Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
Debate between Martin Vickers and Nigel Evans
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in the David Amess debate yet again.
It is about 10 or 11 years since the Humber was christened the energy estuary, and we have extensive schemes in development. If the country is to achieve its reductions in CO2 emissions, it has to focus on the Humber, which apparently is the densest cluster in the UK. Zero Carbon Humber is a consortium of major companies that are working towards carbon capture and hydrogen projects. We also have a project for sustainable aviation fuel and a green energy terminal at the port of Immingham, which, as I have said many times, by tonnage is the largest port in the UK.
I was privileged last Friday to go to the official launch of the Humber freeport. It is about seven years since I went to the launch of the freeport project here in Parliament, when a young thrusting Member of Parliament —who happens now to be the Prime Minister—presented a report with the idea of developing freeports. I saw the advantage of that to my constituency and established the freeports all-party parliamentary group to push the Government in that direction. I am delighted that that policy was adopted, and the freeport in the Humber is now established and open for business.
Another thing that would make the area even more attractive to potential investment is the conclusion of the Greater Lincolnshire devolution deal, which has been in and out of various Ministers’ files for a number of years. It is crucial if we are to get the best advantage, particularly for the north of Lincolnshire, but the benefits will spread throughout the county.
We were fortunate to have been successful with two levelling-up bids. One was for the Cleethorpes masterplan, which details the further regeneration of what I have said many times is the premier resort of the east coast. The other was for various projects surrounding transport in Barton-upon-Humber, particularly the crucial Barton relief road. Barton has benefited greatly from the reduction in the Humber bridge tolls—an early campaign by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy)—but Barton is expanding and, like most market towns and villages, has had to take far too many housing developments without the associated public services to support the new residents. I urge the Government, as other Members have this afternoon, to focus on planning system reform so that development runs in tandem with the extension of public services, which are so essential to any community.
As I turn to my final topic, I am delighted that the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), has entered the Chamber. As he might expect, I am going to talk, as others have today, about ticket office closures, which is one of those issues that has come to the fore. Every now and again, all Governments and councils make what seems like a routine decision and then it suddenly comes back to bite them. I suggest to the Minister that this might be one of them and that it needs some further consideration.
The rail sector has done much in recent years to assist, in particular, blind and disabled people, and it is those people who are most up in arms about this project. Compromises are surely available. May I suggest one? Perhaps, before implementation—and I hope that implementation is delayed, preferably long delayed—we could at least know where the staff will be redeployed and the hours for which they will available at the station. There are 10 railway stations in my constituency, and only one, at Cleethorpes, has a ticket office. The objection from North Lincolnshire Council, which has been sent to the Secretary of State, says:
“The Council has previously worked in partnership with TransPennine Express to refurbish and upgrade the ticket offices at Cleethorpes and Grimsby Town train stations. The Council’s financial contribution was made through the Local Transport Plan Capital Programme. If the ticket offices are closed… North East Lincolnshire will not experience the anticipated benefits from the Council’s …contribution.”
Yet again, public money has gone into improving a facility that, only a short time later, is closed. This is economic madness. I urge the Minister to reconsider and to take particular note of the objections that are coming from disabled groups, who are passionately opposed to these developments, and I urge the Government to delay their implementation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the winding-up speeches. My guidance is for each speaker to take eight minutes.
Free Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny
Debate between Martin Vickers and Nigel Evans(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As a member of the International Trade Committee I endorse much of what the Chair has said, although he never loses an opportunity to attack Brexit, so we cannot entirely agree on everything.
Does he acknowledge that there is a cross-party majority on the Committee who acknowledge that the relationship between the Committee and the previous Secretary of State caused problems? There is now an opportunity to reset that. Does he agree that a majority on the Committee want more free trade deals, and we want to do all we can to facilitate that while being a critical friend?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I used to be Angus’s vice-chair, and it is good to hear that nothing has changed as far as his views.
Economic Update
Debate between Martin Vickers and Nigel Evans(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Matt Vickers—[Interruption.] Sorry, Martin Vickers.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It must have been the mask.
As the Chancellor did at the time of the pandemic, he has put together a very comprehensive protective shield around people in my constituency, and that is very welcome. Many well-paid jobs are being created, particularly in the energy sector, thanks to Government policies, but there are many, particularly in food processing or the security sector, who are on very modest incomes and fixed incomes. Can my right hon. Friend give them an assurance that he will keep this policy under review so that if the energy price rise continues, as is likely, they can be reassured that support will be available?
