Sir Edward Leigh
MP for Gainsborough · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Those of us who love the Jewish people and faith know that the reason why they have overcome all the empires that have tried to destroy them is that they are primarily people of the book and not the sword, but what is happening in the west bank is violent and egregious.”
“I am grateful to the Secretary of State for looking again at Lincolnshire. I made the point to her predecessor that the proposal for a Greater Lincolnshire authority was, in the eyes of many people, just a gerrymander. Will she look again at it and stop dividing West Lindsey and North Kesteven in half?”
“If the centre does not take action, nasty extremes will take over. The fact is that we are in acute danger. These people can now launch from anywhere on the north French coast and are escorted to our shores. Frankly, we are being invaded, and the public are completely fed up.”
“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.”
“What concerns me is the jobs of my constituents who work at Scunthorpe. That is all I am worried about; I have no ideological objection. If it is what is needed now, fair enough. As long as the blast furnaces are totally uneconomic because of high energy costs, however, it can only be a sticking plaster.”
“One of the poorest wards in the entire country is Gainsborough south-west ward. Why is the Secretary of State splitting West Lindsey in half? Why is he taking Scampton away from Gainsborough? It makes no sense. Why is he cutting away the nuclear fusion site from Lincoln?”
The complete record
Every one of 6,092 lines we hold for Sir Edward Leigh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 122.
“My right hon. Friend is quite rightly talking about what really matters in the countryside, namely the family farm tax. Does it say much about the priorities of this Government that they think it is really important to waste Parliament’s time by banning people from getting on a horse and chasing after a rag soaked in linseed oil?”
“Of course we are all proud of our historic record in welcoming genuine political refugees who apply in the proper way, but I am sure that the Home Secretary would agree that this humane policy is being entirely negated by illegal boat crossings, which are driving people mad and putting people at risk. Will she do the humane thing and seek an urgent derogation from the refugee convention and the convention on human rights so that we can arrest, detain and deport these people? By the way, if she announced that now, Labour would shoot up five points in the polls and the Prime Minister’s position would be safe. Does she support all that?”
“At the end of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, I am no wiser on whether the Government approve this action, or on whether they believe that it breaks international law. The Prime Minister is such a devotee of international law that he is not prepared to defend our borders from the small boats, and to take the necessary action there. Why is there one law for the American President, when he is doing what is right for his country and defending it, but a different law for us? My simple question is this: do the Government believe that this breaks international law, and do they approve this action?”
“The British Academy of Audiology estimates that there are 6.7 million people who could benefit from a hearing aid but do not currently use one. The impact is not limited to wives, irritated that we have not heard them—although I must admit that if someone is known in the family to have hearing loss, it is very convenient. I am frequently ticked off by my wife because I am generally completely useless, and sometimes I pretend I have not heard her, so there are some benefits.”
“Of those of us who are 70 and older—Mr Vickers, you and I were born just weeks apart—over 80% have some form of hearing loss. Some 2.4 million adults across Britain have hearing loss that is severe enough for them to struggle with conversational speech in some situations. We all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is even more true in medicine than in any other walk of life. I am one of 2 million people in the UK who use a hearing aid. People should not be ashamed of using a hearing aid. People are not ashamed of wearing glasses—the Minister, Mr Vickers, and the distinguished consultant from Suffolk, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), are all wearing glasses. It is a fact of life, and we should support people.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on moving this timely motion. I declare an interest: I am someone who suffers from hearing loss—it is good to be honest about these things. I recently found a picture of myself in uniform in the pouring rain, looking very miserable in Germany or on Salisbury plain, leaning against a 25-pounder. I can assure Members that those guns went off next to my ear on many occasions, and it is a very loud bang indeed. I am not alone in suffering from some hearing loss. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, if we group together deafness, hearing loss and tinnitus, some 18 million people in the UK are affected by hearing conditions. Of those among us who are 55 or over, more than half suffer from hearing loss, as he said.”
