Grimsby Seafood Manufacturers

Debate between Austin Mitchell and Martin Vickers

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss an anomaly that arises from the common fisheries policy. The anomaly is a measure designed to check state aid for fishing, but it is now depriving Young’s Seafood—a firm that we are very proud of in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and my colleague, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), is here—of the ability to get state aid for investment and expansion.

Young’s is a seafood manufacturer on a considerable scale; I think it is the biggest seafood manufacturer in the country. However, this anomaly also applies to other seafood manufacturers, and seafood manufacturing is a major section of the food manufacturing industry. None of these companies can get regional selective assistance, or other public support, for the investment they need to expand and grow.

I emphasise that although my reputation is for being a Eurosceptic—a man whose opinion of the European Union can be summed up in four words, three of which are “the European Union”, and who is a continuous critic of it—I do not raise this issue just as a critic of the EU. I raise it because this situation is daft, impinges on a major manufacturing firm in Grimsby, and needs to be ended.

What is at issue here is the EU guidance on state aid regarding the entire fisheries sector. That sector is defined as being concerned with

“the exploitation of aquatic resources and aquaculture together, with the means of production, processing and marketing of the resultant products”.

That definition is being interpreted as applying to Young’s, which employs 3,000 people in Grimsby and Scotland. It is the largest single private employer in Grimsby, employing 1,700 people in processing jobs there, and—I have to say—creating a superb product range. It seems to me, and to Young’s, that to extend these European guidelines to the company is a distortion of their purpose, because Young’s itself catches no fish. It farms no fish; it does not have a fishing fleet; and it does no primary processing of fish, which is the filleting and gutting of fish—the only processing, I think, that the guidelines are meant to cover.

Young’s imports its fish from all over the world. In fact, it uses 30 species of fish from five continents. Very little of that fish is caught under the CFP, of which these guidelines are part. Young’s makes from those fish more than 300 dishes. It makes dishes; it turns fish into meals by processing it, adding ingredients and selling it as a meal. So, in every sense Young’s is not a fishing company but a food processing company—a fish and seafood processing company—and therefore it deserves to be excluded from these guidelines.

Young’s is a food manufacturer and it is an important part of Britain’s manufacturing industry. Young’s and other food manufacturers hit by this anomaly are anxious to expand, grow, invest and create jobs, but they cannot because they cannot get public support in the way that other industries that they are competing with for investment can. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to see that, and to do something about it, because if he does not, he will put Young’s and other seafood manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage not only to other food manufacturers but to the rest of the industry. He will also put us—the people of Grimsby, which is Europe’s food town—at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to attracting jobs and investment, which will harm the development of Grimsby, because we all know the importance of cluster growth, as emphasised by Michael Porter, whereby clustering industries can trade experience, skills, staff and research. We have such a cluster in Grimsby, but it will be damaged if it cannot get Government support in this way.

I have been working hard to drive that lesson home. On 6 June, I wrote to both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. In those letters, I asked for an early reply, but I did not get one. BIS passed the letter to DEFRA, and DEFRA did not answer. An Under-Secretary of State at DEFRA wrote to Young’s on 17 September—although I had written in June—explaining what the Commission thought, but we already knew what the Commission thought. What the Commission thinks is wrong. We want independent thought relating to the point that these are food manufacturers, not fisheries firms. The reply seemed over-complacent about the situation.

I took the issue up with our local enterprise partnership, which is very good and active. Lord Haskins, the chair, wrote supportively and pointed out in passing that some restrictions also apply to flower-growing in our area, although I do not see why, and to making potato chips. Let us face it: the fish and chip industry, which is vital to this country and provides a good deal of the sustenance for our people—and certainly for me—is being hit both ways; it is being hit because we cannot invest in the seafood producers, and because of restrictions on what can be allocated to producing chips. However, I am not taking up the chips side of the argument today; I am taking up only the seafood manufacturing side. Lord Haskins added helpfully that he and the LEP supported Young’s, which he said were

“wealth creators and providers of large local employment”,

which is true.

