Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State not concede that GDP per capita is down? Can he tell me that a single one of his constituents, apart from those on welfare, feels better off under this Government?

[Peter Kyle]

The whole purpose of the debate is to emphasise that economic growth matters. In the last full year in which the Conservatives were in office, economic growth stood at 0.4%. In the first full year of this Government, it was 1.4%. The hon. Lady should be apologising for the state in which she left the economy, leaving us to pick up the pieces.

This growth has been driven by an activist, interventionist Government who back British business—a Government who are not afraid to roll up their sleeves and make the big calls when big times demand it. From Jaguar Land Rover in the west midlands to Ineos in Scotland, Agratas in the south-west, Tata Steel in Wales, and Harland & Wolff across the United Kingdom, we step in to invest, modernise and protect British industry when necessary. We step back by reducing unnecessary regulation when that is possible, and step up to modernise our critical national economic infrastructure where that is vital: supporting the third runway at Heathrow that the Conservative party curtailed; expanding the Oxford-Cambridge corridor where the Conservative party hesitated; backing Northern Powerhouse Rail which the Conservative party cancelled. This Government have confirmed £45 billion of funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail to upgrade lines east of the Pennines and to bring forward a brand-new route connecting Liverpool and Manchester.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I will begin with an issue where the Government have promised action time and again but have failed to act: solar mega-plants. If rural communities are to host nationally significant energy infrastructure, we must be compensated fairly for doing so. An entire parliamentary term has passed, and yet the Government have still not regulated mandatory compensation, despite promising to do so.

The consequences are real. In Rutland and Lincolnshire, a 2,100-acre industrial plant with 10-foot solar panels will fence in some of our villages on all sides for the next 60 years—a decision that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) happily signed off on in his first 24 hours as Energy Secretary. Mallard Pass has subsequently been purchased by Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners, a company with a global transaction value of $30 billion.

Last Friday, I convened a meeting with Quinbrook and the affected parish councillors from Rutland and Lincolnshire. I had to intervene just to get the executives in the room, and what they put on the table was an insult. They have refused to honour the promises made during the application process to pay per megawatt generated, reinterpreting it to mean only energy exported—a sleight of hand that will cost my communities £44,000 a year.

Let us put this in plain terms. A solar plant is estimated to generate annual revenues after finance and operating costs of £10 million to £15 million a year, and yet the company claims it can afford to give my communities only a paltry £96,000 a year.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am delighted to hear what my constituency neighbour is saying, because she is right; these careless corporates who have little interest in energy—and even less in the environment—are riding roughshod over the will of local people in order to impose huge plants on the best and most versatile land. As I said to the Prime Minister recently, this compromises our food security at the very time that we should be building greater economic resilience.

[Alicia Kearns]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. What is breathtaking about this offer of £96,000 a year is that in a previous meeting—in a statement the company now disavows—we were told that paying compensation any higher would make the project financially unviable. That is to say that a project generating £15 million a year would be made financially unviable if it upped its offer to £144,000 a year in compensation.

I wonder how Quinbrook’s investors and shareholders would feel if I asked them why margins are so narrow and whether they can have confidence in Quinbrook. I give notice today that if that offer is not substantially improved, that is precisely what I intend to do: I will name every investor and every shareholder on the Floor of this House, and I will write to them and ask whether they are comfortable with what is being done to my communities in Rutland and Lincolnshire.

Quinbrook is offering less than 40% of the rate being offered on comparable developments in the east midlands. In fact, the only national programme offering less than Mallard Pass is Cleve Hill, which—surprise, surprise—is also owned by Quinbrook. Over the two years of construction works, Quinbrook issued a good-will handout of £200,000 as a one-off donation—not for each year, but across the two. Some residents’ homes have already lost 70% of their value. My question is: when will the Government stand up for us? I intend to amend the Government’s energy independence Bill to make community compensation mandatory for solar developments and to backdate it, but the Government could act first.

The King’s Speech also contained no measures to ban SLAPPs—the use of aggressive, unfounded legal threats to silence whistleblowers. I will use parliamentary privilege today to expose one of the most stomach-churning examples I have encountered. I hope this will shame the perpetrator into silence and similarly force the Government into action.

The company, which is called Enough, sells self-swab rape kits to women and children, and it does so on the back of a series of lies: that the kits are admissible in court—they are not; that women are more likely to be raped than to get cancer—they are not; that 430,000 people are raped in the UK every year—they are not; and that owning of its devices will deter a man from raping you—as if it is my responsibility as a woman to stop a man raping me.

More than 40 sexual assault charities have urged against use of the kits. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has also spoken out against them. The Advertising Standards Authority is investigating the company, as is Trading Standards. The kits prevent proper evidence collection and stop perpetrators’ DNA being checked against police records. A case has already collapsed because of the use of one such kit.

In a debate on Times Radio, I told one of the founders, Katie White, that I had seen the threatening letters that Enough had sent to rape charities and young women across our country. When asked if this was true by the journalist, Katie said, “No, not true.” This was also a lie.

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend is making a really important point. I was previously the Minister responsible for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Traditionally, the MHRA’s influence has been in denying proper companies permission. It seems to me that now, in a digital age, we have a different problem, which is people coming up with rubbish and selling it over the counter unofficially—digitally. Do we not need a much more powerful set of legal and financial disincentives to really hammer the people selling these sorts of products?

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend has enormous experience, and it is exactly the MHRA that we need to look at. This is not a medical device, yet it is being treated as such.

I want to pay tribute to the brave young girl who has shared with me the letter sent to her by Enough. She is not a journalist or a campaigner, and she does not have the protections that I enjoy as a Member of Parliament, so Enough thought it could silence her. The first letter, signed personally by both founders, Katie White and Tom Allchurch, told her that she had seven days to comply, or they would pursue

“injunctive relief, damages for defamation, and recovery of legal costs.”

They accused her of scaremongering.

Then—and I want the House to hear this clearly—they said to a young woman who had simply dared to raise concerns:

“Carefully consider the long-term consequences of continuing this campaign…you not only risk serious legal considerations, but also lasting damage to your personal reputation, career prospects, and future opportunities.”

They threatened to destroy her future because she posted questions on Instagram. A week later, to ensure there was no ambiguity, they sent a second letter, explicitly calling it a cease and desist. This is predatory, and it is not a one-off.

A rape charity has also shared with me a letter it has received from Enough—lawyers threatening a rape charity into silence. I will tell Members what that letter said. After once again threatening legal action, Enough had the audacity to write:

“Our client considers such an approach to be in the best interests of survivors.”

Citing the best interests of survivors—said by a company that lies to survivors.

Enough’s targets are rape charities and young women. It has tried to make their lives hell. I urge the Government to ban self-swab rape kits, and I urge them to honour their promise to legislate against SLAPPs. I am speaking out because Enough has intimidated people into silence, and rape charities are quiet because they do not have the financial means to take legal action—legal action that would distract them from their duties to survivors.

What I have described today is a window into how our legal system is being weaponised to silence the vulnerable and punish those with the courage to tell the truth. We in this House, and the Government, must choose the side of victims and rape charities and make sure that individuals who commit rapes face the justice they deserve, instead of it being stolen by a company selling lies to women. It must end.