October 27 2014

It’s strange how some of my parliamentary colleagues seem determined to hold out against one of the most logical and much-needed reforms. Admittedly their arguments are based on good constitutional practice; but when the public are so disillusioned with the political process then change becomes essential.

I refer in particular to the Recall Bill that will allow voters to recall their MP mid-term if he or she falls below the standards expected. Recall exists in many countries though in many different forms. Full marks to the Government for at least bringing proposals forward though they fail what I consider to be a fundamental ingredient of any process of recall; it is the voters who should be in the driving seat not a committee of MPs even though it may be supplemented with lay members – I doubt that the powers that be would pluck those lay members from the streets of Immingham or Cleethorpes. Most likely they would be from the ranks of the ‘great and the good.’ Most of these are indeed decent, honourable people but for the public to have faith in the system it must be seen to be completely transparent and such is the state of public opinion at the moment that won’t be the case if the Government appear to be in control.        

I made this and other points during the debate and it was quite clear that there is a widespread view that those of us who will be putting forward some far-reaching amendments over the next week or two are growing in number. The Government are indicating that they might support some change – I hope so.

There needs to be proper protection against politically motivated campaigns that force by-elections based on the political stance of a sitting member. Many significant changes have come about as a result of MPs campaigning for changes which, at the time, were unpopular. Public opinion changes and some of these are now accepted by the overwhelming majority.

When my phone rang at about 8.30 on Wednesday evening to tell me that the Parliamentary Committee that had been considering the Able UK application to develop the South Humber Marine Energy Park had reached its verdict and rejected ABP’s objections it was something of a relief as the word going round only 24 hours earlier was that it would be at least another week before a decision would be arrived at.

This brought to an end three years of meetings, lobbying and discussion during the exhaustive process to which the scheme has been subjected. All four northern Lincolnshire MPs have worked together, cross-party to bring about a development that has the potential for hundreds of jobs and help establish the Humber Estuary as the off-shore renewables capital of the UK. Hundreds are already benefiting from the growing number of jobs in this sector, and it’s not just those directly employed but the service industries that receive a boost as the local economy gets the shot in the arm it needs.

It’s often a surprise to constituents visiting Westminster that so much cross-party work goes on; we all have the same aim which is to benefit those we represent even if the route is very different.

Whatever reservations we may have about the benefits of off-shore wind turbines surely we should all agree that if they can be maintained, assembled, designed and preferably constructed here with all the jobs on offer then we must give our support and those politicians who oppose them will have to explain themselves.          

October 13 2014

As I write this column it’s the morning after the night before with the election of my former party colleague, Douglas Carswell, under the UKIP banner in Clacton. It’s a victory for a right-of-centre free market, libertarian politician elected with the help of voters who would normally shy away from a candidate with Carswell’s views. I make the comments as an observation, not a criticism as I can understand why voters acted how they did. He will now be a lone voice in Parliament with no access to ministers and unable to achieve the investment in his constituency that is so clearly needed. In this respect he has let his constituents down.

The Party Conference season has no come to its end; how have they may have changed the political landscape. I recognise that most people don’t take a close interest at the goings on in Birmingham, Manchester or wherever but the Conferences are an important forum for parties to highlight policy announcements and for the leadership to grab the all-important few minutes on the main news bulletins.

There’s no escaping that it was a bad conference for the Labour Party and Ed Miliband in particular. His 65-minute speech eventually ground to a halt without a mention of the deficit or immigration. Did he, as we are led to believe, ‘forget’ these issues of did he bottle it at the last moment fearing that facing up to them would again highlight the part the last Labour government played in bringing about financial disaster and their lack of immigration controls? Either way it showed that he is not up to the job of Prime Minister.

The Tory Conference on the other hand was upbeat and positive, with ministers setting out the framework for what a Conservative government elected next May will aim to achieve; it was a programme for government covering all aspects of policy, most notably the economy – the subject on which all governments are ultimately judged and with the British economy being the fastest-growing in the Western World we were able to give a clear indication of the benefits that will flow from that.

The Conference also allows backbench MP s to discuss a range of issues with ministers; for example I held (another) meeting with Rail Minister, Claire Perry, to again press the case for retaining the through train service between Cleethorpes and Manchester. It’s also an opportunity to meet with business representatives, and those from think-tanks who churn out policy ideas – some good, some bad, some completely mad!

The post-Conference polls indicate that voters did indeed pick up from media coverage that it was the Conservatives who have a programme for government rather than a series of sound-bites with little substance.

Though it’s the Conservative and Labour conferences that really matter, since it is David Cameron or Ed Miliband who will be Prime Minister after 7th May - I ought, in order to be even-handed mention the LibDems and UKIP. Somewhat bizarrely the LibDems seem to spend most of their time criticising the Conservatives who for over four years have been their partners in government, trying desperately to claim credit for restoring our economic fortunes and disowning just about everything else; trying to face both ways at the same time is the phrase that comes to mind.

UKIP, whose policies on pensions, housing, transport, health and just about everything else are unknown kicked off by announcing the defection of the appropriately named Tory, Mark Reckless. Above everything else Reckless wants an In/Out EU referendum and has now joined a Party that can’t deliver it; Reckless by name, but also attracted by reckless behaviour.   

September 29 2014

Ed’s Silence says it all

Ed Miliband, by his own admission ‘forgot’ to mention immigration and the deficit in his Conference speech. You may have noticed that he also forgot English voters altogether by seeking to ignore the big question left over from the Scottish referendum namely, ‘why do Scottish MPs vote on English only issues?’

The last Conservative Manifesto promised ‘English votes for English laws’ and circumstances have now brought about the perfect time to honour this commitment.

