Flooding: Rural Communities

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. Water has no respect for property. It has no regard for a family’s memories or for a business’s survival. It rises where it will, and for too many in our communities across Rutland, Harborough and the South Kesteven villages, it rises again and again. In Whissendine, the White Lion pub flooded four times in 2024 alone. The water was so deep in the village that people water-skied, although of course I cannot condone that. The pub’s damage was so severe and so repeated that the insurers, the very people paid to be there when it matters most, walked away. Yolanda and Chris Stevenson, who have spent years running the pub, were left to face the consequences alone. A home, a livelihood and a community hub were all under threat.

Sometimes the barriers to getting things done leave me quite bereft. In Whissendine, the simple installation of a depth gauge would make a big difference to preventing cars from driving through when the roads are flooded and yet, for the life of me, I cannot get anyone to fund it or agree to it. In Langham, the same homes have flooded every single year since 2024, and properties that barely saw a drop of water in the years before now face a deluge, which often comes through their doors as lorries drive belligerently through our flooded streets when they should know better. However, no one stops them because the council repeatedly fails to put up signs shutting the road. I believe that residents should be empowered to put up signs themselves, in co-ordination with local flood response leads. Residents are spending thousands of pounds on flood defences, and not because they want to but because they have to.

In Tallington, a storm left the sewage system and residents without working toilets or showers. Thankfully, by supporting Philip Sagar and Tallington parish council, we have secured and completed works on the culvert under the railway, which was incredibly difficult to negotiate, and more is planned. We also have Thurnby brook, which flooded in 2024 and 2025 following the storms, and the impact is still felt today. There is the beautiful Braceborough, which suffered horrendously.

There is Greatford, where I was left at 9 o’clock at night ringing the circus—the real circus; it was Pinder’s circus from Rutland, which was in Hungary at the time—and begging it to help me find portaloos for the village. When Storm Henk struck, the village did not flood; it was engulfed. Some people had to be rescued by boats, and people spent nights in rescue centres. When the waters finally receded, a third of all homes had been severely damaged, and many people could not return home for well over a year.

These residents can easily be statistics, but we all know that each of them is a family with their own story. These are the same communities that are about to have a 1,300-acre solar plant imposed on flood plains right next to their homes. Flooding is not unique to my patch, and I am not trying to claim a monopoly on hardship, but I am here to advocate for solutions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Alicia Kearns]

I will gently say to Members that, as much as I love to have an audience for my Adjournment debate, we must recognise that I need to get through everything. I will give way quickly to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and then to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Constituents of mine in Moorland and Fordgate live under the constant threat of flooding. This winter they have been very grateful to the frontline workers from the internal drainage board, the council and the Environment Agency for helping them out. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those frontline workers?

[Alicia Kearns]

I will happily pay tribute. In fact, that gives me a great opportunity to mention Ben Thornely, who is our local Environment Agency officer. It does not matter when I call him or whether it is an emergency or proactively trying to make our communities safer, he always takes the call, and he has been out to see our communities whenever I ask. There are people in the system who work incredibly hard, and this is a great opportunity to thank them.

Every year I hold flooding summits across the three counties I serve, and every year the story is the same.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady; she is an assiduous MP and constituency worker, and we all recognise her efforts in this Chamber. Does she agree that the smaller numbers of people living in rural areas can sometimes skew the cost-benefit analysis? The Department must take each request based not on how many people live in an area and are affected, but on the bigger schemes to help the householders. I gently say that it should also enable farmland to carry out agricultural purposes that are essential for food security for this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is at risk of stealing my sandwiches, but I will get there shortly. He is right, particularly when it comes to farmers; too often they are overlooked and they need support.

The issues that I hear about at my flooding summits are that local authorities are too often silent when asked for help, and that riparian owners are not taking their duties as seriously as they should—dredging goes undone and drains go uncleared—and when people from Rutland ask the Government for support, we are told that we do not qualify. The reason for that is a simple number: 50. To access the flooding recovery framework, 50 houses must flood. Below that line, there is no support; above that line, here comes the cavalry.

For Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, which I also serve, 50 flooded houses is sadly an achievable and often exceeded threshold, but because Rutland is the smallest county—we have just 41,000 residents—we almost never hit 50 flooded homes, thankfully. We must remember the 30 houses that were badly damaged in Greatford in Lincolnshire, which I serve. If it had been the only village in Lincolnshire to flood, it would have had no support, despite people having to be evacuated by boat and being besieged. There is something deeply wrong with a framework so rigid that those in need of help do not or might not receive support.

