Summer Adjournment

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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

[Martin Vickers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centenary of the Battle of the Somme

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. It is entirely appropriate that, within our commemorations of the Great War, we take particular note of the Battle of the Somme. I want to highlight the role of my local Pals battalion, which was raised in the Grimsby and Cleethorpes area. It was not unique, in that young men up and down the country were signing up, but it was unique in that it was known as the Grimsby Chums. “Chums” has a rather old-fashioned sound to it these days, but the name emphasises the camaraderie that was needed by our serving forces.

Kitchener was appointed on 6 August 1914. He said that he did not believe that this would be a short war that would be over by Christmas. The Army at the time was 450,000 strong, but 118,000 were serving in India and elsewhere in the empire. However, we had 250,000 territorials. Kitchener was determined to get millions into uniform, and on 7 August he launched his campaign to recruit 100,000 men. The response to his appeal was unprecedented, and the system was overwhelmed.

In Grimsby and Cleethorpes, as elsewhere, local dignitaries stepped in with offers of help. Kitchener agreed to the formation of the Pals battalions. They had certain things in common—recruits’ work, background or the town where they lived—and 304 such battalions were formed. On 9 August, Alderman John Herbert Tate, the Mayor of Grimsby, received a telegram advising him that he had been appointed by the War Office to take charge of local recruitment. The patriotism and determination of the local men from Grimsby, Cleethorpes and the surrounding district were never in doubt. Grimsby had never been a garrison town. Until the time of the Great War, it had been relatively small and had only recently been transformed into a major fishing town. That industry was to expand to make it the greatest fishing port in the world.

The opportunity for adventure and to become a soldier of the empire was irresistible to many. Alderman Tate appointed George Bennett, a local timber merchant, as acting commanding officer. Bennett was a retired captain from the 1st Lincolnshire Royal Garrison Artillery (Volunteers). A permanent CO was subsequently appointed: step forward Lieutenant Colonel the right hon. George Edward Heneage. Plucked from retirement, he answered the call. His father, Lord Heneage, had been Grimsby’s MP and was subsequently high steward of the borough—incidentally, a position now held by our former colleague Austin Mitchell. The name “Chums” appeared in print on 11 September 1914 in the Grimsby Daily Telegraph. The term was taken up by the redoubtable Lady Eugenia Doughty, wife of Sir George Doughty, who was Grimsby’s MP and owner of the said newspaper. Wouldn’t it be nice for present-day MPs to own their local newspapers? Think of the headlines we could get.

Initially, there were no uniforms or cap badges, but they gradually took shape. Recruitment was encouraged by headmasters at local schools. Clee Grammar and St James’ School in Grimsby were prominent among them, but also in the local area was the grammar school at Louth. In an effort to establish a more permanent camp, Alderman Tate approached the Earl of Yarborough, whose Brocklesby estate lies just 10 miles out of town. His lordship was pleased to agree to the request. The months passed, but the battalion was eventually to leave Brocklesby in May 1915. Before it headed south, it marched through the streets of Grimsby and Cleethorpes, with thousands lining the route. More training and preparation followed before the battalion departed for France on 4 January 1916.

The early months were but preparation for what was to follow. As the Battle of the Somme approached, officers were confidently telling men that the enemy could not survive the “big push”. The Somme assault was the first attack on prepared German positions that had been held since September 1914 and was designed to reduce pressure on French troops at Verdun. On 1 July 1916, the 101st Brigade, as part of the 34th Division, within which the Grimsby Chums were found, was situated near La Boisselle. The Chums were ordered to take the town. As the attack began, a mine was to be detonated and the Chums were ordered to occupy the crater itself. Rum was issued to the troops at 4.30 am and they moved into their positions. The mine was detonated and the attack started at 7.30 am. However, the two-minute wait between the explosion and the attack was long enough for German gunners to set up machine guns and aim at the British lines.

