Sir Edward Leigh

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 481

1. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Immigration: Earned Settlement

   The Home Secretary is right to say that government is about a social contract, and I can see where she is coming from. Some of us do not have amnesia. Many of us were putting this to our then Government in that period in 2023, and anybody who was serving as a Home Office Minister at that time should wear sackcloth and ashes. Frankly, as a party, we will never move on until we accept that—although there was a very difficult situation after covid. I still worry about a couple of things. I am still not entirely clear why, apart from political pressure, the Home Secretary is watering down her proposals from last time, if she is. I can see what she is trying to get at with care workers earning their right, but surely we should establish the firm principle that people have to have come here honestly to work in the care system and go on working. My last point is that I agree with her that, if people come here illegally, they should not be allowed to claim an indefinite right to stay until after 20 years, but are we going to have people in hotels for 20 years? Surely this underlines the fact that we have to arrest people, detain them and return them, otherwise there is no deterrent.

   Hansard source
2. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Budget Resolutions

   I agree with the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) about reindustrialisation, but we will not reindustrialise Scunthorpe in my neighbouring constituency by screwing it with the highest energy costs in Europe, and nor will we reindustrialise simply by exporting our carbon by importing oil. That is why we need to get on with Rosebank. I came to the House with a load of figures about the rising tide of debt, the tax burden rising to 38% of GDP and the £4.3 billion tax raid on landlords, but we know all those figures. What are we going to do about it? Traditionally, Governments—I have seen so many come and go—get the bad news out first. This Government still have three years to go, but I do not quite know why we have got over 100 tiny policy changes but are not actually fixing the fundamental problems now. We should get the bad news out now. A colleague told me today that actually the Prime Minister is being very shrewd about this: we live in a TikTok generation, so he can let out a little policy announcement every week to keep people happy and delay decisions. That may be good politics, but is it good government? We all know that society is breaking down because people feel that some are abusing the system. We had the statement this afternoon about legal and illegal migration, and we know how strongly people feel about that, but in working-class constituencies people feel strongly about so many abusing the system. They feel particularly strongly about young people who are not in work, education or training. I agree with the Government that we cannot solve that problem with what they call crude benefit cuts, but there has to be some balance; work and training have to be worthwhile. Therefore, we cannot dodge the issue of the amount and level of benefits paid to young people. I was reassured by the front page of <em>The Times</em> today, which said that the Government are looking at what is going on in the Netherlands. So, great, we will not have crude cuts, but we have got to get these young people into training, given medical help and helped into work. We need them to be not dismissed by the system in a tick-box exercise, filling in paper, but seen by a real person and helped into education or training—or, if they cannot get into that, some form of workfare. The trouble is that half the benefit bill is taken up with the state pension. For years, I have been one of the few people who has questioned the triple lock. It is amazing how Ministers defend the triple lock, but the moment they cease to be Ministers they say it is unaffordable. The Government have listened to all the economic advice, but eventually the triple lot will have to come to an end. Again, why delay it? The Government cannot imagine that getting rid of the triple lock will pay for the vast cost of a national care service—the NHS writ large. It would be better to say to pensioners—this is a fair deal, which I think they would accept—that their state pension should, as a proportion of the economy, stay roughly the same. We would not be bankrupting the nation, and the state pension would go up by how much the economy grows every year, which is fair.<span id="631" class="column-number" data-column-number="631"></span> If we want to save money, we do not want to delay these decisions till 2030. Surely what we need now is to get old and frail people out of expensive hospitals and into new cottage hospitals. They need not be in “all singing, all dancing”, hugely expensive private finance initiative hospitals. We should have more cottage hospitals where old people can be looked after, in a caring and loving way, and relieve the health service, if we are to save the national health service. On saving one thing, the average price of a house in my constituency is just £200,000, and what really upsets people is seeing how their whole inheritance, which they want to pass to their children, will go on care costs. Let us go back to the old idea of having a cap on the total amount paid for care. There is a way forward. I think we can work together to get young people back into work and training, and we can reassure old people that they will be looked after in their old age.

   Hansard source
3. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Strengthening Community Resilience

   In the early 1980s, along with other enthusiasts, I set up the National Council for Civil Defence, and worked with Willie Whitelaw. We achieved a major milestone in the form of the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986. The NCCD was taken over by the local government office as a serious organisation. When the cold war ended, the whole civil defence effort atrophied, because there was considered to be no threat. We now live in a very different world, so will the Minister make an attempt to improve our entire civil defence structure? There was a leaflet issued by the then Conservative Government called “Protect and Survive”. I know a war is very unlikely, but it is best to be prepared.

   Hansard source
4. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Small Boat Crossings: Removal of Arrivals

   Some people, including the Prime Minister, argue that the small boats crisis was caused by our leaving the EU. It started in 2018. In the two years before Brexit, only 289 small boat people were sent back under agreements. What is the solution? The only solution, surely, is to detain and deport. As the <span id="3" class="column-number" data-column-number="3"></span>Home Secretary will not leave the European convention on human rights, will she at least consider creating return hubs in a distant Council of Europe country, so that we can have a genuine deterrent?

