Alicia Kearns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2024 · International Special Tribunal: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing this important debate. I was grateful for his co-operation in the previous Parliament on not only Ukraine but the Balkans, which is an area of particular interest to us both. I am proud that, over the past few years, the UK has consistently led international efforts to support Ukraine. In government, the Conservative party made sure that we were the party that stood behind Ukraine and was its first port of call. In opposition, we will continue in that spirit of the UK being Ukraine’s safe harbour. Whether on pursuing justice through international tribunals, seizing Russian state assets, supporting the ICC in its investigations, enforcing sanctions, or ensuring that Ukraine has the weaponry it requires to win, the UK must continue to lead. However, I will start on a disappointing note. I was heartbroken to hear President Zelensky say that Britain’s leadership on Ukraine has slowed down. It is vital that the new Government demonstrate the same commitment that we did; they must be resolute. It is extraordinary for another world leader to criticise the UK or to criticise any partner publicly. His words were that the UK had demonstrated “true leadership—in arms, politics, and support for Ukrainian society”, which had “saved thousands of lives”, but that that had now “slowed down”. The Government will have the full support of everyone on the Conservative Benches and, indeed, of the party of the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth—if they step back up to the plate. We cannot have our greatest ally question our support in any way at this time. Conversely, although the Government will have our full support if they do that, we will provide full scrutiny should such support slip. I welcome today’s contributions by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who made a similar point, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). They have both been consistent in their support for not only Ukraine but human rights around the world. A special tribunal on Russia’s crime of aggression would formalise Russian culpability for the invasion of Ukraine. It would prevent Putin from embedding his counterfactual narrative in history, which we should be in no doubt is what he is seeking to do. It would ensure that the brave women, men and children of Ukraine—such as Nika, from my team, who joins us in the Public Gallery—do not suffer from Russia’s attempts to rewrite their history and eradicate their truth. It would give survivors their day in court, showing beyond doubt that the world cares and listens, and that they will be heard. It would also demonstrate—as the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth said—that even members of the UN Security Council are not immune from international law. The moral case for seeking justice for Russia’s crime of aggression is indisputable, and the Government’s role is to find the legal means to deliver that. None of us should pretend it is easy; it is not, and the G7 countries have grappled with finding a way to deliver it. The crime of aggression was adopted into international law by the UN General Assembly in 1971. As the hon. Member for Strangford set out, the definition agreed by the UN makes it clear that there is a clear case for Russia to answer. Rather than repeating the list that he provided, I will just add a couple of points. The sponsorship of armed irregulars since 2014—the so-called “little green men” in Donbas—is an additional reason to bring a case against Russia. There is also a case against Belarus for allowing the use of its territory as a launch pad for the invasion. Why a special tribunal? As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon stated, neither Ukraine nor Russia is a party to the Rome statute, meaning that the ICC cannot prosecute Russia for its acts of aggression, unlike in relation to other areas, such as Putin’s abduction of Ukrainian children. Ukraine is clear that the world must devise an alternative legal route for justice. As the initial crime led to all subsequent atrocities, ensuring accountability for it is key. Likewise, we need to demonstrate flexibility and a determination to guarantee accountability for crimes, both to deter future breaches of international law and to strengthen it in an increasingly dangerous world. Ukraine and the principle of justice demand a solution, and the Conservative Government devoted a huge amount of time and energy to trying to deliver one: the UK is part of the core group of 40 states working on a deliverable form of tribunal; we led on the G7 proposals for a hybrid tribunal, which would solve some of the issues to do with immunity and legitimacy; and as