Rural Councils: Funding

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the funding of rural councils.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in the debate.

There is nothing like a bit of competition between North Dorset and West Dorset. I would like to warmly welcome the Sherborne town clerk, Steve Shield, who is in the Public Gallery and is a finalist in the star council awards that will take place later today. I understand that Shaftesbury is also in those awards, so I wish Sherborne Town Council the best of luck; I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), will make the case for Shaftesbury in a moment.

May I take this opportunity to warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his post as Minister for local government finance? I know that he is well versed in the many issues facing us not just in Dorset but across rural Britain. Many, like me, are pleased to see a Dorset MP in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities who is not purely obsessed with the north and urban areas and who can bring meaningful perspective to rural issues, particularly in the south-west.

Ten million people live in rural England. Those who work in the rural economy can expect to earn on average £2,000 less than those in urban areas. The rural fuel poverty gap is double the national average. Rural people pay on average 20% more council tax per head than those in urban areas. My other constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and I both represent the area with the worst social mobility in the country. I have a secondary school in that area that has been partly closed and another school where a third of the classrooms are in disrepair. We also have significant transport issues and social care challenges—in West Dorset, we have a community where a third of the population is over the age of 65.

My constituents are fed up with turning on the telly to hear levelling-up announcements for urban areas in the midlands and the north and hearing nothing about the rural south-west or rural Britain. They want to know, and have sent me here today to ask why rural hardship is not seen in the same way as urban poverty. They expect to see their representatives make the case to change that. That is why other Members and I are in the Chamber today.

It should be no surprise that rural matters are going up the agenda. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) brought a debate to Westminster Hall about rural services. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for chairing the all-party parliamentary group on rural services and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), the previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on all the work that she has done.

I represent West Dorset, which is my home, and I am the sixth generation of a tenant-farming family, and am in the Chamber, almost 10 months on from my last debate, again to champion the cause of millions of people living in rural Britain who want a fairer system of taxation and service provision. Whereas before I focused primarily on the revenue support grant, I am here today to address the funding of rural councils more broadly, and particularly to speak in favour of my own, Dorset Council. That funding is perhaps more important today than it was at the time of the previous debate in January, given that little has changed to improve the situation for rural councils since then. It is nearly a decade since the local government funding formula was locked in. That means it is also a decade since the faulty distribution of the revenue support grant and the corresponding increase in council tax to compensate for the unfair—in my opinion—national distribution of Government resources. As the years have passed, the situation for rural councils, exposed relentlessly to the frozen funding formulas, has deteriorated, and the rural tax burden has increased for millions in England, including my West Dorset constituents.

A recent survey carried out by the County Councils Network and the Society of County Treasurers found that their members face overspending on their budgets by an enormous £600 million per annum. It found that 20 county councils and 17 unitary authorities right across the country will collectively overspend in 2023-24. There is no clear road map for improvement, so those councils are running out of time to find solutions to prevent insolvency. That is one of the reasons why it is important for me to bring this matter to the House.

Against that backdrop, it is a surprise that only one in 10 of those surveyed running well-managed councils are unsure or lack confidence that they will be able to balance their budgets this year—I hasten to remind hon. Members that it is a legal requirement for councils to do so—but without urgent action or reform, that number will increase to four in 10 next year and six in 10 by 2025. That is an unprecedented majority of our rural councils, and the County Councils Network is concerned about whether councils will meet the legal requirements within the next two years.

Why is that the case? What is causing the situation to be so difficult? Why is there an excess burden on rural people? It is due, first, to the formula that dictates the distribution of the revenue support grant from the Government to local authorities; and, secondly, to the corresponding levels of council tax that councils are forced to levy to cover their increasing social and services cost. As the Minister said to the Levelling-up, Housing and Communities Committee earlier this month, the unique characteristics and challenges of each local authority make it difficult to implement a national fix, as they often require bespoke solutions. I fully understand and support that idea.

I have spoken a great deal in this Chamber and on the Floor of the House about the revenue support grant formula and council tax, so I will touch on them only briefly for Members’ information. In 2013-14, we locked in a local government funding formula that distributed an unfairly low proportion of central Government resources and grants to rural councils; today, urban councils receive 38% more in Government-funded spending power per head than rural councils. This year, my local authority, Dorset Council, received just £700,000 from central Government, which accounts for just 0.2% of funding. Although my hon. Friend the Minister, who was on the Back Benches at the time, and I made the case very strongly for Dorset in the local government funding debate, the local council would probably say that other adjustments were made that offset that, so there was little if any net benefit. The rest must be sourced elsewhere—often through the council tax mechanism—or the council will enter an insolvency situation.

As a result, councils in the predominantly rural areas of the country that are overlooked when it comes to Government support must increase the rate of council tax, irrespective of their individual demands on services and demographics. Rural residents across the country pay an average of 20% more council tax. Across the County Councils Network, 68% of funding was received from council tax alone, compared with an average of 56.8%—it is, of course, lower in most urban boroughs. In everyday terms, that means that the typical band D council tax bill for someone living in Dorchester, Sherborne, Bridport or Lyme Regis—or any of the 132 parishes in West Dorset—will be over £2,000 a year.

While focusing on our situation in West Dorset, I should explain why the existing system of rural council funding cannot continue unamended. In West Dorset, a third of residents are over 65. It is a vast geographical territory, covering over 400 square miles of the most beautiful and picturesque part of the country. Although that may sound idyllic, it is tremendously difficult to travel without access to a car or the ability to drive, especially as local public transport options have become more and more restricted. Sixth formers in Dorset— 16 to 19-year-olds—have to pay to get the bus to go to sixth form. Why is that the case, when the Government pump billions into TfL and Londoners get travel for free? That cannot be right.

These three factors—the revenue support grant, council tax and local characteristics—regularly combine to disadvantage rural communities and people, imposing barriers where there need not be any. That can be felt across society. Taking them together, it is fair to say that rural councils continue to be placed under unique pressure.

This has a knock-on effect on households and businesses. We have seen it clearly during the cost of living crisis, where three in four councils, many of them serving rural residents, have increased their council tax by the maximum permitted rate. Accounting for the increase, a typical band-D council tax bill for rural residents is 27.5% higher than that faced by London residents.

It is fair to say that the high rise in energy prices has disproportionately affected rural households and businesses. That is against the backdrop of a rural fuel poverty gap that is already double the national average. In West Dorset, more than half of households are off grid, meaning that they have less access to energy support than people on the mains gas network. This is one of the primary reasons why, when Dorset Council established its household support fund for applications, its funding allocation was gone within a matter of hours.

Business rates are a very topical issue for rural councils. The simple nature of our local economy in West Dorset means that 97% of businesses are small or micro sized. They are not conglomerates; they are not transnational. They are often run by people, perhaps from home or from a small premises at the local trading estate, employing one, two, three, four or five people who are attempting to make a modest living. It means, however, that income derived from retained business rates by the council in West Dorset is 14.5%, whereas Tower Hamlets, for example—to make a comparison with London—receives over 50% from its retained business rates. To put that into financial terms, it is £50.2 million for Dorset, but £176 million for the borough of Tower Hamlets.

We ought not to forget the importance of social care. I recognise that this area is often debated in the Department of Health and Social Care, but the reality is that local government has an important responsibility for delivering social care and services. Residents across the country would be forgiven for overlooking the acronym for adult social care—ASC—on their council tax bill, but rural councils are forced to derive huge amounts of their income from the adult social care precept. In total, people would expect three quarters of the amount they pay in council tax to go towards social care support, simply because older people tend to reside in more rural areas. As I mentioned earlier, a third of our population in West Dorset is over 65, compared with just 10% in some London boroughs. The matter of an ageing population of concern for all rural councils, as rural residents get 13% less per head in social care support overall. That is one of the main drivers for the council tax increase. The matter of social care becomes sharper when we make a comparison between urban and rural. Residents in an average band-E property in West Dorset will pay an annual social care precept of £204.04. For the same property in the borough of Westminster, the precept is a mere £3.20. The difference is absolutely enormous.

The dividends are especially visible in funding for young people’s services and schools. Across Dorset, there is core school funding per pupil of £5,728, which places the council in the upper third of upper-tier local authorities for education spending. Other rural authorities fare just as poorly or even worse. Leicester, Cheshire and Bedfordshire are all ranked in the top 10 upper-tier local authorities for core school funding per pupil. Looking again to the capital for our rural to urban comparison, it is possible to see that London boroughs occupy all 10 of the top 10 spots for core school funding. Islington, Westminster, Camden, Southwark and Hackney all spend over £7,500 per pupil when it comes to education funding. Tower Hamlets is top of the list; it spends £8,122 per pupil. That is 40% more than is spent on a child in education in rural Dorset. That disparity is simply unfair and is not acceptable for those who are being educated in rural Britain.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I am grateful to him for bringing us together on this important topic. On the matter of disparity in funding, does he recognise that, on top of the ludicrously exaggerated funding that London councils get, they each make millions more on parking fines that they are then able to put back into their communities? That is not taken into consideration, so their budgets are inflated beyond even that which we see in the basic figures.

