Martin Vickers MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an important point: it is the case that such decisions are not solely commercial; the Government must consider, more widely, energy security and the impact on the economy. In preparation for this debate, I received representations from various interested parties that are dependent on the oil refining sector. They have outlined their concerns, some of which I have mentioned already, and the solutions they would like to see put forward. One issue that has been mentioned to me is the expansion of the scope of the carbon border adjustment mechanism to include oil refineries’ products. As Members may know, the CBAM is a tax levied on goods at the border based on their carbon content. Expanding the CBAM to products from oil refineries based overseas, as the Government proposed in their autumn Budget, would enable domestic oil refineries to remain competitive and stop them fighting with one arm tied behind their back. I mentioned that the refining sector is subject to ever-increasing regulatory burdens and carbon pricing. Sadly, the impact of net zero politics, particularly the UK emissions trading scheme, is driving rapid and sustained deindustrialisation of the British economy. Refining receives substantially lower free allowances under the scheme compared with other industries, such as steel and cement, and ETS costs are one of the highest expenditures in a refinery’s operating budget. Competitors in other regions do not face those costs, which seriously damages the competitiveness of UK refineries. We must realise that the ETS damages our energy security and should be urgently repealed. Longer-term solutions may include bringing refined products fully into the UK CBAM or ensuring that the UK retains control over refineries in any future UK-EU carbon market linkage agreement. If we do not want to let this issue get any more out of control, we must act now. Before concluding, I refer back to the situation at Lindsey oil, because the company is in administration. We have a situation in which FTI Consulting, acting on behalf of the official receiver, is engaged in discussions with potential buyers and investors. Those talks are rightly confidential, and when questioned, Ministers have repeatedly said that they are awaiting the recommendations from FTI. That inevitably feeds speculation through the grapevine that angers employees and their union representatives. I have held meetings with two consortia that are interested in buying the whole site and continuing operations, and the leader of North Lincolnshire council has held discussions with a third. Do the Government support a deal that would retain the refinery complete? Until now there has been no answer. I again ask the Minister: do the Government favour that option and, if necessary, would they provide some support? Have the Government instructed FTI to prioritise jobs? A letter from Unite the Union to the Secretary of State throws that into doubt. In the letter, Unite says: “In this vein you informed me and the Unite reps for the refinery on two occasions that you had advised FTI that bids which save the jobs should be prioritised and that if needed, there could be government money for a viable bid which saved the site.” Is Government money available? The reply seems to throw doubt on all of that. The reply from the Minister for Energy to Sharon Graham at Unite says that the Government “have made repeatedly clear that long-term and sustainable employment is a priority for the Government”, but that does not necessarily mean it is a priority that has been passed on to the official receiver. At a meeting with me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), the Minister for Energy assured us that if the worst came to the worst and the refinery were to close, or there were to be large- scale job losses, one option would be for the Government to work with MPs, local authorities and other agencies to form a taskforce to consider what help and support would be available to revive the local economy. Is that offer still open? My understanding is that the Government have said that there will be no further redundancies until the end of March, which I welcome. Could today’s Minister clarify whether the Government are meeting the cost of that, or whether the costs will be taken into account by the administrators and the amount available to creditors adjusted accordingly? The future of not just Lindsey oil but the whole oil refining sector is at stake. The Government must review their current position and act to secure the industry for the future.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Oil Refining Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of the oil refining sector. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. I am pleased that this debate has attracted considerable support, particularly from north of the border, and that today The Times had a timely editorial on this issue. My constituency is in northern Lincolnshire on the south bank of the Humber, which has been christened “the UK’s Energy Estuary”. In recent years, the Humber has become a world-leader in the offshore and renewable energy sector—something we are proud of locally. However, while the Humber is full of opportunity for offshore and renewable energy and will play a significant role in the UK’s net zero efforts, we must not overlook the UK’s carbon energy needs as we make the transition to cleaner energy sources. We must face the fact that a significant portion of our total energy consumption still comes from oil, gas and coal and will continue to do so. The UK’s annual total primary energy consumption is around 130 million to 140 million tonnes of oil equivalent; fossil fuels made up roughly 79% to 81% of that in the year 2022-23. The Humber has played a significant role in ensuring that that demand is met. Until the crisis at Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency earlier this year, the Humber could boast of producing a third of the UK’s refined fuel, with two of the UK’s six major oil refineries based in the Humber region. Now, as we approach the end of 2025, only four operational refineries remain in the UK, following this year’s closure of Grangemouth, with significant