Our Euro MP, Linda McAvan, was also helpful. She understood the problem and the consequences and mentioned that guidelines for the fisheries sector are being revised at this very moment. If those guidelines are being revised, it is up to us to get our voice in, to get that revision changed so that this restriction no longer applies to seafood manufacturers. I want the Department to get in there and get this regulation changed.

That is my plea. I plead to the Government and Ministers to stop wringing their hands and stop telling us what they cannot do. Government is good at telling people what they cannot do. I want the Minister to find out what is happening to seafood manufacturers in other European countries, because I am sure, from a little bit of evidence that I have—it is incumbent on the Department to check this—that they are being aided by the state in a way that our state will not aid our seafood manufacturers. I will bet that those states are doing that, because the degree of cheating on European regulations is quite astonishing; others are less timid and hidebound than we are.

I plead with the Minister not to brass-plate European lunacies. Let us get round them, put Britain first, and put Young’s at the forefront of putting Britain first. Let us get food manufacturing excluded from this fisheries regulation, so that structural aid and regional support aid for investment and jobs can come to this sector, which is anxious. The purchase and consumption of seafood dishes is increasing steadily; they are good for us, and we want to encourage that and to encourage the manufacturers. The firms want to expand, and it is only this barrier that is preventing them from expanding.

I am fed up with excuses, and so is the industry. We need action on this anomaly. It ill behoves a Government who are constantly telling us that they will get a better deal from Europe to do so little to get a better deal in this instance. I have every hope that the Minister will accept that.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I share my hon. Friend’s views, and congratulate him on getting this debate. The other word that he uses in connection with the European Union is surely “out”; I would agree with that, as would most of our constituents in north-east Lincolnshire. Does he agree that this is yet another example of a case where the seafood and fishing industries have been at a disadvantage as a result of European intervention, and that they have missed out on many of the grants and benefits that other industries have had? To take up the point he was just making, does he agree that this issue should be a vital part of any renegotiation?

[Austin Mitchell]

I agree with my hon. Friend and colleague. I will also agree on the use of “out”, but there is a long trail a-winding there. The immediate issue is to get help now for a firm that needs and wants investment. My last words to the Minister—other hon. Members will have something to add—are these: stand up and support Young’s and Grimbsy, and get rid of this anomaly.

Rail Services (Northern Lincolnshire)

Debate between Austin Mitchell and Martin Vickers

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

My first duty is to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), to her new place on the Front Bench. I wish her well. I know that she will not want to let her colleagues down—no pressure. Madam Deputy Speaker, with your permission, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) will also contribute to the debate. The Minister has given her consent.

My constituency, despite having 10 railway stations, the largest port complex in the country and an international airport, does not have the best transport links and certainly needs improved rail connections if it is to maximise the potential for economic growth. The Government have indicated on many occasions the importance they place on northern Lincolnshire and the wider Humber area. It has been acknowledged that the area has great economic potential. Siemens has already confirmed its investment on the north bank. The massive development by Able UK is going through its final planning stages. I hope that that major scheme will start in the not too distant future. It has the potential to create thousands of jobs and no one, least of all the Government, would want to put those jobs at risk.

As I have pointed out, northern Lincolnshire does not have good rail connections. We have had no through services to London since 1992, although the open-access operator Alliance Rail Holdings has an application with the rail regulator at the moment. The proposal is for four services each day in both directions and I urge the Minister to consider the proposal carefully with a view to doing all she can to allow it to go ahead as quickly as possible.

Our main link to the rest of the network is provided by First TransPennine Express, which operates an hourly service between Cleethorpes and Manchester 15 times a day, plus an additional one that finishes its journey in Sheffield. It is those services that are central to this debate as one of the proposals is to end the through service and to replace it with services all of which will terminate in either Sheffield or, more likely, Doncaster.

