Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

Fly-tipping is a scourge both in urban and rural areas, which is why we are clamping down on it by forcing environmental vandals to clean up the mess they create. We are taking a cross-Government approach, aligned with our safer streets mission. I am sure my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that, working with ministerial colleagues, we are setting out a new strategy that will address antisocial behaviour and fly-tipping, and restore public confidence in policing.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking to help ensure the effective prosecution of perpetrators of misdemeanours.

[The Solicitor General]

The Government are committed to tackling criminality of all types. We have set out our plan for change, which includes putting 13,000 more police officers and PCSOs on the beat, and bringing back neighbourhood policing. Next year, the Crown Prosecution Service will receive an additional £49 million of funding to help recruit and train more prosecutors, enabling them to focus on securing justice in all cases, from minor offences right through to the most serious crimes.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the hon. Lady for that reply and I appreciate the additional resources, but what my constituents, and I am sure constituents up and down the country, want to see is robust effective policing and prosecution of what is low-level crime in the great scheme of things, but which can be a real curse, particularly on our housing estates. Can the hon. Lady give an assurance to my constituents that there will be real robust and positive action?

[The Solicitor General]

I can give that assurance. The hon. Gentleman calls this kind of crime low level. I know from experiences in my constituency that these issues can affect daily life and really blight communities, so yes he has my assurance.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very reluctant to offer tax advice to anybody, but the advice I have been given is that the figure may even be more than that. I urge people to look closely at the detail, rather than jumping to the worst conclusion.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Reference has been made to rural crime. May I suggest that a whole new definition of “rural crime” is the proposals contained in the Budget? The Labour party has yet again shown that it does not understand the rural community. If family farms close, there will be a knock-on effect for grain merchants, farm machinery dealers and so on. Can the Minister explain what assessment has been made of the impact on the total rural economy?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the rural economy is closely integrated and that one thing has an effect on another, but the thing that will be most beneficial for the rural economy is a strong economy, which we are building. We are putting the foundations in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

10. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on funding for farming.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

12. If he will maintain the level of funding for farming.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

The Government will restore stability and confidence in the sector by introducing a new deal for farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen food security alongside nature’s recovery. The Government are currently conducting a spending review, which will conclude in October. Departmental budgets, including spending on farming, will be confirmed through this process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.

As I said previously, a spending review process is going on. No Government announce their Budget in advance of the Budget taking place. I cannot do that either, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keen to ensure that farmers in every single part of the United Kingdom receive the support they need to do the job that we as a country need them to do to ensure that we have the food security that we want, because it is part of our national security, and that this country deserves.

[Martin Vickers]

Farmers in my constituency who receive funding through the sustainable farming incentive are concerned that some of the schemes are becoming over-subscribed and therefore their income is reducing. Will the Secretary of State give a reassurance that that particular initiative will continue and will do so at the existing funding levels?

[Steve Reed]

I have been clear, throughout the election campaign and since, that we do not intend to overturn the applecart in respect of the old schemes in general, including the SFI. We support the principles behind the schemes and want to see them continue. In terms of what the hon. Gentleman alluded to, there are ways to make them work better. My intention is to work closely with the farming sector and the nature sector to make sure that we get the maximum bang for our buck for every single penny that goes through those schemes, and that the farmers who need it get the support they deserve.

Waste Crime: Staffordshire

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Adam Jogee]

I am winding up my remarks, Mr Vickers. My hon. Friend makes a really important point: a healthy workforce is an active workforce, and an active workforce will contribute to the growth that the Government seek to bring to communities such as mine and hers, and to those up and down the country, including Keighley. We need to tackle toxic air pollution—we need clean air—so I thank her for making that point. I also thank her for promoting me to right hon.—I did not get that through the Whips.