“Hearing care supports people to remain economically active and socially connected for longer. That is immensely central to maintaining human dignity as we all get older. Early intervention reduces downstream costs in social care and mental health services. The social and economic impact is huge. There is much we can do now that will produce worthwhile results, so we need action from the Minister.”
“Patients in some areas benefit from straightforward self-referral and timely community services, while others face longer waits or unnecessary hospital referrals. I suspect that the service in London and other big cities is better than that in our home county of Lincolnshire, Mr Vickers. We need to improve the way we collect data on audiology services, so that we can evaluate their impact across the country. Good data will help us to focus on outcomes, as any reform should. National minimum service standards would provide clarity without imposing uniform delivery models. We should preserve local flexibility while ensuring that patients know what level of service they are entitled to expect. Community audiology should be integrated into broader prevention and healthy ageing strategies.”
“Demand for audiology services is rising, and the International Longevity Centre estimates that by 2031, one in five Britons will have hearing loss. There is at least increasing public awareness, but with an ageing population, the demand for audiology services is rising. That puts additional pressure on the workforce and on service capacity. Community audiology should not be a marginal service. It is a preventive intervention with clear implications for the wellbeing of individuals and families, economic productivity and long-term public spending. Delivering audiology close to home is ideal, particularly for older patients and those managing long-term conditions. The current model relies heavily on local commissioning decisions. There is wide variation in access, as well as in the scope and quality of provision across England.”
“Back in 2006, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People pointed out in evidence to the Health Committee: “A recent NHS workforce project has suggested an additional 1,700 qualified audiologists are required to cope with current pressure. This could take between 10 and 15 years to realise under the current training programmes.” That was back in 2006, so what has happened since then? It will not surprise the experienced observer that not enough action was taken. Hearing loss is one of the most prevalent long-term conditions in England, yet it is often treated as a low-priority service. If we treated it as a core part of prevention and independence, the rewards would be innumerable. As I said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
“The shortfall in audiology is yet another reason why we need to address this issue. We have over 3,000 registered audiologists working in the UK, across the NHS, the private sector and educational settings. Figures from the British Academy of Audiology show that 48% of services have reported reduced staff, with an overall decline of 8% in the audiology workforce. Nearly one in 10 clinical posts in audiology are currently vacant, and 65% of audiology services have at least one vacancy. Those shortages exist across multiple salary bands, from junior to senior clinicians. I am not blaming this Government, by the way; I am not being party political. This problem is the fault of successive Governments and Health Secretaries, who have failed to address it.”
“We should allow anyone who meets the high standards that we expect of those studying medicine to do so. Instead, the doctors’ unions ensure there is a lack of domestic supply to protect their bargaining position, but that means we are forced to make up the shortfall by importing doctors from other countries, often less developed ones. Many countries, not just fully developed ones, have high standards of medical education. It seems to me, and to many others, morally dubious for the NHS to pick the cream of doctors from any developing country and bring them here. Their diligence, training and expertise are much needed in their home countries. Meanwhile, we have excellent people here who cannot get into medical school—not because they are not good enough, but because the numbers are capped.”
“At the risk of giving in to economic reductionism, there is a significant impact on the economy. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People has estimated that untreated hearing loss costs the UK economy around £30 billion per year in lost productivity. Adults of working age with hearing loss have an employment rate of 65%, compared with 79% for those without any disabilities. Hearing loss has a social cost as well, as it has an impact on daily life and often increases isolation. Too often, we are embarrassed by hearing loss when we should be tackling it head on. Another problem is a lack of audiologists. Unwisely, the Government have maintained the cap on the number of people allowed to study medicine—a restrictive measure that the doctors’ unions cling to regressively. The first priority should be the health of the public.”