On 11th September this exchange took place in the House of Commons

Martin Vickers: The Government has understandably indicated that, if the Scottish people vote no, proposals will be introduced for further devolution to the Scottish Parliament within days. That will increase the concerns of my constituents and others in England that we are being treated less favourably than people in other parts of the UK. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that an early statement will be made on how the Government intend to meet the aspirations of the English people and devolve further powers within England?

William Hague: The decision next week is a matter for the people of Scotland, but its implications will be felt across the UK. We have a good record of devolving powers, as we have to Wales or, through the Localism Act 2011, to local authorities. We are a flexible and adaptable Union—that is one of the great strengths of the United Kingdom. That must take account of the people of England as well. As proposals come forward on Scotland over the coming months, there must be every opportunity to debate the implications for England.

As you would expect a week ahead of the vote William Hague played a straight bat, but within an hour of the formal declaration that the Union was safe the Prime Minister was on the steps of Downing Street making clear that the Conservatives will move to prevent Scottish MPs voting on English-only legislation.

I don’t claim that I alone prompted the Prime Minister’s response just one week after my question but I was one of many backbenchers urging David Cameron to do exactly what he did by stating quite clearly that the English issue must be dealt with alongside granting more powers to the Scottish Parliament. This is yet another example of the importance of being part of one of the large party groups at Westminster that I mentioned in my column a couple of weeks ago.

‘English votes for English Laws’ is one simple part of the post-referendum settlement that can be introduced quickly and simply. Following from that we need more devolution to more powerful unitary councils headed by an elected mayor. Elected mayors are the equivalent of a directly-elected leader of the council. The Chris Shaw’s of this world should be elected directly by voters rather than emerge from a closed meeting of the Labour Party.

Back to Ed Miliband’s big omission; come next May it is the economy that will determine the outcome of the Election and the alternative prime minister forgets to address it in his last big Conference Speech before polling day.

Though the economy is improving households remain hard-pressed but it’s worth noting that disposable income is increasing. As the Asda Income Tracker published last week states:

   

The average UK household had £173 a week of discretionary income in July 2014, up by £3 a week on the same month a year before and coming close to the all time high of £174 in January 2010.

The improvement is slower than we would all like but stability and prosperity are returning.

I write just before the debate on Iraq gets underway; once again we risk being dragged into a Middle-Eastern conflict. That said the motion to be debated is very narrowly worded limiting the Government’s actions – rightly so.  

September 4 2014

There’s certainly not been a ‘silly season’ this August with the summer months dominated by news from many of the world’s troublespots, particularly the Middle East and when Parliament returns today there will be an opportunity for ministers to update the House with developments and to debate how to react to a fast-changing state of affairs.

The appalling events in Rotherham then dominated the headlines only to be overtaken, at least for 24 hours, by the bizarre decision of Tory MP Douglas Carswell to quit his seat and join UKIP. Why is this bizarre? Because it will achieve the exact opposite of what he would like to happen. By their own admission UKIP hope to win between three and six seats at the General Election and in our first-past-the-post electoral system that is an ambitious target. Though UKIP are now targeting Labour voters the polling organisations are agreed that it will be the Conservatives that are more likely to suffer if the UKIP vote increases substantially.  The result of which will be an Ed Miliband led government that will not deliver the Euro referendum that many of us have fought for many years to achieve and, with a Tory government, is now set for 2017; and for those who say, wrongly, that we failed to deliver on our last promise I can assure you that the pressure is such within the Conservative Party that there is no possibility of it not going ahead. It will happen; but only with a Conservative government.

The other aspect of Mr Carswell’s decision that has not featured in the recent coverage of the story is that it is bad news for his constituents. At the moment he is part of the Party in government and, as such, can bend the ear of Conservative ministers, have access to the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and others who can make decisions that will affect his constituency. All that will disappear, if he wins the by-election he will be a lone voice, shunned by his colleagues and even if he wins in next year’s General Election, and even if joined by two or three others he will have no influence over government policy and decisions whether it be David Cameron or Ed Miliband in Downing Street.

Like many Conservative voters I share some of the aims and aspirations of UKIP but I want the representative for Cleethorpes to have some influence. I’ll give one example; after over twenty years of campaigning this Government wrote off £150 million of debt and halved the tolls on the Humber Bridge. In our first interview days after the last General Election my colleague from Brigg & Goole, Andrew Percy and I committed ourselves to achieving a toll reduction. Countless meetings with the responsible minister, Justine Greening followed, she visited the area and after meetings with campaigners and the business community immediately appreciated the arguments and between us we then convinced the Treasury and Chancellor. The reduction has been hugely beneficial to individuals and businesses. Would ministers had been persuaded to listen and spend an enormous amount of time and energy for the representative of a party with just two or three MPs?

Today the main focus of the campaign to retain through train services between Cleethorpes and Manchester switches back to Westminster. Having persuaded the Chairman of the Transport Select Committee to include the issue in their current review of railway investment and to call the leaders of North and North East Lincolnshire Council as witnesses I'm confident that yet more pressure can be put on the Department of Transport to withdraw this particular option from the list of proposals.

August 4 2014

These last couple of weeks I’ve been privileged to be present at a number of events that are important to the lives of our community. I’ll take them in date order; on Sunday 20th July it was Mayor’s Sunday. In generations past this was a major event marked by a massive parade through crowded streets as the new mayor accompanied by other civic heads, military representatives and uniformed voluntary groups made their way from the Town Hall to the Parish Church where the mayor received God’s blessing.

In recent years of course other attractions mean that people don’t turn out in their thousands to see a parade but nevertheless it is an important occasion for the Borough. I’ve always felt that this event should take place as close to the mayor’s election as possible and that we should make a real effort to return it to the more prestigious occasion it was when I was first elected a councillor in 1980. Clearly the incoming mayor and others felt the same and it had some of the occasions of old about it.