The Chums were forced to begin their attack from the communication and reserve trenches due to the size of the explosion and the danger of falling debris, adding 150 yards of unprotected advance before the British front line was even reached. From this point, the Chums had to advance across 500 yards of no-man’s land. Three companies were sent into the attack, advancing in four lines and walking slowly through no-man’s land. The idea was that the enemy had been weakened by a combination of mine and artillery bombardment. In a description by the commander of the 34th Division, the men

“advanced as on parade and never flinched.”

One description stated that

“it was wonderful the way they were dropping in perfect coordination. But then I noticed they were not getting up. They were being dropped by bullets.”

The men were almost immediately mowed down with no gains made. By noon, it had become apparent that the main German trench was intact and German weapons were still functioning. The Chums were involved in other actions, suffering many hundreds of casualties.

When the war ended in November 1918, the colours of the 10th (Service) Battalion the Lincolnshire Regiment were handed over to the St James church in Grimsby—now Grimsby minster. Parades were held for the remaining men of the battalion. The young men of Grimsby and Cleethorpes had stepped forward in 1914, as they would again in 1939, and they did not flinch. They stepped forward to serve King and country. Of course, a sense of adventure played its part, but patriotism and pride in their country and a determination to protect freedom were also in their thoughts. Between 1916 and 1918, the Chums fought in six major engagements. Some were successful, but others were appalling defeats. At the Battle of the Somme, 15 officers and 487 men were declared killed, missing or wounded. That pride and patriotism were on display again only four days ago when Cleethorpes hosted the national weekend event for Armed Forces Day. Cleethorpes attracted 120,000 people to honour our forces.

Many Chums who survived the horrors of war rose to positions of leadership in the local community. On 14 August 1918, Charles Emmerson wrote in his regimental diary:

“There is not another battalion like the 10th Lincolnshire and there never can be.”

They were the town’s best and bravest.

In his book “Grimsby’s Own”, local journalist and writer Peter Chapman concludes by stating he hopes that Grimsby—I would add Cleethorpes and district—will never forget those who came home with their memories and those who gave their lives in the 10th (Service) Battalion. May that be so. Grimsby and Cleethorpes are proud of the Chums. We honour them today and always.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I very much share the hon. Lady’s appreciation of the beauties of the Fylde coast and the north-west. Fracking offers terrific opportunities for accessing further low-cost energy, and I do not believe that it should represent any threat to the tourism industry.

I would like to take advantage of this moment at the Dispatch Box to pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), who is responsible for tourism. He has done a great job. We look forward shortly to welcoming back to her role the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), but my right hon. Friend has done a fantastic job in her absence. I have no doubt that he will continue to advocate sports, tourism and heritage in the extremely effective way that he has over the last few months.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Our coastal communities are particularly important to the tourism sector, but they are also the communities that have been particularly badly affected by our membership of the EU over the last 40 years. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that the initiatives he mentioned will be directed particularly at coastal communities?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I share many of my hon. Friend’s views on our membership of the European Union, although I have to say that I do not think EU membership has a great bearing on tourism. People come to this country because of our fantastic heritage, our wonderful landscape, our arts and our sport, not because we are members of the European Union.

The north-west does have many attractions, and I hope it will take advantage of the Discover England fund, which I described earlier. The fund is designed to raise awareness of the many attractions that England has outside London, and, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), many of those are indeed in the north-west.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

First, it is quite right that we invest in major transport infrastructure in our capital city, which we have done with Crossrail and Crossrail 2, but that has not been to the exclusion of investment elsewhere in our country. In the hon. Lady’s part of the north-west there has been massive investment in electrification of the railways—I note that under the Labour Government only 10 miles of the country’s entire railways were electrified. High Speed 2 will help with fast train journeys to Merseyside as well as to Manchester. Now, with the new Merseyside Mayor agreed, we can go on pouring more money into the infrastructure of Merseyside so that we support private businesses in that area in growing and creating private sector jobs.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

This week is Humber business week. Despite the forthcoming opening of the A160 into Immingham docks, business leaders tell me that they feel somewhat disconnected from the northern powerhouse project. Will the Chancellor outline what future schemes might benefit them?