I was told that it would cost too much for me to see the correspondence between those three bodies and the Department, so I say to the Minister: I am happy to come to the Department any day, any time to look at anyone’s computer. We need to shine a light on the collective failures that have got us into this mess—not the Minister’s failures, but the failures we now have to clean up. My constituents deserve to know, and I need to know. The Minister knows I will not rest until we see a closure notice, and I hope that the Environment Agency is listening to me today. I call on it to share its correspondence with the county council and the borough council with me too.

Walleys Quarry Ltd has written to me several times asking to meet, and it is important to put that on the record. However, it is also important to put on the record that if it had turned up to the cross-party public inquiry at the council, we could have met there. Walleys Quarry could have taken part in an evidence-based democratic process with clear transparency for my constituents.

We are now looking to fill a £20 billion black hole in the national finances, so what discussions are taking place across Government to make sure that landfill operators pay their fair share? I urge her to raise the issue of landfill tax levels with the Treasury. I know that increasing the tax on landfill operators would go down very well in my constituency.

The people of Newcastle-under-Lyme have had enough. They simply want to get on with their lives and to be free from the horrendous and dangerous impact of Walleys Quarry. That cannot be too much to ask, and I will keep fighting—alongside all those who want clean air and healthy lungs, healthy hearts and healthy minds right across Newcastle-under-Lyme—until we get the closure notice that we desperately need and the proper restoration plan to go with it.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I am in the neighbouring county of Warwickshire —we share many borders with Staffordshire—and fly-tipping is at an all-time high in my constituency. Much of that is from organised crime from the neighbouring boroughs of Tamworth, Coventry and Birmingham. They come along the M42, the M6 or the A5 and dump waste in the entrances to farms in the middle of the night.

That was the biggest issue that was raised when I recently met the National Farmers’ Union in my area. It is also the No. 1 issue raised by our local rural crime service, but it is not taken seriously by the police and crime commissioner for Warwickshire, and neither is any funding spent on advising people not to use the white vans that parade the streets offering to remove their waste. Reports of fly-tipping are the No. 1 thing I see every day on my local Facebook page. Because no money is spent on publicity, people have no idea where they should report these crimes—whether it is the local authority, the Environment Agency or the police. There has to be more joined-up working, and I would like to see the Minister leading that.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be a little shorter than that.

[Gareth Snell]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has just said. We should not think about fly-tipping simply as community blight. It is not just about the sofa abandoned down the back alley; it is about cross-country, cross-border organised crime that is making millions of pounds for people in our communities who, frankly, have no interest in our communities. She made the point rather eloquently about the requirement for our police and crime commissioners to understand that this is an important issue that they must prioritise and tackle.

On the fly-tipping point that my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and for Stoke-on-Trent South raised, I return to its longer-term impact. Fly-tipping is a waste crime that takes place in Staffordshire, and the House of Commons Library note that accompanies the debate gives the rather sad fact from the 2022-23 figures that almost half of all fly-tipping incidents across the whole of Staffordshire took place in Stoke-on-Trent. That is not a record that I am particularly proud of or would want to be associated with my city. That is why I am glad that upon its election in 2023, under the expert leadership of Councillor Amjid Wazir, the deputy leader of the council, the city council launched a clean-up campaign against illegal dumping in our towns under the moniker of “IDIOT”. “Don’t be an IDIOT” was the line. The council said, “Don’t dump in our towns. Don’t allow our community to be used by those criminal gangs that want to ruin our cities.”

The outcome has been spectacular: we now have considerably fewer incidents of fly-tipping. That is not only because the council makes a concerted effort to clear it up, but because it has invested in an environmental crime unit that seeks to prosecute and fine those people who dump waste in our towns and cities. The council has tripled the number of fines it hands out, and it pursues people through the courts where they refuse to pay the fine. It makes it clear that if people wish to undertake illegal activity related to waste in Stoke-on-Trent at a community level, the council is coming for them and will fine them. I personally would like a name-and-shame campaign, but I have not quite won the battle with the council yet; give it time.

