Business of the House

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend always speaks up for the concerns of the Chagos islanders. This is an important report, a feasibility study that I initiated when I was Foreign Secretary, and, as he says, it has now been published. I know that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), plans to meet my hon. Friend and other members of the Chagos all-party parliamentary group on 23 February to listen to their views ahead of any Government decision. I cannot offer a debate at the moment, but that meeting might lead to a decision on how to take things forward in Parliament.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

First, to correct a point from a few minutes ago, it is of course Cleethorpes that is the country’s premier seaside resort. I do not know whether the Leader of the House noticed my ten-minute rule Bill, proposed on 13 January, which suggested that greater fairness be brought into the planning process by allowing objectors to be able in certain circumstances to appeal to the planning inspectorate. Could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this matter, so that we can hear the Government’s position?

[Mr Hague]

Having been nice about Southend, I am able to speak up for Cleethorpes as well. I visited and enjoyed the beach at Cleethorpes as a child, so I can absolutely recommend this resort as well. Other hon. Members will agree with what my hon. Friend says about the ability to appeal to the planning inspectorate, but that is a matter that would, of course, have to be pursued with the Department for Communities and Local Government. As with so many other subjects, I cannot promise a debate before the Dissolution at the end of the next month, but my hon. Friend will be able to pursue his desire for a debate through all the normal channels of Adjournment and Backbench Business Committee debates during the remaining weeks of the Parliament.

Business of the House

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Again, that is an important matter. There will be other Members concerned about that as well. I cannot offer a debate in Government time between now and the Dissolution of Parliament, but, as I have said to one or two other Members, my hon. Friend may wish to pursue the matter through an Adjournment debate or a Back-Bench business debate as well as having raised it here today.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Yesterday, the mayor of north-east Lincolnshire, who is also the council’s armed forces champion, and I met the veterans Minister to discuss the military covenant. The mayor and council take their responsibilities under the covenant particularly seriously. One unique thing they do is to allocate housing to veterans. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the military covenant and on how local authorities up and down the country deal with it?

[Mr Hague]

It would be good to have such a debate. I am not sure whether there will be time for it in the remainder of this Parliament, but it would allow us to reiterate that the covenant is a very important priority for this Government, and I know that it is strongly supported by my hon. Friend. We have committed £105 million over the past four years to support its aims. He is right that councils have an important role to play in supporting the covenant. The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has now written personally to every chief executive and every leader of every council to encourage all councils to rise to the standards of the best on this issue, and we strongly encourage them to do so.

Business of the House

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I always take seriously requests for further time on important Bills, but as I stressed to the shadow Leader of the House, my experience in my short time as Leader of the House—six months so far—is that when additional time has been asked for on Report, the days have not been fully used, and that affects how we regard further requests for time on other Bills.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of noting the Westminster Hall debate last week on the economy of coastal towns? The importance of the coastal communities fund was raised by Members on all sides of the House. Can he find time for a debate on the future of the coastal communities fund, which is very important to constituencies such as mine?

[Mr Hague]

That was an important debate on coastal communities. It will have been an important opportunity for hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend, to raise many of the issues that come up in their constituencies. I cannot promise a further debate on these issues, but he can use all the normal means, including the Backbench Business Committee, to ask for such a debate. He is a very strong champion of coastal communities.

Christmas Adjournment

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

As I have done on many occasions in these Adjournment debates, I want to speak about my Cleethorpes constituency. I will focus on the wider local community of Grimsby and Cleethorpes. The central theme is something that applies to any provincial town represented in this House—one of identity.

Grimsby and Cleethorpes are in fact one town. We locals, of course, know where the boundaries lie and each town has a distinctive history. Those of us born in Cleethorpes are Meggies, whereas over the border they are Grimbarians. Councillors and MPs have the great privilege of getting around and meeting many different people who contribute to their local communities through voluntary groups, churches and the like. Only recently, I was privileged to attend services at St Margaret’s church in Laceby and All Saints church in Goxhill. After the service, chatting over a cup of tea, I realised how much local people put into their local communities. It then comes as a bit of a shock when TV programmes such as “Skint” on Channel 4, which has featured Grimsby in the past month, in many respects denigrate local communities and make them feel rather unwanted.