[Mr Osborne]

I remember that my hon. Friend championed that road when he first came into Parliament, and he sees the practical benefits for his constituency now that that work is almost complete. He also joined other east Yorkshire and Humber MPs in campaigning for lower bridge tolls. Those are examples of how we are delivering for his part of the country, but I am as passionate as he is about ensuring that east Yorkshire and Hull are connected to the northern powerhouse. We have made it very clear to all the core cities of the north that Hull and the surrounding area should be included. In the Budget, we announced specific support for the city of culture, which is near the area he represents.

UK Economy: Post-Referendum Assessment

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: mainstream opinion does support the United Kingdom’s being part of the European Union. I should be fascinated to read a report similar to ours arguing the other case. We produced our long-term report last month, and I look forward to receiving a proper, detailed response to it. I think that the reason no analysis of that kind has yet been produced is that there is insufficient support for such a view, and I hope that that will become more and more apparent over the next month.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Each year we have a Budget statement and an autumn statement in which the Chancellor corrects the forecasts in the previous statement. Will the Minister assure us that, after we vote for Brexit, the Chancellor will come to the House regularly to correct the forecasts contained in this document?

[Mr Gauke]

This scenario has been set out by means of perfectly normal, widely used techniques, and signed off by the leading economist in the field. We have made a number of assumptions that have been cautious, and have in no way sought to exaggerate the risks. I have to say to my hon. Friend that there is a real risk to the UK economy. This is not fearmongering, or scaremongering; it is simply setting out what the risks are to the British people—matters of which the British people should be aware when they vote on 23 June.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

To repeat myself, Mr Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. Lady, because it has been the case that when we have extended opening hours we have not seen not a displacement of jobs, but an increase in jobs. That is the assessment from the retail industry. Of course, these arrangements exist in Scotland, in many European countries and in the United States. Many of those are countries with strong Christian faiths, so I do not think there is a contradiction there. We cannot in this House constantly say that we worry about our high street and then not allow high street stores to open on the day when the biggest level of internet shopping takes place. This is one of the answers to helping our high street. It is not the only one, but it is an important one.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire councils are currently preparing detailed regeneration plans. Can the Chancellor assure me that he will give them serious consideration, so that my constituents can gain maximum benefit from the northern powerhouse initiative?

[Mr Osborne]

Absolutely. We will give careful consideration—as I always do—to the proposals that my hon. Friend comes forward with to support North Lincolnshire and his own constituency. We have been able to make investments in new roads, reduce the tolls on the Humber bridge, and introduce enterprise zones. I would love to hear of any new ideas that he has.

House of Lords Reform

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) on securing this debate and on his interesting, entertaining and, I think it is fair to say, at times angry speech, quite a lot of which I agreed with, because I would sweep away the House of Lords and replace it with an almost entirely elected Chamber.

I accept the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said in an intervention, the issue is not exactly top of the charts for our constituents. I have only one constituent who writes to me about it and other issues, such as the changes to the Act of Settlement.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is an extremely assiduous constituency MP and I suspect he spends most of his weekends knocking on people’s doors to get their views. Is he able to recall the last time a constituent on the doorstep badgered him on the subject of House of Lords reform? I am really struggling to remember the last time a constituent troubled me on that matter.

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend is right. I cannot recall anyone on the doorstep raising this particular issue, even when it was being debated day in, day out in this Chamber. The fact that it is not on the public’s agenda suggests that it will not be on the Government’s agenda—and, of course, it is not. The fact that the public do not care a great deal gives the Government an opportunity to kick it into touch.

Had I been here in the late 1990s when Tony Blair was tinkering with the House of Lords and sweeping away most of the hereditary peers, I would probably have been opposed to that, as a typical traditional Conservative. It would appear to me that they were doing no great harm, and if we are to be ruled by an unelected body, I would rather it be an unelected House of Lords than an unelected European Commission.