“The hon. Gentleman is giving an absolutely brilliant speech. It is such a pleasure to hear a Member of Parliament speaking from direct, personal experience. I want to emphasise one important point that might come out of this debate: a lot of people are paying a lot of money for private hearing aids, but I know from personal experience that, nowadays, NHS hearing aids are perfectly satisfactory.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that we often hear about national screening programmes. It has just occurred to me that if everybody over the age of 70 was sent a text message through the NHS, summoning them into a screening programme, we could make huge advances in this area, particularly with things such as dementia—because, as he made clear, many people are either embarrassed by hearing loss, or not aware that they have it.”
“We have some of the best animal welfare standards for farm animals in the world. Of course, we can do much by regulation, but the best way to protect farm animals is to have contented and prosperous family farmers who love their animals and care for them. When I arrived in the House, farmers used to talk in glowing terms about Tom Williams, the Labour Minister for agriculture in the Attlee Government, who started 80 years of prosperity for our farmers. I beg the Secretary of State and the Minister, if they are really concerned about animal welfare and the welfare of our farmers, to drop the absurd family farm tax.”
“May I ask the Leader of the House about the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament, which is fast developing into a major scandal? According to some estimates, up to £800 million may already have been spent, with barely a brick being laid. We need an urgent decision. I served for many years on various bodies concerned with this programme, and the whole debate has been bedevilled by plans for 15-year decants that may never happen and the setting up of a delivery authority, instead of just getting on with the work around us. The Leader of the House may not agree with my particular view, but I am sure he agrees that we need to have a decision, there needs to be clear leadership, and we need to get on with the work.”
“I agree with the Minister that we have to work on a cross-party basis on this issue, because that is how we are strongest, so can we agree on the following two points? First, it would be intolerable if any peace settlement forced Ukraine to give up territory that Russia has not already conquered forcibly and if Ukraine gave up its fortress belt. It would be like stripping Czechoslovakia of Sudetenland and leaving it defenceless. The second point is even more important. We cannot have a peace settlement through warm words alone; we must have a commitment that Ukraine’s defence is protected by the equivalent of an article 5 declaration. The only thing that will deter Putin is knowing that if he invades again, there will be war with the west and we will win. Can we unite on those two powerful points?”
“A lot of very complex legal arguments have been alluded to today, but I think what concerns the public—and what concerns me—is the state of mind of our veterans, some of them quite elderly, who sought only to serve their country decades ago. The Secretary of State is a very moderate, clever and reasonable person. Given that there is, in reality, no chance of a successful prosecution, and that people would be horrified if there was one, what comfort can the Secretary of State give to our veterans?”
“The Chagossians have been treated appallingly by successive Governments—we all accept that. To me, it is unconscionable that, for the first time since the first world war, a colonial people is being transferred from one colonial power to another 1,000 miles away with no control. I think there should be a referendum, but we are where we are. Does the Minister recognise that it would lighten the whole atmosphere if there was an absolute right of return for all Chagossians, with them not having to take Mauritian citizenship and being fully in control of their own trust fund? In other words, they have a right to self-determination like any other people on earth.”
“I am curious to know in what respect our existing laws were insufficient to deal with this appalling case. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the best way to reassure the public on electoral resilience is never again to delay local council or mayoral elections?”
“I am intervening on the hon. Gentleman because we both represent rural constituencies—he in Wales and me in Lincolnshire. Our constituencies are very different in their rural aspect, but both are affected equally badly by the family farm tax. Many of my farms may be larger than his, but their income is still quite marginal. So many of us representing rural areas cannot understand why the Government have not been prepared to compromise, listen to the NFU and, if necessary, take more resources from the big estates but preserve our family farms.”
“My hon. Friend was brought up in a notable local farming family in my constituency, and the reason why the House is listening to him is that he has been bred into farming and knows about farming. Would he like to say what, from his own family’s experience, this means for farmers in Lincolnshire? Some people say that Lincolnshire is full of large estates and all the rest of it. No, it is full of working farms, and he can speak with authority on this subject.”
