Call for General Election

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

“You lot”? Not me, thank you very much.

I will not impose a time limit, but Members can see that quite a lot of people want to speak, so I am sure they will be considerate to colleagues and will focus on the petition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Hurley]

They were lied to inadvertently.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member must withdraw that comment.

[Patrick Hurley]

I will withdraw it, but does the right hon. Gentleman respect the vote in 1975 on the exact same thing—staying in the European Community, as it was—which was overturned 41 years later? In every Parliament, at every moment, some people want change and others do not. Some want more spending and others do not. Some want radical reform and others want stability. The fact of merely wanting something to happen does not constitute a constitutional imperative. If it did, the Government would be paralysed. We would lurch endlessly from one election to the next, just like we did at the end of the last decade, incapable of governing because the Government were perpetually campaigning. That is evidence not of a democracy that works, but of a democracy that is failing, just like it failed in 2017 and 2019, and just like it failed when the Conservative party was partying while members of the royal family were dying.

An election is not a comfort blanket to be demanded whenever politics becomes difficult or the previous Government’s chickens come home to roost. There is a tendency in debates such as this to treat an election as though it is some kind of harmless release valve. It is not. A general election is disruptive, expensive and all-consuming. It stalls legislation, freezes decision making and turns Parliament in on itself. That is necessary at the right moment, but it is not something to be done after 18 months simply because people have run out of patience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I am going to have to launch a cyber-security inquiry, because the hon. Gentleman has clearly hacked my notes. [Laughter.] I entirely agree with him and pay tribute to him, because he is a consistent and passionate advocate for proportional representation, as am I. That is something on which we can agree.

Actually, some people said they signed the petition because they would like to see proportional representation, because they feel the current Government do not represent the views of the country. Of course, many people meant that critically, but it also reflects the simple numerical fact that we have a voting system that gave a majority to a party that won 33.7% of the vote on the lowest turnout in 24 years. It would of course be unrealistic to even hope that such a Government could represent the views of the country, because they are so far below representing what at least 50% of people think.

Absent our changing the culture of this place so that we have more listening and sharing of ideas, I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) that we need proportional representation to create a structure to enable that. We could have a long debate about what forms proportional representation could take, but I think people would find that even more dull than anything else. However, proportional representation would enshrine the idea of more than one party having to co-operate, compromise, listen and engage in order to form a broad-based and more representative Government.

I also feel that we need to get back to the idea of fixed-term Parliaments. It was perhaps a matter of regret or irony that the time when we did have fixed-term Parliaments was one of some of the greatest political turmoil that this country has had, but that does not mean that the idea is not sound. It is not right that a Prime Minister of whatever party affiliation should be able to treat the country like a political casino, choosing on a whim when to have a general election. That does not help serious policy or long-term thinking over those four or five years. Instead, a fixed-term Parliament would give everybody clarity on how long a Government are in—absent some particularly drastic circumstances, obviously. It would be good for the economy, good for the markets and good for that Government themselves. It would certainly be good for the civil servants and people who have to enact the instructions of that Government.

We also need reform to political finances. Thankfully, we are a long way from the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in every special election in the United States, but it is still important that large financial interests are not able to have a disproportionate influence on our politics—or at least not without proper transparency and declarations. More is therefore needed to strengthen the role of the Electoral Commission.

We also need a media landscape that is fuelled by facts and respectful discussion of views, rather than misinformation and the screaming that happens between people of different views on social media. That is also important, and comes through creating better politics.

While I agree with a lot of the criticisms of the Government that have led to my constituents signing this petition, instead of a general election now, I hope that the Government will reflect—and I hope to hear from the Minister on this—on what else we can do to restore or build up people’s faith in politics, and have a much more broad-based political system. Who knows? Maybe, this afternoon, the Minister will have a damascene conversion to proportional representation. I look forward to finding out.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I thank you for a cerebral speech, which will probably do you no good at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury]

Absolutely. I could not agree more. Knocking on doors during the general election campaign I was struck by my constituents who, contrary to what we might think when we see opinion polls that, particularly these days, waver quite dramatically, really wanted us to knuckle down and focus on tackling in a four or five-year term the long-term issues that we know are there in our country and need to be tackled.