[Chris Loder]

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, but it is worse than that. One of my asks for the Minister is to take away and investigate this: it is important that we all note that London is getting £236 million a year more of Government grant than the formula says it should, and that £166 million goes to five London boroughs alone. I very much appreciate that my hon. Friend and neighbour is very new in his ministerial post, and I am not expecting him to answer some of these very tricky questions, but I would appreciate it if he would ask his officials to look into that and gain an understanding of some of these matters, because for those of us representing rural constituents this is simply unacceptable. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) again for her kind intervention.

It is not just education, businesses and social care that this unfairness pervades, but transport too. The stark reality is that urban councils are in the privileged position of spending three and half times more on public transport than rural councils. We can see that demarcation clearly between London and West Dorset; I have given enough comparators to make the point. If anything, it should be the other way around, because of the rural disparity.

Something is not right in the formulas and the understanding of them. We do not have a dedicated or overfunded public body to oversee our transport network in Dorset, as other areas do with Transport for London, Transport for Greater Manchester and so on. In West Dorset, unlike many urban areas, further education students do not receive a free or subsidised travel pass to get to their places of study. Residents are not in the luxurious position of receiving eye-watering grants for public transport in rural Britain, and definitely not in West Dorset. Instead, they have to rely on the good will of community operators to keep running. That is not sustainable; I hope that Transport Ministers will consider that point. It is evident that the disparity in national mechanisms for council funding between rural and urban areas is far-reaching, cross-cutting and very difficult for councils on the wrong side of the formulas.

Almost 10 million people live in rural England. Most hon. Members present represent rural constituencies, and many of us are rural residents ourselves. We want action to address the challenges and financial difficulties that our local councils face. It is important that we see the continuation of the excellent Government work across the board to improve the fairness of this crucial aspect of Government policy—something that I, the Minister and others have been attempting for some time. Primarily, we need fundamental reform of the frozen funding formulas, which in my view constitute a levy that penalises rural residents simply for where they live. That strikes at the heart of fairness, which is not on.

This country has moved a long way in the decade since 2013-14. It is fair to say that the funding formulas and the revenue support grant formula were geared to a very different climate in 2013-14. We know that many things have changed; many have improved and some have got worse. Other models such as the Green Book should also be amended to ensure that fairness is realised. If we continue with rural councils not receiving the fairness that they deserve, county authorities will have no choice but to cut back on some of the services that they have to provide. It is important, and only fair, that I let the Government know that that is not acceptable.

I am pleased that my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset is the Minister for local government finance. He brings a level of understanding and insight from Dorset that I do not think we have seen in that role before. I had the same debate 10 months ago with one of his predecessors, in whose constituency council tax was £800 lower than in the Minister’s and mine. It is a difficult situation for an MP to comprehend unless we see it day to day with our constituents, as the Minister and I both do.

I wish the Minister well in making progress. Rural England is crying out for his help. I look forward to him being the messiah of local government finance. The February debate on local government finance is always an interesting one. I look forward to it and hope that we will have a further conversation then, and much more progress in the meantime.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am pleased to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for securing the debate.

When my hon. Friend the Minister accepted his position, he might not have realised that he was essentially agreeing to be hunted down by the Member for Rutland and Melton on a weekly basis. On that, I urge him to open his diary—after my speech, of course—and put in a slot for us to have a private discussion about this matter. I thank him for getting his pen out so quickly. Having set out the ground rules of our relationship, I will not repeat many of the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. As we all know, the reality is that it costs a lot more to deliver services in rural areas, and if we are truly to level up the whole country, we need to deal with the funding imbalance.

Rutland County Council and Leicestershire County Council are both severely underfunded. For example, if Leicestershire, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset kindly mentioned, was funded at the same level as Surrey County Council, we would receive an additional £104 million to help the people of Leicestershire. On a similar basis, neighbouring Lincolnshire County Council, which includes Stamford, would receive another £116 million to support its people.

According to Leicestershire County Council, its budget gap is set to grow by £13 million next year and, realistically, could exceed £100 million by 2027-28. Beyond council tax, the east Midlands receives the lowest levels of public investment of any UK region—something that we have to end. I am seeing the repercussions of that low public investment in my constituency. Leicestershire County Council has decided to pull out of the next stage of a bypass. In effect, we will have half a bypass. If the county council had built the north and the south routes when I had secured the money from Government to build the entire bypass, we would not be in this position now. However, due to the fiscal situation that it finds itself in, we will now have just half.

Rutland County Council has been an effective unitary authority for many years and we are very proud of our independence. Indeed, the Minister’s predecessor visited our county regarding this exact topic on my invitation—another invitation will follow—and he found us to be one of the most fiscally responsible and effective councils when we were under Conservative leadership.

However, we are required to raise a shocking 80% of our revenue through taxation, when the national average is just over 60%. That means that for a band D council tax property in Rutland—hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen—the owner pays £2,365. That is the highest in the country, despite the fact that we are in the bottom 10% in the country for social mobility. What does that mean? We receive £331 less per household in Government funding than other councils, we have the highest council tax in the country, and we have some of the worst social mobility.

However, the Minister will be pleased to learn that I have not just come here to tell him that he must fix the problem; I have come with a solution. At the start of the year, I considered how we could bring fairness back to funding. I do not believe that the fair funding review is necessarily feasible, unfortunately, due to the £4 billion cost that it would probably incur, so I considered the most noble of Conservative aims: how do we improve social mobility?

On that basis, I looked, for example, at affluent counties such as ours—Dorset, Rutland and Leicestershire —that look like they do not have deprivation, but actually the pockets of rural poverty within them are something that no MP would ever forget if they saw them, because they are so heartbreaking. We know that it costs far more to deliver services in our areas, but council funding formulas are blind to social mobility, with the Treasury settlement funding assessment targeting only areas with high deprivation.

Adjusting for deprivation, the most socially mobile areas end up with funding allocations that are over 50% higher than the least socially mobile areas. Essentially, if someone is from one of the least socially mobile areas, they receive less funding. Indeed, I have worked out, by going through the figures, that there is actually a penalty, which means that someone’s chances of building themselves up and going where they want are low. I went to Onward and said, “Will you help me work this up into a proposal, to see whether I am mad?” The proposal is not a request for more money; I am asking for us to put social mobility alongside deprivation in funding formulas.

When we do that, we do not see many people lose out. Indeed, the Minister would benefit; his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy), would benefit; the Chair would benefit; and both speakers for the opposition parties who are here today—the hon. Members for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—would benefit. This is not a party political solution; this is not about red wall or blue wall. It is about bringing fairness back, and it works. I have met the Chancellor and the Minister’s predecessor and they were both very interested in this proposal. We can do this within the existing fiscal headroom.

By introducing metrics for social mobility, we can target funding at both areas of high deprivation and areas of low social mobility in equal measure, ensuring that we address poverty while also boosting opportunity.

In conclusion, the funding formula has not changed for 10 years; we must change it. Will the Minister kindly meet me and consider our report, which I believe would fundamentally change this situation? I will just repeat this for those listening from the Treasury: I am not asking for more money; I am just asking for fairness and I am bringing forward a solution that will help Rutland and Melton and so many other areas around the country.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)]

I now call the spokesman for the official Opposition. Both Front-Benchers have 10 minutes in which to speak. I am very disappointed that the spokesman for the official Opposition was late to this debate. That was a discourtesy to the Member who moved the motion. I hope that he will take that into account for further debates.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mrs Latham. I apologise to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for being slightly late; I was trying to get the printer to spring into action this morning. I congratulate him on securing an important debate on local government funding, and I am delighted to respond to it.

We all know that our councils are at the frontline of public service delivery, improving the lives of millions of people and the places they live, work and holiday throughout the year. They are also often the last line of defence when people fall through the net of other parts of the public sector. We also know that local councils have borne a disproportionate burden of cuts throughout what has been a lost decade of austerity that has seen £15 billion taken from English local government since 2010. Rightly, therefore, communities are anxious for the funding they desperately need. More fundamentally, change is needed in the relationship.

It is worth responding to the debate’s many thoughtful contributions. The hon. Member for West Dorset rightly pointed to the now very fragile nature of local councils. Many are looking at the next year or two and wondering whether they will be able to make ends meet or face insolvency. We have seen some councils already in that position.

There has been a lot of talk about the rural service delivery grant, which has an important role to play, but we need to rewind to the inception of that grant. It was born from the area based grant that was primarily targeted at urban deprived communities to deal with social and economic need. That grant was deleted with a week’s notice by the then coalition Government and was followed by the rural service delivery grant. We saw no new money to deal with the growing need in our society and our economy; there was just a transfer of money from one part of the country to another and from one type of council to another, without there being a proper, balanced assessment of the funding need across the whole of England.