Public Health
Debate between Martin Vickers and Nigel Evans(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
We have heard some passionate speeches this afternoon opposing the Government’s measures, but I have to say that on this occasion I feel they are wrong. We have had much quoting of local infection rates, which of course is an important measure, but equally important is hospital capacity, and hospitals are not necessarily in the same constituency or council area as the relevant infection rates. Earlier I listened to the passionate and powerful speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who referred to his Market Rasen ward. Market Rasen is about 15 miles outside the boundary of my constituency, and people in Market Rasen go to Grimsby, Scunthorpe and Lincoln hospitals if they need treatment. None of those hospitals is in the same council area as Market Rasen.
We need to take note of what Peter Reading, the chief executive of Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, said in a statement this morning:
“In common with all trust chief executives, I am concerned that some media reports in recent days have suggested the hospitals are under less pressure than last winter. We believe these reports misunderstand and grossly under-estimate what is actually happening and the huge impact that covid has had on operations and capacity in our hospitals”.
It is irresponsible not to take note of such comments.
Locally, my infection rate in the constituency has roughly halved over the past two or three weeks, so it is difficult to argue that the lockdown has not had some impact. We had a low infection rate in the spring, and people wanted to put up the shutters and prevent people from coming to our area. They also wanted strict enforcement. Now, they want equally strict enforcement because we have a significantly higher rate. Those who argue that the Government are taking too much notice of a small group of experts in SAGE and so on also have to explain why most major European countries are deploying similar policies. Are all their experts equally wrong?
We do need more support, particularly for coastal areas. Where the Government decree that businesses should cease going about their legal business, they need more support from the Government. I and my immediate neighbours will certainly be pressing the Minister for additional support. Like other hon. Members, I have doubts about the five days of relaxation for Christmas. We should be mindful of what could happen in the new year.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I call Rachael Maskell, if anybody is on the call list who does not intend to take part in the debate and who has not withdrawn already, please get the message through to the Speaker’s Office so we can better manage the rest of the debate.
Energy Bill
Debate between Martin Vickers and Nigel Evans
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Bill is important for the country and particularly for my constituency, as its economic future is closely linked to the development of the offshore renewables sector, which is a vital ingredient if we are to see the economic renaissance of northern Lincolnshire and Humberside. Indeed, the Government recognised that by establishing the pan-Humber local enterprise partnership with specific responsibility for developing an energy super-cluster for the renewables sector. Growth is already happening, with more than 1,500 jobs having been created in the year to April. More than 20 vessels now sail from Grimsby docks to service offshore projects. Those jobs did not exist two years ago.
The green economy is producing jobs as well as improving the environment, but taxpayers and customers must be convinced. The Humberside area highlights the difficult balance the Government must achieve, as a large proportion of the jobs in or close to my constituency are in energy-intensive industries—oil refineries, chemicals, Tata Steel at Scunthorpe and others—while as I said, thousands of future jobs depend on the offshore renewables sector. Crucial to those long-established employers is the secure, reliable supply of energy that allows them to compete on the world stage. I welcome the scheme that goes some way to compensate some of those energy-intensive businesses.
I make no apology for stressing offshore. I recognise the industry’s preference is for onshore, where costs are considerably less; but it must be accepted that across the country, especially in a constituency such as mine, which is located on the edge of the Lincolnshire Wolds—an area of outstanding natural beauty—an overwhelming number of residents oppose onshore turbines. Recent comments by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), have been warmly welcomed throughout Lincolnshire. I fail to understand why developers do not consider dockland and industrial areas for onshore turbines.
Doubts remain among our constituents as to the value of wind power, and I share them; but the course is set and I want the much needed investment on the Humber bank. If we are to have wind turbines, I want them designed, constructed, serviced and maintained in northern Lincolnshire with the corresponding benefits to existing local businesses, including the supply chain. I am pleased that, after a protracted planning process, progress is now being made with the south Humber energy park. The area is also gearing up, through its local colleges, to establish better training courses.
Whatever course is followed, what potential investors want is certainty, and what those of us paying the bills want is transparency and clear, logical reasons as to why those bills must subsidise large, multinational energy conglomerates. From the point of view of domestic customers, the most welcome feature will be the proposals, helpfully trailed by the Prime Minister, that will result in a reduction in household bills of between 5% and 9% between now and 2030.
This issue is yet another tightrope across which the Government must tread. The public, though still somewhat sceptical about climate change and moves to wind energy, recognise that there are massive costs in its development, but there is a limit to what they are prepared to pay. I have already mentioned the need to limit the costs to industry, but for hard-pressed households, particularly in areas such as my own, where wages are much below the national average, that is absolutely vital. Constant attention is needed to that, and I urge Ministers at all costs to ensure that the consumer is the focus of their—