When I was preparing for this debate I wondered where Prime Ministers of yesteryear were after 18 months into their tenure, so I had a look. Margaret Thatcher, who I will never praise but who it is fair to say did make decisions with a belief in doing the right thing rather than the popular thing, was 13% behind in the polls in December 1980. John Major was 22% behind. Tony Blair was 28% ahead, happily undermining my point, but Gordon Brown was 7% behind and David Cameron a few per cent behind. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was 23% behind, and just a month later decided to call a general election. Few Governments enjoy widespread support 18 months into their time in office, but few have addressed as rapidly an inheritance like the one this Government were left just 18 months ago. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I quite enjoy a bit of positivity. Blue Monday is just around the corner, but anyone listening to some of the contributions in this debate might be mistaken in thinking that it is today.

The reality is that after a year of Labour, our NHS has received a £29 billion boost in funding. That translated into more than 5 million additional appointments, which, contrary to the talk of broken promises, was more than double what we promised in our manifesto. We secured a £400 million investment to boost clinical trials, improving NHS services and driving growth, and we brought 1,000 GPs into the workforce. I worked in a supporting role in general practice before I came into this place, and I know the difference that that investment is already making. One thousand practices are being modernised, including Chadsmoor medical practice, Rawnsley surgery and Red Lion surgery in my constituency. In the Budget, the Chancellor also froze prescription charges, and we are opening 250 new neighbourhood health centres so that our constituents can get treated closer to home.

Perhaps more than anything else, the NHS is a prime example of the cost of short termism and the lack of investment in our public services that we saw under the previous Government, and the progress that this Government are making in short order. NHS satisfaction figures, much like opinion polls, reflect the fact that we have a long way to go, but we have made rapid progress towards rebuilding.

In my part of the world and in many other coalfield communities, our retired mineworkers who powered this country and did one of the most dangerous jobs anyone can do were ignored for 14 years. But within 18 months of this Labour Government, members of both the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme won the pension justice that they had fought so long for. With the transfer of £2.3 billion to members of the BCSSS and £1.5 billion to the MPS, another historic injustice so dismissively overlooked under the previous Government has been righted under this Government.

On transport, for the first time since the 1990s we have frozen rail fares, which will help millions of our constituents save money. Last year, the Government confirmed backing for the improved M54-M6 link road, which will directly benefit commuters in Cannock Chase. The Bus Services Act 2025 will give transport authorities the ability to seize the opportunities of franchising and council-owned bus companies. On education, a quarter of children in my constituency are on free school meals—significantly above the national average—so I am proud that we are rolling out free breakfast clubs across the country, making sure children go to school nourished and ready to learn.

The Government also announced funding for 300 new nurseries, including Heath Hayes primary academy in my constituency, which opened the doors of its new nursery back in September. Recently, we scrapped the two-child benefit cap. Although Opposition Members might disagree with lifting thousands of children in my towns and villages, and 550,000 children across the country, out of poverty, I think it solves another stain on our country and is an investment in the future long-term success of our country.

We have announced homes for heroes, which will ensure that our veterans, as well as domestic abuse survivors and care leavers, get a roof over their heads—something that we have acted quickly on when nothing of the sort was done under the previous Government in 14 years, let alone 18 months. Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that I do not plan to list all of this Government’s achievements—time is far too short for that—but I am sure many of my colleagues will be able to expand. Looking into this year, by March we will have more police on our streets, and by April more health hubs and an average of £150 off energy bills, with much more to come.

Positive change takes time. We know that from many decades of history in this House and in town halls up and down this country. Labour was elected with a resounding victory, a large majority and a mandate to make decisions that turn this country around. Anybody looking at our manifesto can see a vision of what Britain will look like by the time we get to the next general election. That is how our political system works. That is how British Governments have always been judged; they get four or five years and then the public have their say. That is true of our activities as individual MPs—the only people who can speak up for the communities that we represent in this place. In my first 18 months, I am proud to have spoken more than 110 times on a huge range of topics. That is more than seven times what my predecessor managed in her final 18 months representing the people of Cannock Chase. I have held surgeries in villages that have never had an MP offer face-to-face appointments, and I hope to be able to continue that for many years to come.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I remind colleagues that this is a debate about a general election, so we want to keep it focused on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

I am not quite sure. I make about 400 quid a month from being on X. That is not exactly the “gotcha” answer the hon. Gentleman expected to that question, but I make no bones about it: I make money from X, and I pay about 45% tax on the money I make, which goes to the Treasury.

