Alberto Costa MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 29 Oct 2024 · Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require manufacturers to fit microplastic-catching filters to new domestic and commercial washing machines; to make provision about the promotion of the use of microplastic-catching filters in washing machines and raising awareness about the consequences of microplastics from washing machines for pollution in rivers and seas; and for connected purposes. Two years ago, I presented this ten-minute rule Bill to the House, and I am grateful to the many colleagues who have since approached me to express support and encourage me to present it to the House again. I thank colleagues who have co-sponsored my Bill this time round, and I am pleased to inform you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it has cross-party support, with co-sponsors from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green party, the DUP and the Conservatives. Microfibre plastic pollution is one of the most pervasive and preventable forms of microplastic pollution; in fact, around half a million tonnes of microfibres from synthetic textiles are released into the oceans each year due to washing clothes. I am introducing this Bill to encourage the Government to collaborate with washing machine manufacturers and set standards to ensure that all new domestic and commercial washing machines are fitted with cost-effective microfibre-catching filters. Microfibres, which are shed during the wash cycle, are too small to be captured by existing washing machine filters. They make their way into wastewater systems, where they either end up as sewage sludge, which is later spread on our agricultural land, or escape treatment entirely, ending up in rivers and seas. Research now indicates that these fibres, once released, not only contaminate aquatic environments but travel up the food chain, making their way into an alarming amount of the fish that we all eat. The growing body of scientific literature on microplastics is truly alarming. We are not only eating and drinking these particles, but the latest research from the University of New Mexico shows that they have now, sadly, crossed into our blood, into human placentas, into breast milk and even into our brains. Our bodies are now contaminated by microplastics. We should all be concerned that in lab studies conducted by Hull York Medical School, microplastics have been shown to damage human cells, and while the full impact on our health is still unknown, the evidence is mounting that numerous adverse health effects—including endocrine disruption, respiratory disorders, autoimmune issues and certain cancers, to name but a few—are caused or exacerbated by microplastics in our bodies. Researchers have even found microplastics in human testicles, and this may be a major factor in the dramatic drop in sperm count over the last 40 years. I hope the Government are convinced that microplastics pollution is a now major problem to our environment and our health, but how effective can microplastics filters in washing machines be in addressing microplastics pollution at source? There are two factors that should persuade the Government. First, they may be surprised to learn that a 2017 study revealed that 35% of all microplastics released into the environment are shed from our own clothing. That means that over a third of environmental microplastics are coming from a single source, which we know how to reduce. Secondly, evidence shows that washing machine filters can reduce the release of microfibres by 78% in every wash cycle, with some manufacturers now claiming that their new products are able to take up 90% of these offending plastic pollutants. Countries such as France have already taken legislative steps to require microfibre filters in all new washing machines from next year, and Australia has an industry-led goal of introducing these filters in six years’ time, so the UK can and should do its part. The United States Senate introduced the Fighting Fibers Act earlier this year. This is a promising federal initiative, which, although still in its early stages, is a mandate for filters in washing machines. The world is starting to wake up to this problem, and the UK has an opportunity to show leadership by introducing legislation that could make a substantial difference. This is not just about setting an example; it is about honouring our commitment to the environment and the health of the British people. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on microplastics, I have worked alongside numerous stakeholders including the obvious ones such as environmental groups, but also with industry leaders, washing machine manufacturers, academics and, in particular, the Women’s Institute, which first brought this to my attention seven years ago when it was here lobbying MPs. They have all helped to identify viable solutions. Together, we believe that fitting microfibre filters on washing machines is a cost-effective, achievable, near-term solution that would have a significant impact on reducing plastic pollution and its effect on our health. British companies are already leading in the design and manufacturing of these filters, showcasing the innovation and capability needed to support this measure. I urge the Government to work with these businesses to position the UK as a global leader in the fight against plastic pollution. My Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill is a low-cost, practical approach to a serious problem, and it aligns with the UK’s ambition to build a sustainable and environmentally conscious society. Microfibre pollution is an urgent environmental issue, and this Bill represents a clear, immediate and simple step we can take to address it, with the backing of washing machine manufacturers. I urge my colleagues in Government to support the Bill and to work with white goods manufacturers to enact a solution that has virtually no cost to the consumer and that provides the safeguards that we need for our environment and our health. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Alberto Costa, supported by Sarah Champion, Jim Shannon, Sir Julian Lewis, Ellie Chowns, Ruth Jones, Peter Dowd, Siân Berry, Carla Denyer and Mr Alistair Carmichael, present the Bill. Albert o Costa accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March 2025, and to be printed (Bill 114).