There were many calls for that assessment, and the Minister and I, when we were on the Local Government Association executive together, made the call for an evidence-based approach to how councils are funded. It is not right that we pitch one area against another when, fundamentally, if an old person needs adult social care in any part of England, they ought to get it. If a young person is at risk of abuse, they ought to be protected in every part of England. The same is true of every public service.

The Government’s response in 2014 was to commission a review into the unit costs of service delivery. It was intended to take into account the disproportionate cost in very sparsely populated areas, where it naturally costs more to deliver some types of services. That should have been the evidence base. What we have seen is a gerrymandering of the system throughout the years, whereby the money is always directed for political endeavours. We have seen it with the high streets fund, the levelling-up fund and the rest of it, where the evidence base does not hold up to scrutiny.

Beneath all that, councils are not getting the funding they need to provide even the basic services for the local population.

[Alicia Kearns]

As a former civil servant, I take issue with the idea that, somehow, civil servants have agreed to a political formula. That is not how it works. Is he really suggesting that Rutland and Melton is a key red wall seat? We received £23 million of levelling-up funding, but I do not remember being at the top of the list of people who needed to be re-elected by being given some kind of handout from the Government. Funding was given on the basis of the best possible applications.

[Jim McMahon]

The debate is not about the levelling-up fund as much as about the debate around it. It is not for me to highlight which seats are or are not in scope of the target priorities of the Conservative party, but I do say that we need to move on from a system in which we shift around the country a diminishing resource that does not meet the need and when, one year, one council benefits but the next year, it may be disadvantaged. There has to be a funding formula that shows that every community gets the funding it needs and that takes into account the cost of need, the cost of demand and the cost of delivering those services.

We have heard a range of other contributions that I will not go into because of time, after taking that intervention. However, we must all acknowledge that the system we have is unsustainable. Several Members have said that there is no more money than there is in the envelope, and we have to accept that. The public finances are not in a good position. There is no wand that will magic up new money, but just looking at the local government purse without looking at the whole of the public sector would be an error.

We know that councils are best placed to deliver a wide range of services and that they are absolutely best placed for early intervention. We should not just look at local government; we should ask what we can do for worklessness, transport, and health and social care services, where earlier intervention by a local authority overall would cost the taxpayer far less and deliver a better outcome for local communities too.

There is no doubt that residents in local rural communities acutely feel the cuts that are being borne. That casts a unique shadow on our rural communities. We know, too, that there is hardship in those centres in relation to connectivity, schools and transport. It is not the fault of those councils, which are desperately trying to make it all work; in the end, it is about the overall funding settlement not being fit for purpose. We recognise that different councils have bespoke challenges that we need to address, and we have heard about some of those today: rural housing, social care and the cost of delivering services in very remote areas, whether those are schools, bin collections or public transport and their operations.

What does it mean in practice, if we do not get that right? It means, in the end, that the places that people care about and have invested in are ultimately disadvantaged. It means that town centres and village centres are no longer financially viable, and then we see shops being boarded up because the population cannot afford to stay there. Generations have to move further away, because they cannot afford to stay in their local areas.

The fact is that we have seen a lot of change in Government; we have seen a lot of change in ministerial positions and in the Secretary of State, but councils have just carried on going, waiting for a long-term funding settlement that never seems to arrive. The Rural Services Network found that the local government funding settlement for 2023-24 meant that urban councils were receiving 38% more per head from the Government funding formula than rural councils, which equates to about £135 per person. It is not difficult to see how that is arrived at, and the Government have said that they would fix what they have said was a “broken system”. At the Local Government Association conference in July, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said that the system was “out-of-date” and needed “to be fairer”. We agreed with that, and we also accept that we cannot carry on.

We cannot continue to set one area against another. We see absolute deprivation in our rural communities, although it is sometimes quite hidden. If we look behind the net curtains in pretty, picturesque villages, we see people living in absolute desperation, struggling to make ends meet. We only have to walk across the road from Parliament, in one of the richest capitals in the world, to see people living in absolute poverty and desperation, too. Surely a fair funding formula would follow that need wherever it exists and be agile enough to make sure that it roots that need out. That speaks to a wider issue about the power balance. Far too much of the relationship is one of dependency of local government on central Government, and the funding regime massively contributes to that. The idea that councils are pitched against each other in a format like “The Hunger Games” is not a healthy relationship; it is not one of an empowered local government and it is certainly not very efficient, so we need to change it.

We know that the underfunding of our rural councils stunts growth, and Labour is prepared to sow the seeds of transferring power, so that our rural councils can determine their own fate. What should that look like? It is about local communities deciding for themselves what is right for their area; it is not about Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall, who are often miles away from the real impact. More than that, that new-found partnership with rural communities comes from a mission-led Government; a Government with a purpose, and a determination to see that purpose through.

We want our rural communities to have higher growth, to end the cost of living crisis, to have an NHS that is fit for the future, to have community energy where people have a stake in the future and where we all have energy security, and, of course, to have safer streets, with a commitment to have a further 13,000 police officers, many of whom will be deployed in our rural and coastal communities to tackle crime hotspots, where they exist. We also want our rural communities to have more opportunities for young people in schools in our rural communities, and we have heard much about that today and about how, in many ways, that actually goes beyond local government to the classroom, the local GP and to whether there is a bus service in place at all. That is a partnership that councils will have under a Labour Government.

We have heard a lot about Labour’s plans, our mission-led Government and what we want to do. We do not hear as much about a comprehensive plan from the Government, which I hope we hear in the Minister’s response today. It is a matter of fact that after nearly 14 years of austerity, the system is creaking to the point of being broken.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Michael Gove]

No. But the BDS movement asks that, alone among nations, Israel be treated as illegitimate in itself—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I will make more progress and then give way.

Where the BDS campaign has been adopted and endorsed there have, unfortunately, been real community-cohesion problems. We have seen an increase in antisemitic events following on from the activities of the BDS movement, including supermarkets removing kosher products from their shelves following specific protests. The Community Security Trust has recently recorded the highest ever number of antisemitic incidents.

In evidence adduced before the Supreme Court in 2020, the following point was made. The evidence said that

“although anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian campaigning in itself is”,

obviously,

“not anti-Semitic, there is a pattern of anti-Semitic behaviour in connection with campaigns promoting a boycott of Israel. For example, protests outside an Israeli-owned shop in central Manchester in summer 2014 led to some Jewish people using the shop being racially abused by protestors, including shoppers”—

I hope the House will forgive me—

“being called ‘Child killer’, comments such as ‘You Jews are scum and the whole world hates you’, and Nazi salutes being made at Jewish shoppers using the Israeli-owned store. On social media, hashtags such as #BDS, #BoycottIsrael and #FreePalestine are regularly used by people posting anti-Semitic tweets and comments.”

That is why Labour Friends of Israel has rightly stated:

“BDS damages communal relations and fosters antisemitism at home, while doing nothing to further the cause of peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. Public bodies should not be singling out the world’s only Jewish state for boycotts.”

Luke Akehurst, a Labour NEC member speaking in a personal capacity, has also argued that we should

“welcome the Government’s proposed bill to end the ability of public sector bodies to carry out boycotts and divestment.”

Mr Akehurst added that he was against BDS more widely

“because it deepens the divisions in the Middle East conflict rather than encouraging dialogue and coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. BDS demonises and delegitimises Israel”. 

I agree with Labour Friends of Israel, I agree with Luke Akehurst, I agree with the Board of Deputies, and I agree with the Jewish Leadership Council, all of whom back this Bill. I agree with the French and German Governments who have taken action against the BDS movement, and I agree with all 50 Governors of US states—Democrat and Republican—who have denounced the BDS movement. The question for every Member of this House is whether they stand with us against antisemitism or not.

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Although I disagree fundamentally with the point that he has just tried to make, my question to him is this: has a single diplomatic post specifically advised that the Bill contravenes our UN Security Council requirements and resolutions?

[Michael Gove]

I am sorry, but I missed the point—forgive me.

[Alicia Kearns]

Has any diplomatic post specifically advised the Government that what is being proposed this evening in the Bill contravenes our UN Security Council resolutions?

[Michael Gove]

I know of no such advice.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This evening’s debate should focus on the specifics of the Bill in front of us. The right of Israel to exist and defend itself is not up for debate. The right of Palestine to exist and defend itself is also not up for debate. The UK supports a two-state solution, and I believe that everyone in the Chamber would also be of that mind. I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to the implications of the current drafting of the Bill. It has implications on our historic commitments and responsibilities and ability to play the role of honest arbiter within the region, and risks undermining our commitments as a United Nations Security Council member.

My concerns about the Bill fall within four areas: first, foreign policy implications; secondly, exceptionalism in legislation; thirdly, protection of freedom of speech; and finally, the legality of what we are being asked to support. Let me begin with the implications of the Bill on foreign policy and international obligations. My first concern, as was raised in earlier interventions, is the conflation of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Conflating East Jerusalem, the west bank and the Golan Heights breaks with our position, because the UK recognises the Golan Heights as annexed and the west bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is a departure from our foreign policy.