“I congratulate the Secretary of State on his efforts so far, but our efforts are still puny compared with those made when there was last a major threat, in the 1930s. In 1933, we spent just 2.2% of GDP on defence. Remember George Lansbury, the leader of the Labour party, who wanted to abolish the RAF altogether? By 1938, we were spending a massive 7%. Will the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to a whole new gearing-up of our efforts? He could start by recommissioning the RAF bases that were open in the 1930s, but have now been closed, such as RAF Scampton.”
“Believe it or not, more than 30 years ago I was a Minister for fashion and regional policy. These things go round in a circle, and I warn the Minister —with some experience of this—that many companies were caught in a sort of Catch-22: if they were too successful, the Department of Trade and Industry would not let them be helped, and if they were not successful enough, there was always a risk that they might go bust. How is the Minister going to hit the sweet spot and make sure that we direct the money to where it is most needed?”
“Originally, Theresa May arbitrarily set a limit of 2040. Where did that come from? Boris Johnson, in his bumptious, casual way, not considering the evidence, unilaterally cut it down to 2030. Where did that come from? All this is massively damaging. I would not mind if we were actually making a difference to global warming, but we are responsible for only 1% of global emissions. According to some estimates, our total global emissions are less than China’s annual accrual. We are making absolutely no difference! China holds us in contempt. It is doing to us what we did to it in the 19th century. China is totally ruthless.”
“I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this timely debate about Lindsey oil refinery, which employed many of my constituents. The closure is a disaster for our Greater Lincolnshire area. It is, I believe, a direct result of green policies that are no longer logical. I am no climate change sceptic. I am prepared to have investment in green energy—we are world leaders in offshore wind in the Humber, are we not? We are doing our bit, but the Government are taking it to new heights. All ideologues are dangerous, but fanatical ideologues are the most dangerous of all, and that is what we have in our Secretary of State. We have these ludicrous targets; I commend the editorial in The Times today calling it “targetitis”.”
“Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham: this is a national crisis in terms of national policy, which is wrong, and of local policy. The people of Greater Lincolnshire demand action from this Government, and they demand it now.”
“Expansion of the UK refining sector protects thousands of highly skilled, well-paid jobs. It also supports an entire region and supply chain in engineering, fabrication, logistics and maintenance. Those are precisely the jobs that sustain industrial communities and create apprenticeships for young people. Refining underpins every major industrial sector. Manufacturing, aviation, defence, logistics, agriculture and pharmaceuticals all depend on reliable supplies of fuels and petrochemicals. Allowing it to pass into decline would simply shift production to countries with weaker environmental standards. Lindsey oil refinery was a major economic anchor for our area. We know that it was put into administration. I share the comments of my hon.”
“It employs many of our constituents and is vital for the whole of our industrial infrastructure. We need strong domestic refining capacity. The Secretary of State goes on about energy security all the time, but that would strengthen energy security at a time when we are already importing two thirds of our gas and increasing volumes of refined fuels. I would not mind these green policies, but we are not actually contributing to tackling global warming; we are simply exporting carbon emissions to other countries. It is complete madness. If we were sensible about this, and if it were possible to get some sort of global recognition of the problem, maybe we could start to tackle it. Relying on foreign refiners means exporting jobs and value overseas while leaving Britain more exposed to global price shocks and geopolitical risks.”
“That may be a fair point. I said at the beginning of my speech that I am not a climate change sceptic. Everybody is prepared to do their bit. I have already mentioned wind farms, but what about solar energy? In Lincolnshire we are prepared to have solar energy on our farmland, but in my constituency 16,000 acres of the most productive land in the entire country—enough land to feed the city of Hull every single year—is put under solar farms, with panels manufactured in China, destroying our ability to feed ourselves. There has to be a balance, but at the moment we do not have one. We are importing so much from our dear friends in Norway that they are opening 250 exploration wells. This debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, is extremely timely. The closure of Lindsey oil refinery is a complete disaster.”
“On a point of order, Mr Western. You are a fellow member of the Panel of Chairs. Can we make it clear to our colleagues that it is normal courtesy for the Minister to allow the proposer of a motion some time to wind up, if only a minute? That did not happen on this occasion.”