Let us not forget another flagship scheme of the Labour party: building brand-new social housing for illegal migrants who come over the channel. Meanwhile, we have a million Brits stuck on the council house waiting list. Yet anybody who calls that out—anybody who disagrees with that lot over there on the Labour Benches—is labelled a far-right racist.

It would be fair to say that every family in this country has been affected by this Labour Government, but not in a good way. We have all had enough of it. We are fed up to the back teeth of them. Let us discuss the Cabinet, starting with the Prime Minister, whose first instinct is to prioritise foreign judges over British people. We have an Attorney General who agrees with the European Court of Human Rights when it blocks foreign rapists and murderers from being deported. We have a Chancellor who does not understand the first thing about economic growth. We have an Energy Secretary who is killing our manufacturing sector with his net zero madness. We have an Education Secretary who says nothing about the radicalisation of our children by left-wing teachers.

We have a Justice Secretary who once said that Brexiteers were worse than Nazis. Mind you, Sir Edward, that is not the daftest thing he has said; just go on YouTube and have a look at his contributions on “Mastermind”—hilarious. We have a Foreign Secretary who is giving away British sovereign territory and making us pay billions of pounds for the privilege. We have a Health Secretary who is ploughing ahead with giving children life-destroying hormone blockers. Worst of all, as a result of this Government we have radical Islamists, former Labour voters—and some politicians—waiting in the wings ready to stand for Parliament at the next election in once-safe Labour seats. Most of the Labour MPs in this Chamber are going to go—they will be on the dole.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

For a calming speech, I call Peter Prinsley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I do not agree at all with the basic rate income taxpayer having to pay an additional £220 this year. I do not think the vast majority of the country—including many of my constituents—voted for a tax rise of £64 billion over the last two Budgets to fund things that were not even in the Labour party’s manifesto, such as digital IDs, the Chagos deal and the raising of employer national insurance, which, as I have indicated, has had a huge impact on many of my constituents.

The reality is that in areas such as Braithwaite, Bracken Bank, Oxenhope, Haworth, Stanbury and Oakworth in my constituency, and across the country, people were promised one thing and clearly got another. They have seen chaos and U-turns, and most of all, the effect of Labour’s policies are hitting hard-working people across my constituency. The message to the Government is this: get a grip and start delivering for those hard-working people. Be in no doubt, the public will not forgive, and they will not forget.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind colleagues that the focus of this debate is not a general critique of the Government, or indeed a general defence of the Government. The focus of this debate is on whether or not there should be a general election.

Digital ID

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. As you may have noticed, there are huge numbers of Members trying to speak. I will have to impose a three-minute speech limit. We will try and get everybody in, but the more interventions there are, the more people simply will not get in. Perhaps you could all bear that in mind, please.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I will keep my intervention very short, Sir Edward. An unheard-of 4,400 of my constituents signed this petition. They are very clear that they do not want the imposition—which is what it will be—of digital ID. As we heard from my hon. Friend’s history lesson, time and again it has been the Conservatives who have said, “No, we do not want this. The British people do not want it.” Is it not time that this Government sat up and listened to the public for a change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The mover of the debate must make progress.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

I will be very brief. My constituency is in rural Wiltshire, where a huge number of residents have taken part in this petition. Does the hon. Member agree that digital exclusion is a reality in areas like mine?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I will have to impose an immediate three-minute limit. The more interventions there are, the fewer Members will get in.

I can see a number of senior Members in the “standing room only” section. If you are standing and want to speak, you must put your hand up. If called, you must come forward to a microphone and try to find a place—I can see Damian Hinds putting his hand up, very helpfully. I call Melanie Onn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I call Jeremy Corbyn. Can you come forward to a microphone, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley]

Is the hon. Member proposing that the police should have the right to demand access to the digital ID to prove right to work on the spot? [Interruption.]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The Doorkeeper must remove that person from the Public Gallery immediately. [Interruption.] Don’t just stand there!