• 12 Sept 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  May I, too, welcome the Solicitor General not just to the House, but to her place? I thank the shadow Attorney General for his warm words and for the good nature of yesterday’s election. Only a few weeks ago, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing issued a joint national policing statement on violence against women and girls, which said: “We are transforming the way police officers investigate rape and serious sexual offences and over the last year we have trained over 4,500 new officers in investigating this complex crime.” The Solicitor General does not have direct responsibility for policing services, but she did say that she would be working with her Home Office and Ministry of Justice colleagues, so can she confirm that those 4,500 newly trained officers, who were trained under the previous Conservative Government, will dedicate the majority of their policing activities to working on cases exclusively involving violence against women and girls?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has worked assiduously on this matter over the months—in fact, years—during which this unwelcome proposal has been introduced. In answer to his question, what we can do is say, as I put it to the Minister, Labour are now in charge and I should be very grateful if she would meet both of us, to explain why there has been this decision, which is not the normal decision in these processes. When the Planning Inspectorate makes a recommendation, more often than not the recommendation is approved. And for the Planning Inspectorate to reject a proposal, or consider withholding consent for it, is very rare in such cases; usually the Minister does that. So, a meeting with the Minister might help to answer my hon. Friend’s questions. The proposed 440-acre site for this development sits between the M69 and the Leicester to Birmingham railway line at the heart of a cluster of rural communities, all of which are within two miles of the site and in some cases less than a mile from its boundary. It is important to mention the communities, which include Aston Flamville, Barwell, Elmesthorpe, Earl Shilton, Sapcote, Stoney Stanton, Sharnford, Burbage, part of Hinckley and the long-established Traveller settlement of Aston Firs. Those communities are within both my South Leicestershire constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth. So, too, is Burbage common and woods, which is a site of special scientific interest and a beautiful 200-acre area of woodland and grassland that lies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Many people have their home in this area and would be affected by this development were it to be given consent—of course, we are hoping that it will not be. According to the Stoney Stanton Action Group, over 92,000 people stand to be directly impacted by this development: an enormous number of people. Under the current system, Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough, Conservative-run Blaby district council and Conservative-run Leicestershire county council are statutory consultees in the process. All the stakeholders voiced serious concerns about the HNRFI, as did Labour-led Rugby council, Warwickshire county council and National Highways, which raised concerns over “missing or deficient transport documents and statements of common ground.”