The first good sign was that as I arrived at the Town Hall I noticed that both the flags of Cleethorpes and Great Grimsby were flying proudly rather than the North East Lincolnshire flag which, as I have commented before, looks more like the white flag of surrender which, though that might be well suited to some of the administrations that have ruled the Borough it is not what you want to see for a major civic occasion.

Later that week the Royal Anglian Regiment exercised their Freedom of the Borough and rightly this did indeed bring the crowds onto the streets of Cleethorpes to cheer and support what despite re-organisations and the merger of various regiments we still respect and admire as our ‘County Regiment.’

Two days later I was at St. Paul’s Cathedral to witness the consecration of the new Bishop of Grimsby, David Court. Like all new bishops, must be ordained and consecrated bishop. It was news to me that these ceremonies always take place at either St. Paul’s, Westminster Abbey or Southwark Cathedral.

It was a grand occasion led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by the Bishops of London and Winchester and, of course the Bishop of Lincoln, was also present. In some ways it was something akin to the State Opening of Parliament - officials appear with fantastic names. At the State Opening the Heralds appear dressed like the pictures found on playing cards such as Portcullis Pursuivant and Arundel Herald Extraordinary. For this ceremony the Ostiarius, the Prolocutor, Crucifer and acolytes appeared.

Thanks to the wonders of the internet I now know that the Ostiarius was originally a doorkeeper who had the responsibility of ensuring that no unbaptised person entered the church during the Eucharist and the Prolocutor is the chairman of the lower house of the province of Canterbury. Ahead of them in the procession was the Crucifer and Acolytes. The Crucifer is someone appointed to carry the processional cross and an acolyte is defined as someone who assists the celebrant   

In the performance of liturgical rites or, and this is the meaning we associate with the word, a devoted follower.

Two days later, along with other politicians, civic heads and the leaders of many organisations, I was in Lincoln Cathedral at a service to welcome the new bishop into the Lincoln diocese which was a very joyful occasion.

The significance of these occasions is that they bring our community together and emphasise the importance of so many organisations and the part they play in keeping our society together and the Bishop plays an important part as a community and social leader. Whether or not you are a person of faith the Bishop will have some influence on shaping our local community and rightly so, it was good to be able to welcome him to his role.      

July 4 2014

This last week has shown the value of teamwork and acts as a reminder that MPs across party can work together for the benefit of those we represent.

On the Friday before last I, along with my immediate neighbour Andrew Percy from Brigg & Goole along with colleagues from the North Bank and councillors from the four authorities met at the Humber Bridge offices to receive an update from Environment Agency officials on the work being done to draw up plans that will lead to work that will strengthen flood defences along the estuary.

We were fortunate that the tidal surge that occurred last December, which was larger than that in the terrible events of February 1953, led to no loss of life though, sadly, hundreds of homes were flooded.

As well as keeping us up to date with the plans to further strengthen the defences the intention was to ensure that we were fully briefed ahead of a debate held last Tuesday about flood risk on the Humber and to again make the case for more resources to carry out the work. It’s estimated at £888 million over the next ten years.

At the debate we were able to present a united front and, as agreed at Friday’s meeting, each of us would focus on a particular aspect. As well as myself, Andrew Percy, Greg Knight, Graham Stuart and David Davis from the Tory side and Alan Johnson, Diana Johnson and Nic Dakin for Labour made speeches and we received a good response from Dan Rogerson the Department of Environment minister.

This week we will be taking our case to 10 Downing Street and a meeting with the Prime Minister; an opportunity to reiterate our case to the top man. Taxpayers are faced with a massive bill to upgrade flood defences and we are ahead of the game in pulling together plans and arguing our case to protect homes and the massive industrial facilities along the Humber.

You can read the text of the whole debate at

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140701/halltext/140701h0001.htm#14070142000001

Another example of this teamwork is the campaign to retain through trains on the Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport line. There is no doubting that transport connections are vital to any area seeking to expand its economy. Whilst it is not the case, as it is sometimes portrayed that someone sits down looks at the map and says ‘let’s be nasty to Lincolnshire and take away their trains’ it is true to say too often the lines on the map don’t lead to our part of the world; there’s too much of a focus on the major cities rather than the provincial towns.

If we are to win this debate it’s no use just saying it’s unfair and inconvenient we have to provide good evidence based arguments. The reality is that as more and more of the rail network is electrified – which is good - the services out to peripheral areas such as northern Lincolnshire become feeder services into the core electric network and as railways throughout the world are electrified the diesel units become scarce because it becomes less profitable to manufacture them.

As the minister has told me repeatedly – ‘this is a genuine consultation, no decisions will be made until the results of the consultation have been analysed and weighed against alternative proposals.

What we don’t want is a return to British Rail days with a slow and irregular service. Trans-Pennine have shown us that regular interval services with good rolling stock will attract more passengers; they deserve to be allowed to continue.            

          

Finally a quick mention for two constituents I’ve met in Westminster since my last column. Sonia Allen from Ulceby is an Ambassador for Cancer Research and Rolf Sperr from New Waltham whose work for Rotary particularly in bringing Dolly Parton’s ‘Imagination Library’ to NE Lincolnshire was recognised when he received an award from the Deputy Prime Minister. Two individuals working hard for their communities who deserve our thanks.

June 23 2014

Bringing together three events that I have been observing over the last couple of weeks brings together Church, State and football.

I suspect you won’t need a clue to guess that the football I refer to is the World Cup. The State issue I’m thinking of is the dispute between Cabinet colleagues Michael Gove and Theresa May and the Church connection is that on Tuesday I had breakfast with David Cameron and the Archbishop of Canterbury – well Ok there were seven hundred other people there as I attended the National Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast but it was a much better event for that; the Prime Minister was there to hear the Archbishop who was the guest speaker. Incidentally Ed Miliband was also there and more of him later. The link to the other two stories is that, as the Archbishop acknowledged the Church of England does not escape its own disputes.   