I do not intend to focus on the individuals who have occupied the programme’s storylines. They are characters who in slightly different circumstances could have been plucked from any part of the country. Some are struggling to come to terms with the world around them, others seem content with their lot yet, to most people’s eyes, are not achieving anything like their full potential, and others are struggling with drugs and alcohol.

Channel 4 has deservedly come under a barrage of local criticism. We cannot stop such programmes being made, but surely it is reasonable to ask whether they benefit anyone. Perhaps we kid ourselves that we are watching with the intention of finding solutions to the predicaments of the participants. The local media have reflected local opinion, which is overwhelmingly hostile, and not only to the programme makers, but to Channel 4 itself.

Although the Department for Communities and Local Government’s index of multiple deprivation statistics shows that the East Marsh ward in North-East Lincolnshire—that is where the programme was filmed—is classified as the second most deprived in England, it contains much that is good when it comes to community support, and it is communities that pull together feelings of mutual identity and provide for others. The widespread anger among local people about the one-sided “Skint” programme is fully justified, and the message has gone out very clearly from the local community: “Don’t come back. You will not be welcome.”

Last weekend I attended two events on consecutive evenings in the East Marsh ward. The first was the Christmas concert provided by the excellent Grimsby Philharmonic Society, at which the solo performer was Michael Dore, the Cleethorpes-born singer. The following evening, along with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), I attended the annual Salvation Army carol concert. It was notable that every time the admirable Ivan Stead, who always presides on such occasions, mentioned that we were on the East Marsh, or that here was yet another example of the community coming together, while also raising £400 for the mayor’s charity, a ripple of applause went around the hall. Clearly the community, not all of whom were East Marsh residents, were feeling rather sore about the programme and wanted to show some support.

The point that keeps coming through is identity. We are passing through a period when the electorate feel more and more remote from the political process, and the further we travel from Westminster, the more remote it can seem. I hope that the current debate about devolution to England will deliver English votes for English laws fairly quickly. However, as I mentioned to the Leader of the House when he announced his programme yesterday, I hope that we will have the opportunity to look over a slightly longer period at the structures and powers of local government, because they, too, have an essential role in community identity and in providing for local communities. It is essential that units of government, at whatever level, follow boundaries that people can identify with. If people feel no allegiance to their unit of government, we will not be wholly successful.

In my part of the world we lived through the disastrous local government reorganisation of the ’70s, with the creation of county Humberside. People felt no allegiance to it, so eventually it withered on the vine. Only last week the Scunthorpe Telegraph was again reporting that Hull city council is planning some sort of land-grab, in what appears to local people to be a reconfiguration that will recreate county Humberside. That will simply not work. Individuals need and value their sense of identity. It is not created by political boundaries, but if we can strengthen that sense of identity by creating administrative units that reflect local communities, we will all benefit.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I join others in wishing you, members of staff and all Members of the House a happy Christmas.

Devolution (Implications for England)

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am not making allegations about the Opposition’s policy; I am just wondering what it is, because there is nothing on it in the Command Paper. The point about the House of Lords is that for 103 years we have been debating in this House the reform and the further reform of the upper House without reaching a conclusion on the matter. Saying that these issues should be inextricably linked is a means for some Opposition Members to delay consideration of the implications of devolution for England and put it off for many years. The issues are not linked and must be treated on their merits.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the moves towards English votes for English laws, and the sooner we can make the procedural changes necessary the better. The Leader of the House has already acknowledged the importance of local decision making, and the further we move away from Westminster, the greater the demands are for that. However, successive Governments of both sides over the years have reduced the powers of local government. Although this Government have done a great deal to improve things, will he take the opportunity that this debate presents to revitalise local government and, if necessary, to restructure it?

