Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
At the start of the summer, there were some horrendous reports about rapes and assaults committed by South Yorkshire police. I welcome the decision to involve the National Crime Agency and strip responsibility for those investigations from the force, but can the Minister confirm that the national inquiry will examine the role of the police not only in cover-ups but in the crimes themselves?
Before he does, I mention that I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. It is well known that the only Victoria Cross to be awarded to a fighter pilot in world war two was awarded to James Brindley Nicolson for re-entering, on 16 August 1940, a burning plane to shoot down an enemy bomber near Southampton. What is not so well known was that one of the British casualties in the same action was the youngest pilot to die in the battle of Britain. His name was Martyn Aurel King. To mark the 85th anniversary of his heroic death in that action, two months short of his 19th birthday, a memorial service was held at Fawley church in New Forest East, where he lies buried with honour among several of his comrades.
Given communist China’s predictable support for the killer in the Kremlin’s campaign of murder and mayhem in Ukraine, why are the Government rewarding China with a super-embassy in London?
I am grateful to the Minister for the frankness of her statement. She says that the director of the company is under investigation for suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. Can she reassure the House that that will not in any way hold up the Government in taking any remedial steps that they need to take in support of the industry and its workforce? For background knowledge, will she tell the House precisely what sort of specialisms this plant offers, given that it names itself a Speciality Steel enterprise?
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
I am truly grateful. This is, I hope, a non-party political point. The White Paper in advance of the Bill mentioned rightly that there had been consultations on strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities, which relates to a campaign many of us have been involved in to try to protect local council clerks against bullying. We were pleased to be called into that consultation. There is, however, nothing about that in the Bill. Does the right hon. Lady plan to bring it forward in separate legislation?
I know that the purpose of these regulations is to clarify and provide for the definition of revenue in accordance with the original legislation. I simply say to the Minister that this is a helpful further step, building on the progress that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has described. It is vital that we ensure that these measures are implemented by Ofcom regularly and with enthusiasm where online providers are doing damage; that is their purpose. Parliament as a whole took too long to regulate the internet. The last Government did the right thing in doing so, and now we need to use this instrument to its full effect.
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, because the Bill does nothing to empower local communities, but instead contains measures reducing the democratically elected representation of communities and enables the Government to impose local government restructuring on communities, irrespective of local opinion, disregarding local geography and identity; because bureaucratic restructuring of local government will cost money and reduce focus on housing delivery with no evidence that it will deliver better services; because the Bill will lead to greater costs for residents by creating new mayoral precepts, increasing borrowing powers, and raising parking charges on motorists, and adding more local bureaucrats as mayoral-appointed commissioners; and because the Bill will result in higher council tax bills for hardworking families, at a time when local government is facing increased costs pressures due to unfunded rises in employers’ National Insurance contributions.” The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—it is a title straight out of the Ministry of Truth. The Bill is not about devolution; it is clearly a blatant power grab by the Deputy Prime Minister—a right hon. Lady for whom I have a huge amount of respect—and her Department. It is not about community empowerment at all; it is about stripping power from local authorities and concentrating it in Whitehall and the hands of the people in Whitehall. Big Brother would be proud. Centralisation is devolution. Whitehall diktat is community empowerment. The fact that the Bill does the opposite of what it claims is, as we set out in our reasoned amendment, why we cannot give it a free pass. This Bill sidelines communities. This Bill forces restructuring without consent. This Bill wastes money while families are facing higher bills because of Labour’s mismanagement. This Bill disrupts and distracts councils from building the homes that local people need. Those are our objections. That is what we have set out in our reasoned amendment. If the Government want to win the confidence of this House rather than just shoehorning their Back Benchers through the Division Lobby, they need to justify the demands embedded in the Bill. During the debate and when summing up, I sincerely hope that they answer our questions. Why centralise control? Why raise taxes? Why deny residents their voice? Those are the questions that those on the Treasury Bench need to answer before this Bill can make credible progress through the House. The case has been set out, but before Members on the Labour Benches get too excited, let me put to bed a few spectres that have been raised. The Conservative party believes in devolution, not just in theory but in practice: we created many of the existing mayoral roles; we created police and crime commissioners; we empowered parish councils and neighbourhood planning; and we gave families the power to block excessive council tax rises. We devolved by consent—by agreement with local leaders—and not by Whitehall diktat. The simple truth of the matter is that Labour does not and has never believed in devolution, and it does not deliver meaningful devolution. It is a centralising party and it centralises. This Government are abolishing councils without consent and forcing them to sign up to their model of restructuring. They forced the postponement of elections in nine county councils. That was unprecedented. Elections are the foundation of democracy, and denying them undermines public trust and confidence. In truth, denying residents their democratic voice was done for a very specific reason. It was done because Labour feared what people would say to it at the ballot box.