job losses, and the uncertainty at the aforementioned Lindsey refinery where over 400 people are employed. Even more striking is the fact that the number of refineries is down from 18 in the 1970s. Sadly for the oil refining sector, most people do not even realise that it exists or appreciate its importance, yet the sector is a vital part of the UK’s energy security. A number of our crucial sectors rely on it, including the transport industry and defence sectors. All Members will know that oil refineries produce products that are essential for our critical energy needs, such as petrol, diesel, jet fuel and fuel oil. The Lindsey refinery has a capacity equivalent to around 35% of British petrol consumption and 10% of British diesel, and also supplies aviation fuel to Heathrow via pipeline. Yet the House of Commons Library states: “Refinery output in 2024 was 48 million tonnes. This was 55% below the 1973 peak.” Output in 2024 “was around 14% below levels from the late 2010s and more than 40% below output from the start of the century.” That is worrying considering that refineries supply 47% of the UK’s final energy demand, as 100% of aviation, 97% of road and 61% of rail transport still relies on liquid fuels. The refineries also support 100,000-plus jobs across the UK, with 4,000 directly in the refineries. We collect £37 billion annually in tax—that is duty and VAT—from them, and they deliver low-carbon fuels that have an impact equivalent to removing 3 million cars from the road each year. That is not to mention the fact that ours are among the lowest-carbon refineries globally—in fact, 80% of the UK’s top import partners have a higher carbon intensity—yet despite their importance we have seen the closure at Grangemouth and the uncertainty at Lindsey. What does the future hold? UK oil refineries continue to face a number of challenges. Of course demand for refined products will decrease as the country continues to reduce its emissions in accordance with the legally binding commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, though that target may change. Moreover, energy is the single largest cost of operating a refinery. The industry faces high energy costs, and carbon costs negatively impact the competitiveness of UK refineries. UK refineries are essentially competing with one hand tied behind their back while their competitors pay little or nothing in carbon costs. That is on top of the issue of unequal access to decarbonisation opportunities. Our route to lower emissions must not come at the price of deindustrialisation or at the expense of our energy security. As an editorial in The Times today points out, some in the Government are so hostile to fossil fuels and so beholden to the green ideology that they are willing to sacrifice our future income and tolerate the jobs that are being lost. We must put the national interest first. Moreover, our climate targets are still some way off, so in the meantime we must continue to rely on the products that refineries produce. The sector remains vital for today’s economy, yet our refineries are closing. We must realise that closing UK refineries does not reduce demand; it merely shifts production abroad. That, of course, often leads to higher emissions. We are thereby exporting jobs outside the UK while failing in our efforts to cut emissions. Losing further capacity would therefore leave the UK increasingly dependent on imports and the unpredictability of global politics, relying on other nations that often have weak rules on environmental protection, labour rights and safety. Moreover, once a refinery closes, it does not return. The skills, infrastructure and investment are lost permanently. We must also consider the impact on the local economy and local people that closures cause. At Lindsey, over 400 people are directly employed on the site, and well over 1,000 rely on it through the supply chain. As North Lincolnshire council said in its position statement on Lindsey oil, the implications of any closure of the site will have far-reaching consequences for the local economy and the people employed directly and indirectly. The council has stated that the potential closure of the refinery will have a significant impact on local market confidence, particularly following the turmoil at British Steel earlier this year. As such, failure to properly support the businesses impacted could multiply exponentially the impact of the closure. Moreover, the south Humber bank, where the site is located, relies on the interconnectivity of its industrial supply chains. As such, the refinery is not an isolated operator but an integral node in a wider network that supplies products to downstream users, and disruption at one site can quickly ripple across the regional economy. These integrated clusters work in tandem, reflecting the modern industrial model, and our economic resilience relies on the system being maintained, thereby ensuring long-term industrial sustainability in the UK. I note the Scottish Affairs Committee’s conclusions on the handling of Grangemouth, which can be found in the Committee’s recently published report on Scotland’s oil and gas industries. I am sure the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), will delve more deeply into the detail of the report, though let me quickly say now that the report stated that both the UK and Scottish Governments should have acted sooner to prepare for the crisis in Falkirk.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last Saturday morning, the manager and assistant manager of a local care home came to my surgery out of concern for an elderly resident—they gave up their own time to do so. She was bedbound and could not get dental attention for a serious abscess, and she was in great pain. She could not get to the hospital or to a GP, and no dentist was prepared to come and attend to her in the home. I have been in touch with the integrated care board, and we are trying to sort this issue out, but there does not appear to be any particular duty to provide in these sorts of circumstances. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement so that we can clarify the situation?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Medal for Wounded Service Personnel · Hansard source