the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth said, there was a special conference in London on the topic of the special tribunal, where I contributed to the published communiqué. The moral case for a special tribunal is clear and has a firm basis in international and UK law, and the previous Conservative Government led efforts to find a solution, but that was not straightforward. We now need to hear how this Government intend to carry on that important work. Ukraine has made it clear that a special tribunal with elements of international involvement is not possible on its territory without changes to its constitution, and it cannot deliver that during a time of martial law. Likewise, the conventional route of establishing a special international tribunal through the UN Security Council is blocked, due to Russia’s veto. Finally, a tribunal must find a form that allows Russia’s leadership to be tried in absentia—to the conversation that took place in this debate about individual culpability—and the diplomatic immunities given in domestic courts must be dealt with. There have been suggestions about holding the tribunal in a third country, and the Dutch Government have now stepped forward and reportedly expressed their willingness to host this special court. Given that the Netherlands has a long history of hosting international human rights courts, that would seem an intelligent and practical option, but it still requires an international mandate. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron supported the Council of Europe’s work to establish a viable special tribunal in co-operation with Ukraine. Today, I urge the UK to lobby for a vote at the UN General Assembly in September to establish a special tribunal in a third country, in conjunction with the Netherlands. Holding Russia accountable for the crime of aggression is vital, but it requires imagination and drive in the face of deeply complex legal questions. As the war approaches its third year, the form of a viable tribunal appears to be taking shape: a special tribunal, held in a third country, established by a treaty between the Council of Europe and Ukraine, and supported by a wider membership in the UN General Assembly. That is the best route to justice. The previous Government’s work got us to this point and we sincerely hope the current Government maintain the focus necessary to finish the job. Turning to my questions, I want to ask first for an update on any discussions held with my friend the prosecutor general of Ukraine, Andriy Kostin. Has the Minister for Europe held discussions with his Ukrainian counterpart on establishing the tribunal? Do the Government support a special international tribunal held in a third country? Can they update us on any progress made by the Council of Europe on agreeing a format? What conversations are the Government having with non-European partners to secure their support for an international tribunal? What form do the Government see as best placed to solve the diplomatic immunity issues regarding Russia’s leaders? Finally, will the Minister confirm that strong representations will be made to Mongolia following its failure to arrest President Putin when he was on its soil this week? The crime of aggression is clearly defined in international law. It includes supporting irregular forces against a state, bombardment, invasion, occupation and annexation. It is the original sin from which all of Russia’s other crimes have come and it must now be tried. A special tribunal could determine formally that Russia committed an act of aggression against Ukraine, a peaceful neighbouring state. That would cement truth into history and block Putin’s revisionist nonsense from taking root. Truth is fundamental to the future, and atrocity denial is a deliberate attack on victims and survivors. Ukrainians know that more than most, having endured years of the Holodomor denial under the Soviet Union and the continued lies by Russia. Putin understands the power of narrative and deliberately uses a warped past as a weapon to justify present wrongs. The impetus for a special tribunal on Russian aggression is therefore clear but, yes, the legal route is complex. The Conservatives’ work in government, with support across the House and in partnership with our allies, has brought us close to a solution. We now need to see it delivered for every Ukrainian who has suffered, for the victory of right over wrong, and to set a precedent to deter other oppressor states from their own acts of aggression. I again thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth for calling this important debate. I genuinely wish the Minister every success in these efforts. These issues are complex and thorny, but we finally have a way ahead, and it seems that there is international consensus.