I’m writing this column immediately after watching England’s defeat at the hands of Uruguay and, in particular, by Luis Suarez. Sadly the team look like being on the flight home sooner than we would have liked.

I won’t inflict my own analysis of the match as you’ve probably had your fill of football punditry over the last couple of weeks but one message has been coming through loud and clear; we are not playing as a unit – too many individuals and not enough teamwork.

Teamwork is of course essential to government and once a policy is decided on collective responsibility as it is called comes into play and all government members must stick to the line leaving backbenchers like me to criticise or support as we see fit. I always take the view that I must always balance what I consider to be the best interests of my constituency and the views of constituents against the fact that many if not most people decide who to vote for based on the party label and so expect a Conservative MP to support a Conservative, or in the present case, a Conservative led government. I’m firmly of the view that I or any of my colleagues can maximise our influence by making clear our opposition and being prepared to vote against the government when necessary but choosing the most important issues; if you are a permanent thorn in the side you will lose influence rather than gain it and that is not in the best interests of those you represent.

But when teamwork breaks down as in the recent spat involving Michael Gove and Theresa May many in the media immediately focus on the personalities and we risk the serious issues at stake being trivialised. Surely none of us seriously consider than everyone in government agrees all of the time and if they did surely that would be bad for government. Any government needs serious debate and discussion to flush out the failings in whatever policy is being considered.

The internal conflicts the Archbishop referred to was the role of women in the Church of England. After years of debate the Church eventually allowed women to be ordained and ever since has been wrestling with the divisive issue of whether, or perhaps more accurately those priests should be able to become bishops.

Thankfully Archbishop Welby seems to have brokered a solution that will allow the Church to concentrate on preaching the Gospel and carrying out its wider role in society rather than endless internal debates.

What of Ed Miliband? Labours hopes of returning to government at next year’s General Election are growing less and less. His personal ratings dropped by another fourteen points in a poll published a few days ago. After the Newark by-election and the continuing improvement to the economy the Government can now move forward knowing that the public is broadly supportive of so much they have achieved. The Labour team are becoming less disciplined and talking out of turn. Have you noticed how few Labour shadow ministers and MPs are prepared to offer undying support when interviewed? Hardly any, Peter Mandelson being one of the latest. They realise they need a new matchwinner b

April 14 2014

I have been struck in recent days about three completely separate events and how they disprove the widely held views about our current political scene.

On Wednesday morning I read a press article prompted by the recent publication of a biography of Labour politician Roy Jenkins. Very often we complain that our politicians come from the ‘political classes’ moving from the study of politics or economics to a job with one of the political parties or an MP and then eventually becoming an MP themselves; we ask; ‘what do they know about life? Never had a proper job’ we say. A view that, in many cases, I subscribe to but as the article pointed out this is nothing new. Roy Jenkins himself was the son of a member of parliament so too was Winston Churchill and countless others. In the 19^th century it was the norm.

On the same day as I read the article drawing my attention to these political dynasties I attended the launch of a new publication called ‘The Party of Opportunity.’ This was compiled by my colleague David Amess the MP for Southend. West.

It features fourteen Conservative MPs, or fifteen if you include John Major who wrote the introduction, all from working-class backgrounds. Perhaps even more notable is the fact that he has already unearthed enough about the backgrounds of Tories to fill another three volumes one of which will include yours truly.

Four of the fourteen are ministers and two in the Cabinet – though when the booklet was launched on Wednesday morning the number was only one since Sajid Javid was only promoted to the Cabinet as the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport an hour or so later. Sajid is the son of a bus driver.      

The other Cabinet member featured is former miner and now Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin.

All of those featured were state educated and worked hard to achieve their present positions. I suspect that if were to read their profiles without indicating their Party labels you would be tempted to say ‘no they couldn’t possibly be Tories’ but the stereotypes will all have in our minds are so often not the reality. If you would like an electronic copy of the booklet please email me at martin.vickers.mp@parliament.uk

The third event was last Thursday during a debate when my colleague from the neighbouring constituency Edward Leigh spoke about how Parliament should go about attracting people from a wider variety of backgrounds, he said “we need to make this place more attractive and diverse. We have not yet succeeded in attracting as many working mothers to this place as we should have done.”

Edward is often portrayed as been ‘one of the old school, right wing and out of touch;’ clearly another piece of stereotyping.

Bringing all of this together what it shows is that, like all of the parties, the Conservatives need to do more to become wholly representative but forget the stereotypical Tory MP – lawyer, stockbroker, public school and the like – miner, electrician, fireman and the local comprehensive is equally the case. If anything we Conservatives have a more diverse parliamentary party than our opponents. 

One other event from last week was an opportunity to meet Dave McGuire from Cleethorpes who was receiving an award as a Neighbourhood Energy Champion helping and advising those who are affected by fuel poverty. Dave is yet another example of someone giving their own time to help their community. His award was well deserved.  

March 17 2014

The referendum is democracy in its purest form; everyone has a vote and the vote of everyone reading this column will be equal with that of your neighbour, your member of parliament or your prime minister.

It took just under a century for this country to move from only a handful of the population being able to determine who was to represent us in parliament to full equality for all adults. The 1832 Reform Act started the process that was completed in 1928 when the voting age for women was reduced from 30 to 21.

Of course it’s not possible to be holding votes month in month out and as a representative democracy we entrust most of those decisions to either our local or national politicians but for major decisions, particularly ones that divide parties,  the referendum is the most appropriate method of gaining the approval or rejection of the electorate.

