Armed Forces Bill

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

In simple terms, there are circumstances —normally involving the welfare of the alleged victim—in which it would be advantageous for a case to be heard in the military context. Those cases might be small in number, but it is important for the sake of the victim that agility and choice are retained in terms of our approach.

Furthermore, while the Government accept the need to improve decision making in relation to concurrent jurisdiction, we do not agree with the Lords amendment that an Attorney General consent function is the best way to achieve that. That is because, for the Attorney General to make an informed, meaningful and final decision, the request for consent must come at the end of the investigatory process when key decisions on jurisdiction have already been made. The Government instead believe that a better approach is to strengthen the prosecutors’ protocol. Clause 7 ensures that decisions on jurisdiction are left to the independent service justice and civilian prosecutors, using guidance they have agreed between them. In simple terms, where there is disagreement on jurisdiction, the Director of Public Prosecutions always has the final say. For this reason and others, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 1.

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

This Bill has so much to recommend it, and it is so good. I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who has done incredible work on this. However, I am struggling to understand what extenuating circumstances there might be where a military court would be better placed to opine on rape than a civilian court. In cases of torture, I completely understand this, given the concept of civilians and military individuals understanding how torture might manifest itself, but in cases of rape involving soldier on soldier or man versus woman on the street, I cannot understand what extenuating circumstances would require a different type of court.

[Leo Docherty]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. The advantage of having a choice between civil or military jurisdiction relates to the possibility of a serving person being involved in a case of rape in which their welfare would be undermined by it being heard in a civilian court because of the slower process of the case and the fact that its being heard in the civilian jurisdiction might impede any postings or normal career progression. My principal point relates to the welfare interest of alleged victims, where having agility and choice is advantageous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area is clear for all in this House to see. He is absolutely right that, given the chain of command, ensuring protection for witnesses and victims is essential. We clearly have more confidence in the civilian system to guarantee those. He asks whether the service system could provide those protections, but that seems a very odd way to go about it when the capacity and capability already exist in the civilian system. Why reinvent the wheel?

Will Ministers take this final opportunity to listen to the recommendations of a Government-commissioned, judge-led review, which expressed surprise that these cases were still being handled by courts martial? Will they listen to the expertise on their own Back Benches, as we have just heard, including the proposals made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in her Defence Sub-Committee report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life”? Most importantly, will they listen to service personnel and veterans themselves?

More than 4,000 actively serving women and veterans contributed to that report and its recommendations. Today, a serving member of the Royal Navy whose court martial rape case collapsed due to a number of basic errors made by a service prosecutor called on the Government to back this amendment. She was one of three women who launched a judicial review of the Defence Secretary’s decision not to adopt the recommendations of the Lyons review. She says:

“The value of this amendment for women like me cannot be overstated… This amendment will make the process independent. It will encourage more service personnel to report crimes. It will mean we have some protection from the appalling consequences we suffer when we report rape within our units.

“I am urging the government to accept this amendment. As service personnel we are citizens of this country and we deserve justice just like everyone else.”

[Alicia Kearns]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps a sensible compromise might be to have this matter come back before the House in a year’s time, if the Bill does pass, to see whether cases are being properly prosecuted, whether we are getting the prosecution rates we need and whether women are being supported to get the justice they deserve when those senior to them commit the most abysmal and horrific of acts—acts that would be considered war crimes if they were done against a civilian but, because they are done by someone in the chain of command, somehow are considered a completely different situation?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s experience and expertise, particularly in the field of foreign affairs. However, I think her proposal does not really make sense for where we are right now in this Chamber. We need to see a Government showing leadership. Those brave ladies who have come forward are showing that leadership, and I hope this Government will pay heed to it. The moment of truth is upon us, and we need to see that vote and that leadership now. These women have courage beyond their service to our country. They are showing this Government the way. I urge colleagues across the House to support the amendment.

