Inter-City Rail Investment

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Sheila Gilmore

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to take place. I cannot help but reflect that, should our predecessors of 40 years ago walk in here today, they would be surprised to see the extent of the interest across the House in rail investment. We might disagree on some of the mechanisms for achieving it, but there is now a high level of agreement that this is the way forward. This follows a period in which, sadly, we were diverted towards the wrong future, and I hope that we are now heading towards the right one.

Regrettably, some decisions are still going the wrong way. For example, the Scottish Government have chosen to build a new road bridge across the Forth, connecting Fife and Edinburgh, without any new rail connection. That is a missed opportunity. We had an opportunity to put in some sort of double-decker bridge; there are ways to build both road and rail together, if we did indeed want more road capacity. We are going to regret this decision in the not-so-distant future. The building has started, so the bridge is, unfortunately, going to go ahead, but I think that within months of it opening the call will be, “What on earth did you do that for when the congestion in the area and the car drive into the city are going to get worse and the rail link would have been a fantastic advantage?” Of course, we do have a rail bridge, of considerable antiquity. It is an iconic piece of rail architecture for the whole UK, but it does act as a bottleneck on a journey that more and more people want to make, in a way that they did not before. Even in a general atmosphere where railways have come back into their own, we are at times in danger of making the wrong decision.

I wish to discuss the mechanisms and the Government’s decision to re-privatise inter-city services on the east coast main line, because that is having an impact on investment on other inter-city routes. I have raised this matter previously and I do not apologise for doing so again, because it is important; I have not yet been given any clear answers from Ministers, so I am going to ask some of the same questions.

I wish to make some brief remarks on High Speed 2 and public investment in inter-city rail generally. There are different views across the House on HS2, but those of us who support it must deal with the danger of a perception that it will not have any benefits for the rest of the network. HS2 will enhance capacity on other key routes: trains will continue on the classic network to serve other destinations; space will be freed up for services to smaller towns and cities; and, providing high-speed platforms are properly integrated into existing stations, people across the country will have access to high-speed trains. We need that form of travel, in both directions. I understand the fear about the pull to the south-east, but that pull is happening in any case, for all sorts of other reasons, not least the lack of employment in the north. We need to address that, but not grasping the nettle is the wrong way to go.

Futurologists from 40 or 50 years ago might well have thought that people would not need to travel now because they would be able to talk to each other by all sorts of new mechanisms, and indeed they can. I used to tease my husband, who works in IT, in the academic community, which has always been quite far ahead on things such as networking, by asking him why he needed to travel to conferences and to London because he could do everything by video conferencing. I asked why on earth he was going yet again. Of course, as I pointed out to him when I thought about it, people cannot have conference dinners by video conferencing. That is not an entirely facetious point to make, because, as we all know from our party conferences, when people meet at events what goes on outwith the main setting in terms of networking, catching up with people and having those debates and conversations is hugely important. Human communication has not been supplanted by all the technology at our fingertips.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is making a sensible point. Does she agree that trains also provide opportunities for human interaction, business talk, discussion and work to be done? Trains are wonderful things in that respect.

[Sheila Gilmore]

They certainly do provide those opportunities, but occasionally I hear more about other people’s business on the train than I want to know. For that reason, I am glad to see more quiet coaches. When my father used to complain about people talking on mobile phones on the train, I used to think that he was being an old fusspot. However, I have to say that although it is good to have some sort of business interaction on the train, it would be nice not to have it right in my ear when I am trying to work. Interestingly, on the east coast main line, the quiet coaches are now the most popular and most booked up of all the coaches. That suggests that I am not in a minority on the matter. It is true to say that we can do a lot of work on trains that we cannot do flying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

My understanding is that when phase 2 is in place, we could save a full hour—perhaps slightly more—of the journey time. As we are talking about a long time scale, I am not averse in any way to looking at ways of improving the speed on existing rails. One thing East Coast has done, which is helpful, is introduce a train that leaves Edinburgh early in the morning and arrives in London at a time that allows people to attend meetings. It does that by having fewer stops, so there is always a trade off. By only stopping at Newcastle and then coming straight through, it has shaved off time. The only downside is that the train departs very early in the morning. We are privileged here in the House of Commons. As we go through until 10 pm on a Monday night, we do not start work at 10 am, which would be difficult.

