Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the joint sponsors, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), on obtaining this very important debate, which highlights the important role that churches play in our local communities. I will give a few examples of that.

Last week, we marked the 80th anniversary of VE Day. Yes, there was a grand national service across the road in Westminster Abbey, but there were civic services up and down the country to mark the occasion. I attended one that had been arranged by the Mayor of North East Lincolnshire. He is a Catholic, so we attended the Catholic church last Thursday evening. Amazingly enough, while we were there, we heard of the election of the new Pope. Just as an aside, I would say that perhaps the Catholic Church has something to teach the Church of England in the speed with which it appoints its head. We desperately need a head of the Church of England, and that it takes a year to come up with a candidate is staggering. I am sure the hon. Member for Battersea has relayed that point already, but I emphasise it again. VE Day showed the importance of church buildings and the role of the Church within our national and civic life.

On Sunday, it was National Fishing Remembrance Day. Part of my constituency has a ward in Grimsby, which is noted for fish. Sadly, the deep sea fishing industry is no more, but many people in the area worked as trawlermen or were connected with the industry. It is still vital to the area. At the service I attended, Canon Mullins from Grimsby Minster drew links between VE Day and the fishing industry. The great west window in Grimsby Minster depicts St Peter and the fishermen going out into the Sea of Galilee. In 1943, two bombs landed on the minster, or St James’ church as it was then, shattering every window in the church. The original drawings still existed, so many of the windows were recreated, but the new west window paid tribute to the fishing industry.

Any country church or churchyard tells the story of the local community. This weekend was an open weekend for many churches in Lincolnshire, and on Saturday, I visited St Mary’s in Broughton, a village close to Scunthorpe. I heard there from a local historian who lives across the road from the church. He was extremely knowledgeable about the history of virtually every brick in the building. He pointed out to me that it was one of four churches in Lincolnshire to predate the Norman conquest, and guided me to the evidence for that. I was a bit disturbed by that because the church that I attend regularly in Scartho in Grimsby, St Giles and St Matthews, has what is claimed to be an Anglo-Saxon tower dating to 1042. I pointed that out to the historian and he said, “Oh no, it must be at least 50 years later than that”, but nevertheless, it points to the long history of the stories that churches tell of their local communities.

One of those other four churches in Lincolnshire that was referred to as pre-dating the conquest is St Peter’s—

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Gentleman gets on to any more churches, I gently pointed out to him that he is well over his three minutes. It is not a formal time limit, but I am trying to get everybody in.

[Martin Vickers]

My apologies, Sir Jeremy. In that case, I will conclude by saying that our churches and cathedrals play such an important part in our local communities. The National Churches Trust is conducting a survey at this time, which I urge Members to take part in to refer to the importance of the churches in their local communities.

High Street Rental Auctions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. If we are to accommodate all those who have given advance notice, we need to restrict contributions to about six or seven minutes. Members should bear that in mind. I call Gideon Amos.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to contribute to this important debate. I thank those individuals and organisations that work throughout the year to ensure that Holocaust Memorial Day is commemorated, and that our young people in particular are reminded of the horrors of the past and encouraged to work towards the peace that all right-thinking people seek.

As Members will be aware, Holocaust Memorial Day falls every year on 27 January. As has been mentioned, that is the date when the notorious Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was liberated. This year, the date marks 80 years since that liberation, and it is just as important now as it has been in any year to remember the 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and the millions of other victims of Nazi persecution, along with those who have been victims of genocides since then.

Sadly, 80 years on, antisemitism is at an all-time high, as is anti-Muslim hatred. For that reason, I want to focus on the Srebrenica genocide, which took place in July 1995 during the Bosnian war. Despite the international community pledging after the Holocaust that mass atrocities would never again occur, they have remained a feature of the world since world war two, as we saw in Bosnia just 30 years ago.

While I was working as the constituency agent for the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I studied part time at Lincoln University for a politics degree. One of the units was on the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. When I was fortunate enough to be elected to this House, I become involved in the all-party groups for the western Balkan nations, and was then appointed the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to that region. I have visited Srebrenica on two occasions, and I challenge anyone who visits a site where genocide has taken place to be anything other than moved by the experience. How can such evil be perpetrated? There seems to be no end to man’s inhumanity to man.