   Hansard source
5. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   On a point of order, Ms Cummins. I have a question about the possible hybridity of this Bill. A hybrid Bill is when a Government Bill—a public Bill—is used to affect only one person. As we see in paragraph 13 of the explanatory notes, “The Prime Minister professes the Roman Catholic faith. He is therefore prevented from fulfilling his constitutional role”— exactly. The Bill is therefore specifically referring to one person. I know that in answer, Madam Deputy Speaker, you might say that this will also benefit Catholics and Jews in the future, but we have to deal with the situation as we find it now. We cannot deal with hypothetical issues. It is rather as if we had a Bill to address a condition that has affected only one person in the past 500 years. Of course, we have not had a Catholic Prime Minister for 500 years. Indeed, there was not a Prime Minister who was Catholic 500 years ago; there was not even a Prime Minister 500 years ago. The chance is therefore vanishingly small that in the immediate future, this Bill will be activated. Of course, I never try to cause trouble, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am not asking for an answer now, but I think it is a moot point that you might ask your Clerks to investigate.

   Hansard source
6. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   Surely it will remain on the statute book that a member of the royal family cannot marry a Roman Catholic and inherit the Crown?

   Hansard source
7. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   Before I begin my speech, I had better declare an interest, because I know it is not widely known that I am a Roman Catholic. I do not oppose the Bill. The discrimination that we suffered for centuries was absolutely horrible. It was not discrimination as we understand it in the modern world—my direct ancestor, the blessed Richard Leigh, was hung, drawn and quartered simply for denying that Elizabeth I should be the head of the Church in England. Obviously, I welcome anything that ends discrimination. However, I hope the Minister will forgive me if I make a few points to try to find out why he is moving this Bill now. Obviously, it is because we have a Catholic Prime Minister, but as the Opposition spokesman said, there has been little enthusiasm for such legislation until now. If we are to have such a Bill, particularly when there are many other pressing matters, it should achieve something, but this Bill will change absolutely nothing. Although in theory one name is pushed across the Prime Minister’s desk, when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister he effectively ended the veto. The last time the veto was exercised was by Tony Blair, shortly after the 1997 election when he objected to two candidates to be Bishop of Liverpool. John Major exercised his power on one occasion, I think. As hon. Members might expect, Mrs Thatcher viewed the process with immense enthusiasm and exercised her power rather more regularly. If we are to have a Bill, it has to achieve something, but frankly this power of the Prime Minister has fallen into abeyance. That did not occur in the past. As we have heard, in the 19th century Prime Ministers viewed this part of their job as having great importance—we have heard about Gladstone—but it was worse than that. It was not that they were simply trying to appoint the best people to the job; they viewed their role as entirely political. Those of us who love Trollope will know the novel “Barchester Towers”. The central plot is that the Government change and the candidate—I forget now whether he was a Whig or a Tory—is promptly prevented from taking up a bishopric. Viscount Palmerston packed the bishops’ Bench with low-church evangelicals. Given that there were 26 bishops in the House of Lords and therefore they had important political power, successive Prime Ministers deliberately packed the episcopal Bench with their appointments, which caused some upset. To heed the lessons of 19th century history—a fascinating subject—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Ah, I see the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) wishes to intervene.

   Hansard source
8. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   That is a very interesting point of view from our Reform colleague. It is interesting to think that at some future date the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might appoint bishops, but we will see—it may or may not happen.

   Hansard source
9. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

   My wife is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. <em>[</em><em>Laughter</em><em>.</em><em>]</em> The Oxford movement of the 1830s was established precisely because faithful Anglicans grew disturbed that a secularised, reformed Parliament that included non-Anglicans held absolute power over the doctrine and leadership of the Church of England. Indeed, the House of Commons historically had an enormous interest in the matter—there were huge debates in the 1920s over the nature of the prayer book, and these Benches were packed with people who were interested. What a pity that these wonderful debates do not attract similar attention. In his many reflections on the relationship between Church and state, Cardinal Newman, who was central to the Oxford movement during his time as an Anglican earlier in life, feared that the state would reduce the Church to nothing more than a Department of Government.

   Hansard source
10. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

    We of course have to reflect changes in society. I have made the point that this measure will make no practical difference, so I wonder why it is really necessary. My other point is that it would be extremely unwise and would dig up past controversies if any Catholic Prime <span id="1178" class="column-number" data-column-number="1178"></span>Minister were to appoint an Anglican bishop. I hear what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) says, but I do not think it makes sense for somebody who is an atheist, like Keir Starmer, or a Hindu or a Catholic to appoint an Anglican bishop. I just cannot see the logic in that. Frankly, the practice has been discontinued, and it will not happen again.

    Hansard source