I think the hon. Member said the quiet bit out loud: this is about putting up taxes on local people. That is what this legislation is fundamentally about; we know that to be true. I promise the House that I did not tee up that intervention—it was the next bit in my speech. Labour, by imposing this restructuring from the centre, is leaving local people without a voice. This legislation is about creating what this Government want, which is a cohort of subservient Labour mayors. Let us look at what Labour mayors actually deliver—as I say, this speech was written before the previous intervention. Labour mayors put up taxes. Labour mayors increase the tax burden on local people. The Liverpool city region—up by 26%; Greater Manchester—up by 8%; West Yorkshire—up by 6%; and London, since Sadiq Khan took office in 2016—up by over 70%. Labour Members are quiet now, aren’t they? The truth hurts.
I will mention Paul Bristow later in my speech. The difference is that under Conservative mayors, we keep costs down. Ben Houchen, for example, is delivering a zero precept. If more places get mayors under this Labour proposal, how much more will local people pay? Will Ministers—whether that be the Secretary of State or whoever responds to the debate—guarantee that costs will not go up under this model and that council tax will not rise under this model, or is this another set of taxes on hard-working families by stealth? The truth is that the record of Labour mayors is that they increase taxes by well above the rate of inflation. Also, will the pressure on parish council precepts also hit hard-working local people in the pocket? The Conservatives are in no doubt that, once again, it will be hard-working families and local people who will pay the price for Labour’s ineptitude. It is not only families that will be hit. This Bill forces councils to merge, and prudent councils—those that have been careful with their money—will be forced to inherit the debt of others. How on earth is penalising good financial management at local government level fair? What protections will be in place to protect people from higher bills? Looking through the Bill, there are none that I can see.
My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of these proposals. For all Labour’s warm words about community engagement, community voice and communities actually having a say, that is a classic example. I have visited the Isle of Wight, not only in a personal capacity but as a guest of my hon. Friend, so I know full well that even though the county of Hampshire has many, many excellent things, the people of the Isle of Wight want to maintain their autonomy—and they should have the right to do so if that is what they want. It is not just that local councils will lose control of their finances; they will also lose control of their powers, which are being stripped from them in this Bill. Mayors are gaining sweeping planning and transport powers without council consent or representation. Let me give an example: what if communities oppose punitive anti-driver proposals from a mayor in their local neighbourhoods? How can they make their voices heard? Who will win? Will it be the mayor who has been imposed upon them, or will it be the local communities? What will the accountability model be for those mayors? We can see nothing in the Bill about people holding their mayors accountable. There is no provision for meaningful scrutiny during the tenure of the mayoralty. The Secretary of State made reference to the upwards-only rent reviews. I completely get that that is a superficially attractive set of proposals, but what assessment has been made of the effective valuation of commercial property, including properties that are owned by the local authorities themselves? If she is confident that this is such a good idea, why was there no scrutiny? Why was there no consultation on these proposals? Do Ministers really think that that is best practice when it comes to creating a stable investment environment and confidence for people spending money in the high street commercial properties that keep our communities alive? The silence on those questions about the Bill is frankly deafening, because the Government have no answer. This Bill is not about empowering local communities, and it is definitely not about empowering local councils. It is about creating a cohort of puppet mayors controlled by the right hon. Lady’s Department. I respect her enormously, but her ability to strip power not just from local councils but from the Prime Minister is something well worth watching. I think we should at least be impressed by that. I put this to Labour Members: if this is about community empowerment, why does it reduce local representation? If it is about fiscal responsibility, why will it burden ratepayers—council tax payers—with debts that their local authorities did not create? If it is about more homes, why does it hamper and suffocate councils with increased bureaucracy? Devolution can work, and indeed does work, when it is done properly. We know that it works because Conservative mayors have delivered. Ben Houchen saved Teesside airport, delivered the UK’s largest freeport with 18,000 quality jobs and secured Treasury North in Darlington with 1,400 high-skilled roles, all with a zero mayoral precept. Paul Bristow in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is ending Labour’s ideological attack on drivers. Boris Johnson, while Mayor of London, delivered the 2012 games and secured Crossrail. In the west midlands, Andy Street was a genuine champion for his region and a household name. Who has he been replaced by? A person who is not even a household name in his own household. That says it all. We Conservatives deliver. We delivered devolved government that delivers infrastructure, jobs and economic growth. What has Labour delivered? Higher costs and broken promises—[Interruption.] More tax, less delivery. That is the Labour way.
The hon. Gentleman really does need to keep up. I addressed those comments at the time. I have been to Stockton. I have campaigned with my good friend and colleague the Conservative mayor of the town. I have knocked on doors in Stockton, and I have a huge amount of respect for the town. The point I was making was about the then Labour representative, who I was not terribly impressed with, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case. We were always deeply sceptical about whether the content of the Bill would match its aspirational title, so we set five tests, framed in the form of five simple questions. First, is this a genuine choice for councils? Secondly, do all the affected tiers agree with the changes? Thirdly, is there genuine public support for the changes? Fourthly, will the changes keep bills down? Fifthly, will the changes protect social care? Having looked through the Bill, it is clear that the answer to every single one of those questions is no. Five questions, five failures. As I have said, Conservatives are in favour of devolution when done properly, but only if that devolution is meaningful and only if local communities and their immediate representatives have the power to deliver. We are its champions because we delivered it. We have proven that it works, but it must be by consent; it cannot be by compulsion. It should be by partnership, not imposition, and by empowering councils and councillors, not by erasing them. This Bill is not devolution; it is central control. This Bill is higher taxes and weaker local democracy. This Bill is a power grab by the Secretary of State. It fails to deliver on its promise, and that is why the House must decline to give it a Second Reading and demand that the Government rethink these proposals.