The argument is that not enough people travel the full length of the route. If that is what the Department for Transport is to hang its proposal on, it must come clean. How many passengers travel the full distance between Euston and Glasgow: 20%, or perhaps 40%? How many travel the full distance between King’s Cross and Edinburgh? Many will get off at York or Newcastle, or indeed at Doncaster because they want to get to Cleethorpes. The Department cannot hide behind the phrase “commercial confidentiality”. It cannot release just the figures that support its argument, but must release all of them. Will the Minister agree to release the figures—yes or no?

I also draw the Minister’s attention to the role in the process of Rail North, a consortium of local authorities across the north of England with the aim of devolving decision making. That sounds fine and like something we could all agree with until we look at the make-up of Rail North, which is dominated by the big cities and passenger transport executives. Councils such as North East Lincolnshire might have signed up to the broad principles, but I am sure that they did not intend that their voice in determining the services that serve their area should be silenced or ignored. What they have at the moment is the equivalent of a vote at the annual general meeting.

I do not want to be too hard on Rail North, as we can all sign up to its key objectives as outlined in the consultation, in particular paragraph 12, which outlines the three key points. The first is to support economic growth by delivering more rail capacity and better rail connectivity. The second is to improve the quality of the railways in the north, with a better offer for passengers to encourage more use.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this issue, which is uniting the whole of south Humberside and north Lincolnshire, or northern Lincolnshire, whichever we care to call it. Its political forces are all here; our mighty forces in flesh assembled to oppose this consultation proposal. I hope that I can encourage him to criticise Rail North, but I want to express my support for the view that the direct service from Cleethorpes to Manchester airport should not be cut off in the way that the consultation paper proposes. The transfer of the modern class 170 units to Chiltern to give southerners a more comfortable ride while we are put in cattle transport should be opposed. It is quite right to raise the question of the direct service to London and the electrification of the line, but the main thing now is to stop a service that is bad being made worse by this consultation document.

[Martin Vickers]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he points out, we are, as northern Lincolnshire, united in our opposition to the proposal to withdraw the Manchester services.

Let me return to Rail North’s objectives. Its third is to deliver a more efficient railway and to secure greater value for money for the support from the public purse. I point out that the north does not just mean the major centres of population in Leeds, Sheffield and the north-west. I support the Government’s policies to strengthen and expand the economies of the north based on city regions, but there is a danger that the focus can too often be on Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and so on. That is all very well, but if northern Lincolnshire is to receive maximum benefit from the investment in the renewables sector, and much of that is taxpayers’ money, we need good rail connections to a growing number of major centres.

I was pleased that the senior civil servant from the Department for Transport confirmed to the Select Committee on 30 June that the Secretary of State would make the final decision, although at this week’s meeting of the Committee, Passenger Focus was clearly concerned that this might be a ritual signing-off. As far as I am concerned, if the Secretary of State has to sign it, the Secretary of State is responsible, and I will continue to bombard him and my hon. Friend the Minister with questions and correspondence at every opportunity to stress the importance of this vital service to Cleethorpes and northern Lincolnshire. What I and my constituents want is for this proposal to be killed off quickly. I recognise that the Department must consider all options, but some can quickly be consigned to the waste bin.

Paragraph 2 on page 6 of the consultation refers to the importance of

“views from passengers who travel on the Northern and TPE”—

that is, TransPennine Express—

“franchises, as well as from other members of the public”.

I can assure the Minister that she will be hearing from the travelling public in great numbers, thanks to the campaign being run by the Grimsby Telegraph and the Scunthorpe Telegraph, which have been inviting readers to complete a petition form and to date have received over 4,000 completed forms.

I put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State, who will be meeting me and the editor of the Grimsby Telegraph tomorrow morning to receive the petition forms. This, though, will not end the campaign as I will deliver further petitions in the weeks to come and urge local residents and businesses to continue completing them and to submit their own response to the consultation, highlighting the impact on their own circumstances.