• 3 Sept 2024 · International Special Tribunal: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I think that the right hon. Lady would recognise, however, that President Zelensky cannot be accused of politicising the situation. If the Conservative party were still in power, and if the right hon. Lady had heard President Zelensky say what he did, I would have heard about it every single moment of every single day. We have been courteous in raising it, and it is right to raise it, because we can never again hear President Zelensky say—as he did no more than six weeks into a Labour Government—that he is deeply concerned. I am relieved and grateful to hear the right hon. Lady’s assurances today, and I hope we can move forward in exactly that spirit of seeing the support that Ukraine deserves.

• 30 Jul 2024 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I wish to place on record my severe concerns about the Government’s failure to come formally before the House on their decision to impose VAT on independent schools. Not only have they imposed this policy through a written ministerial statement, but they have now said that they will charge VAT on any fees that are paid in advance. A WMS is insufficient and purposely prevents the House from debating a policy that affects rural economies—I have 10 independent schools in my constituency—but also military and special educational needs families and both comprehensive and independent schools. Madam Deputy Speaker, how can you help us to resolve this issue, which is incredibly important for so many in the House?

• 30 Jul 2024 · UK-India Relations · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Foreign Secretary rightly visited India to discuss a trade agreement between our countries. The Labour party regularly called for human rights to be part of that UK-India trade deal. Will he therefore update the House on whether he secured said agreement during his visit? On human rights, we on the Conservative Benches welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary raised with his counterparts the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British national whom the UN has determined to be arbitrarily detained, with reports that he was subject to torture. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm before the House today that he still believes, as he did a month ago, that Jagtar is being arbitrarily detained? Will he today publicly call for Jagtar’s release, just as, from this Dispatch Box, he repeatedly urged the last Foreign Secretary to do? Will he meet Jagtar’s family, as Lord Cameron did? Finally, having adopted the Foreign Affairs Committee’s recommendation of a special envoy for Britain’s wrongly detained abroad, when will he announce that somebody has been appointed?