I raised this objection in the last Parliament, and my Government then listened. The Conservative Government made sure that in 2024, for the first time ever, Rutland could access the flood recovery grant. I ask the Government to make those changes permanent ahead of the next big floods this year. Surely support should be based on the percentage of the population affected or just those who are the most affected, and accessing this funding would make an enormous difference.

I also ask the Minister to ensure that she provides support for farmers. In the village of Tixover in my community, for example, farmers have had to spend up to £80,000 this year buying food for their sheep, which would otherwise just graze off the grass, because they cannot access their land because it is so flooded.

We talk about flood risk in terms of physical damage, infrastructure and recovery time, but there is a financial dimension to this issue that is devastating households. That is the insurance market. For families in flood-risk areas, insurance premiums are eye-watering where they are available at all, so families have to cover the risk themselves; they hope that this year, the storm will pass, the river will hold or the drain will cope, but it never quite does. A family living in fear of flooding is living in fear, not just of water, but of the bill that comes in the post. Flood Re was a vital reinsurance scheme established by the last Government, but homes built since 2009 are not covered, and that scheme’s remit will end in 2030, leaving people stuck. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an update on the Government’s thinking on this matter.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the point of insurance, I have just come from chairing a meeting with Aviva—a great Norfolk insurer, the biggest insurer of houses in the country. It made the point to me that this is the tip of a major iceberg of uninsureability, unmortgageability and then unsaleability, and that the Treasury should be looking at this as a major problem on the balance sheet of this country. It is a Horizon Post Office-sized scandal in its scale, risking serious economic damage to our economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that that elevates this issue to one of national importance?

[Alicia Kearns]

I was not aware of just how drastic insurers see the situation, but it does not surprise me, based on what I see in my communities. I know that my hon. Friend has worked consistently on the issue of flooding, so I take him at his word that we need to be looking at that problem more seriously.

Turning to dredging, the Environment Agency consistently argues that we should not be dredging its man-made assets, but that position is not supported by landowners and farmers, who are the custodians of our land and understand it. It can restore natural water flow, support better drainage and remove debris. It should be an option, as should removing vegetation from EA assets.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that in many cases this is about removing vegetation, but it might also be about removing debris, such as old shopping trollies and other things that could block a much-loved waterway and cause flooding and further accumulation of debris? That is part of the problem. Does she also agree that landowners have a responsibility? There is great variation in the way they manage their land next to rivers.

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—riparian ownership is a repeated issue in my community. It is also devastating to hear that he has things like shopping trollies in his waterways; we are very fortunate, in that we have so many local groups who go out and drag anything like that out of our waterways, although it is very rare. We need action to get those issues resolved.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I also commend my hon. Friend for raising this hugely important topic, and she is right to highlight the importance of local voices. Local voices know best where the flood risks are. They are most at risk and have real skin in the game, but they often feel that bodies such as Natural England and some parts of the Environment Agency are not responding. There are also the internal drainage boards, particularly in the east of England—in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see more from the current Government about how they are going to work proactively with the drainage boards, particularly on some of the capital funding requirements that they face?

[Alicia Kearns]

I am in quite an unenviable position, in that only some of my constituency is covered by an internal drainage board, but that capital is absolutely fundamental. I am sure the Minister has heard my right hon. Friend’s intervention and will be able to reflect that in her speech—I was going to ask about that issue, but I no longer need to do that, so I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

I want to touch briefly on flood alleviation schemes. We need strategies to store water better, because we are moving from droughts to floods and back to droughts. Water resilience and water security should be treated with equal importance to food security.

Turning to planning and development, the Government plan significantly—and, in my view, disproportionately—to increase the number of homes built in rural areas. All the cities around me have seen significant reductions in how many houses they have to build, while each of my areas has seen an increase in what is expected of over 100%, despite our consistently over-delivering on the targets previously set. Planning and development have to be done responsibly, and I fear that so much of the building is going to be on floodplains, or on the outskirts of small villages whose drainage has only just kept up with modern-day life and modern times. Those villages will find their infrastructure overrun by these additional housing pressures.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech and has taken a huge number of interventions, for which I thank her. When it comes to development, flood management strategies are not taking into account the run-off that additional development will cause; for example, the upper Severn catchment management scheme is looking at opportunities to store water, but not at risks from additional development. We know that the drainage arrangements that are put in place, such as attenuation ponds, are often not maintained into the future. Does the hon. Member agree that we need a better plan for making sure that when development happens, the run-off does not affect the existing residents?