The consultation document repeatedly draws attention to the potential for economic growth and the need to use rail services to drive that growth. Table 1.1 on page 11 states that one of the objectives of the franchise is to

“help the economy of the north of England to thrive by offering competitive inter-regional rail services between urban centres, providing sufficient passenger capacity and expanding rail’s mode share.”

It goes on to state that a further objective is to

“realise the benefits from rail investment in the north of England, ensuring the successful delivery of journey time, frequency, reliability and connectivity benefits for passengers.”

These statements are, of course, motherhood and apple pie—we can all sign up to them. Can the Minister explain how, if inter-regional rail services are essential for the northern economy to thrive, the Government intend to achieve this by proposing an end to the one inter-regional service that northern Lincolnshire has?

I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph 2.19 which states:

“The growing demand for air travel will also drive increases in the number of rail journeys. In particular, by 2020 passenger numbers are expected to increase by 5 million at Manchester Airport compared with 2010, an important destination for rail travellers in the North.”

Manchester has become the airport of choice for many of my constituents simply because of the direct through trains. How can the Minister square that statement with the proposal to end through services to that very airport?

Paragraph 2.27 states that TransPennine Express has one of the newest fleets of any train operator. Can the Minister assure the House that, whatever the configuration of services and whichever company provides services to Cleethorpes, the new franchise will specify that the quality of rolling stock will be at least equivalent to the class 185 units currently in use? If the proposal that trains start and terminate at Doncaster is introduced, it is suggested that the Northern service from Sheffield to Scunthorpe be extended to Cleethorpes. That service stops at all stations. It would be totally unsatisfactory and would have to be more regular than the current hourly service, alternating fast and stopping services.

Having spoken to many involved in the rail industry, I recognise some of the difficulties. Indeed, some result from the success of this Government’s massive investment in the rail network. As more and more of the network is electrified, there is a temptation to treat the more peripheral areas as mere feeder services into the core electric network, but that is no help to the economy of those areas. More electrification means there are fewer diesel units both on the existing network and being manufactured. How best to make use of the available units is a conundrum for the Department, but not one to be resolved at the expense of my constituents.

I have referred to the Government’s repeated statements that economic growth is increased where good rail connectivity exists. This was again acknowledged by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his northern powerhouse speech only two or three weeks ago. It may be opportune at this point to emphasise the importance of the area now, even before potential expansion is considered. That is why, I am pleased to say, that both North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire councils will be fighting this proposal vigorously, and Councillor Liz Redfern, the leader of North Lincolnshire, contacted me this morning to report that the council has agreed to a joint campaign with North East Lincolnshire and that they have committed to a feasibility study on the potential to electrify the 50 miles of track between Cleethorpes and Doncaster—something the Government ought to be supporting. Perhaps they would like to contribute.

Twenty-five per cent. of the freight tonnage moved by rail starts or ends in Immingham. The Humber local enterprise partnership predicts that investment linked to renewables and regeneration could result in up to £7 billion of further investment across the Humber. More than 30% of the UK’s coal and an increasing amount of the biomass to fuel power stations passes through Immingham, and approximately 27% of UK oil refining capacity is provided by refineries at Immingham. The port handles 10% of the UK’s seaborne trade amounting to 50 million tonnes annually, including 30 million tonnes of coal and petroleum. I recognise that rail freight companies, because they move goods to so many different locations, do not always benefit as much from electrification, but with more and more of the network now electrified the case for electrification into Immingham and the remaining few miles to Grimsby and Cleethorpes is more compelling.