The reality, however, is that we cannot go on as we are. Changes, both significant and minor, have been made to our constitution over the centuries and we have tended to muddle along and accept them. On the whole, I think that the system has evolved into one which, with all its faults, gives us a better existence and life. We are well governed and have a functioning, honest judicial system and the like, so I think we have a lot to be thankful for with regard to the way in which things have evolved over the centuries.

Personally, I would go for a 90% elected upper House—or senate, as I would want to call it. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire addressed the issue of bishops, archbishops and so on. My remaining 10%, the unelected Members, would be faith leaders. Mostly, they would be Christian leaders, since we are a Christian nation, but they would include representatives of the Church of Scotland.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

As a practising Christian, I must say that I am not comfortable with defining any nation as a Christian nation, or indeed as a Jewish or an Islamic nation. Is it not more correct these days to say that we are a group of nations historically ruled by people who in their words purported to follow Christianity, but whose actions were very far from the true teachings of Christ?

[Martin Vickers]

It is certainly true that there are now fewer practising Christians throughout the UK than there were in the past. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, however, our heritage is of a Christian nature and the eternal virtues taught by the Christian Church are the basis of our society.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that, in the last census, some 31% of the population said that they had no religion and that they do not feel that they would be represented be people of faith. I am a vice-chair of the all-party humanist group. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that humanists should also be represented?

[Martin Vickers]

Humanism has always seemed to me to be the absence of faith. We could debate the hon. Gentleman’s rather philosophical point endlessly, and I would be very happy to do so some time.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire referred to a unicameral system. It would be a mistake to move to a system with only one Chamber. However, I would point out that, with devolution, Scotland is almost a unicameral Assembly; I will leave that matter to Scottish National party Members.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Although the Scottish Parliament has one Chamber, it has a very strong committee system. It is not an Assembly, but a Parliament in which the Government sit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

In essence, however, it is fair to say that Scotland is becoming almost a unicameral nation.

It is often said that we benefit from the expertise of experts, many of whom are ex-experts. Many people at the other end of the corridor have a great deal of expertise and a lot to offer society, but that does not necessarily mean that they should be Members of the legislature. Over the years, Governments have found ways of including all sorts of people they wanted to bring into the process of governance—by establishing royal commissions, boards of inquiries and committees for this, that and the other—and it would be perfectly possible to get eminent lawyers, scientists and doctors into a group that provided the expertise that those of us in this Chamber certainly need.

[Dr Murrison]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of experts. If the public think about the upper House, they often think of it as a Chamber full of experts. Many of them are experts, but the trouble is that there is nothing more “ex” than an ex-expert. That point supports the argument he is advancing. To avoid the ex-expert phenomenon, should we put a limit on the number of years for which peers serve?

[Martin Vickers]

I certainly agree that, if we are to continue with an appointed or predominantly appointed House, a time limit would be desirable.

The point about such experts is that they tend to be London-centred experts. The reality is that an expert—a doctor, a scientist or whatever—is far more likely to be appointed to the upper House if they are from Kensington than if they are from Cleethorpes. There are exceptions. A few weeks ago, I was privileged to attend the swearing in as a Member of the upper House of the leader of North Lincolnshire Council, which covers part of my constituency. Not only has Baroness Redfern, as she now is, served the community through elected office, but she has roots deep in the Isle of Axholme, the part of North Lincolnshire from which she comes. However, peers such as the noble Lady are few and far between. It is a very metropolitan gathering.

It is often said that if there were two elected Houses, there would be power grabs by one House over the other. One mistake in the Bill that was introduced three or four years ago was that it said that the powers of the upper House would stay pretty much the same. That is fine, but it should be laid down in statute if we are to move in the direction that I am suggesting. Other countries seem to manage with two elected Chambers that rub along reasonably well, without constant power grabs by one or the other. It is important that the lower House should retain the power over financial matters. Any conflicts between the Houses should not be passed over to the judiciary. That is why the situation should be laid down clearly in any statute.

As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), whether there is an appointed House or an elected House, there should be time limits. If I recall correctly, the Bill that was brought forward by the then Deputy Prime Minister in the last Parliament proposed terms of 15 years. Perhaps that was too long, but it would give people, although many of them may be party people, the independence that is necessary in an upper House.

