Sir Roger Gale

With great respect to the hon. Lady, who is fortunate to represent a beautiful place, the Poole that I knew is not the Poole that she now knows—not even in the town, never mind in the countryside. Although one or two places such as Branksea island, to give it its proper name, may have improved—the overgrowth was taken down about 20 years ago in a fire—a lot of our national habitat has nevertheless been lost. That is the point that I am trying to make. I am blessed with five grandchildren. Additionally, I have five surrogate Ukrainian grandchildren and one infant—Florence, the daughter of two of my dearest young friends—whom I care about passionately. I want them to be able to grow up in at least some of the world that I knew, and to enjoy the natural environment that I enjoyed. That is why I am standing here today; I have no other reason. Sadly, I believe that a lot of that is at risk. The planning changes that have been partially announced this week—I assume that there will in due course be a further statement to the House—seek effectively to abolish the right to judicial review. In my constituency, National Grid is planning to build a monstrosity, 90 feet high and the size of five football pitches, on the Thanet marshes—which it has just discovered are wet—immediately adjacent to a site of special scientific interest. If built, it will indeed be a monstrosity, and will be accompanied by a string of high-powered, high-voltage pylons. If we are denied the right to challenge that, to whom do we look for redress in the future? Like the last Government, this Government are subsidising Drax, to the tune of billions of pounds. For why? To transport millions of trees, felled and shipped across the Atlantic at God knows what carbon cost, to burn in the interest of some sort of future carbon-free fuel—which, of course, it is not. Why are we allowing this, and why are we paying for it? Those who oppose the Bill—which, as I have already mentioned, is flawed and will need to be amended—have described it as ideological rhetoric, an assault on our individual freedom, and a direct threat to our way of life that will lead to food rationing. One constituent wrote to me to say that only 50% of our food is produced naturally. Why should we be dependent on importing the other 50%? The answer to that, I am afraid, now lies with the Government’s house building policies. If the planners have their way, acres of farmland in Thanet that are now producing, this year, grade 1 agricultural wheat from which bread is made will, in a couple of years’ time, be growing houses, not food. The National Farmers Union has said, “Please do not undermine UK agriculture by importing agricultural products produced to environmental standards that are different from ours here.” A couple of weeks ago, I was visiting a friend in Thanet who allowed me to hold a facsimile of part of the skull of a Tyrannosaurus rex. The teeth were about nine inches to a foot long. Those beasts that ruled the Earth have been extinct for millions of years. We are supremely arrogant if we believe that “Drill, baby, drill” is the answer; if we believe that we have a right—someone who wrote to me described it as a God-given right—to carbon fuels. A couple of weeks ago there was an exhibition in the House organised by Helping Rhinos, which seeks to defend the black rhino, and someone who attended made the case that the black rhino could outlive the human race. We are about to become—if we do not listen today—the authors of our own demise, and that is why I believe that the Bill deserves, at the very least, a Second Reading.