Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

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.

Christianity in Society

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Thursday 30th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I entirely agree. There is a reluctance among the public to be open about their faith because they genuinely fear potential repercussions.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend was talking about the way that Church leaders speak up. I remember asking for a meeting of MPs with the Bishop of Lincoln, and at the top of a long list of subjects he wanted to talk to us about was the widening of the A15. I just wonder whether our Churches—whether we are talking about Catholics or bishops—should concentrate more on talking about spirituality. Although Christians might be in a minority in this country, people of faith are still in a very big majority—that includes Muslims, Hindus and many others. Does my hon. Friend agree that we want to hear more from our bishops about the deep value and well of spirituality, in addition to all the good causes they talk about, which are perfectly valuable in themselves?

[Martin Vickers]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I can recall many of those meetings from when I acted as his constituency agent in years gone by, and it would have been rather nice had they concentrated on spiritual matters. Having said that, I believe that, on the whole, the Church of England does speak for the decent silent majority who recognise that the Church plays an important part in society and, although they may not attend church regularly, like to think that it is there.

I am reading a book called “God in Number 10”; other Members may have obtained a copy when it was launched here in the House a few months ago. Its author is Mark Vickers—I emphasise that he is, to the best of my knowledge, no relation.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

But he is also from Lincolnshire.

[Martin Vickers]

Yes, indeed. In the section on Stanley Baldwin, I was struck by a reference that he made. The former Prime Minister reportedly said to King George VI that the average working man—I am sure he would say woman, as well, if he were alive today—might not go to church him or herself, but was glad to know that his monarch did. I suggest to colleagues that the average working man and woman probably think the same about their Member of Parliament. We should not be afraid to “do God”, as Alastair Campbell didn’t say. I certainly get more criticism for being a Conservative than for being a Christian.

Incidentally, another extract from the book refers to a comment by Charles Gore, who was Bishop of Oxford between 1911 and 1919. Apparently, he said in a letter to The Times that he doubted that

“the cohesion of the Church of England was ever more seriously threatened than it is now.”

Well, he could have said that yesterday, rather than a century ago.

We are blessed in this country in that we can—despite the thoughts of some keyboard warriors and others—practise our faith in safety, with few exceptions. As we know, that is not the case in many parts of the world. I praise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) in her role as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We should welcome the fact that the Prime Minister, and indeed his predecessor, made such an appointment. I also commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for all his work with his all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief.

Faith plays an important part in the lives of billions of people across the globe, and we must do all we can to ensure that they can practise their faith in safety. Here in the UK, I sincerely hope that the Christian faith lasts for very many more centuries to come.

Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that extra minute. I add my words of tribute to Sir David Amess and his work in this House. This event is not the same without him. He is sadly missed.

I will not detain the House for too long—hopefully not for the full six minutes—but I have two particular issues relating to rail. The first is a constituency matter concerning the services provided by TransPennine Express. The most important service between Cleethorpes, Grimsby and the rest of the country is provided by what should be an hourly train between Cleethorpes and, until recently, Manchester Airport. The service to the airport was curtailed as a result of congestion in the Manchester area. The change is, to put it mildly, inconvenient for passengers and represents a loss of revenue for the rail company. I hope that it can be resolved in the fairly near future. As I said, the service should be hourly, but cancellations frequently stretch that to three or four hours. Staff at Grimsby Town station told me of one recent occasion of six hours without a train. That is quite simply not good enough.

I want to highlight this appalling set of circumstances. I frequently meet the TransPennine Express management, and I recognise the difficulties, but I was told in May that we would be almost back to normal from the start of the summer timetable in mid-May. Some months ago, an amended timetable was printed, which I was told would provide certainty; it has done the exact opposite. The situation is unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Department for Transport will side with the passengers on this one. I do recognise, as I said, that TransPennine Express has had difficulties, and it is doing its best to overcome them. My job is to speak up for my constituents, and they are getting an absolutely appalling service. If the only solution for DFT is to reconsider whether the franchise should be withdrawn, then that is the action that needs taking.