To return to the Chancellor’s powerhouse speech, he pointed out that the Yorkshire and Humberside region was where construction is strongest. He also spoke of the economic advantages of developing clusters and, as the Government have previously acknowledged, northern Lincolnshire and the Humber is where the renewables cluster is taking place.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have noticed one very important passage in the Chancellor’s speech when he said that

“we cleaned polluted rivers like the Mersey and the Humber. Now we should take the next steps in improving them and making them great places for leisure and tourism and natural beauty.”

As I have said on more than one occasion in this Chamber, Cleethorpes is the premier resort of the east coast. No one has ever contradicted that statement and I am sure they will not this evening. I suspect that the Chancellor was unaware of the existence of this consultation document when he delivered his speech, but I hope he has had his attention drawn to the letter from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole pointing out the inherent contradictions of developing an area for tourism and withdrawing its main rail service.

I appreciate that the Minister will be in a difficult position in replying to this debate because she will not want to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but she can give an absolute reassurance that the essential points from this debate will be considered in detail by all the relevant Departments involved in the development and regeneration of the northern economies, and if she will emphasise the unique circumstances that prevail in northern Lincolnshire the debate will have been worth while.

There are other issues to be considered. The Cleethorpes to Barton service, one that is essential to the outlying areas, is something of an anomaly. It is part of the existing Northern franchise but entirely cut off from the rest of its network and is crewed by TransPennine. Yes, it could be operated by East Midlands, which currently operates between Grimsby and Newark via Lincoln. All I will say is that I and my constituents will want an assurance that it will not be treated as an inconvenient Cinderella service but as an essential part of the network.

We do not want a return to the days of British Rail when we had a slow, stopping service to Doncaster with a few trains that continued beyond that. It was intermittent, slow and uncomfortable. The arrival of TransPennine transformed the situation. In May, I was invited to a photo-shoot at Cleethorpes station to celebrate the improved services and the provision of an extra 90,000 seats in the summer timetable. If we lose our Manchester service, the economy of the area will suffer, not just new burgeoning businesses but traditional ones in Cleethorpes that serve the tourist trade. We need as many services from as many different locations as possible.

I know that the Minister shares my passion for providing good rail services because the edition of “Marlborough News Online” on 27 June—just three weeks ago—said that she had written to the then rail Minister, telling him that she and her constituents were “horrified” by the options offered in his Department’s consultation on services to her constituency. She continued:

“I cannot stress enough, the importance of fast and frequent rail links to my Constituents”,

and rounded off her comments by stating that the two options would almost certainly mean people leaving the area

“with catastrophic effects on the local economy.”

With an ally like my hon. Friend in the Department, I am sure all will be well.

It seems that the rail industry is like politics. Change can come quickly. Someone wakes up as a Whip and goes to bed as the rail Minister, with the ability not only to save their own constituents from a decline in services, but those in northern Lincolnshire as well. My hon. Friend has come along at just the right time; the Government have a good record on rail investment, allowing train operators to provide improved services, and they now have a chance to prove that to the people I represent. I urge the Minister to visit North East Lincolnshire on 18 October—that is what her predecessor had agreed to do—and act quickly to remove this threat, recognise the strength of feeling in the House and in northern Lincolnshire, and announce, if not tonight then very soon, that this particular proposal has hit the buffers.

Leisure Services (North East Lincolnshire)

Debate between Austin Mitchell and Martin Vickers

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. With your permission, I have invited the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) to share the debate with me. I have advised the Minister, who is happy with that, and I hope that meets with your approval. The Minister has indicated that 10 minutes will be sufficient for his summing up.

I appreciate that this matter is ultimately one for the local authority, which in this case is North East Lincolnshire unitary authority, so I appreciate that it will be difficult for the Minister to give a direct response. However, although it is a matter for the council, a considerable amount of public money is involved and one of the funding streams is, either directly or indirectly, Government money. Local opinion is very strongly of the view that the current proposals for the future of leisure services in the borough will, if implemented, provide lesser facilities for a considerably greater cost.