• 10 Sept 2024 · Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and there is no surprise in that—both of us have worked so assiduously over the years on this matter, particularly behind the scenes when we have highlighted to previous Government Ministers the very issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I pay tribute to the many individuals and stakeholders—there are too many to name—who have closely considered this application, raised legitimate concerns on behalf of their communities and meaningfully contributed to the six-month Planning Inspectorate hearing process. I am glad that the Planning Inspectorate has taken on board their views. I am pleased to name just a couple of local Blaby district councillors who are observing this debate closely —Ben Taylor and Mike Shirley. I put on the record that they have worked tirelessly for their constituents to voice concerns over this proposed development, as has the leadership of Blaby district council. There are many local groups too, such as the Friends of Narborough Station, the Stoney Stanton Action Group, the Save Burbage Common group and Elmesthorpe Stands Together—to name just a few. They have brought their unique expertise and local knowledge to help illustrate why the proposal is wholly inappropriate. This development was unpopular from the outset; I issued a survey to constituents living within the vicinity. Of nearly 6,000 surveys sent, I had a very high response rate of 27%, and an overwhelming 94.5% of respondents opposed the proposals. Many of the villages closest to the proposed site are rural in nature and there are widespread and legitimate concerns that local country roads will become too busy with traffic, leading to gridlock in village centres and causing a safety concern, as has been correctly highlighted by the Planning Inspectorate. The applicant did not give enough consideration to that issue, in part because of poorly conducted traffic assessments, incorrect modelling and inadequate mitigations. While the proposed location of HNRFI is in the so-called golden triangle, constituents in Hinckley and Bosworth and in South Leicestershire frequently write to their respective MPs to raise concerns about what is frankly gross overdevelopment of commercial areas. This is not a question of nimbyism. If she looks at the map of this part of Leicestershire, the Minister will see an enormous amount of housing and commercial development. Indeed Magna Park, a huge logistics park —at one time the largest in Europe—is only a few miles away from this proposed development, and it is shortly to regain the title of one of Europe’s largest logistics parks. It is currently doubling in size, with 13.1 million square feet of floor space across 47 enormous warehouses. Would the Minister agree that over-development, not nimbyism, has gone too far in constituencies such as South Leicestershire and the adjoining area? I politely ask whether the Minister can expand on why the Secretary of State requires an extension when there is overwhelming evidence, as the Planning Inspectorate report seems to suggest, that the development should not go ahead.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree, which is why it was important to put on the record at the outset that there is still anxiety among thousands of Leicestershire residents, who are asking why consent has not been withheld when the Planning Inspectorate have said it should be. I would like to assist the Government. The draft national policy statement for national networks states: “Whilst there is likely to be a natural clustering of SRFI proposals in the distribution heartland of the nation…consideration should be given to proposals for SRFIs in areas where there is currently lesser provision.” Developers argue that purportedly tens of thousands of jobs can come with SRFIs. Why not put these in areas where there is less provision? Will the Minister outline what consideration the Secretary of State might give to putting SRFIs in areas with less provision? My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I generally support appropriate commercial developments in our constituencies. However, as we have said, South Leicestershire and that part of Leicestershire as a whole already take a fair share of large scale commercial developments. Indeed there is another unwelcome proposal, put on the table just a few weeks ago, for enormous warehousing to the east of Lutterworth, under what is called Lutterworth East Commercial Area. It is not just the rail freight interchange; I appreciate the Minister does not have responsibility for that which I have just mentioned, but the point I wish to highlight is that there is ongoing gross overdevelopment in that area. We already have Daventry international rail freight terminal just 18 miles away from the HNRFI site, four national rail hubs within 45 miles and Northampton gateway rail freight interchange just 31 miles away. Having looked at the record, I think it is important to analyse the damage that having a cluster can actually do. Local planning is one of the most contentious issues that any MP deals with in their casework, as the Minister will understand. It is also the one in which we as MPs have the least power or authority. We have no formal role in the planning decision making—rightly so, because most planning decisions are made by locally elected and locally accountable councillors. However because the Hinckley national rail freight interchange is categorised as a nationally significant infrastructure project, these matters are ultimately decided by the Minister and her team. In other words, unlike most planning decisions, which are approved or rejected at local authority level, these matters ultimately go to senior Ministers to decide. One of the key national objectives of rail freight interchanges is to get freight off the roads and on to rail tracks, and reap the environmental and cost-saving benefits of doing so. I am sure the Minister and I would agree that that is something to welcome, but it is very important that we do not have the wool pulled over our eyes, and see rail freight interchange proposals as a fig leaf for just another excuse for enormous warehousing. I want to quote Dame Andrea Leadsom, the former MP for South Northamptonshire. She stood in this Chamber less than a year ago and said: “SEGRO took over the development of the site and—lo and behold—as the site neared completion last year, it applied for a development consent order waiver, asking the Department for Transport to overturn the condition requiring the rail link to be completed so it could start to fill up its warehouses and flood local roads with HGVs even before the rail link was established.” She added: “It seems clear to me that this project was always about forcing more warehousing into the heart of England to take advantage of motorway access from south Northamptonshire and never about making it easier to move freight off the road and on to the rail network.” —[ Official Report , 17 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 22WH.] I say to the Minister that the case of the HNRFI is the same. What would I suggest that the new Labour Government could proactively look at? The issue