What I would not want to be taken away from this debate is the idea that Staffordshire is the nation’s dustbin, and that it is strewn with all these terrible activities; because while we have these incidents, most of the people in our communities who live in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire want to see clean neighbourhoods. They go out every day and do a little bit of work to make their community better. They clean up fly-tipping, report an illegally dumped sofa, report the smells to the Environment Agency, and report to the police abandoned buildings that suddenly start having industrial waste put near them. They do that because they want—as does everyone else in my constituency, county and city—to live in a clean, tidy and safe place. When the Minister winds up, will she give me some sense of hope to take back to Stoke-on-Trent that this Government, with this Minister, will deliver on that aspiration for clean, safe streets in every community, and that she will let us know how we can help her achieve that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I have not had specific advice on closure. It is clear that there is a criminal investigation under way, and we have to let that take its course.

Let us look at waste crime. In recent years there has been an increase in the involvement of serious and organised criminal gangs in the waste sector. That is of the greatest concern to me; it goes back to the perfect storm of a broken waste system. The joint unit for waste crime brings together the Environment Agency, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—because in our experience, criminals never break the law in just one area; they always break it in several areas—the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from the UK and other partners to share intelligence, and disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. There has been progress to target organised crime groups, and this model is respected internationally. The issue is not unique to the United Kingdom.

The unit has supported or led more than 90 operations since April 2020 and has worked with 133 partner organisations. It has had 301 days of action, which have resulted in 174 associated arrests by other agencies. The Environment Agency recently announced the formation of its national enforcement service—a new economic crime unit that targets the money and assets of waste criminals. It will target the financial motivation behind offending and use financial mechanisms to inhibit the ability of offenders, including OCGs, to operate. It has all gone a bit “Line of Duty” there; I will crack on.

I also urge members of the public: it is incumbent on every one of us to report waste crime where we see it in our communities. It is under-reported. When someone comes and says, “I can take that waste away for you for 20 quid,” it is so important that we ask to see their waste permit. When someone asks a farmer or a landowner, “Can I store these bales on your land?” and says it is just a bit of plastic or a bit of soil, I urge them to be curious: have they actually got a permit? Is it really soil or is it shredded down plastics? The money is moving from legitimate waste operators and going to these organised crime groups.

We know the impact that this issue has on people’s lives. We are determined to reform this sector. That starts with reform of the waste carrier, broker and dealer regime, which means those transporting or making decisions about waste must demonstrate that they are competent to make those decisions, face background checks when applying for permits and display permit numbers on their advertising. We will make it easier for regulators to take actions against criminals, and easier for us as householders to identify legitimate waste businesses.

The reform will remove three exemptions, which is critical because these are the highest problem areas. Those exemptions are for dismantling end of life vehicles, treating end of life tyres—again, the risk of fire is huge—and recovery of scrap metal dealers. I remember a case in my former constituency of Wakefield where a scrap metal dealer went bust owing His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs £60 million. To my grievous disappointment, not a single person was prosecuted or went to prison for essentially theft from the taxpayer. We will introduce greater record-keeping requirements for all waste exemption holders, and impose limits and controls on how exemptions can be managed on site.

To conclude, this Government are clear: we are committed to bringing waste criminals to justice. We have long-term ambitions to rebuild the waste sector and to create a circular economy, and we are committed to tackling both waste crime and, as exemplified by Walley’s Quarry, poor performance at regulated sites.

I know that the Environment Agency is committed to continuing its work with partners nationally and locally, and I thank it for working against the odds and in a very difficult funding environment over the last 14 years. The crime that we are discussing today is predominantly an urban crime and I think that under the previous Government there was a neglect of urban areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked for deeds not words. We will follow the principle that the polluter pays. We will find the polluters; we are coming for them and we will track them down.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I call Adam Jogee to sum up.

