High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Select Committee

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree, and I very much appreciate what the right hon. Lady said in her speech.

There are measures to deal with environmental damage. I mentioned floating slab track to deal with vibration, but there are also noise barriers disguised by foliage and tunnelling where necessary. All sorts of things can be done: they cost a bit extra, but they make the project much more acceptable. Getting the line right in the first instance is absolutely fundamental, and many of my good friends tell me that the line is not right, especially north of Birmingham, but also between London and Birmingham. All sorts of details need to be argued, which will take the Committee a long time. HS2 is a much bigger project than Crossrail, and the Crossrail Bill Committee took two years. We met every week, and there were lots and lots of petitions. There will be many more for HS2, so we are looking at a big job.

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) mentioned speed, and recently there was talk about reducing the maximum speed from 250 mph to 183 mph—or 300 kph—and going at the speed of HS1. It was an arbitrary decision—“Oh well, let’s just reduce the speed”—which changes a lot of suggested journey times. I have spoken in the House about journey times, and criticised the project in that regard, as it seems that someone can just make a quick decision—“Oh well, we won’t go there. We’ll decide to change the speed.” There is a problem with high-speed trains, which cannot go round tight curves as they would fall off the track. Curves have to be gradual and of a large radius, which causes all sorts of problems. That does not apply to trains on standard rail, with a speed of up to 125 mph or 135 mph.

Raising the speed from 300 kph to 250 mph demands a tremendous increase in energy. Energy costs are much greater at higher speed, and extra emissions from power stations required to drive electric trains are disproportionately increased. Optimum railway speeds are much lower—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Quite a few more Members want to speak and I do not want to allow the hon. Gentleman’s speech to turn into a Second Reading speech. I would have thought that the motions are more important at this stage.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I shall conclude in a moment as I have basically made my points.

I would be happy to support all the amendments of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham were they ever put to a vote, but I hope that the Government will take them into account. I am also in favour of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, who is not her place, and all the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I hope that we see some common sense in the long run.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Attorney-General for that intervention. No doubt Scotland will be drummed out of the convention for what it has done.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on her powerful speech, which I think she made extremely well. I only wish that she had been given more time to go through all the detailed objections, which the British Humanist Association has answered at length, but of course there is not always time in debates to answer every question. I assure hon. Members that the BHA has dealt with all the objections it has heard so far. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are too many private conversations going on and I am struggling to hear—[Interruption.] Mr Blunt, order, please.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In conclusion, I want to put it on the record that I strongly support new clause 15 and very much hope that it will eventually lead to humanists being allowed to marry in the way they wish and not to be required to get married in any other way.

Tax Fairness

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

No, no. I live in the real world, and I suspect that even my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will not start considering 98% marginal tax rates.

George Bernard Shaw, a witty man but a socialist, who was paying 98%, said, “I consider myself to be a tax collector for the Government, in return for which I receive a 2% premium.” I thought that that was one way of putting it. Shaw was, as I said, a socialist, who no doubt accepted that wealthy people such as himself should pay substantially more than the poor.

I realise that we will not return to that rate, but I will say that during a Budget debate in the last Parliament, on a cold Thursday afternoon when it was raining and there were about six people in the Chamber, I suggested that we could consider a 50% rate for those on £60,000 a year—this was then!—a 60% rate for those on £100,000, and a 70% rate for those on £200,000. That would have taken us nowhere near where we had been in the 1970s, but it would have been a substantial change from where we were then.

I did not get much of a reaction in the Chamber, but the Deputy Speaker spoke to me privately afterwards. I am giving away no secrets, because she is no longer a Member of Parliament. She said, “I do so agree with you. Why do the Government not just do as you say?” Well, if only; but I had said what I thought, and I thought that would be a reasonable move. I suggested the 50% rate for those on £60,000 because at least it would mean Members of Parliament paying a tiny bit extra on the top part of their income. I thought that was right then, and I still think it is right.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman has run out of time. Much as I was enjoying his speech, I must now call Catherine McKinnell.

Finance Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I will have to bring the Back-Bench speeches to an end at 19 minutes past, so there are three minutes left.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I strongly support the brilliant speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). There are clearly qualms on the Conservative Benches about this disastrous policy.