is the lack of a proper framework policy, which colleagues and I have raised many times before. Such a policy would help the Labour Government to identify appropriate sites where these forms of logistics parks should be located. The first area that a national framework should address is site selection. The current nationally significant infrastructure project regime is developer-led, with developers responsible for justifying their site choices. At present, there is only general guidance in the national networks national policy statement, with no formal national level framework guiding the Government or local authorities on where SRFIs should be located. A national framework could assist the Government by helping them to prescribe specific location criteria for SRFIs, such as proximity to major freight corridors and alignment with regional logistics hubs. Such proactive planning could avoid unsuitable locations and, importantly, minimise planning disputes from the outset. That could help ensure that SRFI proposals are not only appropriately located but are also in line with whatever the Labour Government’s policy would be. I would also welcome measures that ensure that SRFIs actually serve their purpose and handle sufficient rail traffic, rather than just becoming another excuse for gargantuan logistics parks. That would ensure that freight really does end up off the road and on rail, while providing clear expectations for developers, which would, in turn, promote confidence from stakeholders. The most critical point I want to address is strategic co-ordination. As it stands, the nationally significant infrastructure projects process is largely reactive, led by individual developer proposals, and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. While there are broad goals to shift freight from road to rail, which I support, there is no comprehensive national strategy that specifically addresses the planning of SRFIs. That results in inefficiencies, regional imbalances and in our particular case, not nimbyism, but the grotesque—I choose the word carefully —overconcentration of SRFIs and enormous logistics housing in our region. With a national framework drafted by the Labour Government, we could ensure that logistics facilities are distributed more evenly across the country, balancing the benefits and impacts across the nation. In summary, while the UK’s current NSIP regime provides a structured process for approving SRFIs, it remains reactive, fragmented and developer-driven. A national framework would change that by introducing greater consistency, strategic oversight and national level co-ordination. I think that is exactly what the Labour party said during the recent general election campaign that it wants to do when it comes to planning. That is the future I propose that this Government pursue. I hope that the Minister, along with her ministerial colleagues, takes the opportunity in her new role to come up with a national freight strategy, so that the whole country can share the burden and benefit of these developments and so that local communities can buy into these developments and not have them forced upon them. I urge the Minister and her team to speak carefully with the Secretary of State to follow the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation to withhold consent to the Hinckley national rail freight interchange, and to make the decision in a timely manner. Only by doing so will the Labour Government show the people of Leicestershire and the surrounding area that they really do listen on planning and that they do have a plan to share these nationally significant projects across the country. At a local level, that would help alleviate any anxiety that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth have over this proposal.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange. I will call Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange the HNRFI from now on. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I begin by welcoming the Minister to her place and I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate on what is an incredibly important matter, not just for Leicestershire but indeed for our country. I also thank colleagues who have joined me in Westminster Hall for this important debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who has worked alongside me on this important matter, because, as we will hear, the proposal would have as great an impact in his constituency as it would in mine. I start by informing the Minister that I cautiously welcome the news today that the Secretary of State is minded to follow the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation that she should withhold consent for the proposed HNRFI. The Planning Inspectorate has carefully considered the views of local stakeholders about the HNRFI and recommended against its proposal. I hope the Minister can explain why the Government chose, just a few hours ago, to delay making the final decision until March 2025. What we really want to ascertain is this: what do the Government hope to achieve by pausing or extending the time available to make this decision? At the outset, I will say that one of my principal asks will be to meet the Minister or any of her colleagues, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, to discuss the process of the matter. I appreciate that she cannot in a meeting discuss the specifics of the case, because she has a quasi-judicial role, but we would appreciate a follow-up meeting after this debate to discuss process. The Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation gives this new Labour Government the opportunity to respond to local people’s concerns and frankly, if I may put things colloquially, calm the nerves of literally thousands of people in and around Leicestershire who will continue to anxiously await confirmation that this wholly inappropriate development will be rejected.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Transport Secretary for giving way so early in her comments. There is a very controversial planning proposal for South Leicestershire, which is sitting on her desk as we speak—it is for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange. I am for rail freight interchanges, but the issue that has united Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative politicians in and around the area is that there are about five other rail freight interchanges within a 30-mile radius. Can she give a commitment from the Dispatch Box that whatever she says today will not ride roughshod over the views of Labour-led Rugby council and Conservative-led Blaby district council? Both have very serious concerns about this matter.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Public Spending: Inheritance · Hansard source

  More

  Richard Mitchell, the chief executive of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust, emailed me only a few days ago asking for a meeting about the new hospital programme. Putting aside the politics, will the Chancellor help to arrange a meeting with Labour and Conservative MPs of Leicester and Leicestershire to discuss the matter alongside the chief executive of Leicestershire’s hospitals?