Hopefully, LNER is going to provide a direct service from next May between Cleethorpes and London, via Market Rasen in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). That is in the draft timetable, but I know there have been difficulties at Market Rasen.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a notable champion, for giving way. This is a really difficult issue. We have been campaigning for years to get a direct service from Grimsby and Cleethorpes, through Market Rasen and Lincoln, and on to London. This is a population of a quarter of a million with no direct service. Unbelievably, LNER is now saying that it will provide the train, but it will not stop in my constituency. It is absurd. Apparently, the train is too long. I have been in many trains where an announcement says, “You have to go to the first four carriages because the platform is a bit short,” but for ridiculous health and safety reasons, LNER is threatening not to stop in my constituency. It is an outrage, and I hope the Minister is listening and will do something about it for once.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What plans his Department has to reform the civil service.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

What plans he has to relocate (a) civil service and (b) policymaker roles outside London.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very good question. Clearly, the NAO, which is not concerned with policy matters but with economy and efficiency, will have its focus laser-like on how we can ensure, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom, a good exit from the European Union, good outcomes and, above all, value for money. There is no doubt that a very large sum of money could be wasted—for instance, in the recruitment of extra civil servants. We will have to ensure that we look laser-like at getting value for money.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

4. To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, what recent comparative assessment the NAO has made of its work and that of similar bodies in (a) developing and (b) other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The NAO is a leading, supreme audit institution in the international community and works closely with other offices. It believes that it can grow and learn as an audit office by sharing and exchanging ideas with others. It periodically benchmarks itself against other similar audit bodies in other countries.

[Martin Vickers]

May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend, whose career in the Public Accounts Commission I have followed closely both from the Government Benches and from previously serving as his constituency agent. Does he agree that there is widespread concern about spending on international aid? Will he outline what the NAO is doing to ensure we achieve value for money?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Clearly, there are enormous risks in our overseas aid budget. I will not comment on policy aspects, but if we are linking expenditure with a proportion of gross national product, which can rise every year, there are enormous possibilities in the Department for International Development for waste, incompetence and employing too many staff. I know that the NAO is particularly concerned with ensuring that in our international aid work, which is so important, we concentrate on work on the ground and try to root out waste and incompetence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

6. What assessment the National Audit Office has made of the potential effect on its work of the UK leaving the EU.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Brexit is, of course, a major task for Departments. Since 2016, the NAO has published 26 reports on aspects of Brexit. Most recently it has published reports on the UK’s border preparedness for Brexit and on Brexit’s implications for the supply of medicines to the health and social care sectors.

[Martin Vickers]

My right hon. Friend and I represent neighbouring and largely Brexit-supporting constituencies, and of course we want to get Brexit done as quickly as possible, but can I ask how the NAO will approach post-Brexit financial audit?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The NAO wants to get the Brexit work done as quickly and efficiently as possible and has been working with all Departments to assess the potential impact on their financial performance of the decision to exit the EU. The exact impact in the current year may depend on the outcome of negotiations.

Northern Ireland Backstop: Conditional Interpretative Declaration

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

As always, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the advantages of these debates is that we can get such legal points across and put them on the record, and I am grateful to him for making that clear.

With a conditional interpretative declaration to a bilateral accord, the outright rejection of the declaration by the other party means the treaty would not come into force, as I said before the interventions. While there is every chance that the EU might object to a conditional interpretative declaration, that objection might fall short of outright rejection. I want hon. Members to listen to that very carefully, because I am trying to find a way forward for Mr Juncker. If they like, I am actually trying to save his face. I am trying to give him an opportunity to object, but not to indulge in outright rejection.

The EU could argue that attempts during negotiations to achieve an end date were rejected, and I am sure it might start by arguing that. It might also argue that an end date would be incompatible with the concept of the three protocols forming an integral part of the agreement, as provided for in article 182 of the withdrawal agreement. However, perfectly valid counterpoints to those objections exist. We would need to argue that our declaration is compatible with our commitment to use “best endeavours” —a very important phrase—to negotiate “alternative arrangements” so that, as provided for, the backstop applies “temporarily”, if indeed it is ever applied at all. That is a fundamental point.