I cannot think of anyone I would rather have chairing this debate, so it is of course a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on raising this matter. In the time that I have been in this place, I think this is the first debate we have had about the battle of Britain. I ask myself why we have not had one before—I am rather guilty in that regard myself. I rise simply to make some comments about the fact that my father was a fighter pilot throughout the second world war. He flew almost constantly in Spitfires and came in during the latter stages of the battle of Britain, so I grew up with stories about what happened. Almost the first story that my father told me was about when he was just finishing off his training—somewhere up near Liverpool, I think—and he and a couple of others were in a pub that night. This was just after Dunkirk, and a bunch of soldiers who had returned from Dunkirk saw these RAF figures sitting by the bar and immediately came and attacked them under the stupid belief—it was not their fault, because the information was not given to them—that the RAF had not turned up at Dunkirk, because they could not see the aircraft overhead. The truth is somewhat different, because the fighter pilots had gone inland to break up the bombers long before they got anywhere near the beaches. If they got near the beaches, it was too late. He said, “We bore”—how can I put it?—“the imprint of a disgruntled set of pongos, who I remembered all the way through the rest of my life.” But he went on to qualify as a fighter pilot. Most fighter pilots were not trained massively. There was a rush to get them done, so they had no real combat training. What they had was basic training on the aircraft to go solo, a few fighter runs and feints, and then they would be sent off to their squadrons, so the first time they would understand how to fly the aircraft properly was in combat. My father talked about what he used to say to his pilots when he later became a squadron leader and eventually a group captain. He said, “I used to tell my pilots that you have to abandon all that you have learned and understand only one thing: you don’t get into this aircraft; you strap it on—it becomes an extension of you. If you learn that, this aircraft will never let you down. It can always go as far as you want, and it will test you, but you will always come out of it.” That stayed with him all the time, and his pilots, I think, had very good records as well. It is worth reminding ourselves that of course it was the pre-war planning that enabled us to have enough time and warning to put the fighters up in the air to take out the bombers. Sir Robert Watson-Watt and others developed the chain of radars. The Germans never understood fully what that was about until too late. And of course there was Dowding’s two-pronged determination. No. 1 was that this home chain should exist, and the system to run it through the tables, with the WAAF—Women’s Auxiliary Air Force—pushing all the details about individual squadrons coming across. The second bit, which was really important, was his argument with Churchill about not sending Spitfires over to France. That was critical because had we done that, we would not have been ready and prepared for what was to come next. That was a very big dispute. I think Churchill never really forgave him for standing up to him on that, but he was right to have done so, because we were ready and prepared with the right squadrons and the right aircraft. The other side of it was that although, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said, the Germans were never going to succeed, there was a period when they were pretty close, and that was when they were bombing the airfields endlessly. That meant that many squadrons were coming back to find their airfields destroyed and were having to be diverted to amateur airfields and everywhere else, where there was no support, no supply, no ammunition waiting for them and often no fuel. It would then take them longer to be