Finance Bill

Debate between Frank Dobson and John Redwood

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Frank Dobson]

I strongly support new clause 14. It would appear that the Treasury’s Orwellian motto is “Ignorance is strength”. It is not just that the Treasury will not have this study done, but it has not had it done and does not know the answer. The Government are clearly afraid of the answer; what have they got to hide? That is typical of the current Treasury position. On a number of occasions I have asked the Treasury what estimate it has made of the income that would come to it from the implementation of a Tobin tax or Robin Hood tax—a tax on financial transactions such as that being sensibly suggested by Mrs Merkel for the rest of Europe. The answer I get is that the Treasury has never made any such estimates. Having never made any estimate of the possible income—and apparently never estimating what it would cost the City of London—the Treasury nevertheless states that it would be fatal for the City to impose a tax of 0.05% on financial transactions, when every other business in the country pays a 20% tax on transactions known as VAT. It appears that the Treasury is into “Ignorance is strength”.

We constantly hear from those on the Tory Benches about the wonders of Mrs Thatcher and how we should follow her example, so I remind them that for nine of the 11 years that she was Prime Minister, the top rate of income tax was 60p in the pound. Apparently, people managed to pay it. Apparently the money came in, and even rich people did not need a greater incentive to turn up at work.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Frank Dobson]

No, I will not give way—[Interruption.] Well, I have sat here throughout the whole debate and listened to what other people had to say, so I am going to get a little further in.

One thing that is particularly irksome for badly off people in this country is hearing apologists for the City talking about bankers’ compensation packages—compensation apparently for the horrid requirement that they turn up at work. The dictionary definition of compensation is,

“recompense for loss, suffering or injury”.

Those bankers—how they suffer when they are helping people to swindle their tax liabilities; laundering money for gun runners or drug runners; or fiddling money to help people evade sanctions and then having to pay up. We clearly need to ensure that those rich people pay more tax, and the only way to do that is by increasing the rate to at least 50p.

Water Industry

Debate between Frank Dobson and John Redwood

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Frank Dobson]

God knows; it would depend on when, if the hon. Gentleman sees what I mean.

The bulk of the reservoir capacity and the pipework was provided when big cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds and the Metropolitan Water Board in London were trying to look after the interests of the people of their areas. They created the reservoirs and laid the pipes.

During the arguments about the privatisation of the water industry, I received a letter in beautiful copperplate handwriting from an ancient ex-councillor in Sheffield. He said, “All the people at Yorkshire Water are doing is collecting water in reservoirs we built and sending it along pipes we laid. I speak as the former chairman of the water committee in Sheffield.” He pointed out that while the chief executive of Yorkshire Water was getting several hundred thousand pounds a year, when he had been responsible for it he had been paid “nowt” and the job had been done properly, whereas it had not been done properly ever since.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that the pipe network that the nationalised industry put in was riddled with holes by the time the private sector took over? More than 25% of the water was being lost en route and the private sector has been renewing the pipes.

[Frank Dobson]

That is certainly true. Until 1995, Ministers from all parties accepted the statement by the water industry that the bulk of the water that leaked out of the system leaked out of customers’ pipes. It took a lot of effort from me and somebody who was working for me at the time to finally reveal that that was nothing short of a lie. It was not that the Ministers were lying; they were being provided with lies by the water industry. I have had the figure changed into fashionable litres now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

It is no good my saying that the previous Government’s record was as good as it ought to have been—I will not pretend that it was.

Another thing is that, over the years, charges for water have risen at twice the average of price rises for everything else. There can be no possible justification for that. What sickens customers are the water industry’s byzantine financial arrangements and how it is an outpost of the tax avoidance industry. Nobody appears to understand this. Ofwat, successive civil servants and successive Ministers do not appear to have understood what is going on. I am not excusing anybody: I have no faith in the continuation of the existing system. The industry continues to be run for the benefit of companies, company bosses and shareholders. If it is to be run properly from an environmental, security of water supply and cost point of view, it is essential, before changes are made, to subject the industry to freedom of information, so that troublemaking pressure groups and individuals can get to work on the figures in a way that Ofwat and the Department are clearly incapable of doing.