  More

  I will call David Baines to move the motion, and will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called during the debate.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for not taking the full 50 minutes available, which leaves more than the usual two minutes for Claire Young to wind up.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility · Hansard source

  More

  You don’t have to!

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I speak in my capacity as a constituency Member and also as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on rail, which submitted a response to the Secretary of State on the changes she is bringing forward. Will the proposals deliver improved rail freight and passenger services in my constituency and, indeed, across the network? There are lots of “buts”. Restructuring any industry can cause confusion and increase costs, and the billions invested by private companies will now disappear and have to be made up by the taxpayer. If we look back to the years before privatisation, when for much of the time the industry was in decline and desperate for additional resources, we see a vision of the future. If the Government are to achieve one of their key aims of economic growth, improved transport infrastructure and a rail network that provides for the needs of the freight sector must be a priority. Ministers will have noted that the Rail Freight Group has suggested that the rail freight growth target of 75% by 2050 be put into law and that discounts to encourage use of spare capacity be introduced. Clause 17 of the Bill states that the Secretary of State must set a target and keep it under review. Setting targets is easy; delivering is much more challenging. Businesses in my constituency stress the urgent need for a new east-west freight corridor, and I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that when he sums up. Rail freight is important, of course, but equally important is passenger traffic. There is nothing more parochial than Transport question time, and now that the Minister is going to take on even more responsibility, that will become much more prevalent. In my constituency, I have been pressing for a direct rail service to be restored between Grimsby and Cleethorpes and King’s Cross since 2011. British Rail withdrew the service in 1992. Local industry and passenger groups are pushing for it. There have been endless possibilities. Grand Central put forward an application to the rail regulator in 2015, which would have been accepted had it stood alone, but it was linked to extending services into North Yorkshire, and that would have taken revenue away from what was then the main franchise holder. We desperately need the service. It will link Habrough and Barnetby stations in my constituency, which serve both Humberside airport and the port of Immingham, and it will then pass through the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) at Market Rasen.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Father of the House for that intervention. LNER operates five or six services to Lincoln, and it would be easy to extend those services the extra 30-odd miles to Grimsby and Cleethorpes. There is also the possibility of an open-access operator. Indeed, Grand Central Rail has made another application to provide a service from Cleethorpes through Scunthorpe and Doncaster to King’s Cross. However, judging by recent decisions, the open-access operators have cause for concern, as do those of us who want to see other lines improve as a result of competition. There is no doubt that the east coast main line has greatly benefited from competition, as was mentioned earlier, from Hull Trains and Grand Central Rail. They provide services to provincial towns that have been without a direct service for many years. Returning to the demand from my own constituency, the Immingham area has two oil refineries, numerous power stations, petrochemical plants and logistics operations, and it is a vital hub for the renewable energy sector. The Minister must recognise that if we are to further develop the area, direct services to King’s Cross are a vital link. The proposals are supported by the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce and large businesses, such as Phillips 66. I can only urge the Minister to get on with it and to give it the okay. Under the new structure, he will be able to do that with just a signature; he should do so.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Last Friday, along with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), I attended a meeting with the leader and the chief executive of North East Lincolnshire council. The chief executive produced a very thick report on why they do not want any further reorganisation in the council area. Up and down the country, councils are spending millions of pounds on producing reports about why they do or do not want to be a mayoral authority, and why they do or do not want reorganisation. Surely the Minister agrees that those millions would be better spent providing better services for their local communities.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), sends his apologies for his absence. In addition to the debates that the Leader of the House mentioned, there will be Westminster Hall debates next Tuesday on consumer-led flexibility for a just transition and next Thursday afternoon on the role of Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade. The second debate on Thursday afternoon is particularly important, because it was initiated by me; it is on the future of the oil refining sector in the UK. The following week, beginning 15 December, there will be a debate on Tuesday on planning policy for quarries and debates on Thursday on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen and on community audiology. Those debates show what a vast range of interests there are across the House. Turning to my own question, last Saturday I visited Humberside airport with the shadow Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), where management outlined the challenges faced not just by them but by regional airports up and down the country. They are facing increased national insurance costs, and in the case of Humberside, they face the potential loss of business from Eastern Airways, which is in administration. If work in the North sea—on the rigs and so on—declines, they will face the loss of the helicopter transfers that they rely on. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the role of regional airports?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Homelessness: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  We have three remaining speakers and 10 minutes, so you have about three minutes each.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Homelessness: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Order. To accommodate all those who wish to speak, I ask Members to impose on themselves a four-minute limit.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Homelessness: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that that was not a good example of a four-minute speech. Jim Shannon will show us how it should be done.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Tony Blair’s Administration put forward similar proposals, but were eventually forced to abandon them, thanks to opposition in the House and beyond. A similar coalition of opposition appears to be building up yet again. On the reply that the Justice Secretary has just given, may I urge him to reconsider the sunset clause, which might be the only way that he can get these proposals through the House?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Ordained Clergy · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to increase the number of ordained clergy.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Ordained Clergy · Hansard source