[Martin Wrigley]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think that the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) has just asked for the police to have the right to demand digital ID on the spot—therefore, “Papers, please.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Simons]

To be very clear about right-to-work checks: the current system is not fit for purpose. The United Kingdom is out of whack with international peers, and that creates the perception that we have a weak, illegal labour market regime. I am sure that the shadow Minister would not be against toughening up enforcement against illegal working. On the broader benefits of digital ID, in the future economy and state that we need to build, a free digital credential to which every citizen has access is a vital foundational public good for everything that we want our Government and our state to do in the 15 to 20 years ahead. I am proud that this Government are taking on the task of building it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

5. Whether the Prime Minister has had discussions with the Chinese Government on the proposed Chinese embassy.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)]

The decision to call in the planning application for the proposed Chinese embassy was made by the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), in line with the current policy on call-in. The decision is subject to a quasi-judicial process and independent from the rest of Government. No private assurances have been given to the Chinese Government regarding the embassy application.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the prayers of long-dead medieval monks save us from this hideous mega-embassy, right next to the most totemic building in the United Kingdom, the Tower of London? On 14 January, the then Secretaries of State for the Home Office and the Foreign Office wrote a letter insisting that a condition be made that there should be a wall and public access to the Cistercian medieval monastery on the site. The Chinese, in their arrogant way, are ignoring that. Will the Government stand firm and insist on public access—which, by the way, would be a good way of stopping this awful project?

[Dan Jarvis]

I can say to the Father of the House that national security is the first duty of this Government, and has been a core priority throughout this process. We have considered the breadth of national security considerations and have publicly outlined the necessary security mitigations that we need in order to support an application. Should the planning decision be approved, the new embassy will replace the seven different sites that currently comprise China’s diplomatic estate.

G20 and Ukraine

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has done a pretty good job of getting close to President Trump. Can he convince the tyrant bear that to reward him with land he has already taken would be bad enough, but it would be utterly egregious and appalling to allow him—the ruthless bear—to take land he has not even taken yet, in fortress Donbas? That would make Ukraine utterly defenceless, just as we allowed Czechoslovakia to be utterly defenceless when we forced it to give up the Sudetenland 85 years ago.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Member. The very idea of negotiating land that has not been taken in nearly four years of a conflict and has cost tens of thousands of lives is so obviously unacceptable that it should not be put forward or seen as a serious proposition. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Many thousands of our brave troops served in Northern Ireland, and many gave their lives for peace and for our country. Does the Secretary of State agree that they deserve a permanent memorial, not for some of them to be prosecuted?

[Hilary Benn]

As I indicated in an earlier answer, there is already a memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum. There are other places in which the service and sacrifice of those who served the state is recorded, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary memorial garden, which I had the opportunity to visit. It was extremely moving to look at all the names and remember the huge sacrifice that all those people made in the defence of freedom in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Q10. Given all the hatreds there are in the world today, was it not a lovely moment to see the King and the Pope pray together in the Sistine chapel? Does it not give us hope that these historic divisions can be resolved? Does it not give us hope that, despite the fact that Ukraine and Gaza may seem intractable problems, if we have the will to preserve the freedom of all people to live in their own country, and if we have the will to have faith in our common humanity, these problems can be resolved and we can win through?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. I thought that the King and the Pope praying together sent an incredible message to the world and was very powerful. I agree that if we all work together, we can bring people together, notwithstanding the very many difficulties and challenges around the world and in our own country. It is why we should, so far as we can, unite on national patriotic renewal in this country, rather than have the toxic division we see from some on the Benches opposite.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not only for his question but for his previous service and for the work of his constituents with regard to underpinning our national security. He makes an important point. He will know—as will you, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the National Protective Security Authority recently published guidance designed specifically to provide hon. Members with advice and guidance to ensure that they are best able to deal with the risks and threats that all of us in this House face.

On the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, that is something that the Government take incredibly seriously. We inherited the defending democracy taskforce from the previous Government. That was a good institution, and I have on many occasions paid tribute to all those Conservatives Members who were involved in setting it up. The Prime Minister has renewed the mandate of the defending democracy taskforce. It is the fulcrum point across Government that brings the different Departments and law enforcement together, alongside Members of this House, to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to address and tackle the threats that we face. I have always believed and maintained that that should be a shared endeavour right across this House, and my door will always be open to Members of the House who would like to discuss it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I rather thought that, in a civilised country, whether or not someone was prosecuted depended on the evidence. Was it therefore wise for the witness statement to replicate—word for word—the words of the Labour party manifesto, and has it ever happened before?

[Dan Jarvis]

I always appreciate the Leader of the House’s questions—[Hon. Members: “Father of the House!”] Forgive me. I always appreciate the Father of the House’s questions because he brings a long-standing wisdom and perspective to these matters. I hope he will understand that, in line with the point that he made about civility, it is not for Ministers to critique the decision that was made by the CPS. The Government have made it clear to the House on many occasions that this was an independent decision that was taken by the CPS, and the DPP has been clear about the fact that no special adviser and no Minister interfered in that process.

