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.

St George’s Day and English Affairs

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who is fast establishing a reputation as an effective parliamentarian and a thoroughly nice chap. His speech was appropriate and excellent in every single way, and I agreed with everything he said. It is not often that Labour MPs quote former Tory Prime Ministers—that was certainly a first, and we all much enjoyed it.

Of course, as we all do, the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the famous people from his constituency. Well, I can match that for Lincolnshire. I can talk of Sir Isaac Newton, John Smith of the pilgrim fathers, the great poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and Joan Plowright. I can also mention one other person who came from Lincolnshire. I do not want to break the cosy consensus of this debate, but it is a lady whom I greatly admire. I believe that she restored greatness to this country when she was Prime Minister—I need not even mention her name because she is so famous.

St George is a saint. He was not English, of course. When the far right try to capture the flag of St George, they should perhaps try to remember that he was an Anatolian Greek. I think it is quite good that our national saint is not actually English, and that we know virtually nothing about him. What we do know is based purely on legend and is almost certainly wrong. I think that says much about the easy-going nature of the English people.

We are surrounded by saints here. In the Undercroft, we have St Etheldreda, St Edward the Confessor, St Margaret of Scotland, St Edmund and many more. In Central Lobby, we have the four great patron saints of our countries. There is a well-worn joke about St Andrew being on the way to the bar, St Patrick on the way to the exit, St David on the way to this Chamber, where we all like to talk, and St George on the way to the Lords.

Saints unite; politicians divide. I have many times expressed in this Chamber—it is rather an unfashionable point of view, but I will mention it briefly—the importance of religion in binding people together. Religion, on an ecumenical basis—being proud of one’s religion and its social ethos—should be a unifying factor. All the great religions have much the same moral creed, and I think the decline of religion in England has been rather sad.

The theme I want to talk about, so that I do not indulge entirely in clichés, is the essence of a nation being a sense of community—a community in which everybody is in a project together, all doing their bit. Sadly, there has been a decline in that sense of community in our nation. For instance, my parents, although English, were brought up in France. They came here as refugees in 1940 when the Germans invaded France because they had British passports, and they met in Bletchley Park. They had a very mixed upbringing, but they had a complete dedication to this country. When my mother was very old, she would still insist, despite being very infirm, on tottering off to the polling booth. The wartime generation, who we are celebrating today, had an absolute sense of duty and community, and we want to recreate that.

Let me make one or two points that may be more controversial. There are some factors that are breaking our sense of community, and, frankly, we all saw from the results last week that they are fuelling a feeling of disillusion. One, of course, is illegal migration. We have got to understand that this infuriates everybody. It does not just infuriate right-wing people who do not like the idea of migrants. It also infuriates many people who are working hard and feel that some are taking advantage.

I do not want to make any criticism of migrants, and I do not want to attack them personally. Take a Somali migrant—why is he trying to come here? Because for hundreds of years, his family could fish off the coast of Somalia, and then we in the west sent in huge trawlers to take all the fish away and took away his livelihood, so he resorted to piracy. Quite rightly, we then sent in warships to deal with that, so once again, they were starving, and he is now on the way here. I do not think we should approach the issue of migration in a nationalistic way. What I liked about the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was that it was patriotic, not nationalistic, and it tried to heal divisions.

The fact is that illegal migration is an open wound in our society. It is not just the cost of it, with £4 million a day spent on hotels; there is also a sense for many in our country that people who could apply for asylum in the proper, normal way are bypassing that route. We have seen from a study in The Daily Telegraph this week how easy it is to pay a people smuggler, come over here, be put in a hotel and act as a courier. That is really infuriating people.

Our fate in the Conservative party, because we are no longer in power, is that we are dependent on the Labour Government solving this problem—and they will have to solve it, because we cannot go on as we are. It is fuelling a great sense of anger in the nation. The Government have to get a derogation from the Strasbourg Court, as I have argued many times, in order to arrest, detain and deport people, and then this horrible trade will stop immediately.

Of course, there is a humanitarian point to be made here: these people smugglers are putting lives at risk, and people are dying. They are feeding on human misery. We cannot do much about it in the Conservative party; Labour is now in power. My advice to the Government is that if they want to resist this sense of disillusion in society, with people turning away from both the Labour party and the Conservative party, they have to do something about it.

They have to do something about legal migration, too. There is a great sense among people who are working hard here that people are pouring in or have poured in. I blame my Government as much as any other; I do not make a party political point here. The Labour party has taken over a difficult issue. We all know the reasons to do with the pandemic and all the other excuses, and about how we had to keep the NHS and our care homes going, but the fact that the Conservative Government allowed 1 million people in legally last year is infuriating people, and it is depressing wages. It might be good for overall GDP, but it is certainly bad for individual wealth. Again, we can do very little about it in the Conservative party, but the Government need to act. I know they are trying to take steps.