In recent years, the authority has rightly undertaken a review of its leisure services provision and updated it to meet changing circumstances. One scheme that unfortunately fell by the wayside as a result of the financial incompetence of the Learning and Skills Council was a learning village situated only a few hundred yards from Scartho baths, which I will talk about in a moment. Unfortunately, the revised conclusions that have been proposed rest on rather doubtful projections that are hotly disputed by campaigners, who, after receiving expert advice, have put forward some well reasoned alternatives.

The most contentious of the council’s proposals is the closure of the Scartho road swimming pool, known locally as Scartho baths. The pool is approaching 50 years of age and it is accepted that significant investment is required if it is to be given a new lease of life. I should mention that the pool is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, but it serves the whole of the council area and beyond. The council is proposing a 25 metre pool at Grimsby leisure centre, which is on the outskirts of the town and access by public transport is difficult for a great many local people. The leisure centre itself is now 40 years old and I acknowledge that it also needs refurbishment. It houses a range of facilities, most notably an ice rink, and I will return to the future of the rink shortly.

I am usually reluctant to criticise the local authority publicly, as I recognise that we as Members must work with our local councils, irrespective of their political colour, on a range of issues. However, this issue has been dominating the local media in north-east Lincolnshire and is therefore an exception. The hon. Gentleman and I have been supporting local residents, and in particular the Save Scartho Baths campaign, and there is overwhelming local opposition to what has been proposed. The hon. Gentleman went so far as to use his Christmas card to highlight the council’s folly.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I posed in a swimming costume.

Boundary Commission (Great Grimsby)

Debate between Austin Mitchell and Martin Vickers

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, particularly as this is the first time I have served under your benign chairmanship, Mr Davies.

I warn against the crime that the Boundary Commission proposes to commit, namely the murder of the Great Grimsby constituency, which I represent. The commission proposes to kill the constituency by splitting it in two, with four of its eight wards going into a new constituency of Grimsby South and Cleethorpes, and the rest going north in a shotgun marriage with Barton in a new Grimsby North and Barton constituency. Barton is 10 miles from Grimsby. I do not know of any other historic constituencies that are being treated in such a way, and it is certainly the only historic constituency in Humberside to be so treated. I have been proud to represent Grimsby for 37 years. In fact, it was only under me that the constituency rose to greatness by becoming Great Grimsby, so the Boundary Commission’s proposal to abolish it is a particular blow. The great majority of my constituents, and many organisations in the constituency, feel the same way.

Representing Grimsby has been a delight, not only because it is a community within a constituency, which is fairly rare, but because it is an historic constituency. Grimsby was first represented in Parliament in 1295 by two MPs: William de Dovedale and Gilbert de Reyner. I deny the rumours that I have been here that long that one of them was actually me. I was not here in 1295—Augustinus de Mitchellius was not here—but I am sure that those two are turning in their graves. While we had two MPs at the start, after the Reform Act 1832 was passed, we had one MP, who was always the borough Member, because the constituency coincided with the borough’s boundaries until the borough was abolished in 1992. I suppose that I am therefore the last of the borough Members.

Great Grimsby, therefore, is unique and historic, and it is one of the few parliamentary constituencies that is also a community. It is not a slice of a big city such as Hull or Bradford—or wherever it might be—and nor is it rural acres lumped together to build the necessary population. Destroying something as unique as Grimsby would be an act of simple political vandalism.

Grimsby’s one fault, if it has any faults—I do not think it has many faults—is that it is small. The electorate is only 61,000, which was big enough to survive all the previous redistributions, but not to reach the new norm of 76,000 electors per constituency, with only a 5% margin either way, that was necessitated by the Government’s decision to reduce the size of the Commons from 650 Members to 600. That proposal is wrong. The Government cannot economise on democracy by reducing the number of MPs to reduce expense. Reducing the number of MPs takes no account of their work load, which is increasing due to Select Committees and growing demand from constituencies.

