Business of the House
Martin Vickers Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
We have a £33 billion defence budget, which is the biggest in the European Union and the second largest in NATO. I think we should be proud of the fact that we are spending in excess of 2% of our GDP on defence—we are one of only four NATO countries to do so. My hon. Friend will be aware that at the NATO summit we encouraged other countries to enter the new commitment to increase their defence spending in future. We had the Prime Minister’s recent statement on the NATO summit, so I do not think we need to debate all that again immediately. There will be regular opportunities in the course of many debates to raise such issues and the vital importance of defence spending.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Government have understandably indicated that, if the Scottish people vote no, proposals will be introduced for further devolution to the Scottish Parliament within days. That will increase the concerns of my constituents and others in England that we are being treated less favourably than people in other parts of the UK. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that an early statement will be made on how the Government intend to meet the aspirations of the English people and devolve further powers within England?
Mr Hague
The decision next week is a matter for the people of Scotland, but its implications will be felt across the UK. We have a good record of devolving powers, as we have to Wales or, through the Localism Act 2011, to local authorities. We are a flexible and adaptable Union—that is one of the great strengths of the United Kingdom. That must take account of the people of England as well. As proposals come forward on Scotland over the coming months, there must be every opportunity to debate the implications for England.
Summer Adjournment
Martin Vickers Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I want to take the opportunity provided by this debate to reflect on two cases involving constituents of mine that have caused me to ask, yet again, what can be done to relieve individuals and businesses of petty regulation and, more particularly, the powers given to officials to interpret the vast amount of legislation and regulation that comes forth from Government, the European Union, local authorities and the ever-increasing agencies of Government. The two cases are also linked to an inquiry being carried out by the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, into the accountability of executive agencies and quangos, or non-departmental public bodies.
Mr Gary Rockhill of the Dovedale hotel in Cleethorpes has been having a little local difficulty with the planning department of North East Lincolnshire council. It is not uncommon for small businesses to cross swords with the planners and I make no particular comment as to the rights and wrongs of the case. I merely want to address the powers available to enforce regulations.
When Mr Rockhill attended my surgery, he outlined the problems he is encountering, one of which related to the display of an A-board outside his premises. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those who have served as councillors, will, I am sure, be familiar with these advertising displays, which seem to be so disliked by planners. Of course, councils should have powers to prevent A-boards from blocking the pathway if they are causing problems for pedestrians, the disabled, those with pushchairs and the like, but my question is: should those powers be as extensive as they are?
On 9 April, Mr Rockhill received a letter form Cofely, the council’s partner organisation, which enforces and administers the council’s planning functions. It stated:
“I am writing to you regarding the above property and the illegal advertisement you have placed on St Peters Avenue, Cleethorpes.
In connection with this investigation, the Council would like to invite you to a formal interview under caution at the Council offices. The caution states”—
these are familiar words—
“‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be taken in evidence.’ The reason for the interview under caution is that the Council suspects that an offence has been committed, and before any questions are put to you about your involvement or suspected involvement in that offence, the caution should be given so that your answers or silence may be given in Court in evidence.”
I remind Members that this is in connection not with burglary, drunken driving or any of the more serious offences, but with the alleged nuisance and inconvenience caused by displaying an A-board.
On behalf of Mr Rockhill, I wrote to the council’s chief executive:
“It would seem that sending out letters of this kind is, to say the least, heavy-handed. This is not a serious crime but a case of placing an A-board on the pavement…I am well aware that these are a potential hazard in certain circumstances though I have to say that, in my experience, the potential hazards seem to be in the eyes of officials rather than in reality. I would be very happy to walk around Cleethorpes with you when it is very easy to come across scores of examples of highway authority signs, lighting columns, litter bins etc that are a far more serious obstruction than Mr Rockhill’s signs.”
As I anticipated, I received a reply explaining that the council was acting perfectly properly, and in line with current legislation. Of course, councils need powers to deal with violations that cause inconvenience to those they serve, but are we seriously saying that we need such a heavy-handed approach? My question for the Minister is: should a Government who are both Liberal and Conservative allow such legislation to remain on the statute book?