This is relevant to the debate about St George because it is about trying to recreate a sense that we are one nation, and that everybody works hard, everybody pays their taxes, and we get benefits such as free education and free health so that when we fall ill we are helped by the state. I was talking to a constituent only today and she is clearly a lady in some distress. She cannot move but has just had her personal independence payment cancelled. She has been told she has to work from home, but she cannot work from home because she does not have those sorts of skills. Ever more people are feeling angry that they have done their bit and worked hard, but when they fall ill or need benefits they are not being helped. We have to all work together to try to again get that sense of the wartime spirit—that is a bit of a cliché, but it is about a time when everybody mucked in, everybody had a job, everybody did their bit and there were, frankly, very few freeloaders.

I represent an agricultural constituency. One might wonder why I am now getting on to that subject, but again there is a sense among people in agricultural constituencies that the Government do not understand their point of view. We are all in favour of green energy in Lincolnshire. We are leading on green energy with wind farms in the North sea; there is no opposition to them, but we are angry that entrepreneurs are importing solar panels from China made by slave labour and covering 10,000 acres in my constituency with no proper local planning. We are not against solar farms and we are not against the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; we just want a sense of fairness that local communities have a say in this and there is some sense of proportion.

I think I have said my bit. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and hope we have a very good and worthwhile debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I rise to take part in this very important debate on St George’s day and English affairs. I commend the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing the debate. I will say a bit more about the hon. Member later on, because I believe that he is a fine addition to this House and that he demonstrates patriotism in all that he does.

Before I do so and before I speak more generally about St George’s day, may I say that today we also meet in solemn remembrance and in proud celebration of 8 May 1945, 80 years ago, when the guns fells silent across Europe? Victory in Europe Day marked not just the end of a long and brutal war on our continent, but the triumph of courage, unity and unyielding resolve over tyranny. In Romford, Essex and across England, the church bells rang out, neighbours embraced and families paused to remember those who had lost loved ones, but also to welcome those who had returned. We remember the generation who faced that unimaginable darkness with unwavering bravery: the soldiers who fought on land, at sea and in the air; the families who endured the blitz; the workers and nurses who kept our nation going; and those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

Let us never forget that peace is not simply inherited, but earned, and it must be defended anew by each generation. As we reflect on Victory in Europe Day, we honour our past by committing to a future shaped by democracy, justice and international co-operation.

I pay tribute to my father, Frederick William Rosindell, who was an officer in the Royal Air Force during the second world war and flew transport planes. He also served in the Royal Canadian Air Force, with which he trained in Canada during the second world war. We owe so much to all my constituents and their loved ones who served during that conflict and gave us the freedom that we enjoy today. I was proud to be at the town hall in Romford today alongside the mayor of the London borough of Havering, Councillor Gerry O’Sullivan, to raise the VE flag in tribute to all those who served King, Queen and country and gave us the freedom that we sometimes but should never take for granted.

St George’s day runs deep. We should all celebrate the spirit of St George with great pride. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British heritage and of the Houses of Parliament branch of the Royal Society of Saint George—my deputy chair is none other than the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—I am so pleased that we are able to speak today in this general debate about our Englishness and all that it entails. The hon. Member spoke passionately about flag, country and people, and as far as I am concerned that sums everything up. I again thank him for everything that he does to promote British and English patriotism and respect for our heritage and traditions in this place and across the country. As I said earlier, he is a fine addition to the House of Commons.

Thanks to the kind permission of Mr Speaker, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and I hosted a parliamentary St George’s day reception in the state apartments in Speaker’s House on St George’s day on 23 April. That celebration brought together English music, food, wine and politicians to celebrate our country and all that is great about our heritage. I offer a special tribute to the band of the Romford Drum & Trumpet Corps, which played the fanfares on that day, and to Kerrie Kavanagh, who organised that.

I also offer a tribute to the wonderful pianist, Drew Steanson, who played English music on Mr Speaker’s grand piano in the state apartments, and to the outstanding opera singers, Terry Bosshard and Marie McLaughlin, who sang “Jerusalem” and the national anthem for us. I cannot possibly forget the Silverhand Estate winery in Kent, which donated the magnificent English sparkling wine. I also offer a tribute to all those who volunteered their time and effort to make it such a special annual occasion, which Mr Speaker hosts for us here in Parliament. I am pleased to let Members know that they will be able to avail themselves of the opportunity again next year, as Mr Speaker has already invited us to host another St George’s day reception.