[Mr Hague]

Revitalising local government is an important part of the Government’s approach, but we are not advocating the restructuring of local government, which has often been expensive and time-consuming. However, we are advocating giving more powers to local government, and the details of how we could do more of that over the coming years are set out in the Command Paper.

Business of the House

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We cannot do much better than my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of volunteering and the voluntary sector and does a great deal of it himself. He draws attention to the sheer scale of such activity. The figures show that last year 74% of people volunteered in some way—an increase from 66% just four years ago. We recognise the tremendous contributions that people make through the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service, the Big Society awards, and the Points of Light awards. I hope that all hon. Members will join in that effort, with or without a debate.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will recall a memorable visit to Cleethorpes around the end of 2009, when he launched a policy document called “No Longer The End Of The Line” outlining policies that would re-invigorate seaside towns. May we have a debate to review those policies and to outline what future Government initiatives await us?

[Mr Hague]

I do remember visiting Cleethorpes in 2009. Actually, I also remember visiting Cleethorpes around about 1966, when I was five years old, so I have many fond memories of Cleethorpes. Like my hon. Friend, I very much believe in the future of our seaside towns. This is an important topic for debate, and I encourage him to pursue it through the Backbench Business Committee and other opportunities.

Business of the House

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that, despite all the nice things that he has just said about me, I robustly defend the Chief Whip. He is always busy and he is always present, wherever we think he may be.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The Government are putting in place a series of initiatives to boost the northern economy, centred around major cities. However, areas such as my own in northern Lincolnshire do not benefit from a trickle-down from a neighbouring major city. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate when we can look at refining those policies so that areas such as mine benefit?

[Mr Hague]

This is a very important issue as we continue to decentralise as much as possible in England. It is important to draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that city deals—the growth of freedom for local authorities to spend more of their own resources—are not just for well-known cities. They are also for other parts of the country. In fact, the black country has a city deal. There is a Preston, South Ribble and Lancashire city deal that goes far beyond any city. So it is possible for local authorities outside the main conurbations to benefit from this as well.

Business of the House

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We have a £33 billion defence budget, which is the biggest in the European Union and the second largest in NATO. I think we should be proud of the fact that we are spending in excess of 2% of our GDP on defence—we are one of only four NATO countries to do so. My hon. Friend will be aware that at the NATO summit we encouraged other countries to enter the new commitment to increase their defence spending in future. We had the Prime Minister’s recent statement on the NATO summit, so I do not think we need to debate all that again immediately. There will be regular opportunities in the course of many debates to raise such issues and the vital importance of defence spending.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The Government have understandably indicated that, if the Scottish people vote no, proposals will be introduced for further devolution to the Scottish Parliament within days. That will increase the concerns of my constituents and others in England that we are being treated less favourably than people in other parts of the UK. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that an early statement will be made on how the Government intend to meet the aspirations of the English people and devolve further powers within England?

[Mr Hague]

The decision next week is a matter for the people of Scotland, but its implications will be felt across the UK. We have a good record of devolving powers, as we have to Wales or, through the Localism Act 2011, to local authorities. We are a flexible and adaptable Union—that is one of the great strengths of the United Kingdom. That must take account of the people of England as well. As proposals come forward on Scotland over the coming months, there must be every opportunity to debate the implications for England.

Summer Adjournment

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I want to take the opportunity provided by this debate to reflect on two cases involving constituents of mine that have caused me to ask, yet again, what can be done to relieve individuals and businesses of petty regulation and, more particularly, the powers given to officials to interpret the vast amount of legislation and regulation that comes forth from Government, the European Union, local authorities and the ever-increasing agencies of Government. The two cases are also linked to an inquiry being carried out by the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, into the accountability of executive agencies and quangos, or non-departmental public bodies.

Mr Gary Rockhill of the Dovedale hotel in Cleethorpes has been having a little local difficulty with the planning department of North East Lincolnshire council. It is not uncommon for small businesses to cross swords with the planners and I make no particular comment as to the rights and wrongs of the case. I merely want to address the powers available to enforce regulations.