ready, and by the time they were ready, it was almost too late. Dowding was within, I think, two days of ordering his squadrons north of London, because they were pretty much exhausted, as they were not able just to come back and fly again. At that point, Germany switched the bombing to London. That was a critical moment. It gave him breathing space to reconstruct, rebuild, and be ready for them a second time when they came back to the airfields, and that is exactly what happened. His leadership in all this was critical, for which he was not properly rewarded directly afterwards but was later on. As the commanding officer, Dowding was as important to this as Nelson was to Trafalgar or as Wellington was to Waterloo, and we should honour him and others who worked with him. My father got five gallantry medals during the war—two Distinguished Service Orders and three Distinguished Flying Crosses, which are all combat awards—but like many other pilots who were there, he did not ask questions about this. He became a very good friend of the actor Christopher Lee, who was the godfather to my brother. I remember as a young boy, sitting in a back room with my brother while they had a drink together—that was normal in those days—when he came through and said to me and my brother, “Your father is a man without fear.” This troubled me for some time. When I eventually was in the Army myself, one evening over a drink, I said to my father, “Christopher Lee said you are a man without fear.” He said, “That’s not true. A man without fear is a dangerous man, because he cares not about anybody else. I was scared all through the war, but I controlled it because I could not let those around me down.” My father said that the toughest thing he ever had to do was to eventually deal with a pilot who had clearly lost it—who had broken. He had to send him down because he was a risk to the others around him. He said that these men would break down in tears in front of them because that was the end of their time—that was it; there were no further chances for them. He said, “That was the toughest thing you had to do; but, for the sake of the others, you made that decision, even though you hated doing it at the time.” Although they have become heroic figures, it is worth reminding ourselves that every day they were fighting for their lives and the lives of the people next door to them in the air. That is important. I want to finish by saying that the lesson they taught us, from the 1930s all the way through, is one that we are now faced with again. We are faced by the growth of totalitarianism: brutal states like China, Russia and others, who will stop at nothing and who care nothing for human rights, nothing for the rule of law and nothing for freedom. These countries are growing in potency. Russia is invading a nation that is trying to become a democracy and fight for freedom. What we have to understand is that we are now under as big a threat as they were in the 1930s. We must understand that the preparation in the late ’30s is where we have to be today—I say that nodding to the Minister, who has served himself and will understand that fully. There are three lessons that we draw from this. First, we can never appease dictators. Dictators of brutal totalitarian regimes must be confronted, never appeased. The second is: never trade land for peace. Fight for the souls and the hearts of those who honour freedom. Do not betray them with shabby deals, as we did in 1938, when we sold land of those we had no right to. The third bit, which I will finish on, is very simple: “Si vis pacem, para bellum”—“If you would have peace, prepare for war”—because if we are unready, you can bet that the others will not be. What is it that our fighter pilots taught us, those brave men who went on to fight through the rest of the war like my father and others? They said: “Never again find yourself in a situation where you have to put young men and women under fire because politicians failed to recognise what they had to do early on.”
