Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Debate between Karen Bradley and Alicia Kearns

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I join the House in thanking His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen for their dedicated service and continued example to us all. I welcome all the new Members to this place and I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) on his maiden speech.

It is a great privilege to be returned to this House, having served the people of Rutland and Melton for four years. However, I am returned to represent the wonderful people of Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and South Kesteven villages. I would like to take a moment to reflect on the new communities I serve, because it may not be known that service runs deep in south Lincolnshire.

In world war two, our communities on their own raised enough money for a Spitfire to fight for our country. It is also in our communities where the apple dropped for Sir Isaac Newton in 1687. And a long, long time ago, Bytham castle was known to have a Lady Alicia, the lady of Bytham. I suspect I shall not be getting that title. [Interruption.] I bless you all! It is also home to Easton walled gardens, a place President Franklin D. Roosevelt described as

“a dream of Nirvana...almost too good to be true.”

So it is no surprise that Stamford’s honey stone streets, whose patterns have essentially remained the same since Saxon times, often grace the pages of the best places to live in this country. It was also a filming site for “Pride and Prejudice”, “The Da Vinci Code” and “Middlemarch”. Most recently, Grimsthorpe castle was home to “Bridgerton”.

Somewhat uniquely for a parliamentary seat, Rutland and Stamford sits across three counties, Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire, so I have my work cut out for me. What unites us is the rural landscape and traditions we share: our rural way of life embodied in the fields, farms and natural environment we are blessed to inhabit and hope to bequeath to the next generation. But protecting our green and pleasant lands is not about sentimentality. Our rural environment is the true workhorse of our country. Lincolnshire and Rutland alone produce 30% of the UK’s vegetables, 18% of our poultry, 30% of our turkeys and 20% of all English wheat. We are the agriculture super-producer of our country.

Yet the King’s Speech offered very little for us. It continued in the same vein as the Labour party manifesto, which did not mention the word “rural” even once, by ignoring the concerns of rural communities and ignoring farmers. It has put forward a different approach to development, setting out centralised powers for Westminster to impose projects on the countryside and stripping away the voice of local people. The consequences of that approach were apparent last week when the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero imposed three mega solar plants on communities, two of which sit within Lincolnshire and Rutland.

During the last Parliament, I consistently opposed the Mallard Pass solar plant and was dismayed to see the Secretary of State wave it through after only three working days in the job. Yesterday, he referred to himself as a “super-nerd”. I would never question his self-classification, but I do question how somebody could read over 3,000 pages of quasi-judicial documentation in just that time, while also getting to grips with a new Department. That perhaps explains why he missed or ignored the fact that even the Planning Inspectorate told him to turn down one of those applications.

There are well-documented links between Uyghur forced labour and the primary developer behind Mallard Pass. Labour has said it wants a renewal in public life and a focus on public service, but I ask where the sense of duty is to responsible and considered governance when decisions are made, frankly, for a propaganda announcement to say what the Government have done in their first seven days—decisions that solely affect Conservative-voting communities. Together these three solar plants will remove 6,000 acres of good-quality agricultural land, the land that feeds our country and powers our nation.

I want to delve more into the issue of slave labour. For years I have spoken out against what is taking place in Xinjiang. This House—including the new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero—voted to declare what was taking place a genocide. In opposition, Labour promised that should they become the party of government they would not only declare it formally a genocide, but would take the Chinese Government to court—I look forward to updates on that activity—but in government they have decided to carpet our countryside with solar panels produced by the blood of Uyghur slave labourers. The company behind the Mallard Pass, Canadian Solar, was found by our Foreign Office to have the highest complicity in Uyghur forced labour. It has been sanctioned by the United States Government for its

“ongoing campaign of repression against Muslim minority groups”.

This is a company whose representative rang my office and asked what I wanted to drop my opposition. Is that a company that we want operating on our land?

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

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

[Alicia Kearns]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, who has an incredible history as one of the greatest parliamentary advocates for tackling slave labour.