Leaving aside the whole HS2 debate, we welcome the fact that intercity lines in other parts of the country are receiving significant public investment for electrification, new rolling stock and so forth. Of course, it is important to emphasise that all that investment is public and coming from the taxpayer. That fact was reinforced last month when the Office for National Statistics announced that it would reclassify Network Rail as a central Government body from September. That is an acknowledgement that it is not outwith the Government.

Part of the promise of privatisation was that it would generate investment, but it has not done so. We must be realistic about that. What about the level of private investment in other inter-city routes following the Government’s decision to prioritise the franchise competition for the east coast? I am sure that Members will remember that under the Government’s initial franchising timetable, a new contract for the west coast main line was due to start in October 2012, with Great Western starting in April 2013 and east coast in December 2013.

After the debacle of the west coast bidding process, a new timetable was announced last March. The east coast main line, which was previously last in the queue of those big franchises, was brought forward so that it would be let before April 2015. As the Government accepted the recommendations of the reports produced after what happened with west coast that only one major franchise should be dealt with at a time, that was only made possible by giving the current operator of the west coast main line—Virgin—a four-and-a-half-year franchise extension to April 2017. The operator of the Great Western line, First, was given a two-and-a-half year extension to September 2015. That is 77 months of extensions between the two operators.

Ministers who prioritised the east coast franchise and justified it by referring to the Brown review are presumably reiterating their belief that competition in the bidding process should drive private investment. Although franchise competition might achieve that, franchise extensions clearly do not. The Government have lost any bargaining chip they had in the process. Having made that set of decisions, they had no option but to negotiate with the existing operators. The only bargaining chip Ministers could use would be to threaten to call in East Coast’s parent company, Directly Operated Railways. The operators know the Government’s reluctance to do that and the very fact that they want to extract the east coast franchise from DOR shows that, quid pro quo, they would not want to put the other routes into DOR’s hands. That means that competition is effectively absent.

The companies have no incentive to invest during the remaining time for which they are operating the routes and have every incentive to demand significant subsidies. The extensions are likely to cost us, the taxpayers, dearly. In 2011-12, Virgin paid the Department a premium of £165 million and First Great Western paid £110 million. Will the Minister confirm that following the agreement of the extensions, payments of such an order are unlikely to be made? Perhaps he could confirm what sort of payments he anticipates. Will the Minister also confirm that apart from the roll-out of wi-fi on First Great Western, which we would have expected from any operator, the two extensions offer no improvement for passengers?

My key contention is that if the east coast franchise had not been prioritised, those extensions would not have been necessary and the competitions for the west coast and Great Western franchises could have been held much sooner had the Government wanted to pursue them.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Does that not illustrate that the determination to re-privatise the east coast main line is driven by dogma, not reality?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I think that it is. I do not propose to reiterate all that has been said by so many of my Opposition colleagues in several of the debates we have had on this subject about how East Coast has performed. Given the history, it is particularly frustrating. As I have campaigned on the issue and talked to people about it, I have found that the levels of support we get are extremely high.

People who are not politicians and who are not involved in the debate at that level are baffled as to why, when the east coast main line has already been through two difficult franchising periods, this should be happening in that way. Given what we have learnt, they ask, “Why are we doing this if it is working well? If it is working well, why not leave it in place and see what happens?” As I have said, that would not necessarily have prevented the Government proceeding with other franchises, if that is what they were determined to do—some people would certainly have preferred it if they had not been. It seems particularly perverse to pick this one. That is what many members of the public feel, and not just those who travel on the line regularly.

There is a lot of concern about how this will work out. If East Coast had been performing badly in the public sector, it would have made sense. An imperative to turn it around might have trumped the disadvantages of negotiating extensions on the west coast main line and the Great Western main line. But East Coast was and is performing well, and that defence is simply not available to Ministers.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, people are now losing their jobs in all areas of the public services. The public services are suffering great stress and the people working in them are being demoralised, and I think that goes even for the senior civil service—I know that certain people at the end of the Chamber would possibly agree with me in that respect.

I must say that the Treasury’s attitude over some decades has been so lax that one has to suspect that it really believes that allowing all the corporates and millionaires to have their money will somehow trickle down and help the economy. That is the sort of economic nonsense that has got us into the mess we are in at the moment. What we should be doing is collecting the taxes and spending in the areas where it is needed.

[Sheila Gilmore]

It has also been argued that despite the harm done to developing countries by the controlled foreign company rules, their application would bring more companies into this country and the wealth would trickle down to the rest of us.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Those are feeble arguments put by people who might have vested interests.