I just wanted to make the small point that I was fortunate enough to sit next to Jock Colville, who was assistant private secretary to Churchill throughout the war. They were visiting Uxbridge on 15 September, when a huge armada gathered. Churchill was watching as, one by one, the lights went up, until everything was up. He said to the air officer commanding, “What are you going to do now? Where are your reserves?” The officer said, “We have no reserves, Prime Minister.” Churchill asked, “What will you do?” The officer said, “I don’t know about you, but I’m going to pray.” Jock Colville told me that, with that, Churchill stayed silent for three hours, something he never did, but that when he got into the car, he turned to him and said, “Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.”
The Minister is obviously incredibly committed to the steel industry, as we all are, but manufacturing will continue to struggle in this country when it pays energy prices that are so much higher than competitors in Germany and France. Can the Minister assure the House that in a year’s time, following the Government strategy, manufacturers—whether ceramics or steel—will be paying the same amount for their industrial energy prices as their German and French competitors?
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the worst aspects of the actions of the Israeli authorities is the continual stripping away of the dignity of the Palestinian people in Jerusalem and the west bank? Only last week, the Greek Orthodox patriarch learned that, for the first time in history, Israeli authorities launched a property tax on Greek Orthodox churches. There was international outrage at the freezing of bank accounts. That has made a difference. Can this House and this Government stick up for the rights of the Palestinian people? Not even the Ottomans tried to impose a church tax.
I suggest six minutes for Back-Bench speeches.
I will call Joani Reid to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the mover of the motion and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the mover of the motion to sum up afterwards.
Order. I urge the hon. Member to give the Minister some time to respond.
Order. There will be a formal time limit of one and a half minutes, and I will not be able to call everyone.
Order.
Order. I call the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.
It is a pleasure to be able to present this petition, which has been organised by Mr and Mrs Mackenzie-Cook of Burton in Christchurch, who, along with thousands of other local residents, have been campaigning for the reopening of Burton’s only GP surgery, which prior to its closure in August last year had served the people of Burton for over 40 years. With local encouragement, another GP practice bought the premises earlier this year and everyone assumed that its application to reopen the branch surgery would be a formality. But in April, Dorset’s integrated care board rejected that application, and we now need the Government to overrule the unelected ICB and show everyone that they were being genuine at the general election when they promised to increase access to GP services rather than to reduce it. The petition states: The petition of residents of the village of Burton in the constituency of Christchurch Declares that the petitioners and other residents of the village of Burton in the constituency of Christchurch had the benefit of a local accessible GP practice on Burton Green for over 40 years prior to its closure in August 2024; are delighted that earlier this year South Coast Medical acquired the premises for the purpose of opening a new branch of the Grove Practice following a welcome refusal by the local planning authority to permit a change of use on the grounds of loss of community benefit; and are outraged that the Dorset Integrated Care Board has since refused permission for the re-opening of the surgery. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to overrule the Dorset Integrated Care Board’s decision to refuse permission for the re-opening of a GP surgery in Burton, which ignores, inter alia, the needs and wishes of the people of Burton and the fact that new housing already in receipt of planning permission will generate demand from an additional 2,000 patients for local GP services. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003107]
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
One way of dealing with that would be for the Government to prohibit the import of solar panels and insist that, as a condition of such solar farms, panels must be produced within the United Kingdom. Would that not be a sensible policy?