[Alicia Kearns]

Run-off has unfortunately been a real problem. I have only three towns in my constituency. They are not substantial, but Oakham in particular has seen a real issue with run-off, and that is all from new properties. It needs to be dealt with, and it speaks to the need for incentives and sticks. New fiduciary financial liabilities would make clear to developers that if they build new homes and in the short term—between the following five to 15 years—there is a significant increase in flooding that was not previously occurring, they should be liable for action to build additional flood prevention aids or to upgrade the flood defences or drains they originally built. That brings me to the planning process, where it would be sensible if water companies became statutory consultees.

Turning to local councils, a couple of years ago we Conservatives had to force the first ever special meeting in the history of Rutland county council, because the council was not responding on flooding and was insisting that those who had to move out of their homes would have to pay council tax on both their original property and the one they were renting. The council’s long overdue section 19 flooding report has finally been published, but it had little about what the council would do to protect us in the future. Instead, it focused on telling us all what the problems are. First, we already knew that, and secondly, it took the council pretty much 18 months from the first flood to report, and we had already had a second flood in the meantime. We all know our communities and we know what the issues are.

A statutory limit on how long section 19 reports can take is necessary, but councils should also have to go beyond just setting out the problem and lay out the solutions that are needed. Will the Government do that, and will they mandate that those who have had to move out of their homes due to flooding should be protected from the cost of covering council tax on two properties? Frankly, I am tired of having that fight with my local councils every time we have significant flooding.

I will touch on some of the flooding heroes in our communities. Phil Britton and the entire Greatford parish council and flood warden team rebuilt and recovered in the most extraordinary way. They have gone on to be determined to help other communities to protect themselves better. It is so beautiful to see them wanting to share their expertise and plans with others. Richard Besant, chair of Langham parish council, has advocated and pushed relentlessly on behalf of his village. I mentioned Philip Sagar, the chair of Tallington parish council, who has been a persistent and principled voice for residents who have been facing avoidable misery. I also touched on Yolanda and Chris Stevenson, who fought not only for their own pub in Whissendine, but for the entire community when others frankly would have given up and hidden in a hole.

Those are just some of the people who have held our communities together, and they are remarkable, and I am so proud to represent them. There are more who I wish I could name who have stepped up. It should not be left to those who care passionately to improve our flood defences or respond in an emergency. It should not be councillors, such as Kiloran Heckels or Karen Payne, who find themselves out in the dark trying to get to the bottom of things. In Whitwell, we literally had people putting on scuba gear, diving down to the bottom of the water—that is how deep it was—to try to get things out of the drains to get the water moving. It also should not be left to farmers, who are often our first responders and flood wardens, to stand in the breach because the authorities simply have not responded.

Let me be clear about what I am asking. I am disappointed that our communities have been excluded from the flood funds that were announced overnight, and I would be grateful if the Government revisited that decision. I cannot believe that we are not some of the worst affected communities in the country, not least from the conversations I have had with the Environment Agency. The Government should do more to support local flood resilience groups because, as we discussed earlier, our communities know what is best for them. We know where the flooding has happened, for how long and when there are new patterns.

On insurance, the Flood Re scheme must be updated. Can section 19 reports please have far more of a focus on action and a time limit? We need to end double council tax for victims of flooding and challenge the existing orthodoxy on dredging that is letting our communities down. On developers, we need financial liabilities to ensure that developers who build new homes tackle flooding pre-emptively or are held to account when they have not done so sufficiently. We need water companies to become statutory consultees in the planning process. Finally, as I have touched on, I want the Government to review the flooding recovery framework and in particular the 50-house threshold. As it stands, it systematically excludes my communities that are incredibly vulnerable.

In conclusion, the heavy rains will come again, and I fear they will come far too soon, and our communities cannot face this challenge alone. I have touched on some of the villages that have suffered flooding, but we have had it in Whitwell, Whissendine, Careby, including Careby’s beautiful church, Creeton, Edenham, Braceborough, Ashwell, Stretton, Glooston, Lyddington, Stonton Wyvill, Langham, Tugby, Tallington, Greatford and Barleythorpe Brooke. Those are all in the last two years, and there are far more who have suffered.

Rural communities deserve protection and recovery should not depend on population density and protections for those who can afford the premium. I suspect that these are principles that command support throughout the Chamber, regardless of political alliance, but principles unmatched by policy are just words, and I believe that we in our villages deserve much more than words. This really is one of our foremost concerns and priorities.

I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the points that I have raised, and she is very welcome to come to my next flooding summit. I will bring three counties together if necessary, which may be a shock to their systems, but we would do it if she were willing to come and have those discussions. I look forward very much to hearing her response this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

That is absolutely at the forefront of my mind. Having been to see some of the farmers this year and before the election, and having had those conversations, I am actively looking at what would be a good solution to support our rural communities, bearing in mind the comment that although there may be fewer properties, that does not lessen the impact.