• 25 Jul 2024 · Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I welcome you to your new position. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) on an excellent and very detailed maiden speech. No doubt he will represent his constituents very successfully. I am the only Member in the Chamber today who served on both the Standards Committee and the Privileges Committee in the 2019 Parliament; all of the other MPs, bar one, are no longer in the Chamber. The amount of work that we had to deal with in the last Parliament was substantial, onerous and unprecedented. As such, I welcome the comments that the Leader of the House has made and broadly support the motions that she has brought before the House. However, I would like to make a couple of points that I hope she will take in the spirit of assistance in which they are intended. In the time allocated to me, I will briefly turn first to the motion on curbing some elements of second jobs as they relate to parliamentary advice. The Leader of the House may not be aware of the background to that proposal and where it first came from. In November 2021 the Standards Committee published a report—the fourth of the Session—and annex 7 of that report contained comments made by the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Committee—myself and my colleagues —thoroughly looked at the matter on a cross-party basis and concluded that we probably wanted to recommend the banning of paid parliamentary advice or consultancy. We looked at the wording in the House of Lords, because that is the wording that the then commissioner first looked at. That wording is broadly identical to the wording that we currently have, so in our May 2022 report we came forward with the proposal that the banning of paid parliamentary advice should align with the House of Lords code. My question to the Leader of the House is this: is it her intention to ensure that the code in the other place is amended, so that we do not have an oddity where, for instance, a Labour peer could carry on with the activities that she proposes to ban, but an MP in this House would be unable to do so? That was not the objective of the Standards Committee when we first made our proposal, so it would be very helpful if, in her summing up, she could confirm that the appropriate mirrored changes will be made in the House of Lords. I will now turn briefly to the other, much more substantial motion. I am sorry that there is a time limit, because I had many things to say about this motion, but given that I have a very short period of time in which to speak, I will restrict my comments. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) touched on, we as a House should remember that the Standards Committee is unlike any other Select Committee of the House of Commons, because half of its members are lay members—people who are not Members of Parliament. The total membership of 14 means that, if we take out the Chair from voting, the lay members have a substantive jurisdiction on that Committee. Many of those lay members will undoubtedly be watching this debate. I cannot believe that it is the Government’s intention to create a Committee that will be looking at standards—even at a strategic level—that excludes lay members. When the Leader of the House was on the Opposition Benches, she was a strong believer in having lay members on the Committee, so will she look again carefully at her proposal, not only taking into account the balance of political parties but, importantly, ensuring that this new Committee has lay member representation, at least when it is discussing standards issues? My proposal is that the seven current lay members of the Standards Committee could elect one from among their number to sit on that Committee. The other points I wanted to make were made by the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and I do not propose to rehearse them again. Suffice it to say that the Leader of the House said that the Chair of the Standards Committee, the Chair of the Administration Committee and so on would be guested on to the Committee, but if the Committee is to be an effective body that can deliver change, as she hopes, we must ensure that these people are not simply guested but that experience and knowledge is somehow brought in, perhaps with ex officio members instead of full voting members. I suggest she looks again at that proposal, and perhaps makes some welcome comments at the end. To conclude, the proposal is a welcome one, but I urge the Leader of the House to look carefully at bringing lay members on to the Committee.