My second example relates to another constituent, Mr Ernest Cromer. On Friday 20 June, Mr Cromer featured in Richard Littlejohn’s column in the Daily Mail, and he visited my constituency surgery on the same day. Mr Cromer is a former trawler skipper and, as Mr Littlejohn’s article states, he
“retains his love of the sea and fishing.”
The article continues:
“His daily exercise consists of walking 60 yards out into the”—
Humber—
“estuary to inspect his net tethered on the mud-flats to catch fish on the incoming tide. It’s a method used by locals on the banks between Grimsby and Cleethorpes for generations. On a good day, he might catch two Dover sole... Some days the net is empty. But if he catches more than a couple of fish, he gives them away to friends and neighbours.”
In no way can his operation be described as a commercial one. It does not sound as though it is akin to some foreign trawler moving in and hoovering up tons of fish. Do we really need the vast array of officialdom to protect us or, indeed, the natural resources of our seas and coastlines? On the 21 June, Mr Cromer’s story was covered by the Grimsby Telegraph, with comments from both me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) in his support.
Immediately following Mr Cromer’s visit to my surgery, I wrote to the North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority to express my concerns at yet another example of officialdom acting in a high and heavy-handed manner. A few days later, I received a reply from the authority’s chief officer, who I am sure has acted entirely properly and diligently in busily interpreting the vast array of legislation, rules and regulations that nowadays appear to be necessary to protect the natural environment. The first paragraph of his reply expressed his concerns:
“I would like to register my disappointment”
about
“public statements by your office, for your constituent’s position.”
Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I make no apology for defending my constituent’s position: I regard it as a fundamental part of the role of a Member of Parliament to defend constituents against the might of the bureaucracy.
The letter states that the statutory authority for the NEIFCA is the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, as updated by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The particular regulation covering Mr Cromer’s activities was first made in the early 1990s under section 5 of the 1966 Act and section 37(2) of the Salmon Act 1986. Apparently, there are 22 regulations in force in NEIFCA’s area to protect species including salmon, sea trout and eels. I do not doubt that serious thought went into making the regulations, and that there was a need to protect some species from illegal activity, but I cannot help asking why these species are still in existence when the Mr Cromers of this world have been doing for centuries exactly what Mr Cromer is now doing. If he used modern methods—as I mentioned, they can hoover up a vast tonnage of fish—I could understand it, but is it really being suggested that a couple of fish in his net every day will cause such major problems?
As an aside, the same applies to the vast array of industry on the Humber bank and elsewhere. From the 1950s onwards, vast swaths of land on the south bank of the Humber have been developed for industry—power stations, oil refineries and other heavy industry. That was done without all the environmental regulations that now apply to protect migratory birds, yet the birds are still there. The birds are now in need of protection that delays investment and the associated jobs. I have asked representatives from Natural England and other organisations why the birds survived the previous industrial development. As yet, I have received no convincing reply. I assume the answer is that nature adapts.
I do not believe that we should abandon the regulations that protect the environment across the board, but that they should be commensurate with the problem that they seek to address and that some accountability for the officials who implement them is essential. In the case of the IFCA, there is an advisory council, but how closely it monitors the activities of its officials is open to doubt.
The NEIFCA pointed out in its reply to me that the original article was inaccurate in linking the story to Europe. I am always keen to blame the EU and the link in the article was implied rather than factual. It did not blame a specific regulation or directive for Mr Cromer’s plight, but drew attention to the fact that the destruction of the fishing industry is linked to our EU membership, which is quite right. Admittedly, the Icelandic cod wars played a part in the demise of the industry, but the hostility to the local community of what was the Common Market and is now the EU remains. I do not care whether it is the EU or successive British Governments that have introduced the regulations, but there needs to be discretion in the way they are implemented.
