English Devolution
Martin Vickers Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
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(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
City and Town Centres: Regeneration
Martin Vickers Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. It is highly unlikely that we will fit everyone in, as we have a long list of speakers. I will impose a time limit if necessary, but initially I ask Members to limit themselves to three minutes. Even then, I fear that people near the bottom of the list will probably not be called. Please help by keeping interventions to a minimum.
Several hon. Members rose—
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. Our first two Back-Bench speeches have been slightly over the three-minute mark, but Rachel Hopkins will now demonstrate how to keep to time.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers —challenge duly accepted.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on securing this debate and on her brilliant opening speech. Hon. Members have talked about the town and city centres at the heart of our local communities. Unfortunately, under the previous Government, they were overlooked, underfunded and undervalued for too long. That has manifested itself in empty retail spaces, boarded-up shops and the loss of banks and local independent businesses in our communities.
The British Retail Consortium has found that 6,000 shops have been lost in the past five years. In many cases, overhead costs such as business rates had a material impact on the decision to close, so I welcome Labour’s plans to tackle the issue head on and reform the business rates system, levelling the playing field between the high street and the online giants, better incentivising local investment, tackling empty properties and supporting entrepreneurship.
Supporting our small businesses in Luton South and South Bedfordshire is of great personal interest to me. I have just launched my fourth annual small business awards, for which residents can nominate their favourite local business so we can support and promote business owners across the constituency. Small businesses are the backbone of our communities and deserve to be celebrated.
We must not underestimate the role of our local authorities in the regeneration in our towns and cities and the creation of place. The Local Government Association, of which I am proud to be a vice-president, has emphasised the importance of local councils in leading projects in partnership with residents, local businesses and other anchor institutions. They are best qualified to identify what their community needs. The LGA has also highlighted the need for councils to have access to one pot of long-term funding, alongside the resources and flexibility from central Government to work with local partners. That will allow councils to invest in local infrastructure and support local growth in a way that recognises the unique challenges and opportunities facing each place.
I am glad that our Labour Government recognise the vital role that local authorities play and are committed to ensuring that they have the tools they need to effectively develop and implement plans to support their high streets. We are seeing evidence of that regeneration in Luton: significant work is already under way to stimulate economic growth within the town centre, including the development of The Stage, a multi-purpose facility in Bute Street, under the levelling-up fund.
It would be remiss of me to highlight the brilliant regeneration going on in Luton without mentioning our fantastic football club, Luton Town. I was lucky enough to watch the wonderful match at Wembley in May last year when we gained promotion; ever the optimist, I hope to see us back there. Our Premier League promotion meant that people from all over the country came to Luton to see exactly what we are about. We are a beautifully diverse town with a thriving cultural scene and a sense of community. The redevelopment of the Power Court area, including the relocation of Luton Town’s stadium, is a defining milestone in this mission. The plans for a larger-capacity football stadium, as well as retail space, a hotel and a music venue, mark a regenerative era for the town and represent the increasing ambitions that Luton holds for its football team.
With exciting regeneration plans under way in Luton, an accessible station and a connected local transport network have never been more necessary. I will continue to campaign for an access-for-all lift at Luton station and a complete regeneration of the station itself—but that is a debate for another time.
I am glad to say that the regeneration and improved sustainability of our town and city centres, which were once an afterthought, are now a primary focus for our new Government as we work to deliver economic growth and raise living standards across the country.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
That speech lasted for four minutes, so we are getting better. Jim Shannon will take only three.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
In order to try to get most people in, I will now impose a fixed three-minute time limit on speeches. I call Darren Paffey.
Several hon. Members rose—
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. We have three more speakers, so would they take two minutes each? I call Amanda Martin.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this debate and raising compulsory purchase orders and auctions, which I know will be welcome in my city.
Portsmouth is a proud city of heritage, the Royal Navy and development, but so much of that is in the south. In my constituency of Portsmouth North, there are forgotten high streets—Cosham, North End and the London Road that runs through the centre, none of which have received high street funding and all of which are in desperate need of regeneration. My constituents write to me to complain of high streets where bookies, vape shops and massage parlours proliferate, where pubs are boarded up, and where there are no quality businesses or family-friendly spaces.
What do we need to do? We need solutions. We need a holistic, creative approach to place making and regeneration that includes the voices of the community and develops the public realm into useful and beautiful spaces. We should not shy away from expecting where we live to benefit our lives and wellbeing. Building up capacity in local authority planning is crucial.
Where excessive retail or office space leads to vacant shops, that creates a feeling of decline. With cross-Government co-operation and support for local authorities, we could repurpose those buildings, providing the new primary—[Interruption.]
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for calling this debate. It is incredibly important and she is proving herself a powerful advocate for her constituents.
One issue we contend with is the inheritance from the previous Government. In this area, like so many others, it is clear that they were a dismal failure. Over 14 long years, sometimes supported by our Liberal Democrat colleagues, 420,000 traditional retail jobs were lost and 10,000 retail stores closed their doors. Macclesfield has been no stranger to that. Residents know of the long depressing decline of “Mac” town centre, with empty shops along Mill Street.
My campaign office had to move because, under the parliamentary budget, we could not afford the rent and business rates. There is also a huge empty building where Marks and Spencer was, because out-of-town retail parks were approved, going over the heads of local councils and against the wishes of local councillors. Those are damaging the vitality of our town centres. We do have phenomenal businesses in Macclesfield, and we have the Treacle Market, which is famous in the region.
There is a debate as to whether a bid would be right for our town, but if we are serious about supporting our town centres, we need to reform business rates; we need greater devolution in Cheshire; we need to back Great British Energy to reduce energy costs for businesses; we need to deal with the issue of empty shops—I like the strategy idea mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North—we need to exploit housing opportunities, so that we have the right mix in our town centres; and we need to improve connectivity. In Macclesfield, we have seen a huge decline in bus links to our outlying villages, and we need to restore that.
I am therefore glad to see that the Government are moving on these issues. I will be backing local businesses in my constituency by using them, and, down here, by advocating for the tax, devolution and investment changes that they need to help revive our high streets and town centres.
Amanda Martin
Does the hon. Lady agree that we need some focused solutions? She has talked about holistic approaches, about the changes in our high streets and about how we need them for communities. That could be for new GP surgeries, for nurseries—whether private or local authority—for pop-up markets, which we have heard about, for art studios, or for facilities that we need, such as baby changing and public toilets. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in order to do that, we need to reform business rates and ensure our local authorities’ planning departments have the capacity to look at those changes? Does she agree that we need cross-Government working, including with the Home Office to make our streets safe, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support local authorities and update planning systems—
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. I think you are trying to have the 30 seconds you lost. Interventions should be much shorter.
Vikki Slade
I will come to business rates later, and I absolutely agree that meanwhile use is important.
The out-of-town shopping centre was such a catastrophe because it was cost-effective for major retailers to go there as they did not need to navigate the town centre traffic, there was no need to maintain historic or awkward buildings—the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) spoke about the difficulties with his Marks and Spencer—and customers and staff could be given free parking. We are seeing similar mistakes in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole: low-cost supermarkets are buying up seemingly easy plots on the edge of town, forcing everyone into their cars to visit, rather than investing in underused or empty awkward town centre units. Central Government might be able to invest in them in order to drive people into town.