Food Security

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

This is why the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) was so powerful, because, as my right hon. Friend has just said, there are competing imperatives. Energy security and food security must not be allowed to contradict one another; both can be pursued with the right approach and with a sensitive treatment of where different applications are located. My argument tonight is that that sensitivity—that precision—is not currently prevailing. Indeed, the scale of the applications we are talking about in Lincolnshire alone is over 2,000 acres in some cases, eating up vast swathes of highly productive agricultural land. Once that land is eaten up, one suspects it will never return to agricultural production.

There is a myth about wind turbines. Those who have been in this House for a long time and those who followed my career even before they became Members of this House, as I know many did, will remember that I have been campaigning against onshore wind since the time I got to this place. That is not only because of the aesthetics of onshore wind—as all men and women of taste would acknowledge, they are grim—but because the concrete used to anchor the wind turbines will never leave the ground, even when they have ceased to serve their purpose. Nobody seriously believes that there will be a commercial interest in removing that concrete, which will fill valuable growing land—spoil the soil, if I can turn a phrase that might last and make an impression on you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on others too.

The issue is the Government taking forward their priorities in a way that is consistent but, as I said before, also sensitive to the imperative of food security alongside that of energy security. There are 14 solar applications in Lincolnshire constituencies that are nationally significant infrastructure projects—by definition, those are large projects. In other words, more than 50% of nationally proposed solar plants are in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire or Rutland, which cannot be sensible. Of course we should be pursuing renewable technologies, but surely solar belongs on buildings. Every large commercial building, every warehouse—they are springing up everywhere —every office block and many more houses could accommodate solar panels and deliver solar power, yet we are allowing developers to make applications on the best growing land in our country, often for no better reason than their own self-interest. I cannot accept that this Minister believes in that, or that he is going to allow it. When he responds, I hope he will say that he will not.

There is another threat facing my constituency, and it has an effect on food security too. That is the immense number of pylons that are proposed—87 miles-worth of huge pylons, along the whole of the east coast, neither wanted nor needed by local people. I say “not wanted” for self-evident reasons, but they are not needed, either, because there are better ways of transmitting power. As Lincolnshire county council has argued, the offshore grid is a much more suitable way of transmitting power. Pylons are yesterday’s technology, yet we face the prospect of them filling the big skies of Lincolnshire. We either care about the glory of our landscape or we are careless of it.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I know that my hon. Friend cares about it deeply.

[Martin Vickers]

On pylons, my right hon. Friend will perhaps recall that on the final day before the election, I held an Adjournment debate on National Grid’s Grimsby to Walpole proposals, and the then Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, Justin Tomlinson, said he would like to see a review. Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that the new Government will follow that decision and instigate a review?

[Sir John Hayes]

I was in the Chamber when my hon. Friend held that debate; I rushed there when I saw his name on the screen, as I so often do. He was right to highlight the National Grid decision-making process, and to play his part in that discussion, as have I and other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne. I am more hopeful than many that we can persuade National Grid and Ministers to look at other options. Undergrounding is a possibility in the fens, for example, where tall structures have a disproportionate impact on the landscape, but as I said, I think the offshore grid proposed by the county council is perhaps the best way forward.

The last Government published for the first time in 2021 a UK food security report; I hope that this Government will take forward that type of work on a non-partisan basis. They committed to assessing our food security at least every three years, and hosted the Farm to Fork summit in 2023. I hope that this Government will continue in that vein.

The public procurement of UK food is also a pressing priority. I have never really thought that any Government of any colour—and I have been in quite a number of them—really got the issue of public procurement right. I was always told not to say this with civil servants in earshot, because it is like speaking in front of the children, in a way, and it is rather rude, and I had some very good civil servants, but I always felt that civil servants were putting impediments in the way of our using procurement as a tool to deliver national priorities.