The same emotions are stirred when visiting war graves in France, Belgium or elsewhere. In 2012, I was part of a delegation to Gaza. Things were bad there then, but they are much worse now. One of my abiding memories was of visiting the Commonwealth war graves cemetery there. It is small compared to many, but as we are reminded in November each year, the tombstones stand row on row. The local man and his son who cared for the graves—if I remember correctly, the man’s name was Ibrahim—did so much, with as much care as if they were tending to their own family plots. When focusing on the evil that is perpetrated in our world, we must never lose sight of the goodness exemplified by those who, like Ibrahim, show love and care—often, as in that cemetery in Gaza, for those they never knew.

Both of my visits to Srebrenica were led by our former colleague, Colonel Bob Stewart, whose affection for the country and its people was self-evident; we were privileged to witness his interaction with local people. In 1995, there were 8,372 Bosniak Muslim men and boys murdered during the massacre of Srebrenica. Those murders were mainly committed by units of the Bosnian Serb Army of Republika Srpska in what is recognised as the worst crime on European soil since world war two. I understand that the massacre in Srebrenica, a town in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina, was the first legally recognised genocide in Europe since the end of world war two.

Those events followed Bosnia declaring independence from Yugoslavia in 1992, a move that was resisted by the Bosnian Serb population, who wanted to be part of a greater Serbia. Sadly, Bosnian Serbs were prepared to achieve that goal by isolating ethnic groups—their own neighbours—and, if necessary, exterminating them. A campaign of war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide was committed on the non-Serb population of the former Yugoslavia, and the Bosnian war culminated in the death of around 100,000 people and the displacement of more than 2 million men, women and children.

In July 1995, Bosnian Serb troops and paramilitaries descended on the town of Srebrenica and began shelling it. When those troops took the town, they proceeded to separate Bosniak men and boys over the age of 12 from women and younger children. Over the course of several days, more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys were murdered in and around Srebrenica, merely because of their ethnicity. Shockingly, the perpetrators were often former neighbours, classmates and teachers of those they persecuted. They murdered both young and old; I understand that the eldest was 94 years old and the youngest nearly five. They were killed in some of the most brutal and barbaric ways imaginable, and their bodies were bulldozed into mass graves in an attempt to conceal them.

The testimony of survivors is harrowing. There are reports of children being murdered by soldiers with knives, the bodies of elderly men lying on the ground with their eyes gouged out, and the mass rape of women and even children. One can find it very difficult to believe the horrors that men are capable of, and when visiting Srebrenica, one is reminded of the evil that can take place, even in mainland Europe. In fact, it is important that we note that those atrocities did not take place in some faraway land in an age long past, but right here in Europe, on our doorstep, less than three decades ago. Many of the children who witnessed these atrocities at first hand, who saw things that no children should ever see, are adults now with young children of their own—that is how recent this genocide was.

As such, the commemoration of these events should serve as a warning to us all, particularly those in government or in positions of influence, of what can happen here in Europe, which, in the main, in the post-war period, we tend to think of as civilised, safe and secure, particularly compared with many parts of this troubled—and becoming ever more troubled—world.

Holocaust Memorial Day reminds us where prejudice, fear and hatred can lead, particularly if they become normalised and encouraged. The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2025 is “For a better future.” It is only by learning from the past that we can strive for that better future.

Evil can, it seems, enter the hearts and minds of men of all races and creeds. As the Service of Compline, in the Book of Common Prayer, says, we must

“be vigilant, because our adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”

Those are stark words. Sadly, the devil can enter the hearts of people, especially when propaganda and evil leadership are involved. We must never forget the brutality of which man is capable, and it is right that we use parliamentary time to commemorate these horrific events. The atrocities now taking place across the world remind us that we must remain eternally vigilant. The UK’s voice on this matter is important and I am proud that we have contributed, over many generations, to the attempt to bring peace and stability to many troubled parts of the world.

The tragic events of the Holocaust, and of other genocides since then, such as at Srebrenica, must never be forgotten, and we must continue to speak out on this issue if we hope for our children and our grandchildren to have a better future.