It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who seems to know a lot about these matters, saying the other day, “What about a few prison sentences for people who fiddle their taxes?” That would concentrate a few minds, and I think that is what we should do, as I think it is criminal for people to rip off the public purse as they do to the detriment of us all. The great majority of my constituents, of course, are working-class people who have to pay their taxes through PAYE—they cannot escape, avoid or evade—so I feel angry on their behalf as well.

It is a matter of political will. If we had the will, we could do these things. We would not need to invent schemes that seem designed to fail. If they were not designed to fail, I am sure the Minister would not be frightened of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) to have a review in two years’ time. If the scheme were to be successful, the review would show its success; if we collected half of what had been evaded through the Government’s proposed scheme—£16.5 billion or whatever, amounting to 4p on the standard rate of income tax—the review would approve of what the Government had done. If the Government refuse to accept the amendment, they are obviously nervous that their scheme will not be a success. I suspect that they have brought something up that is designed to fail and will help the wealthy and the corporates to continue to avoid and evade taxes.

I do not believe that the Government are genuinely concerned about these matters. If they were, they would take effective action, ensure that it happened through stronger laws and possibly prison sentences for those who break these laws, and collect billions more in taxes. The sort of figures described by Richard Murphy and others are enormous—equivalent to each year’s deficit, about which the Government say they are so concerned. They are cutting spending to solve their deficit problems, but the real problem is not spending—it is that their revenue is too low because they are failing to collect all the due taxes. If the Government were successful in enforcing tax laws so that all due taxes were paid, there would not even be a deficit. They would have enough money to cover it. Let us see the Government take effective action: only then will I take them seriously. Until that time, I shall continue to say what I have said this evening.

Tax Fairness

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

First, I apologise for arriving late for the debate. I had another commitment that was inescapable, but I want to make a contribution to this important discussion. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) on his election victory. I heard his maiden speech yesterday, and a very fine speech it was, too. Unfortunately, he left the Chamber—no doubt for a celebratory drink—before I had a chance to congratulate him, as it was my turn to speak. I remember that, on the day of the election, I was knocking on doors for the Labour party, as he would expect. We were delivering leaflets that said that it was a two-horse race. Sadly, Labour was not one of the two horses, but I was slightly comforted by the fact that the Conservative party was not one of them either.

Tax fairness is the subject of this debate, and I very much welcome the moves that our leadership is making in that direction. The decisions on the mansion tax and the 10p rate are important. They might be straws in the wind, but the wind is blowing in the right direction. The mansion tax is perhaps something of a slogan—an eye-catching, or thought-catching, idea—but I believe that property taxes are appropriate in a civilised society. Property has the advantage that it does not move, so we can always find it. As long as we can also find the owner, we can collect the taxes.

Property taxes, as with all taxes, have to be carefully designed. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, we have to be careful to ensure that such taxes are equitable. If there is inequity between regions, that should be looked at. The taxes have to be carefully designed to ensure that equity. Personally, I would like to go further and talk about a wealth tax. My party used to talk about that some years ago, and I would like to see a more general tax on wealth in order to do something about the grotesque inequalities in our society. Those inequalities have grown enormously during the time I have been active in politics. Had I been told when I was first active in my party in the late ’50s and early ’60s that we would be in this position now, I would not have believed it. We have moved in this direction, however, and it has been a retrograde step.

No doubt some hon. Members will have read a book entitled “The Spirit Level”, which identifies a strong correlation between income inequality and a whole range of social ills. I want to see a society that is much more equal in income terms, in order to reduce those social ills and because it is right in principle. It is interesting to note that that correlation applies in all societies, whatever the income levels. It does not just apply in rich societies or poor ones. In any society, income inequality correlates with greater social ills. I hope that when my party gets into office at the next election—that is when, not if—we will seriously address that question and try to make Britain a much more equal society again.

Tax has to be progressive. We have to tax the better-off, and we should tax the less well-off either very little or not at all. I have to say that I was disappointed in the previous Government. I was one of a small number of Labour Members—I think there were six of us—who voted against the abolition of the 10p rate, and I am delighted that our leadership has now chosen to reverse that decision and to put us back onside when it comes to looking after the less well-off. That decision is very welcome indeed.