The fact that the backstop would not necessarily come into force under the terms of the agreement means that, in my view, it is not actually integral to the agreement at all. The termination of the backstop within a reasonable amount of time is fully in accord with the agreement, rather than an amendment to it. I therefore think that the arguments in favour of the applicability of just such a declaration are very strong.

What about the European Union’s likely response to such a move? There are four main possibilities. First, it could accept our interpretative declaration and move ahead with obtaining the consent of the European Parliament to the withdrawal agreement. This might include making a political protest, while accepting the declaration’s legality and applicability. That is the ideal response so far as we are concerned. As guideline 1.6.3 states:

“The interpretation resulting from an interpretative declaration made in respect of a bilateral treaty by a State or an international organization party to the treaty and accepted by the other party constitutes an authentic interpretation of that treaty.”

In other words, we would have obtained a legally binding commitment from the EU to end the backstop—victory.

Secondly, the EU could reply with an assertion that the interpretative declaration is in effect an attempt to impose a unilateral reservation, and therefore has no legal validity, but at the same time agree to negotiate solely on the question of an end date for the backstop to solve this issue head-on. This would mean it had abandoned its previous insistence that no further negotiations were possible—again, a way forward.

Thirdly, the EU might reply that the interpretative declaration has no legal validity, but request further negotiations in the hopes of obtaining something of value in exchange for giving way on an end date for the backstop.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for all his work on this issue, and for securing this debate. Unlike me, he is an eminent lawyer, and I am trying to get my head around some of the complexities of this issue. If we invoke this interpretative declaration and the EU objects, is that legally challengeable, and if so in what court?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think the EU probably would object politically, but that is not enough. That is the point. If it does not want the interpretative declaration to have effect and provide an end date for the backstop, there is only one way out of it: it must refuse to ratify the treaty. A protest or talk of further negotiations is not enough, and that in a sense is the beauty of this. That is why we have these vehicles in international law, and why they have been used on several occasions in the past by countries such as Argentina and others.

There is no point protesting. My hon. Friend says that this is a complicated legal argument, but it is not. It is terribly simple. It is incredibly simple. Under international law one can say, “We interpret this treaty in such a way.” We can deposit that when we ratify the treaty. It is not a codicil as such or a letter; it is deposited with the treaty and has all the legal enforceability of a treaty. If those who are ratifying the treaty with us want to escape from its obligations, there is only one way out: they have to refuse to ratify it. I suggest—I will make this clear again before I sit down—that for political reasons the EU would be unlikely to do that, because it would put all the onus of a no-deal scenario on to it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with the National Audit Office on the potential effect on its work of the UK leaving the EU.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)]

Brexit is a major task for Departments, and over the past 18 months the NAO has produced 15 reports looking at aspects of Brexit. Recent NAO work has provided evaluations of progress at the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In the coming years, the NAO will continue to scrutinise the work of Departments as they implement Brexit. The UK’s exiting the EU has also led to new financial audit work, not least the audits of the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for International Trade. The NAO currently undertakes audit work on the UK’s administration of funds paid under the European common agricultural policy. That work will end after the UK leaves the EU.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive answer. I know he shares my view that the sooner we leave the EU, the better and that a longer transition is totally unacceptable. Does he agree that it is important that the NAO is able to work with similar bodies, both in the EU and outside it, post Brexit?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

In this job, I shall not be tempted down the path of transition, but I can confirm that the NAO will be just as free to share good practice and will continue to compare notes with both European and international audit bodies. The NAO is an active member of the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions, which promotes good practice among Government auditors worldwide, and it is also part of a European regional group of supreme audit institutes. Those strong professional links will not be affected by Brexit, so that is another small plank of “Project Fear” done away with.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

3. What scrutiny of the official development assistance budget the National Audit Office has undertaken in the last 12 months.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)]