“I welcome this statement. We do need a massive house building programme, but I suspect the Government are going to have to strip away many more delays and controls if they are going to have any chance of meeting their own target. Does the Minister understand that there is a real lack of confidence in all this? The public see our own people on the streets without proper housing while people who enter the country illegally and migrants are held for months in comfortable hotels in idleness. If the Government were to be really robust and arrest, detain and deport those people, we could not only concentrate more resources on those genuinely in need, but actually save lives at sea.”
“The Home Secretary knows that I admire her personally. She is a devout Muslim lady, and I share many of her values. I think she is uniquely well placed to comment on this, explain and give us confidence. What is it about these Muslim men that meant that they felt that they could behave in this way, and can she explain that this is—if it is—a very small minority? Can she see what I am trying to get at? She can approach this, and explain this, in a way that some of us cannot, because nobody can ever accuse her of being racist, and nobody can ever accuse her of not wanting to get to the truth.”
“A direct train to London on this line is vital. Grimsby and Cleethorpes form a huge conurbation—probably much the biggest conurbation in the country not to be served by a direct train to London. We have been campaigning for this for so long, and I call on the Minister to just get moving with it. We do not need the Bill: we need action on a direct train from Grimsby and Cleethorpes, through Market Rasen and Lincoln, to London, in order to revive the whole area.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I am very grateful to the Minister to be in receipt of the triple lock, but it is not an effective way of tackling pensioner poverty and it is bankrupting the country. I am sorry not to be party political, but can we not have a consensus between the parties that we should phase out the triple lock, concentrate resources on pensioners in real poverty and have an agreement on dealing with benefits generally to get people back into work? We should work together.”
“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?”
“Just put local democracy first by allowing the people of Lincolnshire to have the district council system of local Government that they love and know, and stop throwing everything up in the air and wasting so much money.”
“But the Government could have done this right and come to Parliament with a statement today. Instead, once again we wake up to overnight briefings. Cancelling elections is always a bad idea, and there is a real suspicion that the Government are worried about being trounced in elections. May make a local point about Lincolnshire? It is now in complete chaos, because we do not know what is going to happen. The Government have already forced an unloved office of mayor on us, our friends in North East Lincolnshire have withdrawn from the whole process, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) wants to carve West Lindsey—my district—in half by creating a greater Lincoln, and the county council under Reform leadership has a different proposal. Nobody knows what is going on.”
“I will end on this point. My fear is that there will come a day—it may still be years away—when the British Government and the British public feel that we have done enough, and that is that. The American Government may say the same. If a peace arrangement is not reached before fatigue sets in among Ukraine’s allies, Kyiv may find itself dangerously exposed. Allowing that to happen would serve no interest except Vladimir Putin’s and would hand him an undeserved strategic victory. The prudent course is to sustain and, if sensible, expand our support for Ukraine, while actively exploring diplomatic routes towards peace. Working constructively with our American allies gives us a chance, however modest, to help end the killing.”
“Economic pressure, diplomatic alignment and long-term energy resilience across Europe are equally important; they are vital to a successful strategy. The goal of diplomacy must be to find a workable, if imperfect, path to ending unnecessary killing. Ours should be a humane policy—to be strong, and to get a fair peace that stops the killing. The longer the war continues, the greater the damage to Ukraine’s economy, infrastructure and demographic future. The continuation of the conflict also damages Russia, although its citizens have little say in the matter. The United Kingdom has offered sanctuary to many thousands of Ukrainians, supporting their education, welfare and community integration. Public good will remains high, but history teaches us that political and social patience cannot be taken for granted indefinitely.”
“Europe’s over-reliance on Russian hydrocarbons is yet another compelling reason for the United Kingdom to pursue nuclear energy with renewed determination. We must also learn the lessons of history. Russia’s economy, measured in nominal GDP, is roughly comparable to Italy’s, and it is therefore far from the superpower that people often talk about. I mean no insult to our wonderful Italian friends. The disparity between Russia’s global posture and the actual size of its economy highlights how vulnerable Moscow is to sustained economic isolation, and that is how we are going to win in the long term. Although the military dimension of the conflict is vital, it alone will not produce a decisive victory or a durable settlement for Ukraine.”