[Bob Stewart]

I seem to remember that under the proposed legislation that was introduced in the last Parliament the elected Members of the House of Lords would have been elected by huge electorates of 3 million or 4 million people. Inevitably, people elected under such a system would say, “I had 2 million people voting for me and you had a poxy 66,000. Whose mandate is more important?” That was one of the problems that I had with the proposed legislation in the last Parliament.

[Martin Vickers]

I agree. I was not happy with that part of the proposals.

I am an advocate of first past the post when it comes to elections to this House, but I acknowledge that some form of proportional representation would be more appropriate for an elected upper House. Having said that, we must accept that people do not identify with massive areas or regions, such as those to which my hon. Friend refers. They tend to identify with their town or village and their county, as well as with their country. We need to devise a system that recognises those innate loyalties.

In closing, I urge the Government not just to tinker. I suspect that we will have more tinkering with the Strathclyde proposals, which I am not particularly enthusiastic about. The Government should go for it. I would rather have a Conservative Government reforming the House of Lords, because Conservatives recognise the value of evolution within the constitution and do not want to go for a big bang change. We have an opportunity to think carefully about this matter over the next year or two and to put forward serious proposals. We must recognise that an appointed House—an unelected Assembly—is not acceptable in the 21st century. It is time to think seriously about the way forward. I urge the Minister to acknowledge that it should be a Conservative Government who put forward the proposals. I very much hope to hear some dramatic proposals at the end of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am delighted to speak on behalf of the SNP in this Backbench Business debate on the House of Lords. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) secured the debate, although I am rather glad that he spoke some time ago, so that everyone could forget how brilliant his speech was by the time it came round to mine.

As has been mentioned, this issue is not something that gets people exercised. However, I would suggest that, in Scotland, membership of the SNP is not insubstantial. There are quite a few members of the SNP, and at the SNP conference in Aberdeen, at which there were 3,500 delegates, there was a huge cheer when it was suggested that the House of Lords should be abolished. This is something that gets members of the SNP excited. It is something that genuinely gets mentioned on the doorsteps when we knock on doors. It is perhaps not the first thing that comes up—absolutely not—but parliamentary and constitutional reform come up a lot on the doorsteps in Scotland.

I am particularly pleased that this debate follows the one on space policy, because this place—these Houses of Parliament—is in another world from the one I normally inhabit. I have spoken to people previously about why they should dislike the House of Lords. Within the SNP and among people I have spoken to, there is a visceral, immediate dislike of the House of Lords, but people should not dislike it because the Lords swan along in ermine robes; they should dislike it because of the level of power that the House of Lords has.

This is not a way to run a democracy. Nobody creating a democratic system afresh would come up with the undemocratic, unwieldy and unaccountable second Chamber that we have. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) mentioned that the UK muddles along, and that is what has happened. It has happened with parliamentary reform and, as I will mention a little later, with reform of the Standing Orders in this place as well.

This is bicameralism at its worst. Of the 192 parliaments recognised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, 77 are bicameral and only the UK, Belgium, Zimbabwe and Lesotho have hereditary legislators. Belgium does not really count, though, because its hereditary legislators are related to the monarch and do not vote on anything, so the wonderful United Kingdom—proud defender of democracy; the mother of parliaments—is a member of a very select group that allows landed gentry to make law for our countries. Zimbabwe and Lesotho and us—there is nothing good about this situation.

I would like to take Members back to 1997. It is some time ago now, and things have changed a fair bit since then: I was still in primary school, Hanson were topping the charts with “MMMBop” and the Labour party was popular in Scotland. The Labour manifesto in 1997 said:

“The House of Lords must be reformed…the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute.”

Despite a massive majority for the Labour party in 1997 and a clear manifesto commitment to rid our democratic system of hereditary peers, nearly 20 years on we still have 92 of them—92 Lords who are allowed to make legislation because their family owned land.

