Rejoining the EU

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Vaughan, a very large number of people want to take part in the debate, and I am endeavouring to get in everybody who wants to give a speech. Perhaps you might bear that in mind before taking too many interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. A large number of colleagues wish to take part in the debate—I see very many Labour MPs—and I want to accommodate you all, so I am afraid that I will have to impose a four-minute limit on speeches. I remind you that we have worked that out so that everybody can get in, so the more interventions you take, the more likely you are to be stopping a colleague getting in and giving a speech that they have written so carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The AI that the hon. Lady used to write her speech is the benefit of Brexit, and we all benefit enormously from the UK’s leadership in this enormous sector. We attract as much investment in our AI sector as the whole EU27 combined. That is what divergence looks like, and that is what growth looks like.

What is happening is that the EU—and I am afraid the Government—is deliberately locking the United Kingdom into its regulatory system, so that it becomes increasingly apparent that there will be no opportunity to leave. [Interruption.] I am very unclear about the speech times, Sir Edward. Have I gone over?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

There is something wrong with the clock.

[Danny Kruger]

I have pages and pages to go, but I will end on this point. The opportunity remains for the United Kingdom to prosper from the tremendous decision that the British people took 10 years ago. Because of poor Government choices, made under the Conservatives and Labour, the United Kingdom is suffering. However, the answer is not to take a step back into the EU.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I hope we do not have a Brexit clock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the petitioners, including hundreds of my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon, for bringing the important issue of EU membership to Parliament for discussion. As someone who came to the United Kingdom from Italy as a student and who has benefited personally from European co-operation and the UK’s ties with Europe, I know at first hand the opportunities that being in the EU gave us, our country and our young people. It pains me to see how poorer and worse off our country has become since leaving the EU. As I have argued before, for our prosperity, our young people and our place in the world, it is important that, in an increasingly hostile environment, where Governments around the world attack the rules-based international order and allow democratic backsliding and repression, the EU has always been a beacon of rights, co-operation and defence.

The economic evidence for rejoining is becoming increasingly clear. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that post-Brexit trading arrangements will leave the UK economy about 4% smaller in the long run. Research by the Centre for European Reform suggests that the impact may already be even greater; it estimates that UK GDP is around 5% to 5.5% lower and investment more than 10% lower due to Brexit. That weaker growth is costing the Exchequer tens of billions of pounds in lost tax revenues every year.

That matters to our communities because there is less money to spend on our public services, our NHS, our armed forces, our creative sector and our high streets. Stratford-on-Avon is home to hundreds of small and medium-sized businesses, many of which depend directly or indirectly on exports or on European supply chains, manufacturing, agriculture, food production, hospitality and tourism. When trade barriers increase, it means more paperwork, higher costs and reduced competitiveness for local firms. Frankly, my constituents would be horrified to hear what the Conservative Benches come out with. The economic and political damage of Brexit is plain to see, but my deepest upset is with politicians who in 2016 enabled a hard Brexit and the loss of life-changing opportunities for our young British people. I made the case that our schools, university researchers and businesses all benefit when we work closely with our European partners. We now must act in the national interest. That means rebuilding trust with our European neighbours and reducing barriers to trade, whether that is via a customs union or access to the single market.

Bold Liberal Democrat policies have been announced: restoring opportunities for young people, maybe through a youth experience scheme, and strengthening research and innovation. That also means making a positive, evidence-based case for joining the EU again—the biggest trading bloc in the world here on our continent. We must be brave and bold, and we must give the British people the option, once the terms are known, to shape their future once again.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I call Dr Zubir Ahmed. Not here. Is Daniel Zeichner here?

International Update

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister forgive me if I put some words in his mouth? Does he think this is a reasonable statement: “Look, I have been elected by my MPs to serve a full term of government. I am going to get on with bread-and-butter issues, such as the care system, pensions and asylum. Of course, we like a good, close relationship with our partners on security in Europe, but”—this is the Prime Minister speaking—“I say this to the people: I am very wary about reopening the whole Brexit wars. There were years of harrowing negotiations and an even worse deal. I give an absolute commitment that I will not seek to join the EU unless there is a general election first and I offer the British people a full referendum”?

[The Prime Minister]

May I say to the Father of the House that I stand by every single one of those words? I am not reopening the referendum; I respect the referendum result, as I just said a moment ago. What I will do is take a pragmatic approach when I can boost growth in the British economy and when I can increase co-operation to get a grip on boat crossings across the channel. I will do those things where I believe they can be in the country’s best interests. The deal that I have inherited coming into office represents an opportunity to secure progress on both those things. The case I am putting to the House this afternoon is that it is a dereliction of duty for any Member to turn away from that possibility, when we can support the food industry, we can support farmers, and we can get Britain growing more strongly again. Our responsibility in this House is to serve this country’s best interests, and that is what I will do.