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Foreign Secretary wants to pay a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to Mauritius to lease back a military base that we already own. Why is he afraid of holding a vote on this policy?
It is indeed time for a step change in the UK’s response to the sinister crackdown on freedom and political opposition in Georgia. It is welcome that the Minister is assessing asset bans and freezes on those responsible for this wholly unacceptable situation. May I ask that he steps up efforts for the Georgian civil society counter-destabilisation hybrid activities, especially in the information space and the actors that might be involved in that? What discussions has he had with the US Administration in the light of the MEGOBARI Bill going through Congress?
T5. On 23 July, my constituent Dr Lindsey Fitzharris, a naturalised British citizen who is undergoing cancer treatment, was denied boarding her flight home to the UK from the US, a journey she has made numerous times without trouble. She was told to contact the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for an emergency travel document, but it took three weeks —including interventions by me—to get her home for treatment. How can it have taken three weeks in an emergency to do so? Will the Department apologise to Dr Fitzharris and investigate the matter fully?
Madam Deputy Speaker, can I begin by thanking you—and, through you, Mr Speaker—for granting me this Adjournment debate? It is unusual to allocate Adjournment debates to members of the shadow Cabinet, but I want to raise this important matter on behalf of my constituents. I have written to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on a number of occasions asking him to meet me, but he declined to do so. I want to speak about the three proposed solar farms in my constituency: the One Earth project, the Great North Road solar farm and the Steeple renewables scheme. Taken together, these projects would be of continental scale. Between them, they would cover at least 10,000 acres of land, making them collectively the largest solar installation in Europe. To put that in perspective, my constituency is a large and rural one that stretches nearly 60 miles from north to south, and at least 9% of its entire land mass would be turned into a single industrial complex—an industrial farm of black glass, metal fencing, substations and, inevitably, vast battery storage plants. This is not just about Newark. Across the Trent valley, in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, the cumulative impact is immense. In my constituency, the figure is 9%; in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) it is 7%; and in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) it is 5 %. This is not a scattering of panels across this part of the county; it is the concentration of a vast burden on one small corner of England’s countryside.
The hon. Member is always welcome to come up a ladder with me in Newark. Perhaps I will pay him a visit as well to fix some Union flags. The hon. Member is right to say that these projects affect constituencies the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Many of them—all three projects I am raising today—are treated as nationally significant infrastructure projects. That means the final decision will land not with local communities or district or county councils, but squarely on the desks of Ministers in Whitehall. It is right that debates like this occur and elected Members such as myself have the opportunity to raise the arguments with Ministers before they ultimately make these crucial decisions. Let me make one point crystal clear at the outset: this is not about nimbyism. When I was Housing Secretary, I heard Members of this House begin speeches with those words time and again, and my heart used to sink because invariably they would go on to make an argument that was at its heart nimbyism. However, I do not recall ever, in my 11 years in Parliament, raising in this House a campaign against a housing development in my constituency—not once. Newark has accepted thousands of new homes and new estates, and I have supported those developments. We have also accepted our share of energy projects. We host small-scale solar farms, which I have not objected to. We host battery storage facilities and have absorbed significant disruption from new and potentially exciting energy projects, such as the West Burton fusion project on the site of a former coal-fired power station. This is not a constituency that resists change. It is not a part of the country that is immune to energy projects. The entire history of north Nottinghamshire has been one of energy generation—it is in the blood of my constituents. My constituents are pragmatic, reasonable and patriotic people who want to share a part of the nation’s burden in meeting its energy needs, as they have done for generations, but what is being proposed now is on an extraordinary scale. It is disproportionate and damaging and it cannot be justified. This has become a David and Goliath struggle. On one side are small villages, sometimes not even parish councils but parish meetings, and hamlets