I was talking to a peer recently about hereditary peerages. The defence mentioned was that there was a hereditary peer who could trace her family back 400 years. The nature of humankind is that all our families can be traced back 400 years; otherwise, we would not be here. It is ridiculous, patronising and wrong to argue that a tithe paid to a monarch hundreds of years ago should qualify any individual to make legislation. The Conservative Government make all sorts of claims about working hard being the best way to get on in life and achieve a high-salary job, for example. There is a wilful downplaying of the inbuilt advantage accorded to those whose families owned large country estates. Many of those estates were won by force and held by oppression. There is not a meritocracy in these islands. Working hard does not necessarily get anyone anywhere; where they are born and who their family are does.

Having said that and made clear my absolute disagreement with any system that accords a higher level of importance to anyone simply because of an accident of birth, I want to make clear my absolute lack of regard for the appointments system for life peers. Cross-Bench peers tell me how rigorous the process is for appointing them. I agree that it is thorough and they have to make major commitments to how much time they are going to spend in the House of Lords. However, there is no compulsion on the Prime Minister to ensure that non-Cross-Bench peers—or even Cross-Bench peers, for that matter—are appointed in that way. There is also no limit on the size of the Chamber, and one of the best ways to receive an excellent salary for life is to donate money to either the Conservative or Labour parties and be appointed to the House of Lords.

I want to expand on what my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) have said about former parliamentarians. Since 1997, 152 former parliamentarians have been ennobled. Twenty of them were given peerages within five years of losing an election to the House of Commons. So within five years of being rejected by the electorate, they were given a seat in the other House to make legislation for the people who had rejected them. It is a ridiculous situation.

The reforms enacted in 1999—which I admit were good and took us a step along the way, but nowhere near far enough—did have an effect on the behaviour of the House of Lords, including on the turnout figures. However, they also made the House of Lords more powerful, because peers felt that they had more of a right to be there and to make decisions about legislation, but that is not the case. The House of Lords is still an unelected legislature and it should not be making laws for this country. There is no accountability. Members of the public cannot access the Lords—they do not know who they are. Peers are out of touch. There is no compulsion on them to listen to people in the general community. What they learn about the general community is often garnered from newspapers, and we all know that they are not a true reflection of society.

The House of Lords is also massively lacking in diversity, which has been mentioned by various Members. Only 26% of peers are female, which is even worse than the figure for this place. The record in the House of Commons is deplorable, but the record in the House of Lords is much worse. In June 2015 there were more people who had been peers for more than 30 years than there were peers under the age of 50, and there were only two peers under 40 among the entire 800-odd Members of the House of Lords. That compares hugely unfavourably with elected politics in the UK. It does not constitute representative democracy.

The youngest age at which a current Member of the House of Lords received a life peerage was 32. Although I fundamentally disagree with appointments for life, it is bizarre that half of our legislature should exclude anyone who I would class as young. It is no wonder that, as a result, young people do not trust the democratic system. They look at this place and they see a bunch of old people who they cannot relate to. If we look at elected Members as a whole, we will see that we are still woefully unrepresentative.

As has been said, some peers, particularly Cross Benchers, work very hard, but that cannot be used to legitimise the existence of the second Chamber, which is incredibly expensive. Some Cross Benchers have been, and continue to be, very active in their areas of work and fields of expertise, but there is no check on that. As the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has said, people become ex-experts—their expertise goes away—very quickly.

The House of Commons has utterly failed to amend or rewrite the Parliament Acts to make any meaningful change to the House of Lords, which has not happened for the best part of 20 years. Actually, we have not made much change to the powers of the House of Lords since the Parliament Act 1911 and, subsequently, the Parliament Act 1949, which just tinkered with it. As I have said on previous occasions, I do not believe that the procedures of the House of Commons are fit for purpose. Given the opportunity, I would tear up the Standing Orders and start again, dramatically reducing the Executive privilege accorded to the Government of the day, thus requiring them to use their majority far more often.

The situation in the House of Lords is even worse. It is all done on the basis of convention. The Government got into such a pickle over tax credits because there is a convention—there is nothing in legislation—that the House of Lords does not vote on such things. On paper, the House of Lords is an incredibly powerful institution, and that is something we need to change.