To return to the letter that I received from the NEIFCA, it states that
“unfortunately and hopefully as you will appreciate, we cannot make one rule for one and not another and however well meaning, to allow a specific exception for Mr Cromer would in my view place the Humber Estuary at significant risk of environmental impact, resulting in completely unregulated and uncontrollable levels of activity, killing sensitive migratory fish and eel species…and placing the general public at risk.”
Really?
To conclude, we hear frequently that the prosecuting authorities, sometimes in serious criminal cases, have decided against prosecution because it is not in the public interest, yet for poor Mr Cromer, who is accused of catching a couple of fish each day, there can be no exception and no discretion. As the NEIFCA states,
“as you will hopefully understand, this specific byelaw regulation is in place for very sound reasons and my officers provide advice and enforce their provisions in a very even-handed and fair manner right across the board.”
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to differ.
Business of the House
Martin Vickers Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I have every sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I am fortunate enough to have, and to live in, a constituency that is predominantly in the countryside, and I very much appreciate what a privilege that is. It is something that is not necessarily available to people in cities and urban areas, and we should give them access to it. I am very engaged with what he describes about the reading of poetry. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about ways in which his admirable objective can be pursued.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
There is concern among residents in my constituency that the two hospitals that serve it, based in Grimsby and Scunthorpe, are having to share more and more services and the different specialisms at each location. May we have a debate to explore the reasons for this? Much of it is driven by medical professionals, which is quite right, but, as the Leader of the House will appreciate, it causes considerable concern to constituents.
Mr Lansley
I completely understand what my hon. Friend says. As he says, this is, and should be, clinically led, and it should be evidence-based. He will recall, no doubt, that this has been happening over the years; it is a steady process, not something that started under this coalition Government. It is sometimes the necessary consequence of securing access to sufficient staff with sufficient expertise and sufficient regular practice to be able to provide a 24/7 service; we need a 24/7 NHS. It should not, however, lead to a loss of access that has a damaging impact on outcomes; it should be outcomes-based. In relation to his local area, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond specifically to his point.
Business of the House
Martin Vickers Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
It will not be long before I report to the House on the performance as regards parliamentary questions in the previous Session. I hope to do that before the summer recess. That may give Members an opportunity to raise points on the issue, not least here at business questions. On the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman raised with the Home Office, it sounds like the named day requirement was met with a holding answer. I will ask the Department when it can give him the substantive answer for which he is looking.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I have been a long-time advocate for elected mayors, and I was pleased to hear the Chancellor’s comments on the subject in his speech earlier this week. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how the Government intend to move forward with that proposal, which would make a significant contribution to delivering our long-term economic plan?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend and I share the view that elected mayors can make a significant and positive difference; we have seen that, not least in London. The legislation is in place to enable this to happen; the question is whether the political will and public consent are available to push it forward.
Business of the House
Martin Vickers Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
On the contrary, the Government are taking action and indeed the Queen’s Speech included measures that—as the hon. Gentleman may have seen—will come forward in the Infrastructure Bill, which will further support house building in this country. However, 445,000 new houses have been built under this Government. We are recovering from the position we were left by the last Government, where house building fell off a cliff in the latter part of 2008. A good illustration of that recovery is that last year there were 216,000 new planning permissions.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
On Tuesday, the Department for Transport issued a consultation document about the TransPennine Express rail franchise, which contained a proposal to end through-services between Cleethorpes and Manchester. It also included repeated references to the importance of good rail services to economic growth. As the Government have identified northern Lincolnshire and the Humber area as a key economic growth area, will the Leader of the House find time to have a debate on this issue?
Mr Lansley
I cannot promise a debate immediately, but in order to be as helpful as I can to my hon. Friend, and recognising the importance of the points he raises, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, our hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), to reply. There is considerable detail in what he might be able to say, and I want him to be able to provide that to my hon. Friend.
