Transport in the North

Debate between Martin Vickers and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to follow my northern Lincolnshire friend, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), but first let me congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on setting out the debate so well and reminding us that this is not just about transport but about rebalancing the economy. As the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) said, there is a prize to be grabbed here. There is an opportunity, through investment, to do something about the productivity gap that continues to widen, to address regional inequalities and to do something about the gap in investment. Transport can be the real motor for that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, if the same amount that has been spent in London over the past decade was spent in the north, we would have seen £59 billion more—a staggering piece of information.

A constituent has written to me, and I want to give a flavour of his take on this debate, because it provides an insight into how people see things locally. Dave Roberts writes:

“You probably already know that, as well as backtracking on the several rail electrification projects promised for the North, the powers and finance to be given to TfN (Transport for the North) are much less than those enjoyed by TfL (Transport for London).

As far as I am aware the Scunthorpe area does not seem to have been included in any of the proposals made for transport in the North. The major proposal seems to be… a new high-speed rail line between Hull and Liverpool. Relatively little extra work would be required to link the current line from Cleethorpes through Scunthorpe to this HS3 line.”

Those are powerful insights into the opportunities that could be utilised with proper investment. The danger for northern Lincolnshire is that not only are we neglected as part of the north, but we are also neglected as part of the northern project. As the hon. Member for Cleethorpes mentioned, Immingham is the largest port in the country by volume and having that port in the heart of our area should mean good transport links, but the links are still woeful despite the recent welcome investment in the A160. The A180 also ought to be upgraded.

[Martin Vickers]

The M11 was originally proposed to run from the Peterborough-Cambridge area, where it finishes now, up to the Humber bridge. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that having that as a long-term prospect would boost the north Lincolnshire economy?

Sixth-form Education: International Comparisons

Debate between Martin Vickers and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Lady is right to point out the performance of sixth-form colleges and the pressure on their funding. Of course the funding situation for 16 to 18 education is not just affecting sixth-form colleges—it is affecting school sixth forms and academy sixth forms, too. It is affecting all 16 to 18 experience.

Since 2010, the programmes of study followed by students have altered in those typical ways I outlined. Back then, most level 3 students followed a curriculum of four advanced courses in year 1, plus general studies, enrichment and tutorial. They progressed on to three or four courses in year 2, plus enrichment and tutorial. In most cases, as the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) pointed out, the enrichment has gone, the tutorial has shrunk significantly, general studies has largely disappeared and the number of advanced level courses taken is now normally three in both years. That leads to significantly lower student contact time. I know from experience that there is a direct correlation between contact time and achievement, particularly for students who have struggled to achieve at 16.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I thank my north Lincolnshire neighbour for giving way and congratulate him on securing this debate. On the point he just made, he will know that his neighbouring constituencies in north and north-east Lincolnshire are coastal communities, so have particular problems with social mobility. Does he share my hope that when he responds the Minister will indicate the Government’s continuing support for sixth-form colleges such as Franklin College in Grimsby?

[Nic Dakin]

I thank my constituency neighbour for his contribution. Franklin College is, of course, a high-performing, well-regarded sixth-form college, as are all four Humber sixth-form colleges—Wyke College, Wilberforce College and, of course, John Leggott College in Scunthorpe. I am sure the Minister is listening carefully. He is a very good Minister and I am sure he is going to give us all hope for a rosy future when he speaks later in the debate.

The impact of the changes on students has been significant. The Sixth Form Colleges Association’s 2016 funding impact survey shows that sixth-form college education is an increasingly narrow and part-time experience. Two thirds of sixth-form colleges have already dropped courses as a result of funding cuts and cost increases. Some 39% have dropped courses in modern foreign languages, and the vast majority have reduced or removed the extracurricular activities available to students, including music, drama, sport and languages. Worryingly, 64% do not believe that the funding they will receive next year will be sufficient to support students who are educationally or economically disadvantaged—the very point made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers).