I have a more advanced view of what should be done: we should follow recent examples from Germany. Berlin decided to bring the control and operation of its water supply back under the ownership of the people of Berlin, and the people of Hamburg voted in a referendum to bring its electricity supply back under the control and ownership of the people of Hamburg. That almost happened in Berlin, but the necessary turnout was not quite achieved. I propose a trial run in London. We could give the people of London a referendum to ask, “Do you want to take over, and bring your water industry back under the ownership of something similar to the Metropolitan Water Board?” That would be popular with the public: at the weekend, an opinion poll showed that 69% of the population wanted the energy industry to go back into public ownership.

[Mr Redwood]

The right hon. Gentleman has just criticised spending £2.5 billion on water meters as a luxury we cannot afford. How much would it cost to buy companies back into public ownership, and why would it be a good investment?

[Frank Dobson]

These industries are pleading poverty all the time, so it would not be all that expensive. The cost could be paid out over a very long period, which is what happened when industries were brought into public ownership in the 1940s and early 1950s.

Most people are sick to death of what is going on. They have no faith in Ofwat, officials at the Department or Ministers. I share their lack of faith and until we put forward some aggressive propositions nothing will change to the advantage of the people we try to represent.

Finance Bill

Debate between Frank Dobson and John Redwood

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I am sure that people across the country would be astonished to discover that the first priority of Back-Bench Tories on health spending is to give a tax concession to people who pay, on average, £2,000 a year towards health insurance, because most people over 65 are in no position to pay such a sum towards health insurance. Most people across the country, including many pensioners, and perhaps even those pensioners who have private health insurance, think that the first priority for spending should be to avoid some of the cuts that the Government are already introducing and to direct spending to the national health service.

[Mr Redwood]

I just want to correct the record, because our first priority was to have a wider range of drugs to treat cancer, as we thought that the previous system was too meanly constructed, and we were proud of the Government when they made that the No. 1 priority for extra spending.

[Frank Dobson]

But that decision has been and gone, and I do not think there was any opposition to it across the House, but we are now talking about the Bill. The Government now propose that the first priority should be to spend the best part of £200 million to give a subsidy to people who are already sufficiently well off that they can pay £2,000 on average towards their private health care costs. I do not think that that is a sensible priority for anyone concerned about health care. I hope that no Tory Members, or Lib Dem Members if they support this proposal, will parade outside their local hospitals saying, “Please don’t get rid of 200 nurses, or some of the doctors, or our ambulance and emergency service, and please don’t take away our maternity unit.” That will be because some of their colleagues thought that the first priority was to spend £200 million on people who are considerably better off than the average.

Government Members have said that the rich can afford to buy private health care and that most rich pensioners already have it. Some extreme marketeer right-wingers both here and in the United States think that health insurance should be abolished because, if people have to pay for health care costs out of their income or savings, they will be a source of pressure to bring down those costs, but Government Back Benchers have not reached that extreme marketisation approach yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

That is exactly what successive Ministers and Secretaries of State for Health in the Labour Government concluded, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). After him came the modernising Secretaries of State and Ministers who felt that they had to turn to the private sector to achieve better standards—in terms of offering people treatment in a timely way—and to expand the total capacity of the system.

[Frank Dobson]

My successors, to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers, sometimes make rather wild claims about the number of cataract operations that are carried out by the private sector. When Labour came to power, the NHS did 167,000 cataract operations a year, and in the last year for which figures are available it did 346,000. The private sector made the massive contribution of 16,000 in its best year.

[Mr Redwood]

The right hon. Gentleman may well be right. It is quite obvious that the NHS is the dominant health provider in our country—it has been for the many years since its foundation, and it will continue to be so under any schemes proposed by any governing party or parties in this House of Commons.

I wanted to concentrate on the cost and benefit of the proposals. I am an agnostic on this issue, which may come as a surprise to the House, because I am far from being a deficit denier, and I believe that we must weigh carefully any proposal for tax relief against other such proposals. In this case, I would be interested to know more about what the savings would be. There could be significant savings. If Ministers do not adopt the proposed scheme, they need to introduce others to promote more private health care of the right kind, because we will need a lot more of that to meet our targets and requirements, alongside the very large, and rightly favoured and supported, NHS.

Perhaps my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald), who have spoken so strongly for the new clauses, wish to move closer to the Liberal Democrat coalition partners. Perhaps they had ringing in their minds the words of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who set out a comprehensive universal insurance scheme for health in the Orange Book. We will have to disappoint him today, because the proposal is modest, and it will not cover nearly as many people as he would like. Were he here, we could debate that with him, and perhaps he would see that caution and moderation is the hallmark of Conservative approaches to such things. This proposal might be the way to get started on the journey that he wished to make.