Local Government Reorganisation

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend makes a very good case for reorganisation, and I agree with him.

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

As the Minister will know, in Lincolnshire, where there are two unitaries as well as the county council, the three top-tier authorities have agreed on a package to go unitary. There are complications, because there is a ward boundary review going on in north-east Lincolnshire at the moment. Would the Minister consider cancelling that, as it seems a complete waste of resources? In the county council area, which covers roughly two thirds of the county, a mayoral election is taking place, and a new combined authority is being established this May. Given that, does he agree that it is important that elections go ahead to give the county a new mandate for what lies ahead?

[Jim McMahon]

From our perspective, we cannot allow the cancellation—or postponement, I would say—of elections to be driven by any political views. We are clear that this is an administrative process and it is about whether areas satisfy criteria that meet our devolution priority programme. Where areas are already in the programme because they have mayoral elections this year, it would be reasonable of me to say that we would need to see where the benefit is of elections being cancelled, given that devolution is taking place. But as I have said, we have only just received the proposals. We are taking time to review them, and we will make sure that is done in a fair way.

English Devolution

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We are absolutely committed to working in partnership, giving capacity and time to ensure that those local nuances are reflected in whatever follows.

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

The Minister has just concluded the Greater Lincolnshire devolution deal, which I welcome and support. As he will know, there were two unitary authorities in the north of the county and the rest is a two-tier system. Do the Government expect that two-tier area to come forward with proposals for unitary authorities? If so, may I remind him that the sparsity factor plays with Lincolnshire, and the target of 500,000 is far too high. Prior to 1974 there were three county councils to cover the whole county.

[Jim McMahon]

We do not have a proposal for reorganisation for Greater Lincolnshire, but that is not to say that conversations are not taking place locally about making a representation to Government. When that letter goes out later today, we expect areas that are currently not on our list will come forward on that basis. In the end, it is for local areas to determine what submission they want to make, but in terms of sparsity and having an anchor that makes sense, I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Building Homes

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

He is always slightly out of my eyesight, but I call Martin Vickers.

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

In reply to an earlier question, the Minister spoke of streamlining the planning system. In my 26 years as a councillor and 14 years in this House, I have heard successive Governments talk about streamlining the planning system, by which they mean taking more central control. It results in frustration among ward councillors, frustration among their constituents who feel that they are not able to participate properly and frustration for Government because, in effect, they fail to meet their targets, as I am sure this Government will. Does the Minister accept that one way of involving local communities, other than in the local plan, is to allow local councillors to work closer with their communities and have some influence over individual major developments? In that case, we would have better quality and the Government would meet their targets a lot quicker.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Where appropriate, local councillors, with advice from trained planning officers, should of course have a say on major outline applications. Some of the proposals we are asking for views on—we are asking for nothing more than views at an early stage, on a working paper—are about ensuring we get planning officers taking the right decisions using their expertise, with members focused on the largest and most controversial developments. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has ever sat on a planning committee, but can he say, hand on heart, that every reserved matters application, as technical as some of them can be, should come to full planning committee? We think there are ways to streamline the system that do not involve the removal of local control and that adhere to the plan-led system philosophy that we are taking forward and value very much.

Planning Committees: Reform

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right. These are sensible, proportionate changes to streamline the delivery of housing across the country—housing that we desperately need. If the Conservatives want to put their heads in the sand and resist reform in this area, all they will be doing is digging their long-term electoral grave. The people of this country want good homes and good neighbourhoods to live in. That is what we are determined to bring forward.

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

The Minister speaks of mandatory training for councillors, but it has been tried before. It sounds like an effort by central Government to make councillors think more like planning officers, rather than be representatives of their local community. Those of us who have served on local authorities know full well that there are frequently recommendations from officers to approve major schemes, which, in the wider context—infrastructure, schools, GPs and so on—planning committees have refused. Can the Minister assure us that they would still have discretion to turn down applications, even if the recommendation from officers was to approve them?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to engage with the proposals set out in the working paper. Nothing is definite, nothing is finite; these are our initial views, which we want to test, and I welcome his contribution to that. We are saying in particular that, yes, elected members should be taking decisions on the most significant and controversial applications, but for minor reserved matters and technical issues on which skilled local planning officers can come forward and make decisions, that is helpful and appropriate to streamline the planning system locally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

The forthcoming English devolution White Paper will set out clearly our top-to-bottom redistribution of power, and how we include and engage people at a local level to ensure that they can actively participate in the development of their areas.