Business of the House
Martin Vickers Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman bases his proposition on the idea that we will prorogue early, and we have no intention of proroguing unless and until all the business that requires to be transacted in this Session has been completed.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I recently held a public meeting in my constituency so that the Environment Agency could update residents and businesses on the floods that followed the tidal surge in December. The agency is now making final plans to be submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Will the Leader of the House assure me that there will be a statement at that point?
Mr Lansley
Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised the subject with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House in the recent pre-recess Adjournment debate. DEFRA Ministers will be continuing to develop further investment in flood defences, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will update the House both on that and on the lessons learned exercises as soon as he can.
Easter Adjournment
Martin Vickers Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to speak in these end-of-term Adjournment debates. They provide a fascinating insight not only into the many parts of the country that are represented here, but into the characters of other hon. Members.
I will raise two issues that are important to my constituency. Interestingly, two of the speeches that we have heard have spoken of community identity, service and pride. The first issue that I will touch on relates to community identity. I want to talk about unintended bias in the broadcast media and, in particular, on the BBC. Although it is unintended, such bias results in the build-up of an anti-Government feeling. That could happen to any Government. The sequence of events that I will outline is but one example.
On the night of 5 December, my constituency was severely affected by the tidal surge that flooded hundreds of homes and businesses on the Humber estuary. At the outset, the coverage on BBC Radio Humberside and the regional TV news programme, “Look North”, was excellent. However, on national TV, there was nothing. Nelson Mandela died on the same evening. Mr Mandela was a great world statesman, so it was right and to be expected that his death would lead the news bulletins and that there would be special programmes covering his contribution to the fight against apartheid. However, almost nothing else was reported. The impression that was given to my constituents was that they did not matter.
The tidal surge was the largest ever recorded—larger than the devastating events of February 1953. As I have said, hundreds of homes were flooded and businesses were forced to close, including the hotel in Barton-upon-Humber where, less than a year earlier, Government agencies led by the Environment Agency, local authorities, the emergency services and others, including the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), gathered to mark the anniversary of the 1953 tragedy and to report on all that had been done to prevent a repeat of that year’s flooding. The irony is that that very hotel was flooded on the night of 5 December and has been forced into liquidation. Part of the port of Immingham, the largest port in the country, was also put out of action.
North Lincolnshire council responded very well, as did the Environment Agency, the emergency services and voluntary and community groups. Within 36 hours of the surge, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was in Immingham to receive reports from me and all the agencies involved. He had previously visited Boston and he went on to Hull. Did that figure in the main BBC news that evening? Not at all.
My constituents were given the impression that they had been ignored. I was asked, “Where were the Government? What have they been doing to help us?” I was able to reply, “Actually, a Cabinet member was here within 36 hours.” There followed numerous occasions on which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and I questioned Ministers and met the Secretary of State. I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate in which the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) gave a full outline of the Government’s response.
A few weeks later, floods hit the south of England. It was headline news for days on end. News editors at the BBC would no doubt say that that was because Christmas was approaching and news was a little thin on the ground, but it strengthened the view among my constituents that a north-south divide exists. They said, “Only when the Thames valley is flooded do Ministers take any notice.” That is untrue because, as I have said, the Secretary of State was in my constituency within 36 hours. However, if the BBC does not report it, it passes almost unnoticed and the entirely incorrect impression is given that one part of the country is more important than another. If the BBC management want proof of the local feeling, I suggest that they rerun the edition of “Question Time” from a few weeks ago, when it was broadcast from Scunthorpe. The first question expressed the sentiments that I have set out.
I am not just being charitable in describing it as an unintended bias; I regard myself as a critical friend of the BBC. Regional and local reporters are, in the main, well qualified to express the views of local people. Dave Burns, who presents a daily programme on Radio Humberside, is a local institution. Viewers of the edition of “Look North” that is put out in east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire will know that Levy and Hudson figure alongside Morecambe and Wise and the two Ronnies as entertainers. They are very much a part of the local community. However, generally speaking, the BBC has a very London-centric, metropolitan culture.
The flooding coverage is just one example of how news coverage can have a significant impact on political opinion. More thought is clearly required of organisations such as the BBC that are charged with the responsibility of being politically neutral.