Reducing the House in such a fashion will increase the power of the Executive by diminishing the number of Members outside the Executive. An Executive of more than 100 in a House of 600 would make them much more powerful than under the present situation. I deplore the change, and that unnecessary reduction has led to the redrawing of the constituency boundaries according to the new quota of 76,000 that has been imposed. Constituencies are now to be no more than 5% above or below that norm, which means that Great Grimsby and the neighbouring constituency of Cleethorpes have to be enlarged.

The Boundary Commission’s provisional proposals would have sensibly enlarged Great Grimsby by adding two wards from Cleethorpes, and would then have compensated Cleethorpes, which encircles Grimsby like Indians round a wagon train, although I should not say that in the presence of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers)

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I speak as one of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. He and I know that visitors to Grimsby and Cleethorpes will not know where the boundaries are because it is just one urban mass. We, of course, remember where the passport control points used to be prior to the creation of North East Lincolnshire council.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s good point that cutting Grimsby in half is totally illogical, but there was an equal strength of feeling in Cleethorpes when, as he suggests, the first proposal was to take the north end of Cleethorpes. Does he agree that the sensible thing would be to ignore the supposed boundary between Yorkshire, Humberside and the east midlands, which would then allow villages such as Holton-le-Clay, Keelby and Tetney to be brought into one of the seats?

[Austin Mitchell]

I absolutely agree that that would solve all the problems. The problem is that the borders with Lincolnshire and Yorkshire have been so oppressive for the Boundary Commission, which says it will not ignore them. Humberside has to lose one Member, and the reshuffle results from that.

Cleethorpes was to be compensated by adding the south bank of the Humber up to Burton upon Stather and Winterton. The Boundary Commission’s provisional proposals were sensible. They brought my constituency up to 78,000 electors and Cleethorpes up to 77,000, although stupidly that constituency was to be renamed Brigg and Humberston, which must have annoyed people in Cleethorpes, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman could confirm. Both constituencies would have been big, and people told the Boundary Commission that they were happy with the provisional proposals, but that was to no avail, because the next stage for the commission was to review its decisions on the basis of representations made by the parties and local people.

In Humberside, the bulk of the review dealt with Hull and its surrounding area, and with Scunthorpe, which is to our west. As we were not concerned in Grimsby, we issued a statement saying only that we were happy with the provisional proposals. We left it at that, and so did the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in their national evidence—both parties recommended that Grimsby should not be split. The Conservatives, however, made more wide-reaching proposals, which included splitting up the Grimsby constituency. To our amazement, those proposals were accepted by the Boundary Commission, which I deplore. I consider that decision to be both disastrous and unacceptable; it does not make sense.

Why did the Boundary Commission change its mind so unpredictably? It gave a number of reasons that were more like excuses and had nothing to do with Grimsby. We were told that the commission wanted to accommodate some of the representations from Hull by changing its constituency boundaries, and there were therefore knock-on effects right down to Scunthorpe. The commission said that it did not want to split up the three wards of the Isle of Axholme, which is more of a geographical description than a community, so it took Burton upon Stather from the proposed Brigg and Humberston seat and gave it to Scunthorpe, thereby reducing the population of Brigg and Humberston.

The commission also used the excuse that it had received representations from Cleethorpes against splitting up that constituency. Well, Cleethorpes was not really split; it lost two wards but gained other areas along the south bank of the Humber. The constituency was supplemented rather than split, and it is silly to respond to a complaint about splitting Cleethorpes, which was losing two wards, by splitting Grimsby right down the middle. The commission’s proclaimed reluctance to split the Isle of Axholme was really an excuse for something that it wanted to do to the north and west, and we suffered the knock-on effect of those changes. Grimsby was sacrificed on the altar of change in Scunthorpe and Hull.