Humber Energy Estuary

Debate between Martin Vickers and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers]

Hang on a moment. Those MPs have always been united to establish the Able site, to complement the Siemens investment in Hull.

Stephen Savage, a leading local solicitor who serves on the Humber LEP board, states in the estuary energy supplement:

“The £450-million Energy Estuary scheme will create around 4,000 jobs and provide a new deep water port on the Humber”.

Were these people, all of whom were and are very close to events and are closely watching developments, all deceived or misled, because as yet the Able site remains fallow? They have all reached the conclusion that the wider Humber, and the Able site in particular, was going to be not just a secondary centre, but a real hub of activity, construction, assembly and all the support activities that would generate a growing and extensive supply chain.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, on securing this very timely and important Adjournment debate. He has come to the nub of the issue. There is a great deal of expectation that the Government investment in the project will deliver manufacturing jobs on the Humber estuary. That is a matter of concern and we need it to be delivered.

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

When the memorandum of understanding between Able and DONG was signed last summer, there was an indication that final agreements would follow, with last October as the target date. My understanding is that this memorandum was for DONG to establish an operational hub or installation port at the Able marine energy park. North Lincolnshire Council was under the impression that DONG had suggested that the Government should be involved in this exercise, and that an immediate priority was to secure a UK tower manufacturing facility. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that.

DONG had indicated that it requires the new quays, which are being constructed as part of the marine energy park, to be available by the first quarter of 2018. To meet that timescale, all the preparation, design and development work must begin almost immediately if the conditions of the planning consent are to be met, including restrictions and conditions linked to ecological compensation and mitigation.

Many of the negotiations were conducted by Peter Stephenson, the executive chairman of Able, and Joachim Steenstrup, the head of strategic supply chain at DONG. I understand that Able learned on 31 October that Mr Steenstrup had been dismissed.

In November and December, Ministers were good enough to meet me and other Members to discuss the situation. This all happened at a time when Tata Steel in Scunthorpe was reviewing its activities and announcing redundancies. The location of the steelworks just a few miles from the Able site had been an important part of the attraction of the south bank as a centre for turbine manufacturing.

It is worth putting it on the record at this point that the Government handled the situation at Scunthorpe extremely well and, along with North Lincolnshire Council, are putting together an excellent package of support, as well as plans for a sustainable steel industry in the town. The early statement from the Prime Minister, in which he made it clear that steel manufacturing at Scunthorpe would continue, was welcome, timely and crucial in giving confidence to the many people affected by the anticipated change of ownership.

The clear understanding of North Lincolnshire Council, the local enterprise partnership and just about everyone else is that the Able development will proceed. On 9 July last year, talking about the project and the £15 million from the regional growth fund, the northern powerhouse Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), said:

“As part of our long-term economic plan we’re determined to back business in the Humber and the Government’s £15 million infrastructure funding is helping kick-start development at the site that will help create 4,000 new jobs for local people.”

He continued by restating that:

“The Government is committed to backing offshore wind…This agreement will help the UK supply chain develop in key areas like towers manufacturing and ensure the UK remain market leaders in this sector.”

The leader of North Lincolnshire Council, Baroness Redfern, last week attended DONG Energy’s inauguration of Westermost Rough, which brought the Race Bank announcement. She said:

“This is fantastic news for North Lincolnshire and the Humber.”

She said that the Able marine energy park

“will deliver a state of the art purpose built facility—the largest in Europe. It is the UK’s best opportunity to attract a brand new offshore wind sector in the country and I am delighted that such a world leader like DONG have made this commitment.”

I hope that the Minister will confirm that DONG has made a long-term commitment to the south bank of the Humber. Baroness Redfern stated that the new university technical college in Scunthorpe

“will provide the right skills for the offshore sector and our major infrastructure improvements to support this development are almost complete. AMEP has the real potential to transform the economy across…North Lincolnshire”.

The chairman of the local enterprise partnership, Lord Haskins, added:

“The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding which holds out the prospect of Dong Energy becoming the first user at AMEP is a significant step forward… Attracting the interest of companies such as Dong endorses that we are the UK’s Energy Estuary with the Humber ports developing as a strong and growing national hub for the new offshore renewables industry.”