“There is more that we can do on our side in the west, not just when it comes to sending money and matériel to Ukraine, but by changing our behaviour. We need to increase economic pressure on Russia. Sanctions and financial constraints remain one of the few non-military tools that can meaningfully weaken the Kremlin’s capacity to wage a war. Germany, I am afraid, and some of our European allies continue to buy Russian energy in various forms, undermining our collective leverage. We must ask our partners whether they are actually making constructive attempts to secure alternative sources of energy; we hope they are. The slow pace at which some European countries have diversified their energy supply undercuts the effect of sanctions.”
“However, we must deal with the reality: they are not going to do that. Cessation of hostilities is therefore the necessary first step. Responsible policymakers must prepare for outcomes that fall short of our ideals, while still ending the bloodshed. President Trump’s efforts to encourage negotiation represent an attempt to find practical steps towards a ceasefire. I agree that no agreement can be legitimate without the free and sovereign consent of Ukraine, which cannot be dictated to by Washington or Moscow. We should be absolutely clear that we cannot advocate for any agreement—this is the important thing—that forces Ukraine to give up territory it currently holds. To pressure Ukraine into ceding land would be akin to surrendering the Sudetenland. We left Czechoslovakia absolutely defenceless in 1938—that must never happen again.”
“It is easy to demand endless resistance from the comfort of our own homes, but it is our Ukrainian friends who are paying the price in blood, lives and the future of their country. There is no virtue in insisting on absolute maximalist goals while others must bear the human cost of achieving them. Ukraine and Russia once enjoyed deep cultural, social and economic ties, and Putin has singlehandedly killed all that. He alone is responsible for turning two neighbouring peoples against each other. It will take multiple generations before Ukraine and Russia can be friends again, but we can try to help them to at least stop making war, and at least try to end the killing. Of course, the ideal solution is for Russian forces to withdraw; if they did that today, everyone would rejoice.”
“Putin’s rejection of recent proposals underscores that the obstacle to peace lies in Moscow, not with Ukraine or among Ukraine’s friends. I hope people will forgive me for not being entirely rude about our closest ally, but let us be honest: many people are attacking Trump’s proposals just because they are Trump’s. If the proposals had come from Mr Biden or a prospective President Harris, critics may have been cautious, but they would not have attempted to stand in their way. We should not let political prejudice undermine our careful examination of substantial proposals for ending the active conflict. President Trump is putting forward constructive proposals, and we should understand them and be supportive, if necessary, while questioning them.”
“War is the mother of invention, and the Ukrainians have been extremely innovative in adapting their offensive means, as well as defending against Russian countermeasures. As long as Ukraine retains control of the territory it holds, claims that Russia is “winning” do not stand realistic scrutiny. Morale, ingenuity and international support have enabled Ukraine to deny Putin the strategic breakthrough he seeks. We in the United Kingdom have been one of Ukraine’s most consistent and substantial supporters, and we should be proud of that. We should be open to further support where prudent, while maintaining our clear position that the UK will not become an active combatant. Critics who deride President Trump’s peace efforts overlook the value of initiatives that at least attempt to move the conflict towards negotiation.”
“The responsible course is to steer between absolutism and appeasement, while protecting both Ukrainian sovereignty and our own national interest. The Ukrainian armed forces have performed very well, and have proved that they can defend their homeland. Ukraine continues to hold the line across hundreds of miles. There are those who claim that the Russians are winning, or that their victory is inevitable, but the history books are replete with examples of outcomes deemed inevitable that never happened. Experience on the ground shows that this war will not be a slam dunk for either side. Predictions of imminent Russian victory ignore the reality that Ukrainian defences remain resilient and adaptive.”