Nothing is more important than determining the future direction of the country which is why there will be a referendum in Scotland to decide whether or not to leave the United Kingdom; a policy decided upon by the Coalition with Labour Party support.

Our membership of the European Union must surely be as big an issue as Scottish independence; after all it is an organisation with the aim of European political union – something I and a large number of voters oppose. It may or may not be a majority but the only way to test that is via a referendum.

Europe is a fault line that has run through the British body politic for more than forty years. If after the 1975 referendum there had been further referendum after each of the major treaties it is possible that we might still be EU members. I personally would regret that but the important thing is that as a country it would be with the consent of the British people. Until we repair that fault line it is an issue that will continue to divide the nation.

Last week’s policy statement by Ed Miliband leaves the Labour party policy in a complete muddle as witness headlines in different newspapers last Thursday morning. One announcing that it was Labour policy to hold an in/out referendum and another stating the exact opposite; something that was clearly the result of the Party trying to spin the same story in two opposite directions – what a joke.    

There is no way that the British people will be taken in by such blatant doublespeak.

So why would anyone who favours the democratic process oppose a referendum on such is major issue; and we must assume that Mr Miliband and his colleagues are democrats. Could it be that they fear the people may disagree with them? Or perhaps they consider that we are unable to determine the direction in which our country goes over the next generation or two?

The Labour position is that the Scots have the right to determine their own future but not the British people as a whole.

In the 1975 referendum I campaigned for us to leave the Common Market as it was then called. Since then it has evolved into the European Union. Its aim of political union has always been there despite what politicians such as Wilson, Jenkins, Heath, & Callaghan said at the time. There is a perfectly honourable and reasoned argument in favour. It’s just one that I don’t happen to share but whichever side of the argument you are on it is a decision that should be for all of us. As I said at the start of this article a referendum is for all; David Cameron will have just one vote, and so will you. It seems reasonable to me but not to Ed and his Party.        

February 27 2014

Thursday 27^th February: a varied and interesting day. Let’s focus on just one day to give a flavour of life at Westminster.

I arrive in the office a little before 8.30 turn to the Telegraph’s website to see what’s making the local news. Then to the iPlayer to see what was featured on the previous night’s Look North while flicking through the emails to see if there is anything that needs immediate attention.

At 9.20 I set off on the 5 minute walk through the labyrinthine corridors of the parliamentary estate to get to the Commons Chamber in time for prayers. As Big Ben chimes the Senior Doorman enters and in a booming voice says ‘Speaker’ which echoes around and the Speaker’s Procession appears. The Speaker appears alongside the Serjeant-at-Arms who carries the Mace. Behind them the Speaker’s Chaplain, the Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin. Rose is a wonderful lady from Montego Bay and her life story is fascinating as many of you may have heard recently on Radio 4’s Desert Island Discs. You have to be a particularly resolute and determined character to come from a West Indian island to the traditionally Establishment position of Speaker’s Chaplain and, as if that wasn’t enough, Chaplain to H.M. the Queen; and Rose is also a parish priest in Hackney.

The first business each day is Question Time and today it’s the Energy & Climate Change Department. I have question 13 just far enough up the list to be reasonably sure of reaching it before time is called. Members often use examples of issues brought to their attention by constituents and on this occasion I do just that.

My question is ‘What steps he is taking to ensure that energy suppliers check the accuracy of meters?’ After the Minister’s reply I outline a long dispute with the company concerned that eventually led to them agreeing that they had overcharged by the staggering sum of £2548 and three months later still no refund. I suspect that a cheque will very soon be in the post.

Then we moved onto the weekly questions to the Leader of the House. My question is simple and to the point: ‘My flood-hit constituents are mystified at why the Government do not seem to be applying for EU funds that could assist them. May we have a statement to clarify the situation?                         ‘

The reply though is much more complicated and clearly more work needs to be done to establish whether we are better off applying for relief funds or not and like most things European it’s not as simple as you would expect.

Immediately after that it’s a quick dash to the Royal Gallery in the Lords where Angela Merkel the German Chancellor is due to address members. As always on these occasions it’s a half-hour wait and a chance to look around and see who is there. Diplomats, peers, a whole collection of ex-ministers; I can’t help thinking about all the experience and knowledge about world affairs is gathered together. I’m behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer who when taking his seat and realising he was surrounded by Labour members joked that he was ‘clearly amongst friends.’ Behind me former Foreign Secretaries, Jack Straw and Margaret Beckett; on the front row David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband sit side-by-side. Ed Balls exchanges a joke with William Hague. At midday the doors swing open; Dr Merkel enters and takes her place on the podium.

Her speech ranges across a range of world affairs but all attention is on whether she will hint at support for David Cameron’s strategy of renegotiating our relationship with the EU.

After the grandeur of that occasion it was to the cafeteria for a bite to eat and back to the office to finalise what I’m going to say in the afternoon debate about Parliamentary Representation and how we go about broadening the range of MPs. I have decided to focus on how we encourage more people with working class backgrounds to consider a political career.

Then at 5 one last meeting before checking a few more emails and the dash to King’s Cross for the 19.03 train. I’ll be home to watch Question Time!                     

February 17 2014

HAS FREEDOM TAKEN ANOTHER BLOW?

Last week's vote on whether or not to make it illegal to smoke in a car when a child is on board set me thinking about political philosophy and its relationship with freedom and liberty. Sorry if that sounds a bit profound but politics must have a philosophical base to build on. This could be heavy going but here goes....

There will be few among us who would disagree with the proposition that it is wrong to smoke in a confined space with anyone present let alone a child. It's also irresponsible to feed children an endless supply of junk food or to smoke when pregnant or a 1001 other things but are we going to make them all illegal?