I hope that the Minister is in a position to make clear exactly where we are. Companies such as DONG have benefited greatly from the generosity of British taxpayers, particularly but not solely through the contracts for difference. DONG Energy has given the impression that it is committed to investing in the marine energy park to North Lincolnshire Council, local MPs, the local media and the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, whom I can see nodding on the Front Bench. Such companies have benefited from the regional growth fund, the Government’s investment in the university technical college and the establishment of the enterprise zone. All that is very welcome, as is DONG Energy’s investment in northern Lincolnshire and the wider Humber region. Jobs exist that did not exist just a few years ago. However, with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money already committed and the assurance that there is more to come, it is payback time for those companies. I hope that the Minister, who has been extremely helpful, supportive and robust in this matter, can provide some positive news in her response.

Hospital Car Parking Charges

Debate between Martin Vickers and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s point. That has been the thrust of the contributions to the debate. I hope the Minister and the shadow Minister are listening to the voice of the House, which reflects the voice of our constituents as patients and residents who live close to hospitals. Hospital car parking charges should be got rid of in the interests of better, more open and fairer access to health care. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) made the point well that increasing the number of visitors increases the speed of recovery. It should therefore be welcomed and facilitated as part of the healing process.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we share the same hospital trust. Patients are prepared to accept that more services are being shared between our two hospitals at Scunthorpe and Grimsby, but does he agree that patients face the double whammy of increased travelling costs and car parking charges at the other end?

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman and I work well together on local issues such as health care. He makes the sound point that as we rationalise the way in which hospitals perform to maximise health outcomes, there will be more travelling by patients. Why should there be an added barrier to that travelling and to access? People should not have to focus on things like that, rather than on better health care, when there have to be discussions about where services will be delivered, as there have to be in north Lincolnshire. That is a sound and positive point that supports the point that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Telford (David Wright), which is that the best way forward would be to have free car parking at every hospital as standard.

Flooding

Debate between Martin Vickers and Nicholas Dakin

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath).

The floods and scenes we have seen have been devastating and awful, as is the cost to individuals, families, homes and businesses. My first experience of really bad floods in my constituency was due to a burst pipe last October, which led to 14 homes on Ville road in the centre of Scunthorpe being very badly flooded. I visited those homes to see the devastation and they illustrated how bad floods are: they turn people’s homes upside down.

I pay tribute to the response of the Humberside fire authority, which came out in the middle of the night, got the situation fast under control and made a real difference, because there could have been much more damage. Anglian Water has responded well and is working hard with the people affected to try to ensure proper and appropriate support through these difficult times. Although there are still, even now, compensation issues, I believe they are being worked through properly. I am pleased that North Lincolnshire council and Anglian Water are working together, along with Severn Trent Water, to ensure that that is less likely to be a problem in future.

I have done a lot of work on the industrial river that runs through the heart of my constituency. Bottesford Beck might not sound like a river, but it is a big one and in recent years its levels have risen significantly and become a threat to farmland—it was not flooded previously, but has been consistently flooded over the past two years—and to households. As a result of an initiative by the Friends of Bottesford Beck to draw people together, Tata, the Environment Agency, North Lincolnshire council, Holme Hall golf club and local farmers are working together to bring pressure to bear. I am pleased that last month the Environment Agency agreed that there should be a pilot project to de-silt Bottesford Beck. That needs to happen in order to prevent some of the problems faced by the local community, particularly at the farm of Philip Marshall, which has been damaged. The situation has had a negative effect on his livelihood.

I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State, who is back in his place, say that he was determined to make sure that farmers affected by flooding will be helped and supported. I hope that help will be available to farmers wherever they may be in this country, including Philip Marshall, who has been affected by the flooding of Bottesford Beck.

