Rail 2020

Debate between Lord Beamish and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that increasing congestion on the roads is one reason rail usage has gone up, not the great privatisation, which is what the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) thinks is the reason?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen people travelling longer distances to work and growth in the economy, particularly in London and the south-east, leading to much more commuting from longer distances to take advantage of lower house prices further from London, and so on. The amount of travelling that people need to do has increased enormously. The only way they can do it is by rail. I speak as someone who is sometimes asked by people, “How long does it take you to drive to London?”, to which I say, “I don’t know and I’ve never done it”—why would I, from Luton to London every day? That is my view of rail. I have been a passionate supporter of railways for a long time.

However, since privatisation we have seen a surge in costs, not just on the operating side, but on maintenance and track renewal. Time and again when Labour was in office, I raised with Transport Secretaries the fact that the costs of maintenance and track renewal had gone up by four or even five times since privatisation. The reason was largely to do with the move towards more contracting and away from direct works. That contracting involved lots of lawyers and layer upon layer of project management, all of which meant bureaucratic cost, which is still the situation now. Indeed, after some time maintenance was brought back in-house. The problem was that the bad habits established while it was contracted out continued and the same people who operated in the contracted-out version carried on doing the work in-house, so there was not much difference. We have to look back to how things operated in the days of BR, when they were done much more efficiently.

Direct employment of engineers is crucial in that. Rather than having project managers running schemes, with layer after layer of project management, and engineers employed as consultants, we should have engineers directly employed by Network Rail and running schemes from the top, not being brought in as expensive consultants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for her contribution, and for the work she does as Chair of the Transport Committee not only on rail but on all transport matters. As we have heard, passenger numbers are growing and the amount of freight on our railways has increased, and it is important to bear that in mind when talking about the future structure of railways in the UK. The argument made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) that those increased numbers were somehow down to the fact that John Major got privatisation so right stretches his ideological point a little far. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, in recent years the increase in car ownership and congestion mean that many journeys cannot be made by road within a sensible time, and—quite rightly—people are using the railways.

An efficient and well structured rail system for the UK is not only important to provide the transport links we rely on for individual travel and freight; it is also vital for our economy, especially in regions such as the north-east of England. That is why investment in our railway system is so vital. We have heard a lot of talk over the past few weeks about the capital investment projects outlined by the Government, but over the next two years we will actually see a reduction in the transport budget of some £300 million. A lot of the investment projects that have been outlined are jam tomorrow, or even jam a very long way into the future. Capital investment in our railways now would not only improve the situation in the ways outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, it would stimulate the economy. Such investment would not be wasted; it would boost the economy of the United Kingdom and it would certainly improve the economies of regions such as the north-east of England.

We had a debate on High Speed 2 last week. When I opened the Daily Mail this morning, I found myself in a rather difficult position, because I found myself agreeing with Lord Mandelson. That has to be a first, although I was not sure that I could believe what I was reading. Some of the points he raised were perfectly legitimate, however. The investment in HS2 is going to be enormous and, I have to say, regions such as the north-east will see very little benefit, even when, in the longer term, the high-speed route reaches Newcastle or beyond.

There has been a silly argument about high-speed rail being an alternative to regional air transport in this country. I do not agree with that; I believe that the two can compete alongside each other, as the hon. Member for Ipswich said earlier. For someone travelling from the north-east to Bristol, for example, flying is a better option than taking what is at the moment a long train journey. I do not think that the investment in high-speed rail will produce greatly reduced journey times to Birmingham and beyond. I also fear that it could sap scarce capital investment from the existing rail network.

We have to thank the Victorians for many things, and our existing rail network is one of them. It was a good example of their forward thinking. I accept that, under nationalisation, a number of Governments starved the network of investment, and that that led to some of the problems that we now face. However, that should not take away from the achievements of British Rail, including the introduction of the high-speed InterCity 125 service. That was so far-sighted that the service is still running today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North has said, we could achieve some quick and relatively inexpensive changes to the north-east main line for a fraction of the cost of HS2. Those changes would have a dramatic effect on journey times and, as he said, they would achieve a modal shift as we moved freight off the roads and on to the railways. Before we embark on the full investment in HS2, those proposals need to be looked at seriously. They are doable and relatively cheap, and they would benefit many regions of this country, not 20 or 30 years in the future but now.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said—not just the compliments he has paid me but the earlier part of his speech, with which I strongly agreed. The outside estimate for the GB Freight Route scheme is £6 billion, which is a tiny fraction of what is being proposed for HS2.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We also need to consider the multiplier effect of such a scheme, and the economic benefits to regions such as the north-east. There would be benefits in reduced journey times, and in the increased amount of freight on the railways. The climate change cost would also be reduced as we got freight off the roads, and the scheme could create regional expansion in areas such as County Durham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman may have had the privilege of contributing to Lord Adonis’s report, but I was never even asked for my opinion. I think that many things in that report are complete nonsense, and that it has been given a status in the north-east far beyond its content. What my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North has proposed would increase connectivity in the north-east at a far lower cost than HS2, and would, I believe, be of more benefit to the north-east.