Not only does the Bill break with our foreign policy, but clause 3(7) puts the UK in breach of our commitments under UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016). That is not just an international commitment; it is one that we drafted back in 2016. It states that in their “relevant dealings”, states must distinguish

“between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

The Bill does not distinguish between our treatment of Israel and the OPTs.

Why does breaching UNSCR 2334 matter? Because we rely on the rules based system to protect ourselves and to protect our allies. How many of us have talked about the rule of law in this Chamber, when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, Serbia, the Balkans, and so many other parts of this world? The impact of the Bill would be significant. It will undermine our position as a respectable and reliable multilateral partner, committed to upholding UN Security Council resolutions as we should as a permanent member. It risks our losing the support of Arab states on shared issues, and their vote at the UN. We all know that western states are spending a significant amount of time trying to shore up the support of so-called non-aligned countries. I have spent most of the last few days on the phone to Arab ambassadors—the same Arab ambassadors who recognise Israel and want to normalise relations with Israel. Finally, we risk giving China, Iran, Russia, Serbia and others an easy propaganda win, because they will use this against us when we talk about the annexation of territories around the world.

I am concerned that the UN Special Coordinator would have no choice but to explicitly name the UK in their next report on how member states are adhering to compliance with UNSCR 2334. I also worry that it sends the wrong message about the achievement of sovereignty through violence. It means that if Israel breaches international law in the occupied territories, public bodies cannot express their ethical objection to those crimes. I worry that the Bill will leave the international community questioning whether Israeli settlements in the OPTs and the Golan Heights are still regarded as illegal by the UK Government.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady has given a very good list of people that the Bill could undermine. Does she also recognise that it undermines many people in Israel who oppose the occupation in the occupied territories, and it would make their life harder when making the case in Israel in a democratic sense?

[Alicia Kearns]

I have received significant representations from human rights organisations within Israel, and also from within our Jewish communities in the UK, who feel that this is not only the worst possible timing for the Bill, but that they themselves do not support it.

If we are now to have questioned our position on the OPTs legally, how is the Bill compatible with that, and with the fact that the Conservative Government recognise that settlements built on occupied Palestinian land since 1967 are illegal? We must ensure that all legislation makes a clear distinction between Israel where we support no boycott, and the illegal settlements on occupied land where a boycott would be consistent with our position on UNSCR 2334. Why are we undermining our international position by breaching our position on a two-state solution, and changing the UK’s recognition of certain territories as occupied, when the Bill can achieve the same end simply by removing clause 3(7)? The House will hear that point reiterated throughout the evening by many of my colleagues.

I was also concerned that the Secretary of State appeared not to be aware of the concerns emanating from the Foreign Office and from diplomatic posts. I ask him to clarify that when winding up this evening. I think the wording was that “no such advice had been received”. Has the Foreign Office truly not given any advice that it had concerns that the Bill breached our UN Security Council resolutions?

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Does the UK presently have any policies against goods coming in from the settlements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

I am not aware whether we do, but that would be legitimate within the current UN Security Council restrictions so I would not necessarily oppose it. What I am saying is that we would not necessarily support Israel being boycotted, but we would support a boycott of products from the occupied territories, because we consider them to be illegal or annexed.

[Dr Whitford]

Is it not an issue to use the term “boycotting” with regard to the settlements? They are illegal under international law, so no public body should be investing in, or making profit from, them.

[Alicia Kearns]

Inherently, the hon. Lady makes a valid point, although it is potentially a different discussion. There is a fundamental question around whether we should be boycotting or bringing in goods. As the House knows, I have been vocal in ensuring that goods coming from genocide are not imported from across China. We must have a standard response across all countries.

To sum up, my concern is that legislation by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must not depart from our foreign policy, let alone undermine it or leave us ostracised internationally. My second concern is the legislative implications from the exceptionalism proposed in the Bill. Since my election, the Government have been at great pains to make the point to me that all legislation should be agnostic. I must admit that I railed against that when first elected, and the House may have seen me table amendments with the words “China” and “Xinjiang” on repeat—ad nauseam, some might say. However, the Government are correct, and I have come to appreciate and recognise that position.

To demonstrate that point, let me draw on the Procurement Bill, which this Bill interacts with on exceptions, pension schemes and the UK security services. All the amendments that I tabled to the Procurement Bill—I am grateful to the Government for having accepted them—were country-agnostic, because the Government made the point that that is how we legislate, except for such things as trade Bills. We should be agnostic in all we do, but worse than being non-agnostic, the Bill gives exceptional impunity to Israel. We should not give that to any country, and I would be standing here making the same request were any country named.

To act in this way now sends a clear message to all Members of Parliament: “From now on, it is game on. If you want to put China, Xinjiang or any other country into primary legislation, crack on.” The Chief Whip will not be able to tell Members they cannot do it anymore, and Government Ministers will not be able to argue against it any more, because we have done it and broken that practice in this Bill. The Government will regret making this precedent. The reality is that we can achieve the same outcome without putting geographic references into primary legislation.

On the implications for freedom of speech—I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) for having made me aware of how acute these are—the Bill has unjustifiable clauses. Clause 4(1) states that if a local council leader, university vice-chancellor or even the chief executive of a private company delivering public services speaks in a way that contravenes clause 1, they have broken the law. To make the implications clear, the Bill states that just someone expressing in print that they would like, as an elected official, to boycott products from Xinjiang, China or any illegal settlement but cannot, because the law does not allow them to do so, constitutes an offence punishable by an as yet unlimited fine from the Secretary of State. That is completely inappropriate.

[Joanna Cherry]

The hon. Lady is making a wonderful speech and I agree with everything she has said. On that last point, does she agree that the Bill is likely to disproportionately interfere with freedom of expression and the conscience of individuals, in such a way that does not sit with our obligations under articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR?

[Alicia Kearns]

I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Lady, because this legislation does breach article 10 rights to freedom of speech, as it fails to distinguish between a person and an authority, so individuals risk being liable. If the legislation made clear that it is about public authorities, we would not have those concerns, but the lack of that clarity makes individuals liable to being fined, and therefore it breaches article 10 of the ECHR. Given that the Government have just rightly passed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which I fundamentally and entirely support, to now stop elected individuals from expressing moral disapproval or even to consider or vocalise ethical investment decisions is wrong.

My final concern is the legality of what we are being asked to support. I question whether this Bill will be legally sound once tested, and I have every reason to think it will not be, because it has previously failed in the High Court. When the measure fails again in the High Court, we will then see a judgment on the UK’s treatment of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which I fear I would not be proud to stand behind. Similar legislation has failed, and legal concerns rest around, for example, the terms “political or moral disapproval”, which are not defined in the Bill and breach our commitment to making human rights fundamental in our decision making. Our obligations under the UN guiding principles on business and human rights essentially mean that this legislation would see the private sector having greater adherence to our human rights than the public sector. I encourage the Secretary of State to consider potential conflict between the UK Government and the UN stating that settlements are illegal while then penalising local councils in the UK for taking ethical procurement decisions to address that illegality.

There is significant unhappiness among colleagues in the House and in our party. To enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to still deliver on our manifesto commitment, I urge him to please remove clause 3(7), which is unnecessary to delivering on our commitment. We can still do this, with just a small compromise from those on the Front Bench. The Government can still introduce Israel’s exception through secondary legislation, which would mean that we would treat Israel as equal to every other state. It would prevent us from breaching our UN Security Council resolutions and from being dragged through the courts. It would maintain our country-agnostic legislative approach, and it would prevent us from undermining our standing internationally.

While we are on the subject, I have never felt that we are so close to conflict, particularly following this morning’s news. There is the chance that we might be seeing a third intifada and the Gaza crisis of 2023, and we need to demonstrate meaningful resolve from King Charles Street in ending the conflict and de-escalating. I therefore urge the Prime Minister to appoint a middle east peace envoy, because we do not have any envoy for the middle east, let alone one focused exclusively on the middle east peace process. We should be worried, because what happens in Palestine and Israel impacts around the world. I stress that this low-commitment ask would allow us to live up to our responsibilities and demonstrate meaningful resolve. With that, I join with other respected friends of Israel in urging the Government to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

UN Security Council resolution 2334 asks countries to differentiate between Israel and the occupied territories. We have done that in this clause; they are clearly separated out in different paragraphs. However, as the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, we are open to any discussions on the Bill and of course we want the best legislation here.

[Alicia Kearns]

rose—

[Felicity Buchan]

I am very conscious that, in the interests of time, I only have a few minutes.

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend knows the incredibly high esteem I hold her in, but it just is not credible to keep repeating that this does not change how we treat the Golan Heights, which have been annexed, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Foreign Office’s own legal advice states that the Bill could breach UNSC 2334. How am I being told repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that that is not the case, when that is what Government lawyers are saying themselves? We have a responsibility to uphold that resolution. We drafted this legislation and therefore we need to remove clause 3(7). We on these Back Benches have offered a landing platform to the Government: “Remove that clause. You can still do this.” But please do not repeat that this does not change anything when the Government lawyers themselves say it does.