It had been hoped that the pilot would go ahead shortly, but unfortunately it looks as if it might be delayed because processes need to be properly followed and there is a balance to be struck between environmental tensions. Given that the fish breeding season begins in the middle of March, the de-silting pilot might not be able to take place until the middle of June. That is causing frustration and exasperation locally, but I hope that will be worked through.

The recent flooding event that had the biggest impact on the community I represent was the tidal surge from the Humber and the Trent at the beginning of December. It affected communities from Barrow Haven in the north, which is represented by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), to East Butterwick in my constituency of Scunthorpe. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is in his place. Communities in his constituency were the worst affected, and he showed good leadership in relation to those difficulties at that time. Such communities do not work only within constituencies, and the impact on businesses such as Reeds country hotel or Cemex is felt by not only my constituents but those of other hon. Members.

I was delighted by the response of the local community to those difficulties. Individuals responded extremely well, as did businesses, such as the Wortley House hotel, which provided accommodation for the people affected, and local supermarkets, which provided food. There was a real community response to the challenge of the moment. The day after the floods, I visited the Pods—the sports and leisure complex in the heart of Scunthorpe—where the families affected, particularly those from the Burringham area, were seeking the support provided by North Lincolnshire council.

It is interesting that at times of difficulty or distress, the people affected do not look to Serco, A4e or Capita, but are pleased to see the Environment Agency, the local council, the firemen and, of course, the Army, which has recently been involved on certain occasions. That is a reminder of the value of public services and the role they play.

I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that money will be no object to the communities affected. I hope that the Minister will confirm in his response to the debate that that commitment applies to communities such as north Lincolnshire, as well as others up and down the country.

BBC “Question Time” was recently held in Scunthorpe. Interestingly, local people expressed the concern that when such things happen in our unfashionable area, they are not always noticed by the Westminster village, but when they happen closer to this place, they are front-page news. It is important that this House demonstrates that it is concerned to support the farmers affected.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nic Dakin]

I am very happy to give way to my honourable neighbour.

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman is making a valuable speech, but will he acknowledge that on the Saturday following the 5 December surge, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited both my constituency and the north bank?

[Nic Dakin]

I absolutely recognise that fact, which was a good response by the Government at the time. I was just replaying people’s concerns, which remind us of the importance of our making a real effort in this place to demonstrate that we care about such things wherever they happen. In particular, many more dwellings or homes were affected in the north Lincolnshire area before Christmas than were later affected in some areas that have had much more public attention. It is important for all of us—as Team North Lincolnshire always does across the park—to bang the drum for the people and communities we represent.

Rail Disruption (Cleethorpes and Doncaster)

Debate between Martin Vickers and Nicholas Dakin

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.

The reason why I asked for this debate is the closure of the main rail line out of my constituency—the line from Cleethorpes to Doncaster, Sheffield and on to Manchester—as the result of a landslip at Hatfield, between Scunthorpe and Doncaster, early last month. I welcome the Minister to his place and thank him for the help that he and his colleagues in the Department have given to date, through the influence that they have brought to bear.

I should set the scene by pointing out that the main Cleethorpes to Manchester line is the main route out of Cleethorpes and, importantly for the tourist trade, it is the main route into Cleethorpes—[Interruption.] It is the premier resort of the east coast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) reminds me. The alternatives are less than adequate, it has to be said. There are three lines out of Barnetby, the junction about 15 miles west of Cleethorpes, all of which go to Doncaster, Sheffield and Manchester, but the line through my hon. Friend’s constituency—through Brigg, Kirton Lindsey and Gainsborough to Sheffield—is, in part, a single track and passenger services are provided only on Saturdays. There is an alternative route to the east coast main line, with a connection at Newark, via Lincoln, but the service on that route is intermittent to say the least, and it is not a reasonable alternative.

The main operator on the Cleethorpes to Manchester line is First TransPennine. I have to say that it provides an excellent service and has done an excellent job in recent years to build up the patronage on that service. Of course, First TransPennine is also suffering, although there are compensation arrangements such as from Network Rail. As it pointed out in an e-mail to me, it is losing 25% to 30% of its customers from Grimsby and Cleethorpes, which equates to 2,500 a week. Clearly, many of those people might be permanently lost to First TransPennine.