where neighbours have had to mobilise and join forces to get their views heard. On the other side are international companies with deep pockets, slick PR machines and armies of consultants. I pay tribute here in the House to those parish councils, parish meetings and campaign groups who have fought with such courage and determination. They have had to master planning law, pore over technical surveys and produce community responses, all with minimal resources. Contrast that with the developers: I have found them at times aggressive, loose with the facts and willing to submit surveys that are frankly absurd, so it is a David and Goliath situation. Why are we opposing this development? First, I have never known an issue to arouse such opposition in my constituency. I surveyed residents, and 90% say no. The community is speaking with one voice, and let me say why. First, these solar panels are presented as clean and green, but as we all know in this House, the reality is murkier. Most panels sold in the UK contain materials sourced in China, often from regions such as Xinjiang where there is compelling evidence of forced labour. Britain should take a lead against exploitation, not collude with it in our supply chains. Secondly, there are dangers from flooding and fire. These projects inevitably require vast battery storage installations. Around the world, we have seen that those batteries can ignite and that catastrophic fires can occur, sometimes releasing toxic smoke that is challenging to extinguish. Several such fires have already occurred here in Britain, as they have abroad. In the flood-prone Trent valley, the risks are greater. Putting panels, substations and batteries in areas liable to flooding presents a serious danger to life and property. Thirdly, even if one supports solar, it should be put on rooftops and brownfield land first. Across Britain, there are 600,000 acres of south-facing industrial rooftops— warehouses, supermarkets, car parks—yet they stand largely empty. Why are we sacrificing our finest farmland when those spaces are still unused?
The hon. Lady makes an important point. We should think about the impact on rural communities. Larger projects such as those that I am speaking about will have a profound impact on rural communities. To go back to the point I was making, why are we not using every incentive possible to ensure that such projects are placed on warehouses or factories rather than on beautiful and important countryside? It makes no sense. Fourthly, let me address the impact on the countryside itself. These are some of the finest landscapes in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. They will be scarred for generations. Some families will find solar farms just metres from their gardens. Imagine walking the dog not along a hedgerow, but between two 3.5-metre-high metal fences bristling with CCTV cameras. Imagine going for a run, flanked for miles not by rolling British countryside but by 4-metre-high walls of black glass. That is not the rural England that my constituents cherish. Fifthly, there will be a massive impact on rural life. I believe in house building, but if we encircle villages with solar farms, we will make it nigh-on impossible to have organic housing growth in those villages in the years to come, at a time when our country needs new houses in rural communities.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The answer is no. If we want to pursue net zero— even with the zealotry of some in the Government—we have to strike a balance. It is not being pursued in a proportionate and sensible way. It is alienating people— thousands of people in my constituency—many of whom feel passionately about this issue but do not want to see their countryside destroyed and their quality of life ruined.
I certainly do. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Imagine the disruption, even just for a couple of years, of constructing 10,000 acres of solar farms in small rural areas with country lanes. It will be absolutely immense. Sixthly, on food security, the land that I am speaking about is not scrubland, but some of the best and most versatile farmland in England. To take it out of production for 25 years is reckless. A 2023 report for the Welsh Government found that solar farms risk causing soil compaction and permanent damage, reducing yields long after the panels are gone. In Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, 99.1% of solar installations already sit on our best farmland. Developers’ soil tests conveniently downgrade land quality, but those are surveys they commission themselves. Once farmland is lost, we become dependent on imports, which are often produced to lower standards, with greater carbon cost and from countries where we have no control. That undermines not just food security but national security.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I know he has spoken about this before. Let us do exactly that—let us have floating solar panels, if there is the appetite for them. Let us have solar panels on our factories and warehouses, above our multi-storey car parks and on homes, frankly, but let us not destroy the countryside for a generation or more.