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

There is growing concern among constituents that planning decisions are being swept aside because of the Government’s new planning reforms. What assurance can the Minister give that there will be meaningful engagement between constituents and their local planning authority, and that decisions will be respected?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, the best way to shape development in any given area is to have an up-to-date local plan in place. Where such plans are not in place, local authorities leave themselves open to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and to development via appeal, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his local authority has an up-to-date plan in place. That is the best way for residents to have control. We want more resident engagement upstream in those local plans.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

T6.   Ministers have acknowledged in reply to earlier questions that they recognise the financial pressures being placed on local authorities, especially in connection with children’s services and adult social care. Whatever may or may not be in the Budget, can the Minister reassure council tax payers that they will not bear an undue burden as a result of any changes?

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

This Government are acutely aware of the impact of the cost of living crisis on working people, and that is firmly in our sights as we approach the spending review this week, but we will have to repair a fair amount of the system, not just the finances. The early warning audit has been left shattered following 14 years of mismanagement, and single-year settlements have left councils not knowing from one year to the next how much money they have to spend, so we will have to introduce multi-year settlements. There is a great deal of work to do, and we cannot repair 14 years of damage in three months, but we are well on the way to it.

Postal Voting at General Elections

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that all those who are entrusted with the discharge and delivery of our elections—our police, our medical certifiers and others clearly play a part—should play an active and engaged part. It should not be an option to opt out; this should just be an accepted part of the job. I will mention Northern Ireland specifically in a moment or so.

I want to give the House some facts provided by the Royal Mail, which I think are of interest to put this issue into scope and scale. At the general election just gone, on 4 July, the Royal Mail delivered more postal votes and candidate mail than in any previous general election. Postal votes were up by 50% and candidate literature was up by 30% in comparison with 2019—and that was just your election literature, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Royal Mail delivered 50.8 million poll cards, 7.26 million postal votes and 184 million candidate leaflets. It did sweeps of all its 37 mail centres and 1,200 delivery offices to ensure that all the postal votes that had gone into the system were delivered to the counts, to make sure that those votes were counted. On election day itself, 70,000 postal votes were handled by the Royal Mail across the United Kingdom to be delivered. That is a huge number.

This is the challenge that I set for the Minister. I am not looking for the de facto answer today, but I would like an assurance that it is on the radar and people are thinking about it. We know full well that the Royal Mail is going through a period of change. I think we feel this particularly acutely in rural areas. It is by definition, because of email and everything else, handling fewer and fewer letters, and staff numbers reflect that. One of the joys of the 2015 general election, as far as Royal Mail was concerned, was the fact that we still had the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and it could structure additional recruitment to deliver the demand—and that demand was far less than that which prevails at the moment—because it knew with certainty when the general election was going to be held. The snap elections of 2017 and 2019, and the perhaps earlier than expected 2024 election, caught the Royal Mail napping, because it had to put on a sudden spurt to recruit people to deliver all the pieces of paper that needed to be delivered. In the absence of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, that issue will remain with us.

I made the point to the Royal Mail that in fact only one election was controlled by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Every other election had always been at the whim or the prerogative of the Prime Minister when the House was dissolved. However, in comparing previous with future general elections, we must consider the changes in volume that the Royal Mail is handling.

I mentioned rural areas. I am still awaiting the delivery of election address 2; I am sure that I had exciting words to say, but it never came through my letterbox. Last week, a wonderful bundle of 12 pieces of mail was delivered in the one-delivery-a-week service that my part of North Dorset is currently experiencing.