I turn now to Lords amendment 2, which places the same legal responsibility to have “due regard” to the armed forces covenant on central Government as the current drafting requires of local authorities and other public bodies. This Bill piles new and often vague statutory responsibilities to deliver the covenant on a wide range of public bodies, but, mysteriously, those do not apply to central Government. In practice, this would create a farcical situation whereby the chair of school governors has a statutory responsibility to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, but Government Departments—including the Ministry of Defence—do not.

As the Royal British Legion has pointed out,

“many of the policy areas in which members of the Armed Forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national government or based on national guidance.”

Help for Heroes, Cobseo and other service charities know this too, as do Conservative Members, both in this House and in the other place. Ministers must not be allowed to offload responsibility for delivery.

How can it be that social care, pensions, employment and immigration are among the long list of areas we know will not be covered by this legislation? The exclusion of the Ministry of Defence from the responsible public bodies also means the Bill offers little to actively serving personnel. Our armed forces have gone above and beyond both to support our frontline response to the pandemic in the past year and, as I have mentioned, in Afghanistan. What a contrast between the selfless service of our military personnel and a Government who are missing this crucial opportunity to make long-overdue improvements to the standard of service accommodation, while at the same time handing most of them another real-terms pay cut this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

As I rise to speak in this debate, I first pay tribute to the officials in the Department. I know this is a complex Bill and that with legislation such as this we must operate within the art of the possible. There are clearly areas where everybody would like to go further, but I understand the constraints and the dynamics at play, particularly around legislating for the armed forces covenant and so on.

However, there is one thing I am afraid I will not let pass without shining a spotlight on it: the issue of violence and sexual offences staying in the military justice system. I rise to speak with one purpose, and that is to resolutely support my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in the work that she has done in this space. She has worked tirelessly, initially against the current but then with some support, to highlight the totally unacceptable experience of females in the military.

Today is a really difficult day for my hon. Friend, and unnecessarily so. I understand differences of opinion, particularly in this space, but where the evidence does not point to the decisions being made by those on the Front Bench, I am afraid I will speak up time and again.

Unfortunately, I was in the room when this decision was made. The evidence did not support the Secretary of State at the time and the evidence does not support the Secretary of State today. I cannot vote against the Lords amendment; it is not the right thing to do. Let me be clear: when the Secretary of State made that decision it was against the advice of the officials in the Department and against the advice of his Ministers.

Conviction rates for rape are lower in military courts than they are in civilian courts. That is a fact. We can pull up the facts at different times and during different processes on the journey to a sexual conviction, but the reality is that the conviction rates for rape are lower. Over the past five years, the average conviction rate for rape in civilian courts, when using Ministry of Justice data, is 34%; over the same five years, using the same data—the MOD’s data—the average conviction rate for rape is just 16% in military courts. Using Crown Prosecution Service data, the figures are even worse. In practice, this means that a military woman is far less likely to get justice than she would in civilian life. We cannot accept that. We cannot accept that on the Government Benches.

The MOD accepts that the contested conviction rate at court martial is significantly lower than it is in the Crown court. The Department suggests that, because the numbers involved in the service justice system are relatively so much smaller, the comparison is of little value. That does not make sense—it is ridiculous and illogical. We have to be honest: there is no point coming to this place and railroading through legislation that we all know to be the wrong decision simply because one individual has his course set and refuses to back out of that alley.

[Alicia Kearns]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it takes enormous courage for anyone to go to court in cases of child abuse, domestic abuse or rape—the issues we are talking about? I worked in the victims department at the Ministry of Justice, supporting people to go forward and get prosecutions, and one in seven Rutland residents is a veteran. Does my hon. Friend also agree that an insidious silence is forced on victims, gagging them and preventing them from going out to get justice in the first place, let alone once they get to a court?

AUKUS

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we are currently developing partnerships around the world including in the Indo-Pacific region. For instance, we may wish to develop the future combat air system—FCAS—with our Japanese friends.

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

This par is enormously welcome because it makes us safer in an area of the world where there are particular challenges to our ability to trade, secure our interests and protect our allies. Those who serve on our submarines do mission-critical work, but because they are our silent protectors they are often forgotten. So will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking them because they keep us safe every hour of every day, and will he confirm this is the first step towards further upgrading our presence in the Indo-Pacific?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to our submariners, who have had a particularly difficult time during covid, when the necessity of protecting submarines has been particularly acute. My hon. Friend makes a good point about the further steps we can take now within the context of AUKUS; this is just the beginning of collaboration on defence technology. I have mentioned some of the areas in which we now wish to go further such as cyber, AI and undersea defences; there are many areas now where countries with shared values and a shared belief in democracy will want to take collaboration much further.

Elections Bill

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

May I first say how pleased I am to see the Minister, my constituency neighbour in Norwich, back in her place? She may have been back before today, but this is the first day that I have been back, so I welcome her to her place.

I will start with a question. If your policies are unpopular with most voters and your own party’s demographics are shrinking, what do you do? Do you change your policies so that your party’s platform is more appealing to more voters, or do you make it harder for people to vote? After reading the Bill, I think we now have this Government’s answer.

Such is the extent of the crisis of democracy, there is truly no shortage of issues that the Elections Bill could have addressed. Our first-past-the-post electoral system already means that millions of people’s votes are wasted. When the House of Commons and the House of Lords are taken together as our legislature, half our legislators are not elected. We do not even have a constitution that is publicly accessible or that has public consent. This Bill does nothing about any of these issues or the many more real problems in our elections and our democracy. Instead this Government are pouring oil on the bonfire of democracy that is taking place not just in the UK but across the world.

When public confidence in the running of elections is at its highest since 2012, we are left to ponder the obvious question: whose interests is this Bill actually serving? It certainly is not the interests of the estimated 2.1 million people who will be put at risk of being excluded from voting because they do not have recognisable photo ID. Nor does it serve the interests of working people and civil society. Their right to freedom of expression in elections through trade unions in campaigning will be hamstrung by punitive red tape and put at risk through the Government’s control of the Electoral Commission. I think it is pretty clear: the beneficiaries of this Bill are this Government and their vested interests. It is this Government who benefit from the disproportionate exclusion of the very voters hit hardest by their policies. It is the wealthy tax exiles, not members of the public, who will benefit from rules that will enable overseas electors to influence parties in elections through donations.

However, as even Conservative Members have noted, the most cynical aspect of this Bill is of course the phantom problem of voter fraud that has been summoned by this Government to create a smokescreen for naked self-interest.

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

The hon. Gentleman says that voter fraud is not an issue, yet in my constituency during a by-election less than a month ago, over 30 pre-filled-in voting ballots were found dumped in a bin in a church. My community of Rutland and Melton is perhaps not normally considered a hotspot of voter fraud. If there is not voter fraud going on, why are we currently having to investigate such ballots being found around our country?

Health and Social Care

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady should remember that 40% of companies will not be affected at all by this. I am sure she also knows that the labour market is so buoyant that not only are there huge numbers of vacancies, but wages are rising, and that is a good thing.

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

During the pandemic, the Government stepped in to save lives and jobs. In Rutland and Melton, 47% of jobs would have been lost without those efforts. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be wrong to meet the cost with higher borrowing and debt, which would be carried by our children? Will he commit to look at those councils that are worse funded, specifically Leicestershire and Rutland, which need real help with social care above and beyond a generic formula across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for what she says about Rutland and Melton, and we will certainly make sure the councils get the funding they need. She has hit on the fundamental point: borrowing more is no answer. We are borrowing a lot, and in the end borrowing is just future tax rises for younger people or even people unborn. That is not what this Government are going to do.

Afghanistan

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It has been said that there are decades when nothing happens and weeks when decades pass. What we are seeing in Afghanistan this week is decades, and they will shape the rest of my lifetime and that of many in this Chamber. This was a wholly preventable tragedy, and I and many colleagues around me are so very, very angry.

Our Government called for NATO allies to help us build a new coalition in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban recapturing it, and we were let down. Only Turkey was willing to stand alongside us because they know what a failed state looks like. They have seen the refugees they support; they have seen the terrorists on their doorstep; they have seen the conflict and the suffering. It is bitterly disappointing and there is much we must learn from this. The UK could not have saved all those lives on our own. Multilateral collective responsibility should mean something, but I believe that too often today, it does not.

I have spent the last few days listening to our veterans, many of whom live in Rutland and Melton. I say to them now: many of us in this place will never truly understand the scars you carry, and we will never understand all you encountered, but all of you left me with one request—get the people out. That is what I, along with so many of my colleagues in this place, have been fighting for over the last few days: the veterans, the interpreters who supported families, those who identified IEDs, the female journalists fighting for their lives who have already had mines blow up their stations, and those who negotiated for their fellow Afghans against the Taliban. I must thank the Defence Secretary because he has been constant in his support, every hour over the weekend, to help me to get those people out. I thank him for his time.

Getting people out must be our priority. I welcome the Prime Minister’s G7-led multilateral refugee programme. We have to get non-combatant evacuations proceeding at pace, but we are operating only with the consent of the Taliban—most certainly at the airport—and that can be withdrawn at any time, so my primary concern is those safe routes to the airport. The air bridge must be operational at all times and we must negotiate departures, and not just from Kabul. Land convoys must be considered humanitarian corridors.

Once we get those people out, we must ensure that refugee families are welcome to our country so that they can build the lives they never asked for. The kindness of the British people is great, and Melton Borough Council and Harborough District Council have both already stepped up to the plate and said that they would like to take as many refugees as they can. The MOD is working with me to identify MOD housing stock in Rutland and across the constituency of Rutland and Melton, but I call on the Government to consider creating an initiative that allows British nationals to open their homes, their spare bedrooms and their second homes to those Afghans, similar to the private sponsorship route that already exists, because the British people want to step up and help.

Beyond the immediate life-saving operations, there is much that we must talk about. First, the British Government and the international community must recognise that the withdrawal is emblematic of a changing American posture. The comments that we have seen over the last few days have rattled me to my core, and yes, we are not meant to speak ill of our friends and allies, but in this case, we have no alternative but to call out the comments against our Afghan allies.

Secondly, the views of European allies such as the UK may no longer hold the same sway in Washington under this presidency. That means that we must take greater responsibility for our defence around the world. Global Britain means that we must act autonomously, but through multilaterals on the world stage with other partners, and we must convince our NATO allies that we can all stand together without the Americans. Yes, they bring the kit; yes, they bring the money; yes, they bring the numbers, but this is something that we can and must do. We must shift from the model of being over-reliant on the US.

Thirdly, we must fix our broken international system because it is not saving lives. The UN has failed to enable a political solution. There is no meaningful method or tactics to prevent the worst excesses of the Taliban, and the system is being undermined by hostile money flooding fragile states. There are hostile states sitting on the human rights and women’s councils of all the organisations of the multilateral world. It is the UK’s duty to fix the international system, because we can do it. I have sat at the negotiating tables, and it is the UK that brings countries together behind the scenes and provides the bureaucracy and systems that allow coalitions to be effective. We must recognise our unique expertise and step up.

We must also look hard at our strategic goals in south Asia, because China is most certainly doing that. Its goals are securing influence against Pakistan, stripping minerals and creating an alternative, superior democratic track. Its plunder diplomacy is well under way, and it is already using the situation to threaten Taiwan. It is saying, “Look what the Americans will do. They will leave you.” By recognising the Taliban, China has taken the first step towards creating an alternative international mechanism. The gravitational shift is towards it, and we must stand strong against that.

I also urge caution about our posture towards the Taliban. I must confess that I see what is being laid before the international community as simply platitudes—little more than a tactic to allow the Taliban to consolidate its control, avoid sanctions, keep the aid money rolling in, root out all those on its hit list and avoid UN Security Council measures. Perhaps I am wrong, but Pashtunwali tells us that Taliban intent includes justice or revenge as one of the core tenets of its society and way of life. We must also adequately monitor al-Qaeda.

The human cost of this withdrawal is monumental, but the strategic consequences risk being so much greater if we do not learn the lessons of the past few decades. We must properly focus on atrocity prevention. The new conflict centre, which I fought for, must lead our way in deciding how we become more strategic. We cannot be everywhere in this world and we cannot rescue every mission, but we can work on two core principles. The first is to protect our nation, our people and our prosperity. We must be single-minded in our focus on that and incredibly strategic. The second is that we must live up to our promises so that we can look in the eye those to whom we and our veterans have made promises, and stand squarely behind them. We cannot go wrong if that guides our foreign policy.

Finally, I thank our armed forces, our border staff, our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff and Sir Laurie Bristow for the heroic work they are doing to get people out. I have worked in a crisis centre and I know the hours they are working. We are grateful for all they are doing. They are putting their lives at risk for the duty and responsibilities of this House.

We speak today in a changed world. I have no doubt that we will open our hearts to the people of Afghanistan. Together, we in this House must mourn those who are left behind and those who will not make it. Our singular purpose must be atrocity prevention in the future. We must recognise where the threats to this country lie and ensure that we are single-minded in our focus on challenging them and protecting our people. We must ensure that, in a world that has become darker and more uncertain this week, at least we know the light that we will follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Some moments in this debate were among the most harrowing I can remember in 11 years in Parliament. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), and in particular to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). They make me proud to be a Member of this House. No matter how painful and difficult it has been for them to speak up over recent weeks, they have done it. They have done the veterans of Afghanistan proud and they have shown themselves to be true friends to the Afghan people. They have refused to despair, even at the darkest moments, because they know better than most of us that despair is a luxury that Afghans, and the world, simply cannot afford.

Those hon. Members have given voice to something that tens of thousands of families in Britain are feeling—our friends, neighbours and constituents who served, lost loved ones or suffered life-changing injuries, and are wondering now what it was all for. They should not accept that this is the end of two decades of sacrifice, or that the degradation of terrorists, the hard-won progress for women and girls, the landmine clearance programme, the access to healthcare, the clean water and the emergence of fragile democracy can be allowed to unravel in just a few days while the world looks away. Like so many of us who have spoken in this debate, they find it impossible to reconcile where we are now, and how it could possibly have come to this.

We recognise that the decision by the United States to withdraw its military presence created an impossible situation for the United Kingdom. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, NATO’s intention was always to withdraw, but it was to withdraw in a planned and orderly way, linked to conditions. This has failed all those tests. Some 18 months after the decision was made to withdraw at Doha and four months after the timetable was established, the airport is overwhelmed, paperwork cannot be processed, and Ministers openly admit that people will be left behind and that some of them will die.

This is an unparalleled moment of shame for this Government. Security at the airport is now in the gift of the Taliban, and it appears that the Government have no agreement beyond 31 August, in just 12 days’ time. Is it correct that we are wholly reliant on a fragile agreement between the United States and the Taliban, a deal that offers no guarantees that UK evacuations can continue if the US withdrawal is completed before that date and ours is not? Is it correct that no conversations have taken place between the UK and Taliban leaders about that access? Does the Foreign Secretary realise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, his own Department is still advising British nationals remaining in Afghanistan to shelter in place unless further flight options become available, and to keep an eye on Twitter for updates?

The tragedy of all this is that even those people the Government recognise, such as the Chevening scholars who the Prime Minister made a personal promise to this week and this morning, have told us they cannot get through the Taliban roadblocks to the airport and they will be abandoned. This has so much significance for those young Afghans. They represent a generation of promising leaders who are watching the future that they worked and hoped for unravel in front of their eyes.