Those people who wanted to come to Cleethorpes at Easter and into the summer season, for a day or a few days in the resort, will be completely lost to the tourist trade. The inconvenience is not only to individual travellers, including Members of Parliament I have to say, but more importantly to people accessing leisure services. It has a real impact on the local economy, and that is particularly relevant with the approach of the Easter weekend, which is the traditional start of the tourist season.

I met Network Rail and First TransPennine on Friday, and I acknowledge the difficulties that they face. The first priority is to get the line clear and to get at least a limited service up and running. At a conservative estimate, that will take another 12 to 16 weeks. As Network Rail pointed out to me, there are still considerable unknowns. I understand that Network Rail needs only three to four weeks to replace the track, but it does not yet have access to the track, because it has to move the slag heap that caused the slip and ensure that it is safe for the workmen.

I have already mentioned alternative routes. I accept that one priority must be getting freight from Immingham docks to the power stations. In the main, that uses the alternative Brigg and Gainsborough line, but there is some limited access and First TransPennine is training its drivers with the necessary route knowledge to run on that line. That is proving difficult, but I understand that it is ongoing, although it will take six weeks. First TransPennine is halfway through that process, so there is hope that a skeleton service might be provided on that line by mid to late April. As I have mentioned, Northern Rail operates a Saturday-only service. It would surely not be beyond the wit of man to use those particular slots, at least on Saturdays, and those available on Sundays, when there is less freight traffic, to provide direct services. At least getting people there for the weekend would be a boost to the tourist trade.

It is worth pointing out that one of the alternatives is the East Midlands route via Newark, which, as I have said, is an intermittent service. It is one of the faults of the present franchising system that there does not seem to be an incentive for East Midlands to take advantage of the lack of trains on the other route by providing additional trains. I recognise that, as I know from correspondence about its normal daily services, there are problems. Anyone who has travelled on peak-hour services—most noticeably, for example, the 17.23 from Lincoln, via Market Rasen, through to Grimsby—will know that the rolling stock is totally inadequate, being provided by a single unit. East Midlands readily says—I have quite a bit of correspondence about this—that the rolling stock is simply not available. Clearly, if rolling stock is not available to provide existing services, there is very little scope for it to provide additional services.

Through First TransPennine, I have asked whether East Coast, which provides most east coast main line services, would consider deregulating some of the ticket restrictions that currently operate, at least to allow people to leave London and get back to Cleethorpes by train, by changing at Newark. In the evening, that unfortunately means having to leave before the 7 pm cut-off at which cheaper tickets begin. East Coast told First TransPennine that it was not prepared, in more or less any circumstances, to do that. I subsequently wrote to East Coast, but, sadly, it has not as yet bothered to reply. It does not seem unreasonable to request that, for the 18.03 from King’s Cross to Newark, which has a good connection through to Grimsby—not to Cleethorpes, unfortunately, but at least people can get to Grimsby—it could provide a derestriction to allow passengers to Barnetby, Habrough and Grimsby to use that service.

The main concern now is clearly to get services up and running, but I think questions need to be asked, although the Minister does not have direct responsibility for most such areas.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who is my parliamentary neighbour, on securing this important debate about a significant event in our part of the world. Does he agree that, at the same time as addressing the issues that he quite properly raises, Network Rail has an opportunity to look at bringing forward its upgrades to the line? My constituents in Scunthorpe, who are being significantly disadvantaged, would then get a future advantage through improvements to the railway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I know that both his constituency and other constituencies on the north bank of the Humber are extremely concerned that they may be effectively cut off from the rail network.

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman has said a lot about passenger services, but he will know that 20% of the freight coming into the UK goes through Immingham. Will he say something about the impact on freight services?

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. In fact, it is more than 20%; 25% of freight tonnage moved by rail starts or ends in Immingham. It is a vital hub, especially for the movement of coal to power stations.