When Mr Rockhill attended my surgery, he outlined the problems he is encountering, one of which related to the display of an A-board outside his premises. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those who have served as councillors, will, I am sure, be familiar with these advertising displays, which seem to be so disliked by planners. Of course, councils should have powers to prevent A-boards from blocking the pathway if they are causing problems for pedestrians, the disabled, those with pushchairs and the like, but my question is: should those powers be as extensive as they are?

On 9 April, Mr Rockhill received a letter form Cofely, the council’s partner organisation, which enforces and administers the council’s planning functions. It stated:

“I am writing to you regarding the above property and the illegal advertisement you have placed on St Peters Avenue, Cleethorpes.

In connection with this investigation, the Council would like to invite you to a formal interview under caution at the Council offices. The caution states”—

these are familiar words—

“‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be taken in evidence.’ The reason for the interview under caution is that the Council suspects that an offence has been committed, and before any questions are put to you about your involvement or suspected involvement in that offence, the caution should be given so that your answers or silence may be given in Court in evidence.”

I remind Members that this is in connection not with burglary, drunken driving or any of the more serious offences, but with the alleged nuisance and inconvenience caused by displaying an A-board.

On behalf of Mr Rockhill, I wrote to the council’s chief executive:

“It would seem that sending out letters of this kind is, to say the least, heavy-handed. This is not a serious crime but a case of placing an A-board on the pavement…I am well aware that these are a potential hazard in certain circumstances though I have to say that, in my experience, the potential hazards seem to be in the eyes of officials rather than in reality. I would be very happy to walk around Cleethorpes with you when it is very easy to come across scores of examples of highway authority signs, lighting columns, litter bins etc that are a far more serious obstruction than Mr Rockhill’s signs.”

As I anticipated, I received a reply explaining that the council was acting perfectly properly, and in line with current legislation. Of course, councils need powers to deal with violations that cause inconvenience to those they serve, but are we seriously saying that we need such a heavy-handed approach? My question for the Minister is: should a Government who are both Liberal and Conservative allow such legislation to remain on the statute book?

My second example relates to another constituent, Mr Ernest Cromer. On Friday 20 June, Mr Cromer featured in Richard Littlejohn’s column in the Daily Mail, and he visited my constituency surgery on the same day. Mr Cromer is a former trawler skipper and, as Mr Littlejohn’s article states, he

“retains his love of the sea and fishing.”

The article continues:

“His daily exercise consists of walking 60 yards out into the”—

Humber—

“estuary to inspect his net tethered on the mud-flats to catch fish on the incoming tide. It’s a method used by locals on the banks between Grimsby and Cleethorpes for generations. On a good day, he might catch two Dover sole... Some days the net is empty. But if he catches more than a couple of fish, he gives them away to friends and neighbours.”

In no way can his operation be described as a commercial one. It does not sound as though it is akin to some foreign trawler moving in and hoovering up tons of fish. Do we really need the vast array of officialdom to protect us or, indeed, the natural resources of our seas and coastlines? On the 21 June, Mr Cromer’s story was covered by the Grimsby Telegraph, with comments from both me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) in his support.

Immediately following Mr Cromer’s visit to my surgery, I wrote to the North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority to express my concerns at yet another example of officialdom acting in a high and heavy-handed manner. A few days later, I received a reply from the authority’s chief officer, who I am sure has acted entirely properly and diligently in busily interpreting the vast array of legislation, rules and regulations that nowadays appear to be necessary to protect the natural environment. The first paragraph of his reply expressed his concerns:

“I would like to register my disappointment”

about

“public statements by your office, for your constituent’s position.”

Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I make no apology for defending my constituent’s position: I regard it as a fundamental part of the role of a Member of Parliament to defend constituents against the might of the bureaucracy.