[Felicity Buchan]

The Government’s view is that the Bill is compliant with UN Security Council resolution 2334.

I move on to the reasoned amendment, which rightly recognises the impact that boycotts and divestment campaigns can have on undermining community cohesion. The Government, however, are resisting the amendment on the basis that this legislation is a robust and proportionate means of stopping public bodies engaging in divisive campaigns and of fulfilling our 2019 manifesto commitment. The amendment refers specifically to the Uyghur Muslims. This Government are concerned about the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains and are taking robust action. The exceptions in this Bill, alongside the exclusion grounds in the Procurement Bill, will keep suppliers involved in labour market misconduct, including human trafficking and modern slavery, no matter where they are in the world, out of public sector supply chains.

We have already discussed the point on the occupied territories and the Golan Heights. The amendment claims that this Bill limits freedom of speech, but that is not the case. Private individuals and bodies are not affected by the legislation. The right to freedom of speech is protected by article 10 of the European convention on human rights and the Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of freedom of speech.

The amendment also criticises the powers given to the Secretary of State to enforce this ban. Far from being the unprecedented powers claimed, they are modelled on existing powers of regulators such as the Office for Students and the Pensions Regulator. It would simply not be logical to impose a ban with a toothless enforcement regime.

This legislation delivers an important manifesto commitment. It will ensure that the UK has a consistent foreign policy approach and speaks with one voice internationally. I look forward to working with hon. Members throughout the Bill’s passage to deliver this important legislation and to continuing engagement on the issues that hon. Members have raised in the House today. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes, that’s the plan.

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

Solar companies across the country are cynically putting in for just 49.9 MW to avoid having to get national approval from the Government for their solar farms. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss this playing of the system and the Mallard Pass solar farm proposed in my constituency, which will be built with Uyghur blood labour?

[Michael Gove]

Those are three very important points; I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. We must not have the system gamed. We certainly need to be vigilant about any commercial ties with firms that exploit people in China, but we do need more renewable power.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for speaking so passionately about the bid for her constituency. I am certainly willing to engage with her and Ministers at the Department for Transport to see what more we can do.

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

Rutland and Melton councils have put forward a brilliant blueprint for rural innovation in our levelling-up bid, focused on health and transport. The context is an urgent need to put social mobility into funding formulas for those areas of deprivation otherwise hidden by affluence. Will my right hon. Friend do what he said he would do back in February: take up an offer that is too good to be true by coming to Rutland and Melton to discuss the bid and the future of social mobility funding?

[Michael Gove]

What an alluring invitation—and yes. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) pointed out earlier, Leicestershire and Rutland are relatively poorly funded in comparison with other local authorities, which is why the particular plight of deprived communities in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere is at the forefront of our minds.

UK Shared Prosperity Fund: Rural Areas

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

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

When people think of levelling up, what often comes to mind is cities that have been left behind, areas of the north whose industries have changed and towns where inequalities are often blatant and impossible to miss, but how often are the needs of rural communities considered within that discussion? I know that they are largely absent from the media debate on this issue and I suspect that they rarely get a look-in in Whitehall. This is the crux of why I stand here this evening: rural communities can be forgotten no more. Too many of them have been left behind, and they deserve to be levelled up too.

One fifth of the UK’s population live in rural areas, so this debate is of great consequence to very many. We too need support to access the opportunities our communities need to succeed. I recognise that this is not straightforward, because in rural areas poverty is often hidden. Barriers to social mobility can be more difficult to observe in rural areas, and it costs more to deliver services in those areas. Another issue is that deprivation is used as a key determinant of funding, but with no recognition of the fact that rural poverty should be considered within this because of the added cost of accessing services in rural areas, which deprives many of access. A focus in policy making on urban and industrial growth has come at the expense of those who do not live in large cities, and this has been made worse by underinvestment in critical infrastructure and local government funding, particularly in areas of the east midlands.

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The national figure for this year’s funding settlement is £128 per person, but Leicestershire County Council gets only £85 per person.

[Alicia Kearns]

My beloved hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Leicestershire were funded the same as Surrey, it would get something like £104 million more, which I will address in more detail shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David T. C. Davies.)

[Alicia Kearns]

Rural prosperity has been stifled, and the rural powerhouse campaign estimates that closing the rural productivity gap would add £43 billion of gross value added to our economy.

I convey a simple request to the Minister: that the Government make sure they do not leave rural areas behind; that the Government promise to level up rural areas; that he sends a delegation of civil servants to my constituency—they could also pop across the border to his constituency—to see the challenges faced by our rural authorities; that he considers creating a rural capital investment fund; and that he establishes a rural deprivation unit in his Department.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. As the MP for the rural constituency of Strangford, this subject is close to my heart. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Does the hon. Lady agree that many rural businesses would be successful online if only they had more support specifically designed to help those in rural areas and that some of the shared prosperity fund should be allocated for specialists in rural business to provide training and support?

[Alicia Kearns]

I could not agree more. Rural businesses also require more support to access the broadband they need to establish and grow.

I welcome the UK shared prosperity fund, which is a central pillar of our levelling-up agenda. It rightly focuses on local stakeholders and letting local people have their say, but I would like to raise the concerns expressed to me by Harborough District Council, Melton Borough Council and Rutland County Council.

First, rural districts and local authorities have been prescribed relatively small proportions of funding. That is not a surprise to many of us, but I hope it can be rectified. Secondly, local flexibility risks being constrained by the fund’s pre-specified outcomes. Finally, the yearly spending requirements limit our ability to maximise investment spend over the fund’s duration.

For the shared prosperity fund to be most successful, we have to focus on long-term investments, but a closer inspection of the 2021-22 Red Book shows that there will be no dedicated, ringfenced funding for rural businesses, which will hit communities like the hon. Gentleman’s and mine hardest. Shared prosperity begins with the recognition that different areas have different needs, and my good friend the Minister knows my constituency of Rutland and Melton and the Vale of Harborough villages very well. In many ways, our communities are the same. They are idyllic and have an enormous sense of community. Their big-heartedness and friendliness is heartfelt and deep, and we have the picturesque rolling hills of England. Uppingham, one of my three towns, was voted the best place to live in the east midlands, and Melton was voted sixth.

We have industries that people might not associate with rural areas. Samworth Brothers makes the majority of sandwiches in this country, and Arnold Wills makes the majority of belts. We have the Hanson cement quarry, Mars Petcare, C S Ellis, which is an amazing national haulage company, and Belvoir Fruit Farms, and of course our stilton and pork pies are enjoyed around the world.

We love and want to protect our rural way of life, but we need support. Delivering services in rural areas is more expensive, rural economies are more susceptible to skills shortages, our physical and digital connectivity lag behind other parts of the UK and the geographical spread of our communities can obscure the nature of the issues that people face.

The relative affluence of some parts of Rutland and Melton means that some pockets of deprivation are too often overlooked by Government policy, which is to the detriment of rural communities. Rutland ranks in the bottom 10% of the entire country for social mobility, and I believe rurality plays a large role in that, alongside insufficient Government support. I know that the Secretary of State is especially interested in tackling these pockets of deprivation, and that is where a rural deprivation unit within his Department would make a fundamental difference. Such a unit would help it consider and understand the complex nature of rural inequalities and make sure that local investment plans take it into account. It would provide a renaissance for our rural communities.

I come to local government funding, an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) rightly raised. For too long, communities in Leicestershire and in Rutland and Melton have been coming second. Despairingly, Leicestershire is the lowest-funded county council per head in England, while Rutland County Council is expected to raise significantly more revenue through local taxation than other local authorities in England. The east midlands has the lowest level of public investment of any region in England. How can we have shared prosperity when long-term funding settlements are so unfavourable to rural areas? This is a bold and ambitious agenda, but how can our councils do more with less? We desperately deserve the funding we need.

Rutland County Council has been an effective unitary authority for many years and we are proud of our independence. We ranked No. 1 on the Impower index as the highest performing council on adult social care in the country, but we have forecast a budget gap for 2023-24 onwards. We are required to raise a shocking 80% of our revenue through taxation, whereas the national average for councils is just 60%. That means that the council tax for a band D property in Rutland is £2,200 a year, and we are talking about a council in the worst 10% for social mobility in our country. We receive £331 less Government funding per household than other councils and we have the highest council tax in the country. That is not good enough and it is not fair.

Let us then look at the position for Leicestershire County Council, in which the Melton, Vale and Harborough parts of my constituency sit. As I mentioned, if LCC was funded at the same level as Surrey, it would have £104 million more to support people across Leicestershire. This situation cannot be right, and we need fair funding. I am pleased to have secured productive meetings between Rutland County Council and the relevant Minister. I hear and hope that future funding settlements will be provided earlier to allow for better local planning, but they also need to be richer. My Leicestershire colleagues and I have worked tirelessly since our elections to try to get the Department to pay heed to this unfair imbalance. I know that it is not easy or straightforward, and that budget would be required, but we must rectify these injustices. I have raised the issue of them time and again, and I hope the Department will pay attention to them.