The House of Lords is not a revising second Chamber. Nobody who makes the case for a revising second Chamber can hold up the House of Lords as the place that can revise legislation. It can still introduce primary legislation. It is not elected, but it can introduce legislation on behalf of the people of this country. It should not do so.

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. As she knows from mine, I share her ambition to do away with an unelected second Chamber. However, can she explain her party’s support for membership of the European Union, where real power lies with the unelected European Commission? The European Parliament is really a sideshow.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I am sure will be discussed at length during European debates. Today, however, we are discussing the House of Lords, which is something that we have the power to change. Members of this place could pass a new Parliament Act. Elected Members have the ability to make mass changes to the House of Lords, and we should make big changes to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I would be delighted if the House of Commons had the ability to sack the entire House of Lords. In fact, I think the Conservative Government would have been quite keen to sack the entire House of Lords earlier in the Session.

[Martin Vickers]

I just remind the hon. Lady and her colleagues that this Chamber has the power to sack the Government.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am coming to the end of my speech, so I will now wrap up. The power of the House of Lords is dramatically greater than it should be. It has the ability to appoint people who have been rejected at the ballot box. People troop into that House rubbing their hands with glee at the untaxed £45,000 a year they can now earn. The expenses system and the payments system for the House of Lords—getting £300 day, which is classed as an allowance, and is not taxed—are abominable. That should not be happening.

The composition of the House of Lords is ridiculous. It is unrepresentative, and in no circumstances should it include hereditary peers and those appointed by religious organisations, whether from the Church of England or of any other religious organisation. I do not think there is any place for religious appointments in a legislative system. Lifetime appointments to any legislature are undemocratic. There are peers sitting there who have been peers for 70 years, which is an incredible length of time. Some of them are no longer active, but they still have the right to troop into the House and vote. How good is a peer at voting if they have been a peer for 70 years? They have a length of experience behind them—fair enough—but most people want to sit with their feet up and watch TV by the time they get to such an age. Appointments for high heijins and party donors are wrong and should not be happening.

The House of Lords is beyond reform. People have tried to reform it in the past, but it is still not an elected, accountable second Chamber. We need to abolish it.

Spending Review and Autumn Statement

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, anyone he wants to bring with him. If there are sensible projects in Glasgow that we can fund, we will of course look at them. My view is that the Barnett formula and the block grant to Scotland does not mean that the UK Government have done all we can do to help Glasgow. That is why we have the city deal and why we are supporting the Burrell Collection today. If he has some other good ideas, we will be able to fund them too.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Some £355 million is allocated for flood defence schemes in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the strategically important Humber ports will be prioritised within that allocation?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion of flood defences on the Humber. As he well knows, the Environment Agency is looking at the big, long-term scheme that has been put forward there. I will make sure it takes a serious look at what it can do to protect industries in his constituency.

Tax Credits

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Although the Government are pursuing the right strategic course of supporting working families through the tax system and by encouraging earnings growth, it has become clear over the past few weeks that the way in which the policy was being implemented would leave many poor and vulnerable families harshly exposed. Today, as a result of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) in securing this debate, we can properly consider what other transitional measures can be bought in to support those families.

The current arrangements are in need of reform. The Government’s proposed transition measures are welcome. The increase in the personal tax threshold will enable working taxpayers to keep more of the money they earn. The introduction of the national living wage is a bold and radical move for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be applauded. The Government have rightly prioritised working families through the offer of 30 hours’ free childcare. However, it is clear that those initiatives alone do not go far enough and more transitional support is needed.

In my Waveney constituency, there are many people on low wages, often working part-time. They would like to work longer hours and earn more, and through hard work and training they would like to climb up a ladder of workplace progression. The problem is that that option is not currently available to them. There has been an economic decline for 40 years: traditional industries have gone, the factory gates have closed and the fishing industry is a very poor shadow of its former self. That scene is repeated in many places around the country.