For the constituency of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, the EA is developing a new hydraulic model and hydrology for the catchment to provide further information and a foundation for future flood risk management in the area. It would probably be helpful if the EA reached out to have a conversation with her to explain that in detail.

Just yesterday, we announced a £1.4 billion investment in flooding in 2026-27, which will help to protect tens of thousands of homes and businesses, and funding for more than 600 flood schemes across the country, including upgraded barriers, embankments and natural flood management projects that slow the flow, of which I am a huge fan. It includes £5.5 million for the lower risk debris screens project that will increase flood resilience in the hon. Member’s constituency and other Members’ constituencies, as part of wider investment across the east midlands. More than £260 million will be spent managing, maintaining and repairing EA assets, including those damaged by Storm Goretti and Storm Chandra, ensuring that vital protections remain strong when communities need them most. The investment forms part of the largest flood defence programme in English history, with at least £10.5 billion invested between 2024 and 2036 to protect homes, businesses and critical infrastructure in every corner of the country from the growing threat of flooding.

I am very happy to take away the question on how quickly section 19 reports are done. I am always mindful of how hard-working our local councillors are. They need to do something well and in a timely way, and there can be a tension between the two, but is important that section 19 reports are completed as quickly as possible, so that we can really understand what has happened and hopefully do something to mitigate it in future.

On the point the hon. Lady made about council tax, I will have to take that to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Alicia Kearns]

The Minister has been very generous with interventions. We are about to run out the clock. There were a few more questions and I would be very grateful if she would write to me on them. I know how diligently she fulfils her brief and I am really grateful to her for that, but it would be great to have answers to all the wider points I raised as well.

[Emma Hardy]

I am very happy to do that. Apologies; I normally listen out for the coughing that comes—[Interruption.] And there we have it!

In conclusion, the Government are committed to strengthening resilience to flooding. That not only keeps people safe, but supports economic growth in our rural and local communities across the country. By protecting businesses, reducing disruption and safeguarding jobs, these measures contribute to stability and growth in the face of increasing climate change and flood risk. The Government’s record investment in flood defences will benefit communities across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Many of the practitioners who sell the heinous crime of female genital mutilation also sell exorcisms of children. Thousands of children have died from these so-called exorcisms over the past 10 years, including from the black African community here in the UK. Does the Solicitor General have any consideration of what needs to be done in the law to protect these children?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. This Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls in every form, which is why we announced our cross-Government strategy for tackling VAWG in December. I will happily speak to colleagues across the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to ensure that her points are properly addressed.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It seems that the Conservative party does not understand that if we raise taxes and invest in the future, we can do more to protect people who cannot protect themselves. It is vital that we tackle rural crime, which is a top issue that is raised with me consistently.

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

At the Rutland ploughing contest this weekend, it was clear that farmers feel devastated. They feel that the Government do not understand them, because farmers do not have liquid wealth; they rely on land as their asset to produce food. They turn a small profit but have a very constrained cash flow. Indeed, they have the lowest return on assets of any business sector—an average return of less than 1%.

“Losing a farm is not like losing any other business. It can’t come back.”

Those are the Prime Minister’s words. As the Minister’s constituency is a near neighbour of mine, will he come and repeat them to my farmers in Rutland and Stamford, and have that discussion with them?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I have been on an extended farm tour for the last five years, and I am sure it will continue.

Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman is muttering from a sedentary position. He may wish to know that my grandparents lived in social housing, and I have no particular prejudices against it whatsoever.

We are committed not only to building the homes that are so important to easing the crisis throughout the housing market, but to ensuring that those new homes are of a high standard, that they are zero carbon and that they are built alongside proper infrastructure that provides communities with the services and amenities they need. Integrating public service delivery has to be part of the planning process, so in principle we welcome the Government’s plans to streamline the delivery of critical infrastructure, including in the housing sector, in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, but we need to be clear that the current system has benefited developers rather than communities. The Bill must take that into account.

Crude targets alone have led to many developments being given permission, only for affordable and social housing elements to be watered down on the basis of viability once permission is granted. That must change. We know that local authorities are best placed to make the decisions about housing in their areas, so I urge the Government to ensure that their mandatory housing targets are built from the bottom up—by determining the type of housing and infrastructure communities need, and empowering local government to build social homes where they are most needed. We need the necessary infrastructure, including GPs, schools, bus stops and bus routes, while also ensuring that there is appropriate green space and access to the countryside, which is important for health and wellbeing. Our experience is that residents support good plans with good infrastructure.