The NAO audits the financial statements of the Department for International Development annually, and it issued an unqualified opinion on the Department’s accounts for 2015-16. The NAO also produces a number of reports each year on different aspects of DFID’s expenditure. It last reported specifically on official development assistance in 2015. Its January 2015 report, “Managing the Official Development Assistance target”, looked at DFID’s management of its increased budget and at the target to spend 0.7% of the UK’s gross national income on overseas aid.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that our constituents in Lincolnshire have growing concerns about the aid budget. They will be reassured that the NAO is looking closely at it. Can he commit the NAO to looking much more robustly at many of the aid projects, which are of growing concern to our constituents?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the NAO will indeed look robustly at all aspects of DFID’s expenditure. For instance, its reports on the CDC and on St Helena both identified challenges for DFID in overseeing expenditure outside its core area of expertise. The Public Accounts Committee’s report on St Helena concluded:

“Thus far, the Department has unquestionably failed the residents of St Helena and the British taxpayer.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

4. What assessment the NAO has made of the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on its work.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The National Audit Office uses its resources to provide direct support to Parliament and stands ready to support parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit. In my humble view, there should be more, not less, parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit. The NAO is keeping in close touch with Departments as their preparations for exiting the EU develop. This will be a major task for Departments and is likely to include additional work for the NAO, not least the audit of the new Department for Exiting the European Union.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The NAO’s scrutiny will focus initially on the capacity and capability of Departments to deliver an effective and efficient exit process. The NAO will work with all Departments to assess the potential impact of exiting the European Union on their financial performance and position. The NAO is already the auditor of the new Department for Exiting the European Union and will work with it and the Treasury to ensure efficiency.

[Martin Vickers]

Following the rather over-pessimistic forecast that we heard about yesterday from the Office for Budget Responsibility, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be interesting to have another independent assessment from the NAO, which might show a more optimistic post-Brexit forecast?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The National Audit Office will not actually assess any economic effects of exiting the EU, but what it can do is ensure that the civil service carries out its task with due diligence and efficiency. I am confident that our civil service, which is one of the most efficient in the world, will do the job properly. The NAO is certainly one of the best auditors in the world, and we will make this process work efficiently and smoothly as best we can.

Summer Adjournment

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Like many Members who have already spoken, my contribution centres on rail services, in particular the recent decision by the Office of Rail and Road not to approve an application for direct services from Cleethorpes through to London King’s Cross.

To provide historical context, I happen to have an Eastern Region timetable for 1964, and Members should be aware that there were at that time two direct services from Cleethorpes to London King’s Cross. But before Opposition Members get excited and say, “That was in the nationalised British Rail days,” I should also point out that actually in 1992 British Rail announced it was scrapping the direct services from Cleethorpes.

Since then, although the service has improved in the sense that it is more regular, it does involve a change. The Government have repeatedly pointed out that if we are to improve the local economy and extend growth, we will need greater transport connectivity. The Humber region has the largest port complex in the country and it is developing the offshore renewables sector. Calls for regular direct services are supported by business and industry, the chamber of commerce and the two local enterprise partnerships to which the local authorities belong.

Two years ago, GNER lodged an application with the regulator to operate four daily trains between Cleethorpes, Grimsby and King’s Cross via Scunthorpe and Doncaster. I recognise the need to regulate capacity on a network that is already overcrowded, but I question whether the rules and regulations that govern the regulator actually work in the best interests of passengers. Perhaps they work more to protect the market share of the train operating companies.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The direct line to London from Cleethorpes that my hon. Friend has mentioned, which was scrapped in 1992, ran through Market Rasen in my constituency. Since 1992, therefore, the good people of the town of Market Rasen and its catchment area of nearly 60 square miles have had no direct service to London at all. Is it not incumbent on the Government and the rail regulator to consider the interests not only of the big operators but of the local people? Can we have a delegation to the new Secretary of State to try to impress on him the need to serve rural lines?

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his intervention. He has stolen one of my lines: I was going to conclude by asking for a delegation to go to the new Secretary of State and to the rail Minister.

The rail regulator operates under criteria set down by the privatisation legislation, which state that the regulator must promote improvements in railway service performance, protect the interests of users of railway services, promote the use of the network for passengers and goods and promote competition for the benefit of rail users. The criteria go on to state:

“We would not expect to approve competing services that would be primarily abstractive of the incumbent’s revenue”.

