the case.

Lords amendment 1 would prevent the removal of existing parliamentary requirements that serve to delay material policy amendments to national policy statements. In short, it is a wrecking amendment designed to frustrate the Government’s intention to streamline the process for incorporating into NPSs changes that have already received public and parliamentary scrutiny. Let me emphasise once again that the intent of clause 2 is not to erode parliamentary scrutiny; it is simply about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the four categories of changes the clause covers. That said, I have always recognised the sincere arguments made by various hon. and right hon. Members, as well as by noble Lords, about the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny in respect of NPSs. That is precisely why I provided the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) with a number of assurances on Report.

For the purposes of clarity, let me repeat those assurances. When the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to an NPS, a statement will be laid before Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period. Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. In other words, Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted.

To assuage further the concerns that some hon. Members might have about a reduction in scrutiny as a result of the clause, I am happy to provide a further commitment today: when a statement is laid in Parliament announcing a review, it will include how the proposed change or changes fall within the four categories of changes to which clause 2 applies. I cannot, however, accept Lords amendment 1 for the reasons I have set out, and I urge the House to reject it.

Turning next to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Lords amendment 2 enables faster consenting of major water infrastructure projects. Crucially, it allows third party providers, appointed by water undertakers, to apply to deliver such projects through the streamlined development consent order route.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Q7. The Government quite rightly give full and unequivocal support to Israel in its bid to end the scourge of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme forever. Will they also work with our allies to try and convince the Israeli Government that it is not in the long-term security interests of Israel to carry on with this policy of illegal settlements in the west bank, which is simply leading to radicalisation and desperation throughout the region? Have not the overwhelming majority of Palestinian people the right to yearn for peace and security in their own homeland, as the Jews yearned for their homeland for 2,000 years?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I thank the Father of the House for his important question. Settler violence and expansion in the west bank is appalling and completely unacceptable. Alongside our allies, we have sanctioned individuals responsible for inciting this extremist action, but a two-state solution is the only way to bring the peace that the Israelis and the Palestinians deserve. That is only achievable if the hostages are released, aid is surged into Gaza and the ceasefire is restored. We will do everything we can to make that happen.