Will the Minister apologise, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, to the 32 anti-slave labour non-governmental organisations that opposed the Mallard Pass development. Will he apologise to the British people for signing over thousands of acres of prime agricultural land to such a company, and will he apologise to the 3,400 people whose petition I presented in the Chamber, with the highest number of wet signatures ever presented in this Parliament? Does he accept that the loudest statement made last week was not that we stand four-square behind renewables in this place but that we are giving the green light to all companies complicit in Uyghur slave labour to flood our country with bloodied solar panels? This Government are happy to go green on blood labour, and I will not stand for it.

Very briefly, in respect of rural economies, I want to express my absolute opposition to the Government’s intention to charge VAT on independent schools. There are 10 in my communities that employ more than 2,000 people and are attended by well over 1,000 children with special educational needs. Furthermore, one in five of my constituents who are military personnel or veterans send their children to those schools. This is ideology and dogma, and there is also no plan to support our comprehensive schools.

Proxy Voting and Presence of Babies in the Chamber and Westminster Hall

Debate between Karen Bradley and Alicia Kearns

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As Chair of the Procedure Committee, I should make the point that positive abstentions are not really the done thing in this place, but I do understand why he felt the need to do so.

We did look at the issue around the informal arrangements and whether they could be more formalised, but we must accept that there will always be informal arrangements in a place that involves 650 of us who are, effectively, sole traders. It is up to each individual Member to decide how they let their constituents know about their votes. We have great transparency around voting, as lists are published, which simply was not the case previously. There is nothing to stop any Member from being clear about their view on whether they abstain positively, or whether it was a pairing arrangement.

On babies, I make the point that there is discretion. The Chair, with advance notice, can, if it is deemed appropriate, say that on a certain occasion it is okay to bring a small child into the Chamber. There may be circumstances in which that is simply the only option and the Chair is happy to accept that; it is not that this is precluded. The practice of the House allows for it to happen, but it has to be with advance notice and at the discretion of the Chair. It also has to reflect, I think, whatever the debate may be. There will be some debates where the presence of a baby may be more appropriate. I would not wish to pre-judge that, but it will be for the discretion of the Chair, and it is available.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend and all the members of the Committee, who showed such sensitivity in their discussion of this topic and their questioning of us. I also wish to pay tribute to Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, who, throughout my time as a young mother—I have a 17-month-old who is very good friends with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore); they play together very nicely—have shown complete support of new mothers, whether it be leaving the Chamber to breastfeed or needing any support at all. I would also like to recognise the new Chief Whip, who has made real efforts to support those of us on the Government Benches who are pregnant or have these sorts of concerns and needs.

I have this to say to my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Procedure Committee: we must be very careful with the public discourse about this place, because it is like no other workplace. Mistaken comparisons are made with our constituents who work in shops at tills, because they cannot bring their babies with them. The same applies to lawyers who are fighting domestic abuse cases, which are among the topics that we discuss, who would not be allowed to bring their babies with them. I also have some concerns over the use of the discretion of the Chair—in Westminster Hall, for example—and that being abused. The pressure that I have come under during this period has been quite strong, and I fear that Chairs of Committees might feel that they have been forced to allow babies in.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify two things? First, as she touched on earlier, we are not banning babies from the entire building; we are banning them from this Chamber. My babies are in the House with me every single day, as many colleagues have said, and I do not even know that they are here. My second question relates to babies who are in a neonatal care unit. Did the Committee consider whether fathers should receive a far extended parental leave period, so that they can support their babies through that really sensitive time?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I also pay tribute to her and to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for giving their oral evidence on what is a contentious issue. I agree that Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and the Chairs have always shown incredible sensitivity and compassion.

We have conventions in the House around attending the opening and closing of debates, and being there for the speeches before and afterwards. I know that the Chairs have often used their discretion to recognise that the timing of a speech may not coincide with the time that a baby needs feeding, so they have allowed for the Member to have that discretion. I pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for all you have done on this issue. As somebody who was a trailblazer as a mother in this place, you know only too well what it is like.

My hon. Friend is also right that babies and children are not banned from the precinct. In fact, if we go outside the Chamber any day, we will see Members with their children enjoying the facilities. It was very important to me as a mother, when I first came to this place, that my young children understood the job that I was doing and could feel that they were part of it. On fathers, we have said that the recommendations around having equality for fathers and mothers in the Women and Equalities Committee report should be adopted.