What about smoking in your home when a child is present? Or is that seen as a step too far? How would it be policed?

How much should our lives be regulated by the State? In recent years as a society we have accepted more and more regulation and seemingly been happy to do so. The smoking ban was perhaps the most restrictive and yet it is one of those social changes that is unlikely to be reversed. That's not to say there isn't opposition; there always is and it's the job of the political process to balance the pros and cons and then decide.

At the root of Conservative thinking as always been the concepts of freedom and liberty. That's not to say 'anything goes' but that there should always be a presumption in favour of individual freedom rather than 'we know what's good for you and will impose our values on you.' By ‘we’ we mean the State.

Conservatives believe that it is from our relationship with other people rather than the State that our values and identities evolve; that communities evolve and are informed by customs that have stood the test of time and are protected by the rule of law. In the modern world the State will inevitably have a bigger role but Conservatives believe its reach should always be subject to challenge. The State is just one part of our civil society; it provides the means to protect it.

Conservatives believe in respect for individual freedom and for the agreements, customs and institutions that flow from it.

Another debate surrounds free speech; should you be free to insult your neighbour? An insult can cause deep offence to some, especially if aimed at family or religion, for others it will be greeted by a shrug of the shoulder. In a tolerant and civilised society we should always seek not to be gratuitously offensive. Sometimes it's hard to rub along with many of those around us but we have to learn to live with each other.

If you are a public figure you must expect to be criticised: sportsmen, priests, or whatever. Much criticism is abusive and crude, some bordering on criminal. Politicians above all must expect to be on the receiving end but even for us there must be limits. It's women MPs that have suffered most; many receiving sexual messages of the most unpleasant kind even threatening rape and threats to family members.

Recently you may remember the news story involving Caroline Criado-Perez

who

 

.was campaigning to have a woman featured on bank notes. You may not agree but would you seriously think of sending her threatening messages? Sadly, many did.

Much of the above is covered by the criminal law and goes far beyond what is acceptable. So we all accept limits on our freedom but

there is a point at which the State becomes too oppressive and each little chink knocked away diminishes those cherished freedoms that have been fought for over the centuries. Different societies will draw the line in a different place. Only last year Parliament voted to limit press freedom - again this was just a little but something that would be unconstitutional in the United States where the first amendment states very clearly that 'Congress shall make no law......abridging the freedom of the press.’

107 MPs voted against the smoking in cars ban but lost; has freedom taken another blow?  

February 3 2014

One of those standard lines used by MPS of all parties is 'my postbag is full of messages expressing concerns about.....' or some variation on it. Nowadays of course we should say inbox rather than postbag because it is now relatively rare for a constituent to actually write to their MP but email means that many more to let their Westminster representative what they think about a whole variety of subjects. But how representative are they?

‎If I were to hear from just one per cent of my constituents on any one subject it would mean receiving about 700 messages and though it sometimes feels like that many in truth I have never received anything like that number and only one subject has passed 100. Was it a perceived threat to the NHS, possible military action in Libya or Syria, increased tuition fees, pensions, education? No actually it was what was portrayed as privatisation of forests. 

Usually, of course, it is people opposed to something that contact their MP. ‎A couple of weeks ago someone emailed to ask how many people had contacted me about the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill of which I suspect few readers will have heard, actually it's been quite a few, but when I replied saying 43 he seemed shocked. Anyway the Bill this week received the Royal Assent.

The big set-piece parliamentary event of the week has certainly been the Immigration Bill which will go a long way to tightening up the law with respect to all aspects of immigration including rights of appeal, access to benefits and services and the regulation of sham marriages.

I was one of 97 Conservatives who voted to strengthen even more the rules governing deportation of foreign criminals which Labour and the LibDems voted against. Even more surprisingly they voted against the whole Bill.

This came less than a week after they joined forces in the House of Lords in an attempt to wreck the Bill seeking to put into law that there must be an in/out European referendum before the end of 2017. The irony of the unelected House of Lords trying to prevent the British people from going to the polling station is disgraceful.

The common theme running through the debates over the Immigration Bill and the Referendum Bill is that Labour and the LibDems are on the wrong side of public opinion. These are two of the issues that, apart from the economy, are the ones that most people want to talk about on the doorstep or at my street or supermarket surgeries.

I can’t for the life of me see why Labour should want to place themselves in this so obviously out-of-touch position. To have an unelected House of Lords out of touch with public opinion is one thing but to have the Official Opposition in that position is very surprising.

The really good news of this last week were the latest growth figures; there can now be no doubt that the recovery is well under way. Of course it will take time to filter down but we are heading for better times and I’m delighted that the recent debate about a possible increase in the minimum wage clearly shows that the Government intend to ensure that the lower=paid are among the first to benefit. 

January 30 2014

How big a role would you like to see Britain play in the world and how much are you prepared to pay for whatever role you would like to see? This week there have been reports critical of our reduced defence spending and, in particular that, for the moment, we have no aircraft carrier. The British people are rightly proud of our Armed Forces and would ideally like to see them in larger numbers. 

             

After our Iraq and Afghanistan commitments the country is war-weary and has little appetite for further interventions. Last August when the Government was contemplating intervention in Syria there was little support and certainly after I opposed military action I received only one critical email and that was from someone who was not a constituent.

So at the same time as we want to intervene less, we would still like us to maintain a large military establishment. Yet another circle for the politicians to square.

Last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions was a rather subdued affair but the last question brought us all a smile; this is how Hansard, the Parliamentary record, reports it:

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): The Leader of the Opposition has said, “What Hollande is doing in France I want to do in Britain.” Given recent events across the channel, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is completely at odds with our long-term economic plan?
The Prime Minister: I did not catch all of President Hollande’s press conference yesterday, because I was appearing in front of the Liaison Committee, but one thing that I did notice is that the French proposals now are to cut spending in order to cut taxes in order to make the economy more competitive. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor, in his new silent form, will want to consider some of those ideas and recognise that this revolution of making business more competitive and trying to win in the global race is a proper plan for the economy.