To their credit, the coalition Government and this current Government have recognised that fundamental flaw in the country’s economy, and they are putting in place policies that will reverse that decline and bring new jobs to many areas. Such policies will ensure that, in the long term, we will have a balanced economy where growth is not concentrated in a few places and opportunities are available across the country. Policies such as devolution and investment in infrastructure and in education and skills will work, but they will not do so overnight. They will need time and they may well need to be refocused, redesigned and rebooted.

In the short term, there is a need for support to ensure that the removal of working tax credits does not punitively hit those on low wages. There is no silver bullet and there may well be a need for more than one initiative. The Treasury will need to weigh up very carefully what alternative tax raising measures may be necessary in order to produce a balanced budget and to remain on course to eliminate the deficit. It is very important that any tax increases are progressive and do not hit unfairly the poorest members of society.

On additional mitigating measures, I make four suggestions. First, full consideration should be given to phasing in the withdrawal of working tax credit. Spreading it out would be fairer and rising wages would help to reduce the impact. Secondly, increasing the point at which employees start to pay national insurance should be considered. That would be more effective than a further increase in the personal tax threshold, as people will pay national insurance from £8,164 compared to £11,000 for income tax. Thirdly, the offer of tax breaks for businesses that voluntarily and more quickly move to paying the national living wage should be looked at.

Finally, we need to review the design of universal credit. It is in many respects bizarre that the introduction of universal credit and the withdrawal of working tax credits are being carried out at the same time by different Departments. That might explain why the Government are in the position that they find themselves in today, with policies that are not properly co-ordinated. Working tax credits were introduced by Gordon Brown when he was at the Treasury, with apparently limited consultation with the Department for Work and Pensions. That is a fatal flaw at the heart of Government that should have been addressed a long time ago.

The great advantage of universal credit is its simplicity. It will boost employment and make it easier for people to understand why they are better off in work. However, it should be made more flexible. Much of the current emphasis is on getting one person in a household into work. There should be more focus on boosting employment within the household as a whole. There is a need to rebalance the incentives that universal credit creates to better support single parents, second earners in families with children and the disabled. Universal credit should be made easier to use. It should not penalise families whose earnings and outgoings do not fit into a neat monthly pattern.

The 800,000 self-employed households that will move on to universal credit have a particular problem in having to start reporting their income on a monthly basis, rather than annually through the HMRC self-assessment. That will create a huge bureaucratic burden that could hit low earners hard.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Like me, he represents a coastal community with low pay. Does he acknowledge that, as well as the help that needs to be given to those who are in receipt of tax credits, we must consider the spending power that will be taken out of the local economy if we proceed with the proposals that were outlined by the Government, which will be very detrimental to our areas?

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend is quite right. There are some very clever people in the Treasury, but they often look at the country as a whole. They need to realise that things are very different in different places.

I have two final points on universal credit. The requirement to provide childcare bills on a monthly basis could mean that parents whose childcare costs are higher at certain times of the year will be financially worse off than they are under the current system. For those who receive help with their rent, the option for payments to go straight to the landlord should be more easily accessible.

In the longer term, the Government need to take stock of their approach to welfare reform. They have been right to rise to the challenge and most of their policies have been successful. How they move forward needs careful thought and reflection. Perhaps alongside the benefit cap there should be a benefit ceiling. In the short term—in the next four weeks—there is a lot to be done to get this policy right: to ensure that it is fair, that it does not penalise the working poor and that it provides them with a ladder of workplace progression.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I think that is exactly the same question that was read out about half an hour ago—I am not sure that it says much for improved productivity on the Labour Benches.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

In her reply to my Westminster Hall debate last week, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury spoke warmly of bank sharing. Will she join me in encouraging HSBC and NatWest, which are proposing to close their branches in Barton-upon-Humber, to delay that closure so that sharing can be seriously considered?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

Residents in Barton-upon-Humber are very fortunate to have such a champion as my hon. Friend representing their interests. I am sure that as he has raised the matter in the House the banks in question will have noted his point, and he has represented his constituents well.