In other words, it is there to protect the market share of the big franchise holders such as Virgin East Coast. I understand that the franchise holders pay an enormous fee to the Government for the privilege of operating the east coast main line or any other line, but I question whether the present criteria operate in the best interests of the passenger.

The regulator, in its decision letter, goes on to state:

“We have a long-standing policy of not approving new open access services that we consider are ‘primarily abstractive’”—.

that is to say, services that would abstract funding from the main operator. I repeat that this sounds far more like protecting the operators than providing better services for passengers. In the decision letter, the regulator refers specifically to the application to run services to Cleethorpes, stating:

“These financial impacts would have been reduced had the application focused on serving…just the Cleethorpes line”.

Because the application included additional services into Yorkshire, serving the Bradford and Halifax area, that would have impacted too greatly on other operators. The letter continues:

“On balancing our statutory duties, particularly those to promote improvements in railway service performance, protect user interests and promote competition against our duty to have regard to the Secretary of State’s funds, we saw the abstraction as a significant adverse impact for this option.”

New rolling stock is coming into the network, thanks to the improvements and investment that the Government and the train operators are making in the coming years. That will release rolling stock that is currently in use elsewhere for use on secondary main line services. Services through Market Rasen and Lincoln going through to Grimsby and Cleethorpes suffer because they are not part of the electrified network, and there is only a limited number of diesel units available to serve those routes. However, some new bimodal units are becoming available that will be able to run the last few miles under diesel power. This is an ideal opportunity to extend services to places such as Cleethorpes.

Hints from the rail regulator suggest that it sees the difficulties in the present system and would like to accept more open access operations, but as I have said, the criteria are restricting it at the moment. The new rail Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), successfully campaigned for direct services to his Blackpool constituency, off the west coast main line, so he ought to be sympathetic to the requests from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), me and others in northern Lincolnshire for improved services.

When the Secretary of State for Transport introduced the privatisation legislation in 1992, he said:

“Our objective is to improve the quality of railway services by creating many new opportunities for private sector involvement. This will mean more competition, greater efficiency and a wider choice of services more closely tailored to what customers want.”

I think that that has been achieved in part. As I have said, the services into my area have been vastly improved compared with the British Rail days, but we have a long way to go. Customers are rightly demanding more and better services. I urge the Department for Transport to drop its opposition to new long-distance open access services on routes that are not currently served by direct services. We need not only better access to the London network but improved east-west connections, and I urge the Minister to pass my concerns on to the Secretary of State for Transport and tell him that it is time to put passengers ahead of the train operating companies.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Those of us with long local government experience never expected any Government to deliver devolution to this extent. I welcome what the present Government are doing, and I know that it is welcomed in local government throughout the country. For many years Governments of both colours drew more and more powers to the centre, and it is extremely pleasing to see that being reversed.

I have been a supporter of elected mayors for many years. In my own authority, I tried to secure a petition with the required 5% support 12 or 13 years ago. The problem is that that percentage is very difficult to achieve if a small number of people are involved, and particularly difficult to achieve within the 12-month period that is specified in the current legislation.

Elected mayors are often very unpopular with sitting councillors, who see them as a threat to their cosy arrangements whereby the roundabout turns and either the Tories or Labour take over. I think that where that resistance still exists, we need to allow residents—the general public—to initiate a petition with the modest threshold of 1% that is proposed in new clause 30, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson). I think that that would encourage local people to support an elected mayor, or at least to kick-start the journey towards securing one by initiating the referendum process when resistance is high in the local authority.

We may be seeing proof of the rule that if Back Benchers remain consistent, some Government at some time or other will eventually agree with them. Over the last 15 years or so we have seen both sides of the House run hot and cold on the issue of elected mayors, but those of us—such as my hon. Friend and me—who remain consistent can now put up the flags and welcome the fact that the Government are moving towards the idea of not just elected mayors, but elected mayors with even more power than we anticipated. I hope that the Government will at least give a clear indication that they will look favourably on our proposal to reduce the threshold and give power to local residents.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

That is all very well, but in the case of a large rural county such as Lincolnshire, it would be quite wrong for the Government to say, “If you want devo-max, you must have a mayor.” It makes sense to have a mayor of London, Birmingham or Manchester, but it does not make sense to have a mayor of a large rural county.