People—especially women—have burned documents that link them to the UK for their own safety, and so are being turned away at airport perimeters. A British national has been sheltering in a park in Kabul with her young children in recent days because her house was burned down and local people are too scared to offer them shelter. Their MP was promised a phone call from the Foreign Secretary’s private office two days ago. It has not come. What use are promises that are never kept?

The Prime Minister made promises this morning that practically, at this time, he knows the Government cannot fulfil. The Foreign Secretary must address that today. As many hon. Members have said, one of the consequences of the chaos that Ministers have allowed to engulf us is that people will not trust us again. What can he tell them today that will start to put that right?

He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) talk about the number of people who helped us but who the Government still refuse to recognise. How have we become this country that drags its feet on saving the lives of those who supported us and stands by while the refugee crisis unfolds? The Prime Minister said last night that we would take 20,000 refugees, but how can anyone believe him? He has made promises before. He promised he would protect the Alf Dubs scheme and give sanctuary to child refugees, and then he closed it. We are better than this.

The Government have given us a press release when what we need is a plan. What is the scale of the refugee crisis that the Government anticipate? What efforts have they made through the United Nations to co-ordinate a global response that is based on a clear assessment of the needs of Afghans, not on numbers plucked out of thin air with no plan for implementation? If I were in the Prime Minister’s shoes, I would be moving heaven and earth to ensure that we live up to our obligations and show the world that we can be relied on—not least by the women and girls who we encouraged and supported to take on positions of authority but who now find themselves the targets of Taliban brutality. Where is the message from the United Kingdom that they are not alone?

When the Prime Minister took office two years ago, we led the world in development assistance, but even now, after the Taliban have taken control, there is no urgency or seriousness about addressing the humanitarian crisis that confronts us. Can we be honest? It is not honest to claim to be doubling aid to Afghanistan when just a few months ago it was cut by half. The Prime Minister should remember that, given that the only statement he made to the House on Afghanistan was when he came to tell us he was cutting the aid budget. I wonder if, after this debate is over, he will reveal that the refugee programme the Government unveiled this morning will be paid for by raiding the aid budget.

[Alicia Kearns]

You raise how many times the Prime Minister has spoken on Afghanistan in the Chamber—[Hon. Members: “You!”] Sorry: the shadow Foreign Secretary mentions the number of times the Prime Minister has spoken about Afghanistan in this House. Will she remind us how many times she has mentioned Afghanistan in this place since coming to the Front Bench?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is not my responsibility. Please try not to use “you”, because I am not the example.

International Aid: Treasury Update

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Programme motion
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I am enormously proud of our record of supporting the most vulnerable and using aid to make our people and those around the world safer, but we have suffered the biggest recession in 300 years. That is not a situation that we could have predicted when I fought the election on our manifesto promises, yet the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 explicitly anticipated this sort of crisis where a departure from targets is necessary.

If I had been asked during the election whether I would reconsider the 0.7% commitment, I would have said, “Yes, but only in the very darkest of times,” and if the last year or so has not been the darkest of times, then what is? Since my election, we have faced an enormous number of difficult choices. In Rutland and Melton those difficult choices and dark times have looked like this: the Government having to support 17,900 jobs through furlough and 4,500 individuals, and underwrite nearly £123 million in loans—that is almost half of all employee jobs in Rutland and Melton that we had to save. That support was necessary, but the costs pose real risks for the future, too.

Even with the reduction in UK aid, we remain the second largest donor in the G7. The taxes of residents of Rutland and Melton will continue to go towards saving lives, disaster relief, peacekeeping, and tackling climate change. We should be proud of that, and I hope that the reorganisation of the FCDO can augment our capacity to respond to crises outside of the ODA budget through the new conflict centre.

But today in the Chamber hon. Members have criticised the Government by arguing that other G7 countries are not temporarily reducing their ODA budgets, yet in 2020 we were one of only two G7 countries to meet that target and we are the only one to do it every year since 2013. Perhaps it is because those countries have not met their commitments in normal times that they do not now need to make a temporary reduction; indeed, they had no plans in the first place to meet the 0.7% they promised.