Procurement could be used more intelligently to bring about better ends; food procurement is a really good example of that. Why on earth are public bodies not prioritising British food? Why is it that any number of public sector organisations, from the health service to the prisons, from schools to this place and local authorities, are not buying British? Surely we should be buying British to support our country and the jobs that go with food production. I do hope that my “Backing Britain, buying British” campaign will gain support across the Chamber, and when I produce the badges, which will be coming out shortly, I will ask the Minister to wear one with pride.

Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on his maiden speech. We are all much more knowledgeable about his constituency now than we were a few minutes ago, so well done for that.

I acknowledge that the planning system is in need of reform. We cannot have a process that takes months—in many cases, years—for major projects, crucial to economic growth and associated jobs, to grind through an endless system. In my constituency, most such projects are located in an area that is, and has been for many years, mainly industrial. Although we should not trample on local opinion, we have to get those projects through the system more quickly than we do at the moment.

The Gracious Speech included this:

“My Government believes that greater devolution of decision making is at the heart of a modern dynamic economy and is a key driver of economic growth and my Ministers will introduce an English Devolution Bill. Legislation will be introduced to give new powers to metro mayors and combined authorities. This will support local growth plans that bring economic benefit to communities.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 39.]

Of course we need to increase the supply of housing, but how do Ministers square devolving decision making with strengthening central direction of the planning process and tying the hands of planning authorities? The Labour manifesto said that the Government would

“make full use of intervention powers”.

That does not sound like good news for local democracy.

Experience from my constituency shows that local communities will, in most cases, accept more housing developments, but they make the justifiable complaint that recent developments in all parts of my constituency, from Humberston, through New Waltham, Waltham, Scartho, Laceby, Wootton and Barton, to name just a few, mean that the already stretched highway infrastructure and public services, such as school places, GPs and the like, are now stretched beyond what is acceptable. What assurances can Ministers give that they will ensure new build will run in parallel to the provision of infrastructure and public services?

Another aspect of the planning process that angers people is that many appeals are determined by planning inspectors who frequently overrule council decisions that have been made after careful consideration of local circumstances. In some cases, such decisions have even overturned the local plan. That is not acceptable. Local plans go through various stages of consultation, including public hearings, all of which passes by the overwhelming majority of the public, until an application is lodged that could change the whole character of the neighbourhood. Clearly, the process needs to be reviewed, as I have previously argued, including in a ten-minute rule Bill I introduced some years ago.

If devolution and local decision making is to mean anything, planning issues should be determined at a local level, wherever possible. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that there are current Ministers who lodged objections to planning applications for developments in their own areas. That went under the radar to some extent while they were in opposition, but now there is no hiding place for them. Every Labour Member who votes for proposed planning changes to some village or some part of the town will have to justify not supporting their constituents when they are up in arms about the application.

As someone who spent their childhood and early adulthood in a council house on a Grimsby estate, I have always supported the ability of local authorities to build council houses where that is appropriate. The ones that I lived in were built in the early 1950s when a Conservative Government were in power. They were of high quality and have stood the test of time. Sadly, that is not the case for much of the social housing that is imposed on new developments. I certainly would support the Government if they had a programme to encourage and support councils in house building, but I would be interested to know how they would finance it.

One proposal that is causing considerable concern, not just in my Brigg and Immingham constituency, but in many other constituencies along the east coast of Lincolnshire and through into East Anglia, is the National Grid upgrade on the Grimsby to Walpole route. These proposals could result in a network of 50-metre-high pylons running through some of the country’s most beautiful countryside, including impacting on the Lincolnshire Wolds area of outstanding natural beauty. I secured the final Adjournment debate on this matter before the election and the then Minister said that he was minded to order a review of the scheme. I urge the Government to honour that commitment and follow through with that review.

Finally, let me return to devolution and the policy to create more combined authorities. The proposals for the Greater Lincolnshire Authority have already passed through all stages of consultation, and a statutory instrument has been prepared, but, unfortunately, the election intervened. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that this is an opportunity for an early win in her wish to create combined authorities. If she were to put forward that SI, I think most of the Lincolnshire MPs would give her some support.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Dr Scott Arthur for his maiden speech.

