(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberI have been given two minutes, so I will get straight to the point and talk about Whitestone. Last July, after being elected as the MP for Rother Valley, I made a solemn promise to my constituents that I would always put their interests first. The Whitestone proposal has raised real concerns among residents, and I have held numerous public meetings and consultations since the proposal first came to my desk last November.
Numerous concerns have been raised by residents, and I have made those very clear to the developer as the proposal has developed. I will share the three major concerns that stand out. The first is the sheer scale of the proposal. It would change the very nature of the area we enjoy. The second is the particular locations that are affected. Four beautiful villages—Ulley, Brampton-en-le-Morthen, Harthill and Kiveton Park—would potentially be engulfed by the Whitestone proposal. I have had conversations with the developer. I am pleased that there has already been a reduction of 25%, but I hope for much more.
The third is the issue of tenant farmers. It is right, as has been raised, that many landowners may choose to engage with the solar farm market, and that is their choice—we live in a free economy. But for tenant farmers the situation is somewhat different. I have tenant farmers in my constituency who have farmed land for generations, if not centuries, who feel that they are under threat, and I want to support them, as is my role.
I simply urge the developer, in coming forward with its proposal later this year, to take into account the thousands of residents who have raised serious concerns about the proposals as they stand. I urge the developer to make its proposal proportionate and fair, ensuring that we get a fair deal out of the transition to a green economy.
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI thank my hon. Friend for his remarks; he is right to talk about the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. The initial focus of our work was on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, which was in our manifesto. We had to work at pace on that commitment, and we are working with the Government Actuary’s Department on how the surplus-sharing arrangement will work going forward. That big piece of work is under way, but my hon. Friend is right to point to the tens of thousands of people who are in the BCSSS. I too have met the trustees, and we are working as fast as we can through the issues associated with that scheme. The two schemes are different—they operate in different ways—but the Government are the guarantor for both of them, and I will reconvene trustees to continue discussions with them and take this matter forward.
At the last general election, I made a promise to ex-miners in my constituency that a Labour Government would deliver justice on the MPS investment reserve fund and return it to its members. I am delighted that at the end of last year, this Government delivered, providing a boost of more than 32% to their pensions. However, in my constituency there are more than 600 BCSSS members, who are still really concerned about this issue, so I would welcome the Minister’s answer on that. Can she reassure them and me that the trustees will continue to update the members of that scheme? At the moment, there is a degree of uncertainty on what progress can be made over the coming months.
I thank my hon. Friend for his concern for his constituents who are in the BCSSS. I am very receptive to the calls from BCSSS trustees. I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the end of last year to begin discussions. We have received a positive response from him, and we are now taking the next steps to move this process forward.