I pay tribute to Nick Dutt, the chairman of the Royal Society of Saint George, for the work that he does, and to Cliff Trowse, the co-ordinator of the Houses of Parliament branch of the Royal Society of Saint George. I do not think I am meant to show props, but I will do so for one second if you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the foundation charter of our branch of the society here in Parliament, which was inaugurated on 23 April 2009. I invite all hon. Members of all parties and Members of the other place to join the Royal Society of Saint George here in Parliament to show support for England and our traditions and for the magnificent work of the society not only in this country, but throughout the world.

I also pay tribute to Tony Appleton, the magnificent town crier of Romford. He is also a royal town crier—he announces royal births outside Buckingham Palace—but he is the Romford town crier, and he was in Parliament on 23 April two weeks ago to ring the bell and announce the order of service for the day. Finally, of course, I pay tribute to Barry Hearn OBE, who kindly supported this year’s event so generously.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned some great people—national treasures, great figures in the culture and history of our country—but he forgot a few. I will mention one or two who regularly attend our St George’s day celebrations here in Parliament. Of course, we cannot forget Su Pollard, who comes to our St George’s day event most years, or Patti Boulaye OBE, who also attends and regularly sings for us in Speaker’s House. Finally, I would like to mention Vicki Michelle MBE—from “’Allo ’Allo”, of course. What better person to remember on this day of VE 80? I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; if you could convey our thanks to Mr Speaker for hosting that wonderful event, I would be grateful. I hope that hon. Members will join us next year.

Although the great feast day of St George, the patron saint of England and Englishness, is now celebrated with zeal in this place and in many towns and villages across our country, it is notable that in wider cultural and civic life the celebration of Englishness can sometimes be frowned on and English culture can even be demeaned by some. That is part of the reason for the existence of the Royal Society of Saint George, under royal patronage. It has the noble object of promoting Englishness and the English way of life, which I am proud to support as both a Member of Parliament and chairman of the society’s branch in the Houses of Parliament.

It is, however, important to note that the need for greater recognition and appreciation of England and her people runs beyond the level of culture, deep into the roots of our constitutional and devolutionary arrangements. Under the devolutionary arrangements enacted at the turn of the century, with pieces of legislation such as the Scotland Act 1998 that created the Scottish Parliament, regional parliaments were also created. For the first time in centuries, the unifying linchpin of these islands—the Crown in Parliament—seemed to have been wrenched out of place. It is demonstrably true that this has weakened the national unity of our nation and caused some regional, nationalistic and factionalised tendencies, which I believe run counter to Britain’s cultural, institutional and constitutional heritage. However, it is the reality we must operate in today, even if we do not relish it.

Perhaps the most intellectually consistent response would be to advocate for the reversal of devolution, but of course, there is unlikely to be such a political appetite today to do so. What must be acknowledged is that England, the most populous region with the biggest economy, is the only home nation not to have her own devolved Parliament. This has created a democratic deficit in which the proud people of England—such as those in my constituency of Romford, Essex—are left with the rich cultural heritage I outlined earlier but a rather diminished democratic voice.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Please spare us another Parliament.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend will know that I am a very strong supporter of this Parliament and this United Kingdom. I was not, of course, a Member of this House when devolution was introduced, but had I been here at the time, I most certainly would not have voted to break up our United Kingdom in the way that we have done by creating different Parliaments and Assemblies across the UK—including the London Assembly, which I would love to see abolished very soon.

English Devolution

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for securing a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue. The Government do not accept the one-size-fits-all argument any more than an argument that councillors work in some areas but not others, and that Members of Parliament work in some areas but not others. In the end, when given the powers and resources, mayors can achieve change in partnership with local leaders.

We are not creating super-councils. We are creating a strategic authority that will give power from this place downwards, giving councillors far more power. On how we will do it, I can say that in Lancashire, in our drive to widen devolution across the country, the principle is for foundation authorities; of course, Lancashire has already agreed to a level 2, which, in the White Paper, would be the equivalent of a foundation authority. In that sense, it already has devolution in place.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Government say that they want to end the top-down approach. How does that square with a district council such as West Lindsey in Lincolnshire being denied any say in massive solar farms or wind turbines? Will the Minister do me a favour and confirm that his aim is to pass more power back to district councils? Indeed, will he promise that he will not unilaterally abolish them just because we have a new mayor for Lincolnshire?

[Jim McMahon]

It would be a bit rude to diminish the powers of the Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire before they are in place, especially as I will move the order enabling the election to happen, and we want them to be a success. We could have taken a different view—it was a legacy agreement that was carried over from the general election—but I recognise genuinely that the leaders there, who are leaders of different parties from my own, worked in good faith to reach an agreement with the previous Government that we felt needed to be honoured. That needs to be the tone of all such conversations. We need to take party politics out of the conversation, which can be difficult to do in this place. Those are not the conversations that I have with council leaders and councillors across the country, who genuinely want to put party politics to one side and to work in the interests of their local community. On the question of power over local planning decisions, if local councils want power, they must have a plan.