[Martin Vickers]

I see the logic of that, but my hon. Friend will know that in greater Lincolnshire the authorities have already come together and put a proposal forward, although they have not gone for the full package. I hope they eventually will, just as I hope that eventually the combined authorities emerging from this process will evolve into a super-unitary authority headed by an elected mayor. My hon. Friend would make an admirable mayor of Lincolnshire—governor of Lincolnshire, even.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

High commissioner.

[Martin Vickers]

Yes, high commissioner for Lincolnshire.

When I was reading the amendments, I was struck by new clause 32(3)(c) which talks about

“all family members’ ability to play a full role in family life”.

I shall therefore conclude by praising the Government for withdrawing their proposal to devolve powers on Sunday trading to local authorities or elected mayors. It would have been a retrograde step that would have hit many hard-working families that run the corner shop, the newsagents and so on—just the sort of people the Government should be looking after. I welcome that and praise the Government—and praising the Government is a good point to conclude on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I suspect that the National Audit Office would be very loth to be dragged into the debate on the future of Scotland. Clearly, if Scotland broke away, there would have to be completely different audit arrangements for the Financial Conduct Authority, which the House currently audits. Independence would indeed have implications for the National Audit Office.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

5. What support the NAO gives to Select Committees and how the effectiveness of such support is monitored.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

In addition to the support it provides to the Public Accounts Committee, the NAO supports Select Committees with informal briefings, advice on selecting and designing inquiries, new research and evidence gathering in support of a Committee’s interest or inquiry, and in providing experts on short-term attachments. On monitoring the effectiveness of that support, the NAO monitors the Government’s responses to PAC reports to ensure that individual Departments have accepted and implemented PAC recommendations.

[Martin Vickers]

The NAO provides valuable help and support for the PAC and Select Committees. Importantly, it is independent of Government. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it has adequate resources to carry out its work?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am satisfied that the NAO has adequate resources, but the Commission has already imposed a 15% cut to its budget in real terms. If further cuts are demanded, the House will have to consider whether the NAO will be able to continue its excellent work to support the Committees of the House, including the Public Accounts Committee.

General matters

Debate between Martin Vickers and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

On the face of it, my constituency might seem well served by transport as it has an international airport, the largest dock complex in the country and 10 railway stations, including one that serves two farms and an ancient ruin, and was used by 13 passengers in 2010. But the road network needs a little improvement. The main road into the constituency is the A180, but the A160 off to Immingham dock—which, as I said, is the largest dock complex in the country—is in urgent need of an upgrade.

The last message I had from the Department for Transport said that the upgrade was included in 12 future schemes that should receive development funds, and that a decision would be taken by the end of the year. So time is running out and this is my last opportunity to lobby Ministers about the importance of the A160. Not only does it serve the existing Immingham dock, but it will serve one of the two new enterprise zones in the area, so it is clearly of vital importance.

I welcome the Government’s recent decisions to grant those enterprise zones that status, and we also gained from the announcement that the Immingham bypass would at long last go ahead, as well as the halving of the Humber bridge tolls. May I also draw Ministers’ attention to the urgent need for a direct rail service from the constituency to London? About a year ago I met Alliance Rail, which is keen to do this, and it told me that its plans were still in the system. But the byzantine procedures that they have to go through for the opportunity to run a rail service are complex beyond belief. If we are to go ahead with High Speed 2 and develop our rail network, we must put together a system that reaches decisions rather more quickly. If the Victorians had been locked into the present system, our trains would still be pulled by Stephenson’s Rocket, and the network would not have expanded as it did. There is no incentive for rail companies to provide extra services.

That is typified by the service that runs on Saturdays only from Cleethorpes to Brigg, Kirton in Lindsey and Gainsborough, and then on to Sheffield. We have a good service to Sheffield via Doncaster, but I am eager for people from Gainsborough—I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) in his place—to be able to use that service to take their families for a day out in Cleethorpes, where they can enjoy Pleasure Island and see the attractions that the “Cleethorpes in bloom” committee has organised.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

And the other way round.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend.