Strengthening Community Resilience

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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.

[Dan Jarvis]

I certainly agree with the Father of the House that it is best to be prepared. It is interesting that he reflects on a time when there was greater awareness of the risk of conflict, but he is right to say that the threats we face today are very significant, and the world is more dangerous than at any point since the period that he describes. I hope that he will understand that the Government take these matters incredibly seriously. I hope that he will see that we are working across Government to ensure that we have the appropriate defences in place, and the appropriate resources to underpin those defences. We need to focus people’s minds on a range of different threats to our national security. The Be Ready campaign will better insulate households and communities, and I hope that he will agree that there will be a broader, wider benefit, in terms of our national security and keeping the country safe.

Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and he can have his answer now. The Bill removes a disqualification from two categories of persons as set out in clause 1. The number of people who currently fall into those categories for the purposes of the Bill is not relevant to the test of hybridity. I am sure that the Clerk of Legislation will be happy to discuss the matter further with the right hon. Gentleman.

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful intervention. She is right that the effect of this Bill will be to remove the last remaining discriminations against Catholics and Jews on the statute book. It is a historic moment, and I am very glad of it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was making a point about the active role of Roman Catholics in public life, including in this place. I suspect that the Father of the House and I are not going to agree totally on this Bill, but as constituency neighbours I want to say that he does, as a professing Catholic, play a very active role both in this House and elsewhere. This Bill would take all force away from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and mean that none of its provisions have any force. That is slightly different from the question of the line of succession. For the purposes of this House and normal political activity in this country, the Bill will remove all restrictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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—[Interruption.] Ah, I see the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) wishes to intervene.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry to jump up again, but I want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman. That was no doubt the case in the 19th century, but if he reads the brilliant book by Mark Vickers called “God In Number 10”, which is a history of 20th century Prime Ministers from Balfour to Blair, he will see that it is an opposite story. The book is a remarkable account of how very different Prime Ministers all took their responsibilities seriously, as the right hon. Gentleman said, right up to John Major. They honoured the fact that different dioceses had different traditions, and they tried to ensure that there was ecumenical balance in the Church of England. I do not think it is beyond a Prime Minister of any party to take their job seriously, think about the right balance of the Church of England and maintain the broad church. What we do not want bureaucrats in the Church of England appointing each other, which is what we have at the moment—that is why they are all left wing. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that we need a genuinely broad church that includes people from different political traditions.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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.

[Jonathan Davies]

I hope that we will be appointing Anglican bishops and not bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church if the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) becomes Prime Minister.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My wife is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. [Laughter.]

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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We are now 200 years on from that time, and legislation is coming forward for Church appointments. Given what the House is trying to achieve through this Bill, we must reflect the changes in today’s society and its cultural and religious make-up. The fact is that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has changed greatly. That being the case, what the House is trying to achieve today is to be welcomed.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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 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.

[Jonathan Davies]

The important thing for the Father of the House to remember is that the Anglican Church is not like the Roman Catholic Church; we would not send a Protestant representative to the conclave to pick a pope. We are talking about the state Church of this country, which is answerable to Parliament, and the Prime Minister, as the most senior member of the Government, therefore has a role to play in advising the monarch. At the moment we have a situation in which a Hindu, such as the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), could advise the monarch, but a Roman Catholic could not. That is why we need to move this legislation forward.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

By the way, I just want to make the point that I love the Anglican Church. I love the fact that we have an established Church. I think it is wonderful that in our country we proclaim the value of religion and that bishops sit in the House of Lords—although I have to say to most of them seem to spout rather woke rubbish most of the time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I admire the right hon. Member enormously, but I might have to give him the same warning about staying in scope this afternoon.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think that—

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Will the Father of the House give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course.

[Mike Kane]

The poor Anglican bishops. The old joke is that they have only two good days in their whole career: their consecration day and their retirement day. The Father of the House mentioned one of the great converts to the Church of Rome in the 19th century, Cardinal Newman. We also had Cardinal Manning in the 19th century, whereas the 20th century produced for us Widdecombe and Gummer. I was wondering what his opinion of that was.

I think the whole House should join me in congratulating the Father of the House on becoming a knight of the Pontifical Equestrian Order of Saint Gregory the Great, effectively becoming a papal knight, which is a rarely bestowed honour. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I think we are all very proud of him for that. As we gallop towards 200 years since Catholic emancipation in 1829, I note that there is no piece of artwork in this House dedicated to Daniel O’Connell and that campaign. Does the Father of the House agree that we should rectify that in the next three years?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am very grateful to my good friend, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for that intervention. Actually, I see him on my fridge every night, from when we were introduced to Benedict XVI—there we were in the row. Every time I open my fridge, I see the hon. Gentleman. He is an ornament of this House.

I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want to make one final point. I have asked whether it is actually wise for a Catholic, a Jew or a Hindu to appoint an Anglican bishop, or to have any say, but there is a wider debate about whether—although we believe in the established Church, and the Prime Minister in effect is not involved—there is any reason why the Prime Minister should be involved. I am afraid I have to tell the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that although I agree that in any other organisation, people rise through committees, it is all quite dull and there are safe options, the intrusion or lack of intrusion of the Prime Minister makes no difference. If we were going to have an entirely logical Bill, surely we would remove this power of the Prime Minister altogether—although it is never exercised, so the Bill is not going to achieve anything—and pass the role of final arbiter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire will not agree with me, but that would be entirely logical. I just do not see the logic in having a politician appoint the head of a Church nowadays, not that they ever do it. I apologise for my comments, but I hope that they give a different perspective on this Bill.

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.

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?

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.