With this temporary reduction, we will still exceed the funding provided by every country bar one; we will remain one the most generous countries in the world. This is a temporary measure that recognises the fiscal duty we have to our children. It recognises that we will still stand by those most in need, and the Government have defined the fiscal circumstances in which we will return to 0.7%. This does not diminish our country, and, while this is a difficult decision, it is the right one for now because we have faced the darkest of times.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

What steps the Government are taking to deliver civil service jobs outside London.

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

What assessment he has made of the east midlands and Leicestershire as a potential location to help deliver the Places for Growth programme.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

What steps the Government are taking to deliver civil service jobs outside London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members should not walk in front of a Member during the answer to their question.

[Alicia Kearns [V]]

This Government’s levelling-up agenda will transform our nation, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot deliver this agenda unless we level up both cities and rural areas such as Rutland and Melton? Can I invite him and his officials to visit the rural capital of food, Melton Mowbray, to see why nowhere in the country makes a more compelling offer for a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs office and the transformative Places for Growth programme than Melton, and why this will show the Government’s commitment to the east midlands and to rural areas?

[Michael Gove]

Rutland and Melton could not wish for a more effective advocate than my hon. Friend. She talked to my colleague Lord Agnew and me in the Cabinet Office just last week to press the case for a relocation of jobs to Melton. It has a superb agricultural college, is at the heart of our food-producing countryside, produces superb products and also has many of the facilities, logistical and otherwise, that would recommend it to Government Departments, and I look forward to working with her on the prospect of relocation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We respected the referendum result of 2014, which was a very substantial majority in favour of remaining in the UK, keeping our wonderful country together, not breaking it up. That was what the people of Scotland rightly voted for, and they did so in the belief that it was a once-in-a-generation event.

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

For almost 500 years the Royal Navy has protected our country from foes and protected the freedom of our friends around the world. The pride of our navy, HMS Queen Elizabeth, sailed this week with her strike group. Within her she carries the British values of freedom, justice and democracy, so can my right hon. Friend tell me, as she makes her way from the Mediterranean to the South China Sea, what his plans are for the future of her white ensign?

[The Prime Minister]

It was fantastic to be on board the HMS Queen Elizabeth, which is a vessel longer than the Palace of Westminster, and forms a more eloquent statement, in many ways, than many of the speeches and interventions that we have heard this afternoon, about Britain’s role in the world and our determination to expand shipbuilding and expand our naval presence, which is good not only for the UK and for the world, but good for jobs and growth around the country.

Covid-19

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think that the Chancellor was very clear about the £4.6 billion, with its Barnett consequentials, which he announced to the House. I must say, I do not think that anyone could fault the Chancellor for his willingness to come to the House and to explain what we are going to do.

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

Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking the armed forces for their extraordinary efforts to beat this virus, especially those in Rutland and Melton? At this time of national crisis, however, some of our enemies are seeking to exploit opportunities to undermine us, so will the Prime Minister reassure me that our vaccination programme will extend to those in our armed forces and reserves most at risk from catching covid in the course of their duties, especially those deployed abroad on mission-critical operations, so that their safety and ours is protected?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank our armed forces from the bottom of my heart. I very much share in what my hon. Friend has just said. They have played an outstanding role throughout this pandemic—where necessary, moving patients to hospital from remote places, conducting testing, and now having a big role with the vaccines as well. I am sure, like every other part of the public sector, they will be considered by the JCVI as it comes to make its decisions about the allocation of the vaccine.

Covid-19 Update

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I repeat the undertaking that I just gave.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his support for my campaign to ensure that all women can have partners with them for all scans and all their labour, but will he confirm whether pregnant women throughout the country who are in their third trimester should be shielding, given their much higher vulnerability to covid, and that employers should recognise that and support them to work from home or in roles that are not on the frontline?

[The Prime Minister]

Pregnant women who are in any doubt about what they should do to shield from covid should consult the gov.uk website for advice, because there is plenty there for pregnancies.