Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Palmer and Lord Judd

Monday 3rd November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer (CB)]

My Lords, I fully support this amendment. The happiest moments of my week are when I get a kiss from all the onboard staff on the east coast line on Thursday lunchtime. It is incredibly important to realise that we have had two failed privatisations on the east coast line. Even at this last stage, very late in the day, I hope and pray the Government will not denationalise the east coast line. In my view—and I spend an enormous amount of my life on the east coast line—it would be absolutely mad, especially bearing in mind the two failed franchise bids.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I spend a great deal of my time on the west coast line. All I can say is that when for one reason or other I use the east coast, I look at it with some envy. It is a very successful operation. I cannot believe that this is happening for any reason other than ideological commitment. That is a daft way to run an essential national public service. Pragmatism is the order of the day.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to what is happening with Eurostar. I find it extraordinarily irresponsible that a railway system of that kind, which is so basic to the strength of our economy and well-being—the European market, whether we are in the Common Market or not, is so crucial to our economic success—should be handed away from public accountability and control. That is a basic lifeline. Of course this is happening in other industries as well. When I read of the Chinese coming in on certain strategic areas, I begin to wonder where on earth our economic policies tie up with our strategic analysis of the world in which we live.

The great thing to remember—my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to this too—is that when public companies on the European mainland take the opportunity to provide public services in this country, they do so in a context in which in their own countries this is not seen as an ideological test of purity but a matter of pragmatism: what makes sense to be practically and pragmatically in the public sector and what makes sense in the private sector. In that context, they have been highly successful.

I personally favour—and I find myself cheered to realise that the majority of public opinion seems to be in that direction—a completely publicly owned rail system within this country because it is so crucial to our economy and every other matter. I also think it has a good deal to do with the morale of those working on it. If they feel they are actually providing a public service, and get a professional pride from providing a public service rather that simply providing profits, that has an impact and some significance.

If we are not to have that in the Bill—I hope we may have it at some stage—then it seems that this is a very effective damage limitation exercise. Nobody could accuse it of being doctrinaire politics because it accepts that the private sector will be there; it just says, is it not sensible? If the opportunity occurs, it makes pragmatic good sense and there is a rational way to undertake it, the public sector should be running part of the railway system. It would be a very good test of the comparative merits of both. I find the present situation ridiculous and I am alarmed that this kind of oversimplified thinking can dictate policy on something as vital to our economy as this.

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Display and Specialist Tobacconists) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Debate between Lord Palmer and Lord Judd

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will know full well how I abhor the habit of smoking, albeit that I am a smoker. I must declare an interest as the convenor of the Lords and Commons Cigar and Pipe Smokers’ Club. We ought to be very careful about the hypocrisy of the last Administration. If smoking was completely outlawed, the entire British economy would literally collapse. As such, as much as I admire the noble Baroness, I regret this Motion—particularly in these hard pressed times, most especially for very small retailers.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend and applaud the fact that she has brought this Motion before the House. People have spoken with great emotion about the rights of individuals. There is no proposal before us to ban people from smoking—perhaps there should be. It concerns me that we always dance round the brutal, central point about smoking: that it is known beyond doubt to be a killer. We are condoning a delay in discouraging young people and others from indulging in a habit that kills.

It is not just the smokers themselves but their families, the grief, the cost to future production as people fall ill and the heavy cost on the health service when we already know that the health service is stretched almost beyond all reason. In the arguments of those who are against my noble friend, I find it difficult that they seem to suggest that this is a private matter for the individual. It is not: it has social implications and the cost falls upon society as a whole. It is not just a cost upon the individual who decides to smoke. What evaluations have been made of the cost of this delay? What will be the cost to the health service? How many people will die prematurely who would not otherwise have died? What will the cost be of supporting families where people have died prematurely because of indulging the habit? This is an absolutely inexcusable delay.

In the last 24 hours, we again heard the Prime Minister make great speeches about how he will not brook delay in his decision to decentralise and make sure that people share in responsibility and participate in the kind of society of which he dreams. If he will not brook delay in that circumstance, why does he do so in allowing a practice to go on of encouraging people to take up a habit that is dangerous and results in death? We must face these central facts. If we condone what the Government propose, we condone more death, suffering, cost to the general public and burdens upon the health service. How on earth can that be justified?