Direction of Government

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he said about Ukraine and on how he conducted himself there? Our enemies should know that this House is completely and utterly united in standing behind the Ukrainian people. That was the most powerful part of his statement, precisely because we are working together, so may I encourage him in that direction? We all know that we are under mortal threat, that we must increase the defence budget and that the decisions to pare back the bloated welfare bill are extremely difficult, so why does he not take up the offer of the Leader of the Opposition to deal with this, to meet our international commitments, to reduce dependency, to ensure that we are living within our means, to work together and to do this now? “Action this day.”

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the Father of the House for what he said about Ukraine. I saw the sincerity with which he said it, and I appreciate it. It was important for me to make the journey last week. I know it was appreciated by President Zelensky, and he asked me to relay to this House and beyond how much he and the Ukrainian people appreciate the support that we have provided. We will continue to do so for as long as it takes.

On meeting our defence commitments and bringing down the welfare bill, I cannot defend a position where too many people in their 20s are on benefits, but what I say is, “Why is that the case?” I do not believe we have an education system that is setting up all young people for success. There is more that we can do to give young people work-related opportunity at 16, and there is more support we can provide for their mental health. Those are the approaches that we can take, I hope with cross-party support, to set our young people up for life, invest in their success and bring down the welfare bill in a sustainable way.

Historical Forced Adoption

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing her personal experience—it is obvious how hard that is. To say out loud, in a Chamber like this, things that are intensely personal and private, full of pain and grief, is really difficult. It is hard for some of us to comprehend just how difficult that must be, so I salute her courage and resilience, and all those who have spoken out. To have to speak out about something that is so intensely difficult over and over again is incredibly, incredibly demanding, but I hope there can be comfort not only in that you have been seen and heard because of it but in the fact that others will have the courage too to speak out about what happened to them. I thank her in that regard as well. We must keep up the support and the dialogue, and we will. I thank my hon. Friend again for her remarks.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I agree with everything that the Prime Minister has said, and I join him in his apology. Of course, while historical misdeeds—and these are misdeeds—have got to be condemned, individuals have to be judged by the standards and morality of their own time, not ours. We have to bear that in mind. But I will say this: those of us who claim to be of religious persuasion should remember that our religion should be one not of judgment but of love, and that love should extend to everybody—young mothers, babies, and every frail person—from the very beginning of life to the very end.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, his welcoming of the report and his comments about love. I have to confess that I do not entirely agree with what he said about judging people by the standards of the day. I understand the point that he makes, but I think that something as visceral as this is wrong according to any standards—then and now. I am not disrespecting the point that he makes, but I just personally feel quite strongly that to dehumanise someone in this way is hard to explain—whenever it happened, whatever the standards in place. Otherwise, I agree with everything he said.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am not hiding from the fact that we have to make changes to the appointments process. Indeed, the Government have changed the process for all direct ministerial appointments to make sure that due diligence and national security vetting have to take place prior to appointment. It is absolutely right that that change was made.

Let me turn to the process. The process that was followed was obviously a significant one in order to publish such a large volume of material. When I was at the Dispatch Box on 4 February, I committed to publishing material in scope of the motion—bar that which the Intelligence and Security Committee agreed would be prejudicial to national security and international relations.

At this point, I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee. Members who were in the House that day might recall that even as I was speaking in the Chamber I was making the case for the involvement of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I know that it was not a small undertaking for the Committee. A huge amount of time has been spent on this, and I am very grateful to the Committee’s members for their very careful and—it looks to me—painstaking work in going through the volume of documentation.

On 4 February, and indeed since, Members have raised a range of issues, and it is absolutely right that the Government are held to account on those. As Members will have seen from the material that was published on Monday, the Government have acted on the House’s request for transparency to an extraordinary extent.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On Monday, I asked a question to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister about the fact that it is extraordinary that there appeared to be no WhatsApp or text messages from the Prime Minister—that was the information available to us at the time. We now know that there are no text messages from the Prime Minister to Mandelson after a few days after the general election, and the WhatsApp messages have totally disappeared.

The answer I got on Monday from the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister was slightly disingenuous, I have to say. He said that Prime Ministers do not operate in this way. Rather like Mr Gladstone, they sit at the Cabinet table and men in frock coats bring them papers. It is complete rubbish. We know that the Prime Minister must have been using WhatsApp all the time. To use disappearing WhatsApp messages is contrary to what the covid inquiry suggested, and it is quite contrary to transparency.

I say to the Paymaster General that these scandals are made much worse by any hint of a cover-up. Everybody knows that a mistake was made, and people are very forgiving of the Prime Minister if he has made a mistake. What they are not forgiving of is some sort of cover-up, where numerous text messages and WhatsApp messages have suddenly vanished.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I think some Conservative Members would be quite happy to have Gladstonian principles in government.