Let me move on to the issue of rural transport. Strong transport links are all the more crucial in rural settings, and it is fantastic that the shared prosperity fund is taking transport into account. After 40 years of promises, hope and let-down dreams, and through working with the Minister’s Department, the Melton Mowbray distributor road is finally being built in my constituency. It is going to transform the town centre of Melton and bring £160 million of investment into our amazing town. However, we have wider rural transport concerns that continue.

Community renewal is highly dependent on good transport services, but we have had recent reductions in all of our transport services, which threatens to undermine our rural growth. In Melton, the No. 19 bus between Melton and Nottingham has been cut, not only because it was being under-used, but because it would no longer be financed. Workers and students are no longer able to get from rural Melton to Nottingham for work or for educational opportunities, and businesses are suffering, as, in particular, are those with special educational needs.

In rural areas, those with SEN suffer so often because it is so difficult for them to access the services they need. I am hopeful that I can mitigate some of the loss of that bus service with the reinstatement of the train service from Melton to Nottingham; currently, there is no direct service and we have to go through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and through Leicester. The Government kindly provided £50,000 of funding to look at my proposal to reopen it. I politely ask the Minister to remind his colleagues at the Department for Transport that we are waiting to hear back on our bid, having made our business case.

In Rutland, Centrebus is only continuing the Rutland Flyer bus and the 747 routes after demanding additional subsidies from Rutland County Council. Given what I have just said about our funding issues in Rutland, Members can see why having to subsidise a bus route is an additional burden that the council cannot take on. The Government have promised to bring forward new arrangements for rural transport in the summer, and I urge them to act now to support faltering rural transport services, because that will provide a boost.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on support for rural communities. Levelling up throughout the entire United Kingdom must include rural communities. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, on which I serve, is in the midst of a rural mental health inquiry. According to the evidence we have taken, much of the stresses and pressures on rural communities are exacerbated by rural isolation, by the things that happen in rural communities—such as animal disease outbreaks and flooding—and by connectivity issues, with people unable to get from A to B, as my hon. Friend is explaining passionately. Does she agree that central Government should work with local government to mitigate ruralisation by allocating funding for rural bus services and broadband for rural communities, to make sure people can be connected and stay together?

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Whether in respect of combatting loneliness, connectivity, business opportunity or the 150 Ukrainians who are to settle in my constituency—they have started over the past few weeks—the 431 square miles of my constituency are difficult to navigate when there are no bus services.

Let me turn to digital connectivity. We have a digital deficit in rural communities. In 2021, Onward and the National Farmers Union highlighted that only 20% of people in rural areas can access broadband speeds above 24 Mbps. That is not good enough. I was pleased to get Rutland into the first tranche of places in the country that will receive full fibre-optic—that is fantastic: we will get gigabit broadband—but we need it for more communities. [Interruption.] Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker—I promise I do not have covid.

On job retention in rural areas, if we are to give rural areas the tools they need, we have to make sure that people know they can remain locally for jobs—I touched on some of the amazing employers in my constituency earlier. To tackle the challenges, we need local authorities to be able to think about the long term. I am concerned that unless the shared prosperity fund can be used to address the root causes of rural inequality, it will have a limited impact on our communities. That is why the Country Land and Business Association has called for the creation of a separate fund for rural capital investment. I urge the Minister to consider that. Rutland and Melton are currently developing a joint levelling-up fund bid that reflects the varied nature of our communities and business interests. I look forward to championing it in Parliament.

Let me turn to health and emergency services—[Interruption.] And I thank the very good friends one can make in this place. The Government have rightly identified health as one of the key pillars of levelling up. A 2019 report found that although older people in rural areas experienced reduced rates of mortality, poor access to services was driving health inequality. People who live in the countryside can have the most incredible, healthy and happy lifestyle, but poor access to services is a meaningful challenge.

Since being elected, I have campaigned for a second GP practice in the town of Melton Mowbray, because I believe Latham House Medical Practice is the most over-subscribed surgery in the country. If nothing changes, 45,000 people will be served by one practice. That cannot be right. When I was elected, I was told that it would take me more than a decade to get us another GP practice; that is not good enough for me and it is not good enough for the people of Melton. I have been working hard with Melton Borough Council, especially its leader Councillor Joe Orson and chief executive Edd de Coverly, as well as with clinical commissioning group chair Andy Williamson, to make sure that we get another practice and do not wait 10 years for it.

There are wider health challenges in Rutland. I promised to save Rutland Memorial Hospital and now have a commitment from the CCG that it will be saved, but we need investment so that those in my local elderly community do not have to go to Leicester—which takes at least an hour—to get ongoing care for chronic conditions. We need new funds and we need to invest in community hospitals. Indeed, yesterday at the Dispatch Box the Prime Minister championed the fact that he fought for community hospitals when he first came to this place, so I hope he will listen and take heed of the fact that we need to invest in them now.

In Rutland, we also face challenges in respect of cross-border working. Constituents of mine access services in Peterborough, Lincolnshire, Kettering, Northamptonshire and Leicester. People in the vale access services in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. We now finally have a requirement that information has to be shared across borders, but there is more to be done.

I wholeheartedly welcome the shared prosperity fund’s emphasis on community and place. As the Minister knows, our motto in Rutland is multum in parvo—much in little—and we have an abundance of pride in our county. I invite every Member of this House to visit Rutland water. Indeed, a colleague grabbed me earlier and said, “Is Stoke Dry in your constituency?” I said, “Yes, it is. Did you know that’s where they launched the gunpowder plot?” He said, “No, I didn’t, but I did once I had been there. Aren’t you lucky to have that in your constituency?” I said, “Yes, I am.” He then went on to list a number of other villages and towns in my constituency and say how lucky I was.

Rutland is an amazing place to be. The Rutland showground does events such as Birdfair, and we have recently had two incredible archaeological discoveries. The first was the amazing Roman mosaic, found in a farmer’s field just 15 minutes from my own home, which tells the story of Achilles and Hector. It has changed our understanding of Roman Britain. In so many movies, Britain is depicted as having hordes of barbarians, but we now know that there were these amazing mosaics. The Roman mosaic is described as one of the most significant discoveries ever made in the UK.

Only a couple of weeks later, there was the discovery of a 180 million-year-old ichthyosaur, the UK’s largest and most complete record of the marine reptile, which I had the privilege of touching while it was being dug up. Surely funding from the shared prosperity fund could go towards the promotion of these discoveries. I have no doubt that the scale of them means that we deserve a heritage museum and a heritage trail. We need major investment in our tourism industry that would help counteract the fact that we do not get enough local government funding. It would allow us to stand on our feet, which is all that we are asking for, but we need investment from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and I hope that we can make it a reality.

Melton too has much to celebrate in pride of place. We all know that it is the rural capital of food. We have some of the best farmers in the country who produce world renowned goods such as Melton Mowbray pork pies—yes, I promised in my maiden speech that Members would hear much of those pies and I have clearly not failed to deliver on that. We also have stilton—Tuxford and Tebbutt is the oldest producer in the world, and there is also Long Clawson Dairy. The world’s best ale is produced by Round Corner Brewing in Melton. We also have the award-winning Brentingby Gin—it did not win the international award—and Cidentro Cider, which, again, has won awards. We make amazing samosas at Samosa Wallah, and we are also the leading producers of paneer cheese, and of tofu for the Japanese restaurant market. We are the world’s capital of food, and food heritage is in our blood. We could be the home of food tourism with help from the Government.

I wish to pay tribute to Melton Borough Council and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership, which set up the new Food Enterprise Centre last year. The new Stockyard was launched only two or three weeks ago, which will provide a new opportunity and a haven of food and drink in my constituency.

I previously stated that the shared prosperity fund can deliver outcomes greater than the sum of its parts, but can the Minister elaborate on ways in which we as MPs can access this fund? I was recently contacted by the trustees of Barrowden village hall, who have, over the past six years, been working on a plan to replace their ageing village facilities. The grants that they had hoped to apply for have been wiped out by covid. We recognise that we are asking for more in a time of less, but they are looking into applying to the community ownership fund to help restore their village hall. The next bidding round is in May, and the project would be a fantastic candidate for the community and place investment priority, so I hope that I have put that on the Minister’s radar.

I would also point out that I have been fighting for at least 18 months for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to open its office outside of London in Melton. It is not just that Melton needs DEFRA, but that DEFRA needs Melton. It should not be that our policy officials are reliant on field visits to meet farmers and to understand the rural way of life. We are in the final three to home DEFRA. It is Melton Mowbray, Peterborough and York. What do we notice about that? There are two cities and one rural town in the shortlist. Only one is the rural capital of food. DEFRA should come to Melton and it would get a wonderful home and wonderful support from my colleagues.