The commission therefore reversed its sensible provisional proposals and proposed the two new constituencies of Grimsby North and Grimsby South. Grimsby South is to go with four wards to Cleethorpes—the seat will be called Grimsby South and Cleethorpes—while Grimsby North will merge with the rural areas to the north. That proposal is unacceptable. The basic principle should be to keep existing communities together as far as possible. This is an historic constituency and a community within one constituency, which is the strongest claim for remaining a constituency. The commission has split up the one constituency in Humberside that is a genuine community.

The commission is also supposed to maintain common interests as far as possible. In Grimsby’s case, it is merging part of an industrial community with Cleethorpes, which has different interests and organisations, seaside and tourism concerns, and even a different school system in terms of the sixth-form distribution in the area. It is merging another part of Grimsby, to the north, with rural areas with which the town has little in common, given that our problems are urban—deprivation, poverty and low educational achievement.

The commission says that it has had a lot of representations on the lack of affinity that electors in rural areas feel with urban areas and vice versa, yet it proposes to ignore all that in the case of Grimsby. The commission is supposed to pay attention, too, to organisational and party links within a constituency. Our constituency boundaries are the same as the old borough boundaries, so the organisational links across borough organisations are strong and long-standing, and the political organisations in the wards are accustomed to working together. All that is now to be split up in Grimsby.

The whole procedure leaves a lot to be desired, given that the commission comes up with provisional proposals that we accept and therefore do nothing more, and then it changes them totally. No one in Grimsby has been given a chance to react to the new proposals until now. We face an uphill struggle, because the commission has published its views and we must now change a more settled view. Given that the commission is bound to be a little reluctant to change its mind again, this decision-making process means that we face an uphill struggle to upset the convenience of the commission. That is neither fair nor democratic, and I do not see how it can be viewed as reasonable by the commission.

I am therefore asking the commission not to divide Grimsby and not to abolish what I rightly see as the best constituency in the country. Some might say that Shipley has many claims, Mr Davies, but I think that Grimsby is certainly the best. The commission should go back to its original proposals.

As the commission has behaved in this unreasonable fashion and sacrificed Grimsby to suit other areas and constituencies with regard to issues that have nothing to do with us, I will be submitting evidence to show that it is perfectly possible to keep the two constituencies of Grimsby and Cleethorpes—I hope that that constituency will be called Cleethorpes, because it certainly should be—without splitting Grimsby. I will not go into the details now, but while it cannot be done by abolishing and adjusting wards, it can be done by splitting wards. I know that the commission will be loth to do that, but it can be done, and I shall be submitting evidence on a numerical basis to show that.

I know that the Minister cannot respond by saying, “Yes, the commission is wrong. You’re right, Mitchell, and the Government will intervene and help you.” I perfectly understand that she cannot speak for the commission. Several people have told me that it is a waste of time to protest about the abolition of Grimsby, however, because the commission’s proposals will not be accepted by the House of Commons. However, whether the proposals end up in force or in the dustbin, where I am happy to see that the Liberal Democrats intend to put them, they are still wrong, and yet the Government appear determined to get them through.

The position must be decided soon or we will face a farcical situation in which the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties select candidates for the next election on the basis of existing seats—they are comparatively new, after all, as the last redistribution was not too long ago—while the Conservatives select candidates for the new seats. All the fights that go on within the party about the redistribution game of musical chairs will then emerge publicly as people fight for a diminished number of seats. That is plainly ludicrous. Whether or not the Government see sense on this issue, they must make an early decision.

I want the commission to show that it has seen sense on its proposals for Grimsby by not abolishing the historic constituency of Great Grimsby. My main reason for securing the debate was to put the case for that, but I also put it to the Government that it is incumbent on them to make their decision on the redistribution clear before we have a farce in which different parties are selecting candidates for different constituencies.

My final plea must be to the commission. I do not want to be the last MP for Great Grimsby as a united constituency with one community and all the organisational links that join it together. Please rethink this in light of the evidence from Grimsby that we will be submitting and keep Grimsby one political unit and one constituency.