• 29 Jul 2024 · Road Safety on the A1 · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, there is no doubt that unfortunately, driver behaviour is normally at the heart of accidents. It is very difficult to identify a genuinely dangerous road. I have sat down and looked at the data with the police, and unfortunately, even though we have some genuinely dangerous roads—my team will not drive on bits of the A1 because they believe them to be that dangerous—the majority of accidents in my constituency involve someone on their phone, eating food, doing their make-up or being distracted in some other way. We absolutely need to continue addressing driver behaviour. One of the simpler measures that I ask the Government to bring forward would be low-cost and immediate, and would benefit our communities across the country. There is currently no bespoke sign to warn of short slip roads ahead anywhere in our country, and it would be transformational for communities such as mine if we were to introduce a new dedicated sign. While doing the school run with my son, I have to stop on slip roads every single day—it is not possible to continue driving because of the heavy goods vehicles and because of how short those slip roads are—so I ask the Minister to consider creating such a sign. Of course, I would ask for it to be trialled in Rutland and Stamford, but I think that trial would prove that such a sign would make a big difference. I hope the Minister can understand my frustration that when I put in a written question on improvements to the A1, the Department for Transport responded that “National Highways has completed a number of safety improvements to the A1…in recent years”. Obviously I was aware of those upgrades, having secured them. The question was more about what was planned for the years to come, but I know that new Governments need time to get into place and come up with those plans. While those safety improvements have made a difference, we need more plans for what we could do going forward, because the A1 is such a key route between London and Edinburgh—a conduit for commerce, freight and people. Short slip roads, dangerous central reservations and poorly designed junctions put my communities at risk every single day. Therefore, I will briefly reiterate my requests, and sincerely hope the Minister will work with me to achieve them. As I mentioned, the first is a new road sign to warn of short slip roads ahead and encourage traffic to move briefly into the right-hand lane. I also ask the Government to commit to deliver the conclusions of National Highways’ central reservation review when that work is completed, which will benefit hundreds of constituencies up and down the country. In the long term, I ask them to commit to safety upgrades to junctions of particular concern along the A1, and to change the formula for how National Highways directs safety investments to consider fatalities per capita, rather than in total, to reflect lower population density areas. Of course, the Minister is very welcome—although, having heard all of this, I doubt she will take up this offer—to come and drive the slip roads and central reservation crossings with me herself. Great Ponton is really quite something. Not a week goes by when I do not receive a news alert about a serious accident on the A1. Every time, my heart pauses, and I have to hope it is not a fatality—that is how severe the accidents are. With my son’s school there, of course, I also first question who it is and whether I know the person involved. I genuinely believe the measures I have described could make a big difference to saving lives. Solving the problems of the A1 is the No. 1 ask of my residents. I hope I have given a mix of low-cost, immediate solutions that could be brought in—of course, the long-term solutions would make a tangible difference, but those immediate solutions would also make a difference. They would save lives, and I would be very grateful if the Minister would consider working with me on this issue over the long term.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Road Safety on the A1 · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely—in fact, it might mean that I finally make Twitter this evening.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Road Safety on the A1 · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend says, that is something we have on the A1 already. I caution him, because I know that, while our constituents call for safety measures, they are often not the biggest fans of slowing speeds. However, as a short-term, interim step until we can get those long-term safety issues resolved, he is absolutely right to stand up for them on behalf of his constituents. When it comes to my constituents, Transport for the East Midlands did a survey of more than 1,000 local residents. Some 60% reported feeling actively unsafe while driving on the A1, and more than 50% reported having either been in an accident or seen one. That is half the 1,000 people surveyed in my constituency who saw that; it is an extraordinary number, and it speaks for itself about the urgent safety upgrades needed. That was only enhanced when I did my own survey of residents on the A1. Of the hundreds and hundreds who responded, more than 90% said that closing the central reservation gaps was key, and over 300 separately mentioned the slip roads being a serious concern for them. I have been asking National Highways for urgent action for several years. I am glad that its representatives have agreed to come and drive the A1 with me. They may soon regret that decision, but they have agreed to do so. I am also pleased that, a few weeks before the election, they agreed to and announced a review of central reservation crossings on the A1. It was my No. 1 request to them, so I am delighted to have secured it.