The letter states that the statutory authority for the NEIFCA is the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, as updated by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The particular regulation covering Mr Cromer’s activities was first made in the early 1990s under section 5 of the 1966 Act and section 37(2) of the Salmon Act 1986. Apparently, there are 22 regulations in force in NEIFCA’s area to protect species including salmon, sea trout and eels. I do not doubt that serious thought went into making the regulations, and that there was a need to protect some species from illegal activity, but I cannot help asking why these species are still in existence when the Mr Cromers of this world have been doing for centuries exactly what Mr Cromer is now doing. If he used modern methods—as I mentioned, they can hoover up a vast tonnage of fish—I could understand it, but is it really being suggested that a couple of fish in his net every day will cause such major problems?

As an aside, the same applies to the vast array of industry on the Humber bank and elsewhere. From the 1950s onwards, vast swaths of land on the south bank of the Humber have been developed for industry—power stations, oil refineries and other heavy industry. That was done without all the environmental regulations that now apply to protect migratory birds, yet the birds are still there. The birds are now in need of protection that delays investment and the associated jobs. I have asked representatives from Natural England and other organisations why the birds survived the previous industrial development. As yet, I have received no convincing reply. I assume the answer is that nature adapts.

I do not believe that we should abandon the regulations that protect the environment across the board, but that they should be commensurate with the problem that they seek to address and that some accountability for the officials who implement them is essential. In the case of the IFCA, there is an advisory council, but how closely it monitors the activities of its officials is open to doubt.

The NEIFCA pointed out in its reply to me that the original article was inaccurate in linking the story to Europe. I am always keen to blame the EU and the link in the article was implied rather than factual. It did not blame a specific regulation or directive for Mr Cromer’s plight, but drew attention to the fact that the destruction of the fishing industry is linked to our EU membership, which is quite right. Admittedly, the Icelandic cod wars played a part in the demise of the industry, but the hostility to the local community of what was the Common Market and is now the EU remains. I do not care whether it is the EU or successive British Governments that have introduced the regulations, but there needs to be discretion in the way they are implemented.

To return to the letter that I received from the NEIFCA, it states that

“unfortunately and hopefully as you will appreciate, we cannot make one rule for one and not another and however well meaning, to allow a specific exception for Mr Cromer would in my view place the Humber Estuary at significant risk of environmental impact, resulting in completely unregulated and uncontrollable levels of activity, killing sensitive migratory fish and eel species…and placing the general public at risk.”

Really?

To conclude, we hear frequently that the prosecuting authorities, sometimes in serious criminal cases, have decided against prosecution because it is not in the public interest, yet for poor Mr Cromer, who is accused of catching a couple of fish each day, there can be no exception and no discretion. As the NEIFCA states,

“as you will hopefully understand, this specific byelaw regulation is in place for very sound reasons and my officers provide advice and enforce their provisions in a very even-handed and fair manner right across the board.”

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to differ.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Marvellous.

Business of the House

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I have every sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I am fortunate enough to have, and to live in, a constituency that is predominantly in the countryside, and I very much appreciate what a privilege that is. It is something that is not necessarily available to people in cities and urban areas, and we should give them access to it. I am very engaged with what he describes about the reading of poetry. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about ways in which his admirable objective can be pursued.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

There is concern among residents in my constituency that the two hospitals that serve it, based in Grimsby and Scunthorpe, are having to share more and more services and the different specialisms at each location. May we have a debate to explore the reasons for this? Much of it is driven by medical professionals, which is quite right, but, as the Leader of the House will appreciate, it causes considerable concern to constituents.

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand what my hon. Friend says. As he says, this is, and should be, clinically led, and it should be evidence-based. He will recall, no doubt, that this has been happening over the years; it is a steady process, not something that started under this coalition Government. It is sometimes the necessary consequence of securing access to sufficient staff with sufficient expertise and sufficient regular practice to be able to provide a 24/7 service; we need a 24/7 NHS. It should not, however, lead to a loss of access that has a damaging impact on outcomes; it should be outcomes-based. In relation to his local area, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond specifically to his point.