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Obviously, this is too important for party politics; it is a matter of national security against an existential threat from China. The Prime Minister was clear yesterday when he said that no Minister would ever apply pressure to the CPS, and I completely believe him. But we would like to have clarity that Ministers had no discussions with civil servants and then subsequently civil servants with the CPS. We want to be absolutely clear that there was no ministerial involvement at all.

[Chris Ward]

That is absolutely my understanding.

Speaker’s Statement

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As a Conservative, I want to join our Liberal friends in paying tribute to such a gallant and charming gentleman. His least successful period in this House was probably as leader of his party—perhaps he was just too nice; perhaps he could see both sides of the question—but what a great man and what a great foreign affairs spokesman. Following on from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the whole episode of the Iraq war was so difficult for us in this House, particularly for those of us who broke with our party to oppose it. He gave us leadership and rigour, and he has been proved right. Of course, there are no prizes for being proved right, but history will prove him right.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I stand here as a friend of Ming’s, but also as the current representative of his seat. I know how much he felt the privilege of being elected to this House for 28 years as the representative for North East Fife. I also know the very high regard in which he was held in the constituency. All I have had—both myself and the MSP for the constituency, Willie Rennie, who was previously a Member of this place—are very kind thoughts from constituents and stories about Ming that we have taken to our hearts.

He first stood for Parliament in Greenock in 1974. Greenock is my hometown. I was quite reassured, when I was first engaging with Ming, that we at least had something in common. What the Prime Minister said was right: he had the opportunity to switch to other parties, but he chose not to. Although he first stood in 1974, it took until 1987 before he was elected in North East Fife. That shows the spirit and determination he had as an individual, but also the work he did to build the constituency and build the local party.

I have had lots of thoughts from the local party, too. One of them I thought would be worth sharing with the House. Shortly after his election, which was a close contest against the sitting Conservative MP, they decided to take a celebratory boat trip out to the Isle of May to see the puffins. Unfortunately, the boat broke down on the way. Ming and Elspeth kept everybody calm. It was interesting that even people who did not vote for him came out and rescued the boat. [Laughter.] That was the respect with which he was regarded.

In his tribute, my constituency colleague Willie Rennie said that Ming had had three careers: politics, law and, obviously, sport. He was a parliamentarian, he was a KC, he was an Olympian and he was a Companion of Honour. If any of us can aspire to the great heights that Ming reached, that is worth aspiring to. The Prime Minister also mentioned his chancellorship of the University of St Andrews, which he held for 19 years. I know that those at the university are very sad at his loss and passing. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and I visited the university last week to meet them and discuss Ming.

I will finish with some personal memories. He was a great support to me, but I do remember, when I was running for the selection in 2018, that there was a constituency lunch in North East Fife. One of the members who was supportive of my candidacy made sure that I was sat at the same table as Elspeth, because I was assured that if I could get Elspeth onside, Ming would surely follow. Since I was elected, we would meet every so often. Every month, we would have a cup of tea and a scone in the Pugin Room, and he would tell me all the things that I needed to be doing. The Secretary of State for Defence is not here, but Ming would always ask me, right up until the last time I saw him, about Leuchars and what the strategic defence review meant, and talk about how important defence was for him and the constituency.

There is no doubt that the loss of Elspeth was devastating and he was never quite the same. I think everybody would accept that when we saw him here, but really up until those last weeks, he, although very frail, was absolutely still there and we had many great conversations. I saw him just the week before he died, and it did feel like a “goodbye” conversation. I know that he will be much missed across this House, and I am very grateful for all the tributes that have been paid to him.

Middle East

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Beneath all the peace rhetoric, the brutal Hamas regime were openly executing people yesterday, and refused to give up their weapons. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that he is going to remove them by force if necessary, and he refuses to accept a state in the west bank. It may be naive, but cannot both sides of the House unite in saying that we are absolutely, completely committed to creating a Palestinian state in the west bank? That is their God-given right and it is the only way we are going to end the cycle of despair and violence.

[The Prime Minister]

That sounds like the old Tory party I used to know, and I am really pleased to hear it. In a sense, it is only by uniting across this House in the face of a conflict that has gone on for far too long, and by being clear-eyed about the only way there can be peace that is lasting, that we will be able to play a full part as a country in bringing that about. I welcome the old tone and the old content that I just heard.