  More

  As a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I never cease to be amazed by the number of officials who turn up to every meeting. Could the Leader of the House convey to the Second Church Estates Commissioner that perhaps slimming down Church bureaucracy would allow more resources to be available for the ministry?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Hundreds of my constituents work at Scunthorpe steelworks, and I fully support the Government’s actions to support the industry. A written statement on this subject is published each month. The most recent one says: “We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of British Steel.” —[ Official Report , 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 1WS.] Twice in the past couple of weeks, Ministers have referred to a business plan that exists for the steelworks. Could the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister to come to the House and actually give details of the Government’s business plan?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Future of TV Distribution · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware of a recent survey that shows that there is very little knowledge among the public of the future changes, but those who are aware are concerned about not only obtaining the service but its cost. What guarantees can the Minister give that the costs will not be too heavy?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Future of TV Distribution · Hansard source

  More

  3. What recent progress the Future of TV Distribution stakeholder forum has made on its work.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Right to Trial by Jury · Hansard source

  More

  This is yet another attempt by a Labour Government to limit trial by jury. May I remind the Minister that Tony Blair’s Administration brought forward very similar proposals? In 2007, after a defeat in the House of Lords, they acknowledged defeat. Will the Minister acknowledge that she too will have to admit defeat?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. The Planning Inspectorate recently overturned a decision by North East Lincolnshire council for a development of 200 houses in New Waltham in my constituency. The objections centred on highway capacity. In his report, the inspector acknowledged that the nearby roundabout was over capacity, but said that an increase from 100% to 107% capacity would make very little difference. Clearly, local residents disagree. Would the Minister acknowledge that public confidence in the process—

• 20 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday I attended a drop-in session in aid of those who suffer from Huntington’s disease. As is often the case when we attend these events, they signed me up as a champion. My first role as champion is to highlight the new guidelines issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for those suffering from this disease. Could the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to make a statement to explain how quickly those guidelines can be implemented, to help those suffering from this awful disease?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  There is a growing body of evidence about the dangers caused by headlight glare. I know the Department is doing its own research on this. Could the Minister give an indication of when new regulations might be brought forward to reduce the risks?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Chairman sends his apologies for his absence today. When we met on Tuesday, the Committee again had great difficulty in allocating time to the many applications that we are receiving. I make the usual plea to the Leader of the House for as much time as possible so that we can accommodate all the various applications. I welcome his acknowledgment of the need for an early debate on Ukraine, which came before the Committee on Tuesday via an application from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). In addition to the debates that the Leader of the House has announced in the Chamber next week, in Westminster Hall there will be a debate on Tuesday 18 November on the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, and debates on Thursday 20 November on inequalities faced by unpaid carers and World COPD—chronic obstructive lung disease—Day. I urge Members who want debates to coincide with specific events to apply early, because we are now looking to allocate time for debates in February and March. Turning to my own question to the Leader of the House, yesterday—I am sure along with many other Members—I attended the drop-in session organised by Samaritans and the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. I was shown the template letters produced by AI that, in effect, encourage particularly young and vulnerable people to consider suicide, which is an appalling state of affairs. I recognise that Ministers are looking at all aspects of the digital world and so on, but I am sure the whole House agrees that we must take urgent action to combat this. I hope the Leader of the House will arrange a statement by a Minister on how the Government intend approaching it.