• 19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), who gave a wonderful speech. It was interesting to hear about her constituency; I confess that I did not know much about it before, but I certainly know a lot about it now. It was generous of the hon. Lady to pay rightful compliments to her predecessor, Chris Clarkson, who is much missed on this side of the House. A couple of weeks ago, the Labour party won a mandate for the manifesto that it put before the British electorate. We respect that; it was part of the British parliamentary system and we respect the peaceful transfer of power. However, I say gently to the Labour Government that it is concerning that the King’s Speech and subsequent comments from Ministers have rejected the notion that local communities should be at the heart of developments in their areas. One particular issue affects my constituency of South Leicestershire: the proposed Hinckley national rail freight interchange. On 8 July, the new Chancellor stated that she would ask the Secretary of State for Transport, who will make the decision on the interchange, and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to “prioritise decisions on infrastructure projects that have been sitting unresolved for far too long.” She did not, of course, explain what she meant by “sitting unresolved for far too long”, but let me help the new Chancellor and Government. “Sitting unresolved for far too long” is perhaps an unfortunate euphemism; what should actually be said is that in our system of laws we respect and listen to local communities. We listen to stakeholder groups and neighbourhood groups. Of course, in most instances local authorities—elected councillors—are, in most planning instances, the ones whose remit it is to make these decisions. On the issue of the Hinckley national rail freight interchange, I should say that South Leicestershire already has its fair share of developments. It has one of the largest housing developments in Leicestershire, with New Lubbesthorpe; and Magna Park, one of the largest logistics parks in Europe, is to be doubled in size. It has Bruntingthorpe aerodrome, which plays host to many industrial activities, and it has the prospect of a new village—Whetstone Gorse or Whetstone Pastures. It is not nimbyism in South Leicestershire that has led to the objections to the Hinckley national rail freight interchange; it is the fact that there are five other rail freight interchanges within a radius of 30 miles of South Leicestershire. I am glad the new Deputy Prime Minster has taken a seat to listen to my speech about this matter, but it is important that the Labour Government listen not just to me and my constituents, but to Leicestershire county council, to Warwickshire county council and even to Labour-led Rugby council, all of which have raised issues with the planning process for this unwelcome proposal.

• 19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right: the decision now rests with the new Labour Government to make. I am afraid that Labour councillors and other Labour activists who might have opposed the Hinckley national rail freight interchange should look now to their party colleagues in government, who will be making this decision within a matter of a few weeks. I urge the Government to listen to the people of South Leicestershire and the stakeholders I have mentioned. I urge them to listen to the people of Elmesthorpe, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville and Stoney Stanton, and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who himself has made some valuable comments against the proposed rail freight interchange. It is a deeply unwelcome proposal. I want to offer a solution to the new Labour Government. Before they recommend this unwelcome development for approval, I suggest the relevant Minister meets me and the stakeholders, including Labour-run Rugby council, to discuss the proposal. They could perhaps look at drafting a national planning framework for the proper location of rail freight interchanges, rather than just riding roughshod over the views of the people of South Leicestershire, as a constituent of mine emailed me two hours ago to say he fears, and as I fear, the Labour Government will do.

• 18 Jul 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Double child rapist and murderer Colin Pitchfork was due to have his parole hearing last week in public, following my successful application to the chair of the Parole Board, who agreed to have it in public. The parole hearing has been rescheduled to an unknown date, and only last week the chair of the Parole Board said in public, without writing to me, that she had cancelled her decision to have a public parole hearing for Mr Pitchfork. I welcome the Leader of the House to her place. Could we have an urgent statement on this matter or, better still, an urgent meeting with the Minister to discuss why the Parole Board is acting in this way?