In conclusion, for far too long, rural areas have been left behind to the detriment of our society. That is grossly unfair to the Minister’s constituents and to mine. We have a levelling-up agenda that allows us to find and tackle these inequalities, but we have to be honest about the scale of the challenges. We need: a fair funding settlement for rural local authorities; investment in rural transport and digital infrastructure; improved rural health services; improved rural mental health services; and a long-term plan for rural culture. If we do this, all the communities of Rutland, Melton and the Vale and Harborough villages will have the chance to succeed. Rutland and Melton are currently tier 2 priority areas in the levelling-up fund, so give us that chance to succeed and support us.

In February, the Secretary of State offered to come to Rutland to see at first hand the opportunities that we have and the challenges that our local authorities face. I ask him to come. My colleagues are always welcome to pop across the border and join me. I hope that we can recognise that when rural communities prosper, so does the rest of the UK. I hope that we will not have to have a debate such as this again during my time as the proud Member for Rutland and Melton.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing a debate on this important topic and on her superb speech. I also acknowledge the important contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who were making some similar and important points in a debate just a couple of weeks ago.

We should start by recognising that many positive things are happening in Rutland, Melton and the parts of the Harborough district that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton represents, and many of them are happening because of my hon. Friend. She has been a relentless champion for fairer funding for Rutland and Leicestershire. She has secured the Melton Mowbray distributor road, which is key to levelling up Melton; after 40 years of discussions, she and local colleagues have finally made it happen. Rutland Memorial Hospital has been saved after the commitment she secured from the clinical commissioning group. She raised broadband, and I am pleased her efforts paid off and put Rutland in the very first tranche of the gigabit upgrades in the country. She also helped secure £150,000 for a community hub in Thurnby and £150,000 for a pub in Frisby from our community ownership funds, and I look forward to drinking in them at some point. Of course, her local authorities have also benefited from funding from the UK shared prosperity fund: Rutland, Melton and Leicestershire are receiving over £5 million of UK SPF funding, with Rutland getting over £1 million, Harborough over £2.1 million and Melton just shy of £1.2 million. On top of that, Leicestershire is receiving nearly £3 million in multiply funding.

On the SPF, my hon. Friend raised a series of important questions about flexibility and rurality which I want to address directly. Even the last Labour Government acknowledged that spending on regional economic policies should have been brought back from Brussels and decided here, but they never managed to bring it back or get the EU to agree to that. Now that we do have control back, we can do things differently. The SPF fund will be radically more flexible than previous EU funding, and also much more locally led. Under the last Labour Government, funding was given to remote and unelected regional development agencies based far from Rutland and Melton; under the SPF, it will be given to individual districts and elected local leaders so it is much more local. In addition, bureaucracy will be slashed and there will be far more discretion over what money is spent on. EU requirements for match funding, which impacted on poorer places in particular, will be abolished. The EU system—with payment in arrears, multiple rounds of auditing and multiple rules, and lengthy application documents that all made it difficult for small local voluntary groups in particular—will be swept away. Under the EU funding, only a narrowly defined set of things could be funded, but under the SPF the investment priorities deliberately cover a very wide range of possible interventions because that is what local leaders said they wanted from us. Whether digital connectivity, buses, skills, improvements to high streets, community events, or sports and festivals, the choice for the first time will belong to local leaders and local communities. Rural communities will be empowered to set and deliver against their own priorities through the fund, shaping things locally and not having to apply to a remote RDA based in a city far away.

In terms of allocations, the SPF matches in real terms the previous spend in each local enterprise partnership area because we were conscious of the need for continuity for ongoing programmes. Within those LEP areas we have used the same index of community renewal that we developed for the community renewal fund. One reason why we used that is precisely because, unlike previous funding formulas, it explicitly recognises the challenges of rurality and sparsity to tackle the very unfairness my hon. Friend raised.

The SPF is only one of the funds we are using to give financial firepower to places. The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, which recently opened for its second round, could be used to boost some of the fantastic rural food businesses that she mentioned, or to make the most of the incredible cultural discoveries that she also mentioned. She noted that Rutland and Melton were in tier 2; again, that is because the index for the levelling-up fund recognises the challenges of rural and poorly connected areas in a way that previous Governments have not. We have also created new funds such as the community ownership fund, which particularly helps rural communities where hub assets are so important to villages and smaller places. The £3.6 billion towns fund is regenerating communities throughout the country, and there is more to come, with the £1.8 billion brownfield fund mainly still to be allocated, which will help drive regeneration and save valued green spaces.

[Alicia Kearns]

The Minister mentioned community ownership funds. There is a pub in Stathern in my constituency which, having seen the success of the Bell in Frisby, would like to do the same with the Red Lion. When will the next funding round be opening—I know the Department is keen to learn from previous rounds and help people apply for the next round of the community ownership fund?

[Neil O'Brien]

It will be opening extremely shortly. I will take that offline with my hon. Friend, and we have indeed tried to learn lessons to improve that aspect of the fund from the first round.

My hon. Friend raised a number of other critical issues. She talked about the need for more GPs surgeries. I wholly agree, and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill published today responds to exactly that issue and to the campaigning by her and other hon. Members here.

We must ensure that development always comes with the infrastructure that is needed. Section 106 has seen money handed back to developers, which is intensely frustrating for local communities: projects become outdated by the time money is available, money cannot be adequately pooled to add up to major projects, it is not a transparent system and it does not reflect the cumulative effect of development because funds cannot be pooled properly.

The new infrastructure levy that we propose through that Bill will change all that. It means more money for local communities, more of the benefits of development for the local community and not just developers, more local control over what it is spent on and matching of new housing to the infrastructure that is needed.

My hon. Friend also talked about the challenges of digital connectivity in rural areas and her success in the early roll-out. We are investing £5 billion so that hard-to-reach areas can get gigabit speeds. More than 67% of UK premises can now access gigabit-capable broadband, an enormous leap forward from July 2019, when coverage was just 8%. That is a spectacular transformation. The £1 billion that we are investing in the shared rural network will particularly help to improve mobile signal in rural areas such as Rutland and Melton, so that she can spend even more time when she is on the A47 lobbying Ministers with brutal effectiveness.

My hon. Friend talked about the critical issue of local government finance. The overriding ambition of the Government is to keep bills low by giving councils the tools and firepower to keep taxes low while offering first-rate services to their residents. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has an impact on that and makes the cost of living even more important. Our local government finance settlement for 2022-23 meets that ambition by providing an additional £3.7 billion of funding to local authorities, including support for adult social care reform, which is critical for rural areas with older populations.

In my hon. Friend’s constituency, that funding translates to a cash-terms increase in core spending power for Harborough council of 6% compared with last year; for Melton it is a 9.3% increase and for Rutland a 7.4% increase. For Leicestershire County Council it translates to a 6.9% increase compared with the previous year. The new funding we have made available is the largest cash-terms increase in grant funding provided through the settlement in the past 10 years and is testament to the support we are affording councils in every corner of the country, especially those outside our major towns and cities.

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that these things can always be improved, and I am sure she will continue to power forward on this agenda.

[Alicia Kearns]

The Minister is a neighbour of mine, and I just want to point out that without him I do not believe we would have made such progress on fair funding for this country and the improved settlements. While he cannot publicly lobby for his own Market Harborough constituency, I know that all Leicestershire MPs wish to put on record their gratitude to him. Since I cannot ask him to agree with that, I will instead ask him to confirm that he will continue to keep his eye on funding for Leicestershire and Rutland.

[Neil O'Brien]

I am not entirely sure what I should say in answer to that question. Instead, I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend for bringing this very important issue to the House today. In the past, the rural economy has not always had the attention or the credit it deserves, but Governments who undervalue rural communities do so at their peril, and we will never do that.

When I was in Uppingham just the other day on market day, I saw all the attractions and the wonderful things that my hon. Friend’s constituency offers in the incredible, vibrant town centre. It is a wonderful place. However, we as a Government also see the challenges of maintaining those rural bus routes and the challenges of an older population. It is wonderful that Rutland has the highest male life expectancy in the entire country, but that brings with it the higher cost of looking after a group of older people well.

Rural places do not have the momentum that larger cities have had, because of the changes to a services-based economy over the past 20 years that have helped capital cities and large cities particularly at the expense of rural areas. We are conscious of those challenges. We have made unprecedented changes to the funding formula to recognise the challenges that for too long, as my hon. Friend said, have been neglected. Under this Government we are addressing those things. I will disagree with one thing she said: she was worried that sometimes these things are forgotten in Government, but I can promise her they will never be forgotten in this Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The good news is that the hon. Lady’s predecessor as Member of Parliament for Airdrie and Shotts—one of north Lanarkshire’s finest—is now the Minister in the Scottish Government responsible for this. I look forward to working with Neil Gray, a great man.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his hard work to operationalise this system. It will provide a stable place of refuge rather than leaving people in hotels for too long, and I know that the people of Rutland and Melton will join me in opening their hearts and their homes. My ask is that we do all that we can to ensure that the most vulnerable people come here, because they will not always have contacts in the UK and they are the most likely to be trapped in the east. Can he reassure me that we will focus our efforts on those most in need?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes some good points. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said that we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good, and this scheme is not perfect, but we are trying to ensure that we can move as rapidly as possible. That is why named sponsors are being deployed; it means that we can get people into homes. Again, we know that there is pressure on other accommodation. We will be seeing and doing more in every day that comes.