I really do reject the point about a cover-up, and I reject it for this reason: this process was quite rightly driven by and led by officials without political interference, working with the Intelligence and Security Committee—a cross-party Committee that is very well respected across this House. Not a single redaction in those documents came about because of a ministerial decision, and that is simply because we have not played that part in the process—and neither should we have done, so I completely reject the idea of a cover-up.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As far as the House of Commons generally is concerned, this statement is fairly meaningless, because it is impossible to ask questions about hundreds of pages, having had a few minutes to read them. So many general debates are damp squibs, so will the Minister undertake to answer every single question that has been put to him by the time he opens the debate on Wednesday?

[Darren Jones]

indicated assent.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I see that he is nodding; that is very helpful. In my experience, these scandals are always made much worse by any covering up, so I am sure that the Minister will want to be completely open. I listened to the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and it is strange that the Prime Minister seems to have so little involvement in this whole affair. I am reminded of the wartime film, “The Man Who Never Was”. Does that sum up this premiership—the man who never was?

[Darren Jones]

I look forward to engaging with the right hon. Gentleman in the general debate on Wednesday, in which, of course, I commit to the House that I will do my best to answer questions that are put to me. On the Prime Minister’s communications, I point out to the House that Prime Ministers do not sit at computers, sending emails from Outlook. They have officials who action their decisions on their behalf, and that is what is represented in the disclosure.

Middle East

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister may recall that on day one of this war, I supported his defensive attitude to it and said that we could not change the regime from the air. We agreed and he has been proved right, but—with apologies to Leon Trotsky —we may not be interested in war, but war is interested in us. We all agree that we have to rapidly re-arm, but the trouble is that with an ever-increasing proportion of our economy being taken up by the state pension and benefits, perhaps we cannot afford to do so. Will the Prime Minister work with the Leader of the Opposition to take the necessary—perhaps unpopular—decisions to return defence spending to what we spent in 1989 at the end of the cold war?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member is right to raise this, and we have already raised defence spending, as he knows, in the most significant way since the cold war. I was clear in the Munich security conference speech that I gave a few weeks ago that we need to go further and faster, and we will. In addition to the funding itself, it is really important that we take this opportunity to collaborate and co-operate with our partners, particularly in Europe, because if all European countries simply increase their spending without regard to the capability that they are using that spending on, we will not make the best of what we have got. Therefore, I am making a dual argument—first, in relation to the actual money we have spent, and secondly in relation to the way we need to collaborate on this with our allies, particularly in Europe, in a way that we have not done, frankly, in decades.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of Robert Clancy. We are happy to work across the House on all that we can do in relation to suicide. I am pleased that we have been able to put in place a strategy; that is the action of this Government, but it needs to be the action of all of us, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets the meeting that he is asking for. I thank him again for raising this case; it was really important that he did.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I refer you to paragraph 22.9 of “Erskine May”, which stresses the primary importance of ministerial responsibility? We have to admit that Prime Ministers have always tried to dodge questions at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and you are not responsible for the answers that they give, but what we have seen in recent weeks is not just dodging questions; in reply to every question the Prime Minister is asked, he refers to the Leader of the Opposition’s policies. This is not Leader of the Opposition’s questions; it is Prime Minister’s questions.

[Mr Speaker]

Once again, as I said last week, I do not have responsibility for, or authority over, answers. It is incumbent on Ministers to try to ensure that there is an answer, but it is not for me to judge whether the answer is correct. That would be politicising the Chair. If that is what the House wishes to do, it can by all means do that, but I have not got that power.

Hatzola Ambulance Attack

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On an occasion like this, it is right that we should not apportion blame, but try to unite as the House of Commons and say that it is fine to be a critical friend of Israel, but it is not fine to go around fully masked up and call for the destruction of Israel and therefore the Jewish people. I think we should be even more positive and say that we love the Jewish people and think they are the most successful immigrant community we have ever had in this country. They are fantastic, they have our complete, utter and full support, and we will protect them at every opportunity.

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the Father of the House, who makes a very powerful point; hopefully there is consensus on all of that. I want to take the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s horror at what happened; what took place in the early hours of this morning was despicable. Extensive activity is under way to try to hunt down those who are responsible, and I very much hope we will see progress on that in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T3. Will the Secretary of State commend the new nuclear fusion site at West Burton, just two miles from the town of Gainsborough, which, potentially, will unleash unlimited green energy as well as hundreds of millions of pounds of investment and thousands of jobs? Will she confirm that, when it comes to science and innovation, this country is not broken, but is leading the world?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

First, may I affirm the importance of the project that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about? The Government are backing the future of nuclear fusion across the country, and this site in particular has a huge contribution to make. Construction will be on its way by the end of the decade, with research and development tests before that. At the heart of it, we will be backing the use of AI to further our clean energy goals in fusion and beyond.