There will not be a Member of Parliament, urban or rural—though this applies particularly to rural areas—who has not had constituents contacting them after the general election to say that they did not receive their postal vote in time or could not get it back in time. That takes me to a point that requires possibly secondary legislation and certainly some thought: the cut-off point between the close of nominations and everything going to the printer, and everything getting bundled up in the postal vote packs at the same time as people are trying to update the register, check that polling stations are available, recruit polling clerks and so on. It is all incredibly tight. It was incredibly tight this year, but the system just about coped. I am anxious to future-proof, given the increased demand that I mentioned at the start of my remarks.

The Government could go back to the old system, thus putting the postal vote genie back in the bottle, with the tight criteria that used to prevail. I do not believe that that will happen, and I do not think it would be desirable. We could introduce digital voting for overseas voters, but that has the potential for fraud and hacking. It also opens up the Pandora’s box of digital voting for everyone in the United Kingdom.

There is no easy solution. There is the tightness of the timetables and the capacity of the Royal Mail—not its good will; the Royal Mail is honoured and delighted to have the contract that the Government give it. David Gold and his team were conscious of the pivotal role that their organisation played in delivering the general election, and always prepared to say so up front.

The Electoral Commission noted, in a briefing that I received today in advance of the debate, for which I am grateful, that several people experienced problems in voting by post, such as delays in receiving their postal ballot. Its research shows that the vast majority of postal votes were delivered promptly, and that there were no widespread or systemic issues. However, there were voters in the UK and abroad who could not vote because of the late arrival of postal votes. Problems were prevalent in Scotland, which gave us a lot of concern because the election coincided with the school holidays there and in Northern Ireland, which created additional pressure for the postal voting system. I look forward, as I am sure that the Minister does, to the Electoral Commission’s report on postal voting, which will be published next month.

Something needs to be done to give us all confidence that the result of the general election in 2029—probably—will have the same legitimacy as those held in 2024, 2019 and previously. There will be some challenges. Although our constituents are not forced to vote, they have a legitimate expectation, as part of their contract with the state, that their vote will be counted if it has been cast.

I do not have the answers for the Minister. That is her job, not mine. She knows that the system needs to be reliable, robust, easy, seamless and trusted, because all of us, irrespective of party or geography, are united in being motivated by one guiding principle: the result, whatever it may be, has to command authority through the electorate’s trust in it. If it does not—if people can cry foul, say that the system is loaded against them, or that it is too creaky and analogue for a digital age—then faith in our democratic system erodes. When faith erodes, participation is likely to decline; that is when extremes always flourish, and I know that His Majesty’s Government and the Minister will not want that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. For what it is worth, having been the Minister over the election period, I would be happy to do anything I can with her—through conversations, et cetera—to ensure that we get this right.

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

My hon. Friend is making an interesting and powerful speech. He referred to the number of items delivered by Royal Mail, and said that it is going through a period of change. Do we need to look for alternatives to Royal Mail because of the major changes that are taking place?

[Simon Hoare]

If my hon. Friend means alternatives to feet on the pavements, then very possibly. The benefit of using the Royal Mail is that culturally it is aware of the seriousness of the task it is asked to discharge, and it has a very good heritage of doing so. I would not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I sympathise with the Royal Mail because, in essence, it is given five weeks to recruit hundreds of people across the country to learn the rounds and deliver stuff. Those people also have to be vetted to ensure that they are not politically partial, so that my leaflets do not end up in a hedge while everybody else’s end up delivered through people’s letterboxes. Those are important issues.

There is a tendency to rush off into the commercial sector, but I would not do that. Of course, there are ways to ensure vetting, but the authority and imprimatur of Royal Mail puts it at a distinct advantage. I know that it wants to continue to undertake the task, not just because the contract it has with the Minister and the Department is commercially attractive, but because it sees itself as being part of the democratic fabric and network that sustains the elections.

I could have waited until 2027 to raise these issues, but then the Minister could have said, “The hon. Member for North Dorset makes some very valid points, but he will know that there is no time in the legislative timetable to address them. We will just have to try and muddle through.” The Minister has at least a few years to talk to the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Cabinet Committee, her Whip and the Leader of the House, and assess whether tweaks and changes need to be made to election cut-off dates and timetables. I will not labour the point any further, but the electoral process needs to be robust and the outcomes must be trusted by all our citizens, irrespective of whether they voted or how they voted.