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Road Safety on the A1 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will turn to a potential solution that I plan to put to the Government on that exact point, but is it not horrifying that my local BBC went out to film on the A1 and, within minutes, they filmed an accident? I want to see the review of central reservations conducted quickly and a commitment from the Government to invest in whatever recommendations are brought forward. I was pleased that, last year, I secured five safety upgrades to the A1 in my stretch, that we have seen those put in place and that they have made a difference, but I wrote again to the new Secretary of State requesting a meeting to discuss the A1 on the first day back. I am still awaiting her response, but I hope that the Government will, in turn, get used to replying to Back Benchers when we write to them. I appreciate that the Government are in their infancy. Therefore, I have some complex but in some ways straightforward recommendations to make to them on the road networks. The first relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford made about population indexes. The communities I represent are overwhelmingly rural—I represent hundreds and hundreds of villages. Currently, the National Highways criteria for safety upgrades are based on the total number of fatalities that occur in the area, which results in these awful statements from residents such as “How many people have to die before something happens?”, or “Does someone have to die before there is action?” The problem with that system is that it ignores the lower population densities of rural communities, such as yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. If an area has a dangerous junction or a junction where there is a high number of accidents, in a highly populated area, the number of accidents will be higher. Therefore, we need to take into account lower population densities, so that when we understand the number of fatalities and accidents that take place, the rurality does not play against the area and reduce the amount of support received. We need a new funding formula. I would like to ask for a rural population road index, where, essentially, the fatalities are considered per head of population and rurality to allow a fairness to come into systems, rather than urban areas always getting investment because they have a higher overall number of fatalities. We also need improvements to specific junctions in the long term. Colsterworth, Great Ponton and the many Stamford junctions all need remedial works, but I know that that is difficult. National Highways has said that if the A1 were built now, the slip roads we have in our area would never be given permission to go ahead because they are that short.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Road Safety on the A1 · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important debate on the A1. [Interruption.] Apparently other Members of the House do not have the courtesy to allow us to debate the importance of this road, but I hope they will clear the Chamber with the decency that this important topic deserves. The A1 is known more commonly as simply the Great North Road. It is one of Britain’s oldest roads, tracing its history back to 43 AD and the Roman occupation. Romans, Saxons, Vikings, English and Scottish Kings, Cavaliers and Roundheads have all marched its length. Even the notorious highwayman Dick Turpin plied his trade along the road, taking shelter at inns in Rutland. Stilton, still a culinary staple in our little part of the world, was sold to hungry travellers as they travelled up and down the road. We would struggle to write a history of Britain without the Great North Road, and it remains as significant today as ever, albeit with a less evocative name, thanks to the Department for Transport. The A1 runs 410 miles from London to Edinburgh. It is the longest road in our country and a vital link for commerce, freight and of course people. Each day an average of 40,000 vehicles passes along it. Thousands rely on it. It connects us with Felixstowe, Grimsby and even Dover via the M25. At the northern end of the corridor, we have the Humber ports, handling £75 billion-worth of goods per annum, forming a vital part of British and international supply chains. Heavy goods vehicles make up 25% of all vehicles going along the corridor—more than double the national average. All that leaves us in no doubt that the A1 is the beating heart of our transport network. It is also a vital connection for the rural communities of Rutland, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire that I serve. It is on their behalf that I have secured this debate, as we see a worrying proliferation in road accidents—all too often fatal—along our stretch of this ancient road. The Department for Transport’s data unfortunately demonstrates that proliferation. In 2022, there were 500 crashes on the A1, 26% more than the A5 and 16% more than the A2. In the last five years there have been 201 closures, the majority due to accidents. That averages out as an accident every two weeks, but unfortunately, in the few weeks leading up to this debate, we have seen four serious accidents, including one tragic death and three people seriously injured. Each accident normally results in a closure of up to 10 hours, with HGVs being diverted through our very small and picturesque villages. While some areas of the A1 rank highly on the safety index, the dual carriageway between Peterborough and Blyth, which passes through Rutland and Stamford, has serious issues, characterised by substandard central reservation crossings, substandard junctions and dangerously short slip lanes, which see drivers such as me stop on the slip road almost every single day. We have roads that are little more than dirt tracks that join the A1, high HGV numbers and a lack of signs, technology, SOS telephones, variable messaging signs and even CCTV.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Public Spending: Inheritance · Hansard source