I understand from the train operators and Network Rail that they are able to manage the freight operations using alternative routes, but it is a particular concern, and the hon. Gentleman is right to mention it. His own constituency, which encompasses Scunthorpe and the steel works, is a vital part of that freight network.

In conclusion, will the Minister address my key points in relation to alternative TransPennine routes via Brigg or Lincoln, and an improved rail service on East Midlands Trains, perhaps with some joint working with TransPennine? I presume there are surplus units at the moment that we might be able to use.

The Minister will know that my neighbouring colleagues and I are pushing hard for a direct rail service between Grimsby, Cleethorpes and London. At the moment, there is an East Midlands train that goes from Lincoln to King’s Cross in the morning and King’s Cross to Lincoln in the evening. It would be a golden opportunity to test the market for a future service if that route could be extended to Cleethorpes for a short time. Let us see some entrepreneurial activity by East Midlands Trains pushed on by the famous entrepreneurial Minister. I hope for a positive response in that respect. One final matter for the Minister is the ticketing regulations on the main line, which must be a simple thing to deal with. I look forward to hearing his response.

Broadband (East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire)

Debate between Martin Vickers and Nicholas Dakin

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers]

I certainly do not wish to test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I welcomed the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who, as always, spoke words of wisdom.

[Nic Dakin]

rose—

[Martin Vickers]

I will gladly give way.

[Nic Dakin]

All infrastructure is crucial. As the hon. Gentleman says, the specific infrastructure that is being argued for so urgently this evening is crucial for the development of business, and broadband is an important part of that. I welcome his comments.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. One of the important consequences of the campaign for broadband in northern Lincolnshire is the teamwork that has developed between my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), and for Scunthorpe, and me. I believe that we are known locally as the A team.

The importance of broadband to small businesses in my constituency cannot be overestimated. We have developed considerably since the dark days of 20 years ago and the decline of the fishing industry in the neighbouring constituency of Great Grimsby. The development of that industry has actually been encouraged by broadband, and by sales throughout the UK and abroad.

I shall now conclude my remarks and await the comments of the Minister, who I know will have positive news for the people of northern Lincolnshire.

BBC (Proposed Cuts)

Debate between Martin Vickers and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 1st December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). Clearly Radio Humberside is going to get a few plugs this afternoon.

It is tempting on such an occasion to attack and compliment the BBC in equal measure. I am very happy to say that I would pay my licence fee for Radio 4, and if I happened to get the Radio 5 Live football commentaries, “Newsnight” and “Match of the Day” thrown in I would be a satisfied customer. In reality, however, we are here this afternoon to convey to the BBC, through the Secretary of State, the concerns of our constituents.

It is clear that our constituents greatly value local radio. In the case of mine, that means Radio Humberside. Unless someone is local to the area, it is difficult for them to appreciate the antipathy to the word “Humberside”. Indeed, one of my illustrious predecessors, Michael Brown, pledged to expunge it from the English language. Alas, it lives on, although it is now sometimes referred to as “the Humber”. However, Radio Humberside has gone a considerable way towards overcoming the in-built suspicion of anything containing the word “Humberside”. Nowadays, we are at least referred to as “northern Lincolnshire”.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that despite the issue of the word “Humberside”, there is a lot of affection for Radio Humberside among people in Scunthorpe, Grimsby and on the south bank of the Humber, particularly for its support for and reporting on local people’s activities, whether they be football, arts or other things?

[Martin Vickers]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the word “affection” appears somewhere in my notes in relation to Radio Humberside. I suspect, though, that most of my constituents on the south bank of the Humber are more interested in what goes on in Louth and Lincoln than in Cottingham and Kirk Ella. I therefore remain convinced that some savings could be made through joint working with Radio Lincolnshire. Residents in places such as Keelby and Caistor, which are really suburbs of Grimsby and Cleethorpes, feel much more part of what we might call the Humberside community than of the more rural Lincolnshire community. I acknowledge that the success of Radio Humberside is partly because people grow fond of—even affectionate towards—some of the presenters, such as Peter Levy with his lunchtime phone-in.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Martin Vickers and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and I support many of his comments.