Income tax is the most progressive form of tax. It is adjustable and, in the case of most people, it is collectable. Most of us are on PAYE, so there is no problem with collection. There is a problem, however, with collecting taxes from those who try to evade or avoid paying what is rightly due from them. We have heard from the tax justice movement, and from Richard Murphy in particular, an assessment that the tax gap is something like £120 billion. Some suggest that it could be even more than that. Even the Government accept that the figure is in the tens of billions. Small advances have been made in collecting that tax, but if were really to make inroads in that area, we would not need to look at changes in the tax rate because there would be so much more income to enable us to solve our problems.

[Sheila Gilmore]

We have heard a lot of the language around dealing with tax avoidance and with high-income earners. Does my hon. Friend not find it disappointing that, at almost the first opportunity to take action, the Chancellor went to Europe to argue against a cap on bonuses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

He did indeed go to the IMF, but I think it has now been recognised that that was unnecessary. We did not need to kowtow to the IMF or to impose those strictures. In fact, remarkably, the economy survived quite well during that time, although a mistake was made at the end. I shall not go into that now, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you would call me to order if I did, but it was the reason why things went wrong in 1979. Nevertheless, we survived the 1970s, although the oil price rose by five times in a very short period, which affected the whole world including Britain.

At that time, I was working for the Trades Union Congress and then in the trade union movement. I was an economist, and was lobbying the Government. I was at the TUC General Council when the £6 pay policy was agreed to. That was an historic moment. I thought it amazing that the trade unions had agreed to a cap on pay increases for everyone, but the reason they agreed to it was that it was fair. Everyone would receive a £6 pay rise. For someone with a low income that was a big rise, while for someone with a high income it was not very much, but it was fair, and was seen to be fair across the board.

Other Members are too young to remember this, but in those days the top rate of tax was 83p in the pound, and there was also a 15% surcharge on unearned income. Some of those whose income was entirely unearned, perhaps in property, were paying a 98% rate on the top part of their income. I thought that was pretty fair, but of course we cannot go back to those days.

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend has been revisiting the 1970s. A remarkable statistic is that in 1979, the inequality gap in this country was at its narrowest since the second world war. Perhaps, if we think that reducing inequality is a good thing, something was right at that time.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Absolutely. I remember writing papers about the massive increase in inequality that occurred subsequently, during the 1980s, when there were big tax cuts for the rich along with rapidly rising unemployment. That resulted in the inequality for which we have not really been compensated since.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Sheila Gilmore

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I believe that there is a massive difference between the proportion of gross national product spent on health under the Tories before 1997 and the proportion spent on it now. Although I think that we should spend more on health—I have always argued that we should spend as much on it as Germany and France, but we have still not quite reached those funding levels—we have made massive improvements.

For a long time I complained that health service spending in Luton was below the fair funding target. We lobbied our own Ministers heavily on the issue, and I think that we made some progress in persuading them to move in the right direction, but we must ensure that health funding in all areas increases as a proportion of GDP. I hope that Buckinghamshire as well as Luton North will benefit in that regard.

We must accept that improving health care sometimes means increasing rather than decreasing labour intensity. Health care will improve if a ward containing 20 beds and two nurses is given a third nurse. That is certainly true in the elderly care sector, about whose future I am seriously concerned. The fact that our population is ageing is an additional major burden for the health service. We all want to ensure that we are cared for properly when we are elderly—even more elderly than I may be at present. When we are elderly and need care, we want that care to be properly funded, so that we do not suffer in the later stages of our lives.

I strongly support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, and I hope very much that the Government will accept the amendment.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It has puzzled me slightly over the years that successive Governments, and the Treasury in particular, have been so reluctant to engage in hypothecated funding. I know that there are arguments for and against it, but one of the main arguments for it—as has been borne out by the changes in 2003 involving the hypothecation of increased national insurance contributions—is the building of public support for the deed itself. It is true that if we want good services we must pay for them, but people want to know for sure that their money is going where they think it is going.

People in Britain tend to say that we should have Scandinavian-style public services with American-style taxes, but the two simply do not fit together. Scandinavian-style public services come with high taxation. If people can feel confident that their money is going where it is most needed, they will be much more committed to spending it. As I said earlier, I have not always understood why even my own party’s Governments have not necessarily been particularly keen on that point of view. It seems that Members have been captured by the Treasury as soon as they have become Treasury Ministers. However, an innovative step has been taken.

Amendment 8 does not ask for the national insurance increase to be hypothecated at this stage. It merely suggests that the door should be left open, and that if it proves impossible to reach the health service spending target to which the Government have committed themselves, it should be possible to use the national insurance increase to ensure that that commitment can be fulfilled.