  More

  We all remember Gordon Brown’s raid on pensions. It has taken just three weeks for Labour to revert to type, and it is pensioners who are suffering most. Martin Lewis has already criticised the decision online. On the estimates, the right hon. Lady cannot claim that, when permanent secretaries were signing off these estimates—over the weekend, I assume—they did not know about these supposed holes, but if that is so and they did sign them off with holes in them, that would be a breach of their legal duties. So will she be investigating them, or will she be apologising to them for throwing them under the bus today?

• 25 Jul 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by saying what a joy it is to see the Leicestershire flag flying outside Parliament? I secured that for my county after a thousand years without one. Moving on to Lincolnshire—I represent three counties—the Government are right to build more houses, but in that process it is crucial that we make sure that councils hold developers and water companies to account. In Corby Glen in Lincolnshire there has been a stink for well over a year, yet the Labour-run rainbow council at South Kesteven refuses to meet the parish council or members of the local community. May we have a debate in Government time on how, with all the new house building, which is absolutely right, we will ensure that house builders and developers are held to account by councils and that we stop the stink in Corby Glen?

• 25 Jul 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  You’re welcome!

• 19 Jul 2024 · Israel and Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by welcoming the Secretary of State and his team to their places? They take up their roles in one of the greatest offices of state, which is committed to shaping the future and the safety of our country. That is, after all, the foremost duty of our Government. I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to Lord Cameron, Lord Ahmad and, of course, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), for their steadfast determination to end this conflict, and for the humanity that they displayed when faced with a situation of untold horror. I also thank them for keeping me—in my previous role as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee —and both Opposition Front Benches fully updated. I am sure that the current Government will continue with that collaborative approach. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, although I cannot say that it prepared me fully to find myself on the Front Bench on a Friday morning. He will know the extensive work that we undertook while in government, following the horrific terrorist attack suffered by Israel on 7 October and the crimes against humanity suffered by her people. I welcome his visit to the region. Israel did suffer an appalling terrorist attack—the deadliest in its history. As we said from the outset, Israel has the right to defend itself in accordance with international humanitarian law, and we must remove Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly set out, the situation in Gaza is desperate. Too many Palestinian civilians have been killed. We continue to see strikes on humanitarian infrastructure and the humanitarian situation is unforgivable. The index on famine states that Gaza is now in just that: full famine. I saw this when I went on my own visit to the Egyptian border with Gaza and met families who had had to be evacuated due to the severity of the harm caused to them. We need an immediate end to the fighting and to secure the release of the hostages, whose families continue to suffer unbearable torment on a daily basis, so will the right hon. Gentleman please provide an update to the House on reassurances he has received on the safety of the hostages? On aid, in his meetings has the Foreign Secretary secured any reassurances to increase the number of trucks going into Gaza? Seventy-odd a day is just not enough. In government, we did everything we could to urge Israel to let more humanitarian aid into Gaza and open more crossings, including through Rafah, and we trebled our own aid commitment within the last financial year, doing everything we could to get aid there by land, sea or air. We had success in getting the Ashdod port open, as well as Kerem Shalom, and helped get 11 airdrops into Gaza. The field hospital provided by UK aid funding to UK-Med has treated thousands of patients. We also supported and helped to set up a maritime aid corridor to Gaza. The right hon. Gentleman announced today the return of funding to UNRWA. Can he please advise the House on the timeline for that, and provide assurances that taxpayers’ funding will be directed with due regard? Only an end to the fighting will enable a significant scaling up of humanitarian aid. The right hon. Gentleman rightly stated that Biden set forward a proposal backed by Israel and the UN Security Council to end the hostilities. What action is he taking to move that proposal forward? Can he also provide us with any reassurances he has secured in his meetings with Netanyahu? He rightly raised the case of extremist settlers; we were one of the first Governments to put in place sanctions against some of them. Can he assure us that he raised this issue with the Israeli Government, and whether more sanctions will be forthcoming? The risk of escalation remains high, particularly with Hezbollah in Lebanon, so can I please ask whether his Department assesses any change in Iranian intent, activities or funding following the sham election of the Iranian President? When they sat on the Opposition Benches, both the right hon. Gentleman and the now Home Secretary were crystal clear that, were they in government, they would proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, so can we please now have the timing for this proscription? We all want to see an end to this devastating situation, which threatens the stability and security of so many. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, our priority will be to work with the Government, but also to challenge and scrutinise them as needed. Ultimately, we can assure the Government that we will always work in the national interest because it is foreign policy that keeps our people safe at home, and that is our foremost duty.

• 19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is talking about infrastructure and about decisions being made in the best interests of our communities, so can I ask why Liberal Democrat-run Rutland county council this week turned down an application for a new day care centre for people with special educational needs without even taking it to the planning committee, meaning that we now have to rely on the council’s service, rather than providing choice to ensure that anyone with learning disabilities or other disabilities in our community gets the support they need?

• 19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is, as usual, on point. In Rutland alone there are only three places for new children in year 9. Where are these children going to go? Why are the Government punishing parents who want the best for their children? Before Labour Members try to suggest that I am an out-of-touch Tory, let me point out that my children go my local comprehensive, just as I did. However, I recognise that this is wrong for our country, wrong for our local education system, wrong for our military families, and wrong for those who rely on employment in our local schools. It is dogma once again, and I expected better. The Government have shown a degree of good grace and maturity in adopting some of the previous Government’s Bills for their agenda. It is a sign of political strength for a Government to acknowledge that other parties have good ideas, and to adopt them during their time in power. May I suggest that, in order to fill the blanks in their rural policy, the Government should look at ours? They should announce a £1 billion increase in the farming budget over the course of this Parliament. There should be reformed planning rules to support farming infrastructure. The introduction of legally binding food security targets should be at the heart of what the Government do, and they should recognise how much rural communities contribute to our communities. We provide the food that we eat, we offer an escape and access to nature, and we act as custodians for traditions stretching back deep into our history. I will work every single day for my communities, and I hope that the Government will see sense and do the same.