It interests me greatly that the hon. Member for Hexham is now enthralled by Lord Adonis’s report and believes that it is the answer to the problems of the north-east’s economy. I am afraid that I do not share his view, and I think that if he talks to people in business and to his parliamentary colleagues, he will find that many of them do not share it either. The debate about the investment in HS2 needs to take place, and I hope that it is not too late for some of the decisions that have been made to be reconsidered.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

One assumes that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) would travel to Newcastle on HS2, and would then take a slower train from Newcastle to Hexham. In fact, in 1990 a train on a British Rail test run travelled to Newcastle in the same time that it would take on HS2.

[Mr Jones]

Exactly—and if we are talking about the scarcity of capital, we should consider the upgrading of links to Hexham. In my constituency, some existing lines could be opened up. The Leamside line, for instance, could take freight off the main routes.

Let me now say something about East Coast. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who is not in the Chamber at present, wondered why the Government were in such a rush to return to privatisation. As he said, the line is contributing to the Exchequer, and is performing well in terms of punctuality and the quality of the service that it provides. Investment in rolling stock is clearly needed. However, the staff have worked hard to ensure the success of the line since renationalisation. They should be given credit for that, and for the tremendous loyalty that they have generated among the travelling public.

Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). As he knows, I was born in his constituency, so I have a fond spot for the area in north Nottinghamshire that he represents. I wish to oppose his amendment, but also to raise some concerns about the motion.

It is important that the work of the Committee focuses on getting this right. We all remember, certainly those of us from the north-east, that the first domino to fall in the financial crisis was Northern Rock. We saw people quite rightly queuing round the block, fearing for their savings and worrying what would come next. Getting regulation right will be very important, and therefore the work of the Committee will be very important not only for this generation, but for future generations.

It is clear that this Government, the previous Government and the previous Conservative Government grappled with getting the balance right between regulation and having a free market that allows markets to generate the capital and finance that industry and individuals require. Therefore, the Committee will be very important. The task we have set it, in quite a short time scale, which I will come on to in a minute, is rather intriguing. It is a little like the ark of the covenant, in the sense that I will be amazed if the Committee finds the perfect system for regulation.

The nature of the Committee was referred to earlier. The Government brought forward the White Paper setting out the draft regulation. I am a big supporter of draft legislation. I do not think that the press and public have quite got a handle on it yet, because when Governments change draft legislation it is seen as a defeat for them, and that should not be seen as the way forward.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he not agree that more pre-legislative scrutiny would improve the quality of legislation and that we should have more of it?

[Mr Jones]

I agree. To be honest, my answer to the question of the second Chamber is ultimately to vote to abolish it. I have always been a unicameralist and think that if we did the job here better we would get legislation that was not only better, but more timely and well drafted, and we would not have the theatricals that we have to go through with the other place.

The draft legislation is being put forward and I welcome that process. I sat on one of the very first Joint Committees in 2003—the Joint Committee on the draft Civil Contingencies Bill. For a new Member, that was a very good process and learning curve, because it included young and inexperienced Members of this House, such as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and myself, and Members of the House of Lords, such as Lord Archer, a former Solicitor-General, and Lord Condon, who is a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. They brought a wealth of experience to that process, which was a good one in that it could not be replicated by the usual way in which we conduct legislative scrutiny in this place. The most important thing was that out of the 130 amendments that were tabled, well over 100 were accepted. The important thing about this Committee will be whether it genuinely conducts pre-legislative scrutiny and whether the Government will really consider changing their proposals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw talked about the House of Lords. I feel uncomfortable not about joint legislative scrutiny with the House of Lords, which is a good process, but about having it for financial matters. That makes me a bit nervous. Not only the membership of the Committee from this House, but the selection process in the other place, which is nothing to do with us, as I well know, have not been thought through. Getting the balance right is a difficult job. The supremacy of this place in dealing with financial issues has to be maintained. I would not like, as my hon. Friend said, for this to be a chink in the armour that breaks the convention that this House, not the other place, deals with finance. Unfortunately, that point seems to have been glossed over in the way that the Government and the usual channels have put the process together. The Procedure Committee or others might want to look in detail at how such Joint Committees come into being. I would not want it to become a regular occurrence for Joint Committees, including those considering financial issues, to have Members of the other place sitting on them and determining what is taken forward.

It will be difficult to get the Bill right. It will be like finding the ark of the covenant to find a regulatory system that everyone agrees with and that protects the public from the scenes that we saw a few years ago. It is interesting that we hear the Conservatives say these days that they are now for more regulation, even though in the 1980s they deregulated the financial markets and then called for less regulation when the previous Labour Government of whom I was a member were bringing in legislation.

I am concerned about the short time scale that is being allowed for the Bill. The motion says that

“the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 1 December 2011.”