Even Ed Miliband allowed a grin to cross his face. But behind the smiles there was a serious point. The French President came to power with a Labour Party style set of policies. Taxes went up and unemployment stands at over 11 per cent. So what happened? He’s now proposing spending cuts of £41.5 billion – far more than in the UK. So George Osborne hasn’t needed a Plan B as the two Edsm Balls and Miliband, have been arguing for over the last three years.

French cuts are going to be painful as have ours but consider four cuts we can all welcome: the deficit cut, unemployment cut, taxation cut, fuel duty cut.

At a local level I received the Hull & Humber Chamber of Commerce’s latest economic forecast last week and it contained yet more good economic news: two-thirds of companies are expecting to increase turnover this year and as I go round the constituency there is certainly increased optimism throughout the local business community.

One final thought; the newly refurbished Cleethorpes Leisure Centre looked pretty impressive in the Telegraph the other day which made me ask- shouldn’t the Council have refurbished the Scartho Road pool and had a few million to spend elsewhere? I think we all know the answer except that is, our Labour councillors.           

October 28 2013

Many of you will have read last Monday’s Telegraph report of my night out on patrol in Cleethorpes with the Humberside Police Commissioner, Matthew Grove, the police and our magnificent ‘Street Angels.’

The role of Police Commissioner was the subject of much debate when the legislation was passing through Parliament a couple of years ago but most of the commissioners are settling into their roles and providing both real accountability and developing links with the local communities throughout the Force area. I can see their role extending over coming years perhaps incorporating responsibility for the other emergency services.

After last week when the three Police Federation officers appeared before Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee to be questioned about their part in the downfall of former Cabinet Minister, Andrew Mitchell who can doubt that the police must be democratically accountable.

But I digress; the officers I meet as I go about the constituency are dedicated to serving the public and we owe them our thanks and appreciation. Certainly those I saw in action on the streets of Cleethorpes were able to diffuse some rather tense encounters using a mix of humour, firmness and authority.

Turning to the ‘Street Angels:’ they are a dedicated group of individuals who give up many of their Saturday nights to walk the streets until 2.30 a.m. keeping an eye out for anyone in distress or perhaps a little worse for drink. Organised by Churches Together in North East Lincolnshire they are people of faith who are genuinely concerned about their local community.

Similar groups operate in towns and cities up and down the country. They are admirable in every way.     

As well as the police there was a representative from the Fire and Rescue Service and North East Lincolnshire Council. All of these people on the streets at vast expense to the taxpayer so that people can, in some cases, drink too much.

I’m no killjoy nor do I want to do anything to harm the night-time economy since lots of local people work in the clubs and bars and I supported the introduction of 24 hour licensing in the hope that it would bring about a culture change but, like other north European nations such as Germany and Holland we seem unable to adopt the drinking habits of the more southern European countries and perhaps that means we need to restore a little more regulation.

One culture change that does seem to have taken place is that many of our younger people seem to go out with the intention of getting drunk, something that was very much less prevalent until more recent years. The availability of cheap alcohol from supermarkets seems to be the reason. In years gone by people went to the pub and moved onto a club around 11 o’clock where they were able to enjoy themselves until around 2 a.m.

I’m opposed to minimum unit pricing because it penalises the responsible drinker who wants to enjoy a few beers a bottle of wine at home but I do think there is a case for preventing the supermarkets from selling booze at below cost. Perhaps this coupled with returning to a slightly more regulated system of licensing hours might mean we make life a little less fraught for the taxi operators we spoke to, the police, the staff at A & E, the staff at the Takeaways and as I mentioned earlier ease the burden on the taxpayer. What do you think? Please let me know at martin.vickers.mp@parliament.uk

One rather surreal moment occurred around midnight when we decided to have a bite to eat. On our travels around Cleethorpes we were accompanied by Adrian Gill the feature writer and restaurant critic for the Sunday Times who writes under the name of A.A. Gill. As we took our place in Valentinos Italian restaurant in the Market Place I mused on how often a London restaurant critic turns up unannounced at a Cleethorpes eatery. My pizza was first-rate; will we ever know what Adrian thought of his steak? Check out the Sunday Times for the next few weeks, that’s if it wasn’t in yesterday.   

Sept 30 2013

With the Party Conference season upon us it’s worth asking what, if any, useful purpose they serve. Those of us actively involved in politics tend to love them or at best have a take-it or leave-it attitude toward them but for the public at large they pass almost unnoticed.

Of course the big speeches will get a fair amount of coverage on the main news bulletins and as a result will, for a short time, linger in the memory. A sound-bite may enter the political language for a generation to come; think of Margaret Thatcher’s ‘you turn if you want to, the lady’s not for turning’ or maybe you can remember Neil Kinnock’s attack on the Militant Tendency but most speeches are just a part, however important, of the process of sending a message about the direction of travel of a Party and makes a contribution to the public perception of the Party and its leading players.

Sometimes, for all the wrong reasons, the conference can produce headlines exactly the opposite of what is wanted. Just ask that colourful character UKIP MEP and party leader Nigel Farage. His fellow MEP Godfrey Bloom completely derailed their gathering. The only message to have emerged was based on Mr Bloom’s comments and behaviour. Mr Bloom is of course one of our own MEPs representing as he does the Yorkshire and Humber region; now of course sitting as an Independent and keeping his options open as to his future. The most interesting feature of the way the story developed is the Party’s reaction. Mr Bloom was, to say the least, acting politically incorrect but the party which claims to be the antidote to political correctness felt they had no choice but to get rid of the problem as soon as possible. So Mr Bloom’s political career, which always seemed destined to end in this way, hits the buffers.