For the Government to unite the representatives of manufacturing industries with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund in opposition to their proposals is a masterstroke. I do not accept the ingenious argument that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave in Committee, which was that such a range of opposition to the tax was proof positive that the right balance had been achieved. That is patently not the case: as we have already heard, the arguments of the high-energy manufacturers and the environmentalists are complementary, not contradictory. The key challenge that we face as a nation is how to balance greening the economy with growing the economy. The Government’s proposals fail to meet that challenge. The UK is competing internationally for investment. The Humber is competing with Bremerhaven and Esbjerg for green investment. As we have already heard, those making investment decisions too often sit outside these shores. In the real world, the carbon floor price represents a serious threat to our competitiveness. We are in danger of seeing multinational companies choose to invest not in the UK but elsewhere.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a persuasive case. He and I know the seriousness of the situation from our regular visits to Tata Steel in Scunthorpe, and he will be familiar with the Able UK site in my constituency. One of the arguments for the company coming to our area was the proximity of the steel works, which, ironically, Able UK wants to use for production in the renewables sector. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would be tragic if that steel were produced elsewhere, thereby creating greater emissions.

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman makes a cogent and sensible point. [Interruption.] Indeed, I note that the Economic Secretary is writing it down, so I hope that she will respond to it later.

We are in danger of exporting UK jobs to places such Ukraine and Russia, thereby boosting global warming rather than reducing it. As we have heard, my community in Scunthorpe faces serious challenges after Tata announced that 1,200 jobs were at risk. We have also heard the chief executive of Tata Steel, Karl-Ulrich Köhler, quoting the carbon floor price as part of the context of the decision. However, other, local companies are equally concerned. Richard Morley of Caparo Merchant Bar in Scunthorpe said to me:

“As well as supporting growth and jobs, companies like mine are well-placed to provide many of the technical and material solutions necessary to address climate change”—

the point that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) made a moment ago—

“but we can only do so if we are able to remain competitive. The unilateral introduction of the”

carbon floor price

“at too high a level could threaten this.”

Richard Stansfield of Singleton-Birch has examined in more detail what the carbon floor price means:

“The CFP does not actually set a…price of £16 in 2013 as has been implied. The figure of £16 has been arrived at by using a 2009…carbon price of £11.06 and adding a £4.94 tax, called the carbon price support, to reach the £16. The current forward price of carbon in 2013 is already around £16, so adding this £4.94 will make the price of carbon £20.94. This will be £4.94 more than our European competition will be paying and £20.94 more than the rest of the world.”

Only last month we heard the new director general of the CBI, John Cridland, expressing concerns about the impact of the carbon floor price on high-energy manufacturing.

In a written answer to a parliamentary question, the Economic Secretary confirmed that the carbon price support provisions would put up consumer energy bills and deliver windfall profits of £50 million a year from 2013 to existing nuclear reactor operators. Greenpeace has calculated that the figure exceeds £1.3 billion up to 2020. The Government’s proposal is therefore a bad deal for bill payers. Almost £1 billion will be given to the nuclear industry for doing absolutely nothing new. The proposal will add nothing to energy output or Britain’s energy security, and there will be no requirement for the companies to invest the windfall in national priorities such as energy efficiency programmes or meeting our renewable energy targets.

I am afraid, therefore, that in its present form the carbon floor price is a badly designed tax. It will not drive the significant investment needed to develop clean, safe alternatives to fossil fuels or the technological improvements needed in energy-intensive industries. As research by Waters Wye Associates concluded:

“The outcome of implementing policies as they are currently conceived will…be poor both economically and environmentally. Global greenhouse gas emissions may well increase as well as hitting both investment and jobs.”

The current approach risks penalising British industry and endangering British jobs. It will hurt the consumer and fail to deliver our green ambitions. I urge the Government to think again.