Grey Squirrels

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I will call Virginia Crosbie to move the motion and then the Minister will respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate. I call Virginia Crosbie.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered control of the grey squirrel population.

Thank you, Mr Vickers, for the opportunity to hold this important debate on control of the squirrel population. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison)—a fellow atomic kitten. It was while we were visiting nuclear reactors in Finland recently that we discussed this important debate.

In the 1909 poem “An Appointment” by the Irish poet W. B. Yeats, he described the red squirrel as “proud” and “wayward”, bounding and springing around the trees with a

“fierce tooth and cleanly limb”.

He finished by saying:

“No government appointed him.”

Just two years after he wrote those words, American grey squirrels were introduced to Ireland and, as has been the case across much of the UK, this hardier and more aggressive species took over, pushing the red squirrel out and threatening its very existence. Although no Government appointed the red squirrel in Yeats’s poem, it is clearly up to our Government to reappoint red squirrels, a much-loved native species, to their natural homes. Grey squirrels are a menace to British biodiversity. They have proven perilous for our native red squirrel population.

Snares

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I will talk about that further. As he says, the opinion polls show that people definitely lean towards banning snares, but we need to debate the subject, which is why the petition has been brought to the Chamber today.

My starting point is the same as that of the commentators and petitioners: nobody wants to see any animal harmed, never mind killed, unless there are very strong reasons to do so. Nevertheless, animals are killed and people support that. For example, dangerous dogs that have harmed or even killed a child are put down.

Our feelings make it difficult to move to the other side of the debate, but we must do so. It is a debate, not a platform where only one view can be heard. There must be no cancellation here. We therefore need to ask why snares are being used in this day and age. Are there good reasons for their continued use? In life, we learn that there are always two sides to a story, and that is especially the case for MPs. I have never found that everybody has agreed with me about everything I have said. We all have different views, and I welcome the fact that we live in a democracy—a country in which freedom of speech is so strong. Many countries are not so blessed.

I have made efforts to speak to those who support the continued use of snares. I wanted to know why they believe that snares are a good thing, given what the DEFRA review found. One gamekeeper I have been in contact with told me that if snares are used in compliance with current legislation, they are a humane way of protecting not only the farming world’s livelihood but the environment. I am not convinced that the aforementioned badger would agree with any of that, but for the record I have not had clarification about whether the incident involved an illegal snare or a legal snare.

That brings me to the snare itself. We talk about snares, but what is a legal snare? Not all snares are illegal, and there are regulations in force determining what is. Let me tell Members what I discovered. The snares, now called humane cable restraints, are engineered with five safety devices. Two swivels—an anchor swivel and a middle swivel—reduce entanglement. Next, it is a legal requirement in the UK for the running eye to be free-running to help reduce strangulations. Previously, snares were ratcheted, and strangulation often occurred not just to the intended creature but to non-target animals. Ratcheted snares are now illegal. A fixed stop allows smaller animals to remove themselves, and also reduces the chance of strangulation of the target animal—apparently mainly foxes. The final component is a break-away device so that if animals of a certain size pull hard enough against the snare, it will break and they will be set free. Those devices were initially tested by 34 gamekeepers across the country and proved to be much improved on the previously used snares.

The law says that snares should be checked every 24 hours. The code of practice states that it should preferably be before 9 am each day, and if the gamekeeper is able the snare should be inspected again at the end of each day. If that procedure is rigorously followed, it should minimise the number of captured animals that go through the pain that the previously mentioned post-mortem report described. Whether it is rigorously followed is a fair question. The device should also be inspected daily for signs of rusting or fraying of the cord. It should also be checked to ensure it is working—in particular, the effectiveness of all the safety devices should be checked.