Now, I imagine that we will use the term “nimby” in this debate, and it has already been used about the Liberal Democrats, but it is not appropriate to approve housing in areas that are unsuitable—for example, where there is a high risk of flooding. It is not being a nimby to oppose poor planning; it is common sense. Local authorities are under enormous pressure and we know that their planning departments are overstretched. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on that point. They need proper funding to ensure that they make good and consistent decisions, and that their councillors are well advised.

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

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?

[Helen Morgan]

I do not know the details of that individual case, but we need to ensure that planning departments are properly funded so that the decisions made by planning officers are appropriate. Without knowing the details, I do now know whether it is a good development or a poor one, but those departments need to be empowered to make decisions correctly.

Some proposals for development are inappropriate and some are downright dangerous—we mentioned the building of houses on floodplains earlier. The only insurer to re-insure houses on floodplains is due to close its operations in 15 years’ time. We cannot build houses on floodplains. It will not be possible for them to be insured or sold; homeowners will be trapped.

We should also not be building housing developments without additional schools or GP surgeries. Most importantly, we should not be building housing developments where the developers do not prepare the roads and green spaces to an acceptable standard and do not allow them to be adopted by the local authority, but set up a shared management company and leave the homeowners fleeced for the rest of their home ownership experience. I encourage the Deputy Prime Minister to consider that in the forthcoming legislation.

Good councillors approve planning for good developments. That is why, on the days when the Conservatives are not accusing us of being nimbys, they are telling people that we are going to concrete over their countryside.

Planning is not just about housing. We have many demands on our countryside: housing, renewable energy, nature restoration and, importantly, the growing of food. We need to simplify planning so that all those things can happen. Housing, renewable energy and job creation are incredibly important, but I urge the Government to ensure that when they go ahead, it is not at the expense of food production. The Liberal Democrats have called for the development of a land use strategy so that these important and competing demands can be balanced, and so that we use land in the optimal way, protecting the highest grade arable land for food production and putting the infrastructure of renewable energy and housing in less prime places. I therefore hope that the Government will consider a land use strategy as part of their planning reform.

That brings me to another important area of the countryside: our waterways and our beaches. It is a scandal that raw sewage has been allowed to be dumped into our rivers and on to our beaches, while water company executives have taken home huge bonuses and their—often overseas—shareholders have taken huge dividends. The Liberal Democrats are proud to have led the campaign to end the sewage crisis. We welcome the water (special measures) Bill and will be watching closely to ensure that the water regulator is given the powers it needs to finally end this sewage outrage.

I will move on to rural affairs. There was no mention in the King’s Speech of rural communities or priorities for the countryside, which I hope means that the new Government will be ensuring that every policy is rural-proofed and that the demands of delivering public services in rural areas, where the population is spread over a large area, are being considered.

I also want to mention the English devolution bill. The Liberal Democrats are the proud voices of local communities and community-led politics, and we absolutely welcome steps to devolve power away from Westminster, but I ask the Secretary of State to confirm what that will look like for those councils without a devo deal, a metro mayor or a combined authority mayor. It is important that all local councils have the powers and funding to deliver for their communities. That funding must reflect the cost of delivering services in rural areas. Rural councils have been taken for granted for far too long. We need to ensure that people who live in rural areas, who also see increases in their council tax, are getting the public services that they deserve.

Rurality affects the delivery of all types of services, but I want to touch on just a few key areas. Health is an important issue in my North Shropshire constituency, where we have seen huge problems with GP and dentistry access and a crisis in our A&E service. While I welcome the Government’s plans to tackle the crisis in mental health service provision, which is also a big problem in rural areas, we really want to see rural-focused policy to deal with the recruitment crisis in rural areas and the cost of delivering health services over large distances, and to ensure that people who live a long way from a hospital or diagnostic centre can travel to it more easily.

That brings me to public transport, which is quite problematic in Shropshire. We have lost 63% of our bus miles since 2015, which makes it difficult for anybody to access work opportunities, social opportunities, educational opportunities and, indeed, health services. I am really pleased that the Government will allow local authorities to franchise their own bus services—the Liberal Democrats have long called for that—but I would like to see the detail of how that will work and how we will get the funding to kick-start those routes and get labour moving properly around our countryside.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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?

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech. Does she agree that there would be full support on the Conservative Benches for measures to ensure that the supply chain for solar panels does not include slave labour?

[Alicia Kearns]

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.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is, again, making a very fine speech. She is talking not only about pressure on those families, but about any other families who will then see those children going to the state schools in the area.

[Alicia Kearns]

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.