Levelling Up

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Member makes a series of good points. First, I absolutely understand the problems with the protocol, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is working incredibly hard to tackle them. Secondly, we recognise that the Northern Ireland Executive exercise devolved responsibilities in a number of areas, but we can help: additional funding for research and development means that Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Ulster can get additional funding to create the jobs that Northern Ireland requires. The broader economic strategy that we outline in the White Paper is designed to help every part of the United Kingdom, and, through the UK shared prosperity fund, there will be additional funding. UK community renewal funding and levelling-up funding has been distributed to communities in Northern Ireland, but we need to do better in ensuring that it reaches those who deserve it most, not least those in areas such as Larne and Glenarm in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

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

Leicestershire and Rutland councils were some of the worst funded in the entire country—until today. Thanks to the Secretary of State, Leicestershire is one of the nine counties that will be negotiating a county deal. Will he please reassure me that when he negotiates a deal for Leicestershire, he will include Rutland, which cannot go for its own county deal? It needs a sidecar deal. Will he also help us level up pride by coming to visit our wonderful area?

[Michael Gove]

That is an offer too good to resist. I will say two things. First, Leicester and Leicestershire have much to offer, but there are also significant pockets of deprivation not just in the city but in rural Leicestershire that we must tackle. My hon. Friend is right that the county deal that we are proposing will—I hope—help. Secondly, I know that Rutland’s independence is cherished by its people and its Member of Parliament, but on this occasion there can be—how can I put it—a fruitful union between Leicestershire and Rutland, and I would like to see that advance.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am not able to confirm when we will bring that forward. As I have said, it will not be on this occasion, but we will have to make a judgment, as to the position of local government, whether next year would be right for, as she says, an undoubtedly significant change.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]]

The rural services delivery grant helps local authorities in rural areas such as Rutland and Melton to provide vital local services and, under this Government, it is the highest that it has ever been. Can my right hon. Friend confirm his intention to maintain this rural services delivery grant next year, and will he incorporate those principles into the fairer funding review, which is vital for rural authorities and communities such as mine to get their fair share?

[Robert Jenrick]

I shall certainly take my hon. Friend’s representations forward. I know that Leicestershire colleagues, both in local government and in the House, have long advocated a fairer distribution of public funds in local government. As I have said in answer to other questions, we will take careful consideration of that next year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

What recent progress he has made on the Towns Fund; and if he will make a statement.

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

What recent progress he has made on the Towns Fund; and if he will make a statement.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

What recent progress he has made on the Towns Fund; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to see economic activity returning to great places such as Redcar. The purpose of the fund is both to provide immediate economic stimulus and confidence to those places and to set them up in the longer term for more sustainable economic growth and prosperity. I have heard his strong representation for a new horizontal pier in Redcar.

[Alicia Kearns [V]]

Local authorities in Rutland and Melton very much welcome the multiple cash injections from central Government, but they are now turning their attention to how we recover financially from this period. Both Rutland and Melton want a significant boost in domestic tourism and high street business trade, so what funding has my right hon. Friend considered for local authorities on top of the towns fund and pandemic relief so that local authorities can come back stronger?

Holocaust Memorial Day

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

This is a debate in which we all have a duty to speak. It is simply inconceivable, from where we stand now, how in the last century, within 1,000 miles of this House, unspeakable evil worked systematically to destroy an entire people, those who opposed it, the disabled and those who just wanted to love freely. There is something distinctly perverse and pernicious about antisemitism, in particular its manifestation in the creation of conspiracy theories that feed off division and envy. It is supremely disheartening that between January and June last year, the Community Security Trust recorded the highest ever number of antisemitic incidents in a six-month period. None of us can be left in any doubt that we have to do more to combat the malign force of antisemitism.

The terrors of our past must never become the fears of our future. On Remembrance Day we say, “Lest we forget”—not just for the fallen, but for those who were killed in barbarous acts of tyranny. The holocaust memorial and education centre next to Parliament will serve as a stark reminder of our enduring responsibility to prevent such atrocities from happening again.

We must also look to the past for inspiration. This country has a proud history of advocating on behalf of the world’s most vulnerable. In 1938 the then Home Secretary, Samuel Hoare, pledged that

“there will be no Government among all these Governments more sympathetic than the Government of the United Kingdom”—[Official Report, 21 November 1938; Vol. 341, c. 1475.]

and said that there would be “no Government more anxious” to solve the plight of the Jewish people.

One year later, during the second world war, a family in Oakham in my constituency of Rutland and Melton took in an eight-year-old evacuee. Upon meeting their guest, they discovered that she had travelled from her home in Berlin to London in 1939 to live with a distant relative as part of the Kindertransport. She was then evacuated to Oakham, as so many others across the country were. The family in Oakham gave that young girl a home, treated her as their own and ensured that she got the education of which she had so far been deprived. Tragically, both her parents were senselessly murdered in Auschwitz-Birkenau, as no doubt she would have been if the British Government had not reacted in a timely manner to Kristallnacht. That girl now lives in America with her husband, and has three children and four grandchildren—eight lives saved.

We in this House have an intrinsic responsibility to reflect on history to prevent it from repeating itself, and to respond with swift resolve to atrocities. The Kindertransport saved abundant human potential, and it is only when we truly stand together that our society can decidedly flourish. As Elie Wiesel said:

“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

I therefore commend my colleagues on both sides of the House who have so bravely spoken out against antisemitism with such conviction—from small, everyday interactions to those who have courageously stood up to systemic antisemitism on a national level, at great personal and professional cost. But we still see genocide and hatred. The Rohingya, the Yazidis, the Uyghur—these people are being massacred. It is still happening, and I will always be someone in this House who will speak out for these communities, who are too often being forgotten or pushed under the carpet.

We have spoken today about the genocide in Srebrenica—another that people still shamefully refuse to admit took place. A few years ago I had the utter privilege of going Srebrenica. I apologise to the House if my voice fails me at this point. I travelled with members of our armed forces who had served in Srebrenica and in Bosnia. Going back to Bosnia with them for the first time since they served was the privilege of my life, and one of the hardest memories that I will always take with me.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I share my hon. Friend’s recollection of that time. I have not had the privilege of travelling to Bosnia as she has, but I was special adviser to the Defence Secretary and then the Foreign Secretary during that period. The failure of the United Nations and the troops there to prevent that appalling massacre, which undoubtedly amounted to genocide given the thousands of people concerned, is something that must continue to disturb us. It must concentrate our minds on peacekeeping and on the necessity of having the capacity to ensure, when we are engaged in peacekeeping, that as an international community we are not responsible in any way for being party to such events.

[Alicia Kearns]

I agree. It was a privilege to see the work of the UN.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I led the first troops to go into Srebenica in April 1993. My men were surrounded. About 20 people were killed and a couple of my soldiers were wounded. We established Srebrenica, and as a result of that it was declared a safe zone. I am sorry that this intervention is going on a bit, but I want to put the record straight. I pleaded to keep British soldiers in Srebrenica because I felt that we could protect the people, but we were ordered out and two years later—after we had left—the massacre occurred. I am sure that if we had been present, the massacre of 8,400 men and boys might not have occurred. But let us get the record straight; the people who went in took huge risks and we did not want to leave, because we felt that our duty was to protect people.

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which expresses far more eloquently than I ever could the exact sentiment that I share with him.

When I went to Bosnia, I saw the work that the UN is still doing to bring together the remnants of those who were massacred—piecing together small bones to work out who had been buried. Bodies were purposely moved from place to place to make it harder to prove that these people had been murdered. I attended a funeral for those whose bodies had been brought back together, and I met the widows of Srebrenica. I encourage everyone in this House to go to Bosnia in order to experience what it is like there and to learn as much as they can.

There is so much more that we all need to do to eviscerate hatred and division in our communities. We must refuse to see history repeat itself. We each have a duty to change the level of debate at our dinner tables, in the shops, on WhatsApp, on the tube and within our own families. That is how we change things. None of us can stand idly by; we have a duty to do more. It is only by talking to each other, and by creating the understanding and empathy that comes through that dialogue, that we build stronger communities who refuse to accept hatred and division.

Violent extremism feeds on the everyday indifference and hatred that we refuse to challenge—that we hear and dismiss or, worse, laugh away. During my career I have seen what that hatred breeds: the demonisation, violence, torture, rape and murder. No more. We must all say, “Never again”. We must all commit to building empathy and understanding, and to saying no to hatred. That is the commitment that I make today, and that I hope all my colleagues and everyone in the country will make. This country deserves better, the world deserves better and we need to raise our voices because we have the privilege and ability to do so.