The other topic that I would like to raise is local, although it has a national perspective. North Lincolnshire council is Conservative-controlled and North East Lincolnshire council, the other authority that serves my constituency, is Labour-controlled. I suppose that Members may well expect that I would favour the former, but I am always reluctant to criticise either authority publicly. As Members will appreciate, we have to work with the councils that serve our area, irrespective of their political colour. However, North East Lincolnshire council has recently made a decision that I think is particularly mean-spirited.
Police specials have traditionally been granted a discount on their council tax, but North East Lincolnshire council has decided to abandon that benefit for a saving of just £9,600. In contrast, North Lincolnshire council has retained it. The change comes at a time when the excellent local police commissioner for the Humberside force is embarking on a recruiting campaign for 100 additional police specials. I wish to send the message that given the small amount of money involved, North East Lincolnshire council should rethink.
Business of the House
Martin Vickers Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I will of course do that. I am pleased to be able to help the hon. Gentleman in relation to his constituent. In recent years, like many hon. Members, I have appreciated the recognition, through the Bomber Command medal and the Bomber Command memorial here in London, and in other ways, of the courage displayed by those who were part of Bomber Command in the second world war.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
North East Lincolnshire council is proposing to close the youth centres under its control, which—needless to say—is extremely unpopular. The overwhelming local view is that the council is not using its resources wisely. This highlights the limited scope local authorities have in determining their budgets, because most of the services they have to provide are statutory. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate either on giving councils more freedom or on reducing the amount of statutory provision?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will recall the debate on the local government finance settlement, during which it was illustrated that although every bit of the public sector, including local government, must do its bit to pay off the budget deficit we inherited from the previous Government, there are particular ways in which all administrations can focus on cutting waste and making savings in order to protect front-line services. Of course, we are enabling local authorities to keep council tax down. In particular, our “50 ways to save” document contains practical tips and guidance on making sensible savings and highlights how councillors can challenge officers to deliver savings and how taxpayers can challenge councils. I hope that he, along with his constituents, will be challenging his council to protect the front-line services that are most important to them.
Business of the House
Martin Vickers Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman that. I recognise the problem; obviously, I had a health interest over many years, and on a number of occasions I remember neurologists describing some of the difficulties to me, and I think that some of those doctors have been at the forefront of making the case to some of the sporting bodies that the hon. Gentleman talks about. If I may, I will refer the issue to my friends at both the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to see if they can facilitate a response to his points.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
On Monday, I attended the annual Westminster gathering of the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions, and heard both of its optimism for the future and its concerns. Leisure parks and piers are vital ingredients of our seaside resorts, and the best of them can be found in Cleethorpes. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate to consider how best the Government can encourage and support our seaside towns?
Mr Lansley
I am very glad that those representing leisure parks and piers were able to be here at Westminster. Those who watch our proceedings in the House sometimes might not realise the sheer volume and extent of interest in what goes on in the Palace of Westminster far beyond the debates in the Chamber. My hon. Friend is right about the issues for coastal towns, which he understands so well. That is why we created the coastal communities fund of £23.7 million in 2012 to help coastal towns and villages provide training and employment opportunities. In August last year, we announced that that fund would be increased to £29 million, and that it would be extended until 2016. That in itself is a manifestation of the Government’s support for the issues that my hon. Friend raises.
Business of the House
Martin Vickers Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Government have recognised the importance of the Humber estuary for the renewable energy sector and in December the Transport Secretary approved a new port facility and energy park. However, two petitions have objected to the proposal, triggering a special parliamentary procedure. To make sure that we get the much needed jobs and growth, can the Leader of the House ensure that the process makes progress as quickly as possible?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend once again shows his consistent pursuit of the interests of his constituents, and I completely understand that. He will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the project before all the statutory processes have been completed. Now that the petitioning period has ended, the matter is in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means and his counterpart in the Lords, and I am sure that they will give it consideration in a timely manner.