I had the privilege of being at the TUC general council 37 years ago as a staff member when the original policy was approved by the TUC general council. At that time, we had the social contract between the TUC and the Labour Government, which I think was a brilliant success. Harry Urwin, the deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, argued the case against some trade unionists who were concerned about a tax allowance, which would tend to go to male workers, being given through a universal benefit largely to women for their children. It was a massively progressive policy and was the right thing to do. It was in line with the principles of universality established by Beveridge and many brilliant social scientists and theorists later on, such as Richard Titmuss. It was of enormous benefit to families and children.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), my nextdoor neighbour, talked about punishing children for the sins of their parents. If their parents, by accident or design, have large families, it is not the fault of the children. The money goes to the children, not to the parents. To punish the children for what their parents have done, by accident or design, is completely wrong.

The principle of universality is rightly carried through in the basic state pension, the winter fuel allowance and a number of other things. If we want to redistribute income, we do it through the taxation system, not with means-tested benefits. We talk about trying to get people back into work. If they receive means-tested benefits, they lose them when they get back into work. Sometimes it is cheaper to stay at home and claim benefits than to go to work. Universal benefits do not have that problem, because everything else comes as extra.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is right, our amendments are right and I hope that the House will carry them.

Whitsun Recess

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I want to reinforce the point that my hon. Friend is making about age. My constituency has the lowest age structure of any in the country, and yet it has some of the highest health needs. Under the system that he is describing, we would suffer.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before the hon. Gentleman gets back on his feet, I point out that he has been talking for almost 30 minutes. I am sure that he must be coming to the end. What he has said has been very fruitful for the House, but he needs to come to an end due to the lack of time and the need to get other people in.

Court of Auditors 2009 Report

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman would have to explain the position to me, because I am not an accountant, but if there were no budget and no European Union at all, that would solve the problem entirely. Given that we are generous by nature and would want to help our fellow European countries to develop, some sort of transfer might be helpful and the European Union would be a way of doing it. So I am not against the idea of wealthy countries contributing to poorer countries, but the current cumbersome approach, which invites corruption and irregularity, is not the way to do it and does not work out fairly. I have made my suggestion a number of times and I hope that, in time, our Government at least will take it seriously. Perhaps we will be able to debate that in the European Councils themselves and discuss completely changing the method by which these fiscal transfers take place. I have made my point and I have spoken for long enough.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I remind hon. Members that at 8.54 pm I am going to call the Minister to do a three-minute wind-up? There are three speakers to come. The first will be Chris Heaton-Harris.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kelvin Hopkins

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank my right hon. Friend, as always, for being so generous.

No doubt we should welcome the extra seat in the European Parliament as a small extension of democracy, but my right hon. Friend is right about accountability. Would it not be a good idea for some powers to be repatriated to national Parliaments, and would it not also be a good idea to return to single-Member, first-past-the-post seats in the European Parliament? Would that not increase accountability?

[The Chairman]

Order. That has absolutely nothing to with the clause. I think that the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) had better sum up his speech now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It has just struck me that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) suggested a two-house European Parliament. I am not an enthusiast for that, but in those circumstances could you not have an arrangement similar to that for—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have already ruled on that question.

Policy for Growth

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed, in the short term, we would borrow it. Another factor that the Government constantly ignore is the tax gap of £120 billion a year in tax that is not collected. It is evaded, avoided or simply not collected. If we collected a fraction of that £120 billion, we would have plenty to spend.

In the short term, we should spend more and invest in labour-intensive areas to bring down unemployment, which would bring down the deficit and make life better for everybody. If we want growth, we have to spend more in the short term, not less, and that money can come initially from closing the tax gap. If we have to raise taxes on the better off, so be it, but we have to spend more, not less. The suggestion that Labour spent more than other countries is nonsense. For example, 10 years ago, public spending in Scandinavian countries was more than 50%, or 10% to 15% of GDP more than ours. We were not over-spenders. Indeed, I argued for a long time that we should follow the Scandinavians’ example. I was somewhat critical of the Labour Government in that respect, although they did infinitely better than this Government will do. I really fear for the future of this country, if the Government press ahead with this cuts programme. We face a period of mass unemployment and deflation, which is much harder to eradicate than inflation. Deflation—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.