The subject is emotive and I can understand the petitioners’ point of view and why, in an animal-loving country such as ours, many people want to stop this method of capturing animals. It is natural to feel that way, and I share those feelings, too. However, gamekeepers do much to look after our countryside, and they say they need snares to enable them to do their job. I have heard that they are stopping some birds becoming extinct. Lapwings and curlews are two examples of birds that are in danger of becoming extinct to the west of the UK; foxes are to blame for much of their demise.

A relative townie like me can easily sit in an armchair and say that the use of snares is wrong and even barbaric, but I am conscious that I have little understanding of the countryside and the steps necessary to protect it. Those who have spent their lives in the countryside say snares are necessary. We need to know who is right and who is wrong—we need evidence. I am therefore pleased that the Government consider it timely to open a call for evidence to make sure they have the very latest understanding on the issue. It is essential that both sides of the argument are listened to. Cancel culture is iniquitous and has no place in a functioning democracy.

I believe I speak for many, if not all of us, when I say it is also essential that we reduce any inhumane treatment of our wildlife while still helping gamekeepers to protect our countryside. I believe there are many areas in life where there is a solution if legislators, animal rights groups, activists, concerned citizens and all those in the countryside sit down and talk things through. This surely must be one such issue.

With Wales and Scotland moving quickly towards a complete ban on snares, time is of the essence for such talks and solutions such as humane snares, reflective dishes, electric fences or even high-sonic devices could be used. I am told that many in the countryside do not believe that tighter legislation will work, but gamekeepers believe that mandatory training will. That issue also needs to be addressed.

I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing the debate to Parliament. We need to establish the evidence and make any necessary adjustments to the legislation that are appropriate and proportionate. What they should be is not exactly known yet. However, the process must start, and I look forward to its conclusions. I therefore hope the debate is the start of a sensible conversation, where tempers are not frayed and a solution can be found.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. I intend to start calling the Front-Bench speakers at around five past seven, so if Members could limit themselves to seven or eight minutes, all will be guaranteed to get in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I can tell my hon. Friend that 24% of the population live in rural parishes, and are supported by 38% of total stipendiary clergy. The figures he asks for are not held centrally as they are decided at diocesan level. I commend to him the Caleb stream, which often enables self-supporting clergy to serve in rural parishes, and of which many bishops are supportive.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I spoke recently to a priest who serves a number of rural parishes in my constituency. He pointed out that church councils are being asked for their views on the vision for the future of the Church, and they feel that they do not have sufficient resources to do that. If they look for guidance from the centre, they fear that church closures will be the outcome. Will my hon. Friend give additional support to parishes to plan for their future?

[Andrew Selous]

The Church Commissioners are providing a 30% increase in funding over the next three years. It is important to remember that they provide under 20% of the total funding of the Church, most of which comes from parish giving. In a sense, therefore, it is up to all of us to support our local churches and worshipping communities.

Sewage Pollution

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The next pricing review period starts in 2025, which is not soon enough for me. That is why I said to Ofwat, and to the water companies, that they should bring forward any investments that they are able to. That is why, as I said earlier, there will be £3.1 billion of investments up to 2025, on 800 overflows, which will significantly reduce discharges by about 25% by 2025—so in the near term.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Last week, I met Anglian Water to discuss the situation that had developed in Cleethorpes. Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has just said, I was left with the feeling that we could be harder on it in the targets that we set. Whether that is through my right hon. Friend, Ofwat or the Environment Agency matters not. Could we look again at the targets that we are setting? In his earlier response, the Secretary of State mentioned 2035. That is a long way away. Traders in Cleethorpes want people to come along and be confident that the waters are clean.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are mindful of the impacts on bills. The average increase in bills with the measures we outlined—the £56 billion package—will be about £12 per household per year by around 2030. However, we have said that we will review this in 2027, and if it is possible to accelerate more of that investment, we will do so and the Government at that time can consider that position. I repeat that it is not the case that nothing is happening until 2035; indeed, we are spending more than £3 billion out to 2025, which will lead to a 25% reduction.