This week the Labour Party is doing its best to appear as an alternative government. After a heavy defeat all parties go through a period of rebuilding, reconsideration of their policies in the light of changed circumstances and eventually emerge as a realistic alternative government. Labour doesn’t, as yet, appear to have achieved that stage. The poll ratings for Ed Miliband are awful and on the key measure of which party is considered best able to manage the economy Labour are miles behind the Conservatives. All of this may suggest that the next General Election is a foregone conclusion. Definitely not; our first-past-the-post system will usually give a clear-cut result when two parties dominate but when a third party – the LibDems – win more than a handful of seats things become more unpredictable – witness the 2010 result. A hung parliament becomes more likely. Add another Party – UKIP, Greens or whoever then things become even more unpredictable. A fourth party may not win any seats, indeed it is extremely unusual, but it can help prouce some very unexpected results.

Mr Miliband decided he had to say something dramatic that would catch a headline and to hope that as it unravelled the public’s interest would have moved on. The choice of energy prices and his proposed freeze has some political mileage since we are all suffering from high energy prices. Partly this is a result of market forces but also partly a result of meeting our obligations to promote renewable power generation most of which were agreed to when the minister was no other than one Ed Miliband.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the announcement was that it could make potential investors think twice. Could there be a Labour government in 2015? If there’s just half a chance then they may hold off making a decision. Last Thursday I attended a meeting of the Hull and Humber Chamber of Commerce and one senior businessman asked me if I thought the Miliband announcement could influence whether or not the Siemens or Able UK development goes ahead. I don’t know the answer but the very fact that it is being asked is perhaps cause for concern.

So when David Cameron, George Osborne and others take to the Conference stage next week what can we expect? Well with the marked improvement in the economy they will be anxious to show that by sticking to their policies the country is now beginning to benefit. Had we adopted a Plan B as Labour has been urging we would not now be seeing light at the end of the tunnel.

Boris Johnson will appear, amuse and retire back to London leaving us all with a smile on our face but it is the Leader’s speech that will set the tone and clearly indicate how we can build on the foundations that have now been laid. Highlighting how household budgets will benefit from such as the increased tax-free allowances. As the recovery gathers momentum we must be sure that the lower and middle income families are first to benefit.

So listen to the mood music that emerges it will tell us a lot about how the parties are gearing up for the Election and the policies on which it will be fought.

August 2 2013

Are your main political concerns governed by what issues are in the headlines? In other words does the media contribute, or perhaps even dictate, what political issues worry you?

I ask because at my street surgery in Cleethorpes’ St. Peter’s Avenue last week the issues were markedly different from the previous month. A few weeks ago Europe, in all its forms, was clearly at the forefront of peoples’ minds. That was understandable since Parliament had been discussing the Bill to authorise an IN/OUT referendum and I was asking them to sign up to support the Conservative campaign to legislate for that referendum before the next election; a proposal being opposed by Labour and the LibDems.

Last week I was again asking them to sign up to supporting the ‘Let’s Decide’ campaign as it’s called but hardly anyone wanted to talk about Europe. There had been no bad headlines about ‘Europe’ pushing us around – Abu Qatada is in Jordan, UKIP are down in the polls, the economy is recovering and the sun is shining. Certainly Cleethorpes has had a good few weeks; not just the weather but the fantastic success of the Air Show, the Carnival and Armed Forces Day which all brought thousands into the Town.

So what did people want to talk about last week? Well, since our Police & Crime Commissioner, Matthew Grove, was with me it’s understandable that policing issues were to the fore; but even that, in one sense, is a good news story since crime is at a 30 year low.

Matthew is proving the case that the introduction of Police Commissioners was a good policy, of course there will be some commissioners who fail but we can all pass judgement and choose not to re-elect them. That’s something that could not be said about the anonymous police authorities that preceded the commissioners. Matthew is providing a real opportunity for the public to engage with him and express their concerns about policing in their own area. He is constantly attending residents meetings, parish councils and similar gatherings – if you belong to one of these groups and haven’t had him along invite him he’ll be delighted to meet with you.

There’s no doubting the economy is on the up and as the Telegraph reported on 25^th July there is growing confidence among local businesses. As Ian Kelly, Chief Executive of the Hull and Humber Chamber of Commerce stated in the article their own economic survey reflected the national picture with ‘sales orders, training, turnover the profit expectations all showing sharp increases’ and that 68 per cent of firms said they were planning to recruit new staff.

Certainly there was a buzz down the Avenue and much more of the elusive ‘feel-good’ factor than only a month ago.

If you rummage around in the recycling box and find a newspaper from a month ago it can often feel like another country. Read some of the articles and you think ‘I wonder what happened to that story?’

But, back to my original question, ask yourself what the first three concerns are today and I suspect you would, off the top of your head, say the economy – you want to know if you’ll be better off next year than this – immigration and either policing or the NHS might be next. I say this because these are almost always at the top of the list. I challenge you to ask yourselves in a month’s time and see what you come up with.

Interestingly welfare abuse which was a big issue until recently has slipped down the list, perhaps because people can now see how hard the Government are clamping down on it.

After these issues people will almost always complain about local services such as the state of footpaths, dog-fouling and street cleaning.

Finally I can’t let pass without comment last week’s visit by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg & Energy Secretary Ed Davey. It’s very rare for two cabinet ministers to visit any constituency on the same day and it shows how committed to developing the area the Government is. They can see the prospects and have shown commitment by investing in improvement to our infrastructure and approving Growth Fund bids and now we can all see the result of both Government support and private investment – regeneration and real jobs.