We are about to go into a long recess and the Committee will have to work through that to keep to that timetable. I wonder why that date was inserted. Getting this right is more important than any headlines the Government wish to create so that they can say they have solved the problem of the regulation of the banks. The date needs to be reconsidered and the timetable extended.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

In some cases, possibly. However, it is clear that some members of the Conservative party feel more comfortable with Europe than many of those who are present this evening.

It is important to establish what clause 18 does and does not do. Members who have not read the report from the European Scrutiny Committee will find the details well worth examining. According to paragraph 81:

“Clause 18 is a reaffirmation of the role of a sovereign Parliament in a dualist state, nothing more, nothing less.”

The suggestion in the explanatory notes that—as has already been said—clause 18 will put an end to the notion that these nasty Europeans will do things to us is not justified.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I did not intend to intervene, but my hon. Friend keeps talking about “nasty Europeans” as if this were an international issue. May I suggest to him that criticisms of the European Union, rather than of Europe, are strong among working people in Europe, including trade unionists? That is evidenced by the referendum defeats incurred by Europhiles who have tried to push through measures that are unacceptable.

[Mr Jones]

I entirely agree. I am another of those who are willing to criticise European institutions on grounds of waste and the untransparent way in which some things are done. The fact is, however, that—as has been made clear today—some Conservative Back Benchers, along with mainstream Conservative associations, believe that Europe is a thoroughly bad thing. I am sorry, but I do not share that view.

[Mr Jones]

I think that the duty of the elected House of Commons is not to try to hoodwink the public into believing—although the sovereignty and primacy of the House of Commons are self-evident—that the Bill will bolster our credentials, when that is clearly not the case.

Members who really want to change things, and to prevent the primacy of EU legislation, should try to amend the European Communities Act 1972. EU law is enacted by this Parliament, although anyone listening to some hon. Members today and some commentators outside might believe that it had no role in it whatsoever. The primacy of EU law over national law is clearly enshrined in the 1972 Act, which was passed by this Parliament. It can also be amended by this Parliament. I should be happy for those who obviously do not wish us to remain in Europe to table an amendment to that effect—that would be the proper thing for them to do—but clause 18 merely reiterates what is already there, as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly.

As the European Scrutiny Committee in paragraph 82 of its report states,

“Clause 18 does not address the competing primacies of EU and national law.”

The idea that passing the clause would somehow enshrine, or protect, the sovereignty of the House is complete and utter nonsense. Paragraph 82 continues:

“The evidence we received makes plain that these two spheres of law coexist, usually peacefully, clashing occasionally. When they do clash, neither side gives way. The Court of Justice of the EU maintains that EU law has primacy over national law, including national constitutional law.”

That is clear from the ruling in the case of Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council.

I find it disturbing that some Members appear to believe that the courts have no role in the interpretation of law. As one of my hon. Friends observed earlier, the laws that we pass in relation to Europe are interpreted over time, and that is the role of the courts. It would be completely wrong for Parliament to interfere directly in the interpretation of a law once it had been passed. European law is no different from other laws in the sense that there are various possible interpretations of it. The Thoburn case made it clear that European law could not direct what the House of Commons could do in terms of making its own laws.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in the Chamber, my hon. Friend has made a point about lawyers’ interpreting law and having scope to do so within statute. Parliament does not deliberately leave scope for lawyers to interpret the law—it tries to make its legislation fairly precise—but sometimes it is not precise enough, and at that point the lawyers intervene to interpret it. Parliament does not deliberately make laws open-ended so that lawyers can have a field day.

[Mr Jones]

No, but it has been suggested that the courts should have no role in the passing of laws, and I simply do not agree with that, although I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

There is a danger that amendment 41, and indeed new clause 1, will enable lawyers to interpret the meaning of “sovereignty”, and that the clearly defined roles and sovereignty of the House of Commons will be interpreted by judges, which would be wrong. Clause 18 has been tabled purely for political reasons, to placate people such as the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), but I doubt that it will placate them in any way, and I believe that it poses a grave danger

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has got good eyesight or was reading my mind, because that was exactly the point that I was going to make next. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) says that he is “Mystic Kev”, and clearly he is. An important point is at issue, because when the Leader of the House made his opening remarks he was asked why the debate was going to finish at 5.30 pm and not 6 pm tomorrow and we are still waiting for an answer. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) tried to tease out with his manuscript amendment. Clearly, Mr Speaker, you have ruled that that is not in order, but we have still not heard an explanation of why 5.30 pm was chosen.

We have seen a strange thing this week, because this motion allows us five hours for the debate tomorrow, yet a matter of a day ago a motion proposed that we have three hours for that debate. No explanation has been given of why two hours have suddenly been conjured up—I will allow people to intervene on this. If we can suddenly, in a day, conjure up two hours, why can we not conjure up more time, as is clearly needed for this vital debate?

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am hoping to catch Mr Speaker’s eye tomorrow in the debate and I have much that I wish to say about this very important matter. If I cut to the bone what I wish to say, I will need at least 20 minutes to do any justice to the subject. What prospect does my hon. Friend think I have of having 20 minutes in which to speak tomorrow?