• 19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I join the House in thanking His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen for their dedicated service and continued example to us all. I welcome all the new Members to this place and I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) on his maiden speech. It is a great privilege to be returned to this House, having served the people of Rutland and Melton for four years. However, I am returned to represent the wonderful people of Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and South Kesteven villages. I would like to take a moment to reflect on the new communities I serve, because it may not be known that service runs deep in south Lincolnshire. In world war two, our communities on their own raised enough money for a Spitfire to fight for our country. It is also in our communities where the apple dropped for Sir Isaac Newton in 1687. And a long, long time ago, Bytham castle was known to have a Lady Alicia, the lady of Bytham. I suspect I shall not be getting that title. [ Interruption. ] I bless you all! It is also home to Easton walled gardens, a place President Franklin D. Roosevelt described as “a dream of Nirvana...almost too good to be true.” So it is no surprise that Stamford’s honey stone streets, whose patterns have essentially remained the same since Saxon times, often grace the pages of the best places to live in this country. It was also a filming site for “Pride and Prejudice”, “The Da Vinci Code” and “Middlemarch”. Most recently, Grimsthorpe castle was home to “Bridgerton”. Somewhat uniquely for a parliamentary seat, Rutland and Stamford sits across three counties, Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire, so I have my work cut out for me. What unites us is the rural landscape and traditions we share: our rural way of life embodied in the fields, farms and natural environment we are blessed to inhabit and hope to bequeath to the next generation. But protecting our green and pleasant lands is not about sentimentality. Our rural environment is the true workhorse of our country. Lincolnshire and Rutland alone produce 30% of the UK’s vegetables, 18% of our poultry, 30% of our turkeys and 20% of all English wheat. We are the agriculture super-producer of our country. Yet the King’s Speech offered very little for us. It continued in the same vein as the Labour party manifesto, which did not mention the word “rural” even once, by ignoring the concerns of rural communities and ignoring farmers. It has put forward a different approach to development, setting out centralised powers for Westminster to impose projects on the countryside and stripping away the voice of local people. The consequences of that approach were apparent last week when the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero imposed three mega solar plants on communities, two of which sit within Lincolnshire and Rutland. During the last Parliament, I consistently opposed the Mallard Pass solar plant and was dismayed to see the Secretary of State wave it through after only three working days in the job. Yesterday, he referred to himself as a “super-nerd”. I would never question his self-classification, but I do question how somebody could read over 3,000 pages of quasi-judicial documentation in just that time, while also getting to grips with a new Department. That perhaps explains why he missed or ignored the fact that even the Planning Inspectorate told him to turn down one of those applications. There are well-documented links between Uyghur forced labour and the primary developer behind Mallard Pass. Labour has said it wants a renewal in public life and a focus on public service, but I ask where the sense of duty is to responsible and considered governance when decisions are made, frankly, for a propaganda announcement to say what the Government have done in their first seven days—decisions that solely affect Conservative-voting communities. Together these three solar plants will remove 6,000 acres of good-quality agricultural land, the land that feeds our country and powers our nation. I want to delve more into the issue of slave labour. For years I have spoken out against what is taking place in Xinjiang. This House—including the new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero—voted to declare what was taking place a genocide. In opposition, Labour promised that should they become the party of government they would not only declare it formally a genocide, but would take the Chinese Government to court—I look forward to updates on that activity—but in government they have decided to carpet our countryside with solar panels produced by the blood of Uyghur slave labourers. The company behind the Mallard Pass, Canadian Solar, was found by our Foreign Office to have the highest complicity in Uyghur forced labour. It has been sanctioned by the United States Government for its “ongoing campaign of repression against Muslim minority groups”. This is a company whose representative rang my office and asked what I wanted to drop my opposition. Is that a company that we want operating on our land?

• 19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, who has an incredible history as one of the greatest parliamentary advocates for tackling slave labour. Will the Minister apologise, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, to the 32 anti-slave labour non-governmental organisations that opposed the Mallard Pass development. Will he apologise to the British people for signing over thousands of acres of prime agricultural land to such a company, and will he apologise to the 3,400 people whose petition I presented in the Chamber, with the highest number of wet signatures ever presented in this Parliament? Does he accept that the loudest statement made last week was not that we stand four-square behind renewables in this place but that we are giving the green light to all companies complicit in Uyghur slave labour to flood our country with bloodied solar panels? This Government are happy to go green on blood labour, and I will not stand for it. Very briefly, in respect of rural economies, I want to express my absolute opposition to the Government’s intention to charge VAT on independent schools. There are 10 in my communities that employ more than 2,000 people and are attended by well over 1,000 children with special educational needs. Furthermore, one in five of my constituents who are military personnel or veterans send their children to those schools. This is ideology and dogma, and there is also no plan to support our comprehensive schools.