I am not clear from the hon. Gentleman’s comments whether he supports or opposes the vast number of solar farms being built in Nottinghamshire. Of course, it is a free market in which landowners can choose to do as they wish. I personally would not do it, because I care more about food security and the countryside and would hope to be more concerned for my neighbours than some of these large landowners are, but what is driving this are the economics of it. The economics are set by Government policy, and the Government have the ability to change the economics and change the planning rules, so that this becomes difficult, if not impossible.
I will, briefly, and then I should conclude.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. The suggestion we have heard over a generation that green jobs will come to the UK has turned out to largely be a mirage, because so much green technology is, in fact, produced overseas. Solar panels are almost exclusively made overseas, often in China, and that is a grave mistake. Let me close by making two final points. The first is on the cumulative impact. As I said in my opening remarks, this is not about a small solar farm of 100 or 200 acres. This is about almost 10% of the entire land mass of my constituency being covered in solar panels. If these applications are nodded through by the Secretary of State, more will follow. Where does this end? Will we have a situation in five, 10 or 15 years where 20% or a third of the countryside in my constituency is covered in solar panels? That does not seem in any way impossible to me. Enough is enough, and my constituents are sick to death of it. We have to ensure that their concerns are heard and the cumulative effect is taken into account. This matters not just to my constituents; it matters to the country, because the loss of food security in places like Nottinghamshire or Lincolnshire will affect all of us. Let me give an example. The three Newark projects covering 10,000 acres amount to land that could support more than 73,000 sheep, or produce 20 million loaves of bread or 700 million Weetabix. That is food production on a massive scale that we cannot afford to sacrifice. Every solar farm will beget more: a new substation leads to more applications; then come the battery storage plants; and soon the cumulative effect is devastating. That is why my constituents oppose the three schemes with such passion. That is why I am in the Chamber this evening, to ask the Minister to give the applications due consideration when they land on her desk, or that of the Secretary of State, in time. I appreciate that she may be limited in what she can say, because of the planning process, but in due course I ask her to put herself in the shoes of my constituents, to think how she would feel if a 3.5-metre solar panel was built next to her house or if the village that she loved was ruined, and how she feels about the future of our country if our food security is to be sacrificed in this way.
We should all be extremely proud of our animal welfare and food quality regulations. As a nation, we have a proud history of ensuring that food is as safe and high in quality as possible, and that it has not come at the unnecessary distress or harm of any animal. It is important too that our labelling laws are accurate and properly reflect the product being purchased. Free-range poultry is a key requirement for many consumers, and they should expect a minimum standard of freedom for poultry sold as such. We must, however, recognise that the value consumers place on free-range poultry is primarily due to concerns for the welfare of the animal. It is therefore logical that should a bird have to be kept indoors for its own welfare and to prevent the spread of disease, no welfare violation has taken place. Given a choice between a bird being kept indoors and its contracting avian influenza, we in the Opposition are confident that consumers would rather see the bird’s welfare protected, even if the bird is nominally free range and would be so under normal circumstances, as was laid out by the Minister. It is noted that the statutory instrument will also ensure that poultry producers are not left at a competitive disadvantage. We therefore support the Government’s decision to amend the existing regulations. Question put and agreed to.
Over the summer, Lord Cryer said that there was a deliberate attempt to silence his mother, Ann Cryer, when she first bravely raised the issue of grooming gangs in Keighley more than 20 years ago. Ann Cryer was, of course, one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Keighley. Lord Cryer said that he was “absolutely certain there has been a cover up on a local level”, and that Bradford needs to be examined as part of the inquiry. Unfortunately, Bradford council and others in this House are still saying that they will only support a focus on Bradford if that is deemed necessary by the inquiry chair. That is not the same thing as saying that they will actively lobby for that outcome, so does the Minister share my concern that Bradford council’s reluctance for an inquiry to take place in our area has not changed, despite the voices of so many victims and others demanding one?