Crossrail: Elizabeth Line

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. On my behalf and that of Her Majesty’s Opposition, I am in the happy position of being able very much to welcome the announcement. Crossrail has had cross-party support over its lengthy gestation period, and we all look forward to the considerable benefits that the new line will bring in the years ahead.

The naming of the line as the Elizabeth line is very much welcomed by Opposition Members. We have become used to the title Crossrail in recent decades. The renaming is a significant improvement on Cross London Rail Links Ltd, and Elizabeth is undoubtedly a much more elegant and fitting title for such an innovative and important transport infrastructure development, which will bring the benefit of better transport to millions of passengers from Reading in the west to Shenfield in the east. Given the enormous public commitment that has gone into developing the Crossrail brand, will the Minister give us an assurance that the Crossrail brand and livery will continue to be used?

I pay tribute to the last Labour Government, who took the Crossrail project forward in their 10-year transport plan, “Transport 2010”, in which they reasserted that an east-west rail link should go ahead. Alistair Darling, the then Secretary of State for Transport, announced that the Labour Government supported the new east-west Crossrail link and committed to bringing forward legislation to enable Crossrail to proceed, which was critical in turning the aspiration and ambition of Crossrail into reality.

One of the first ideas of the previous coalition Government, after they came into power in 2010, was to consider cancelling the Crossrail project altogether. Labour Members are delighted that not only is the project back on track, so to speak, but the Government’s conversion to supporting Crossrail has been so all-embracing that they have not only given the project their full backing but decided to dedicate it to Her Majesty. In that, they have our support.

We all expect Crossrail or the Elizabeth line to change the face of transport in London and the south-east, whatever its name. I would like to draw the Minister’s focus to a few points. Crossrail is largely on time and on budget, so can the Minister confirm that it will indeed open on schedule? Will she inform the House of what lessons have been learned from the successes of Crossrail that can be applied to High Speed 2? The Crossrail service will share the Great Western main line to Reading, but sadly the electrification programme has slipped and will cost more than was first estimated. Will the Minister take the opportunity to confirm to the House that the rescheduled electrification of the Great Western main line to Reading will be completed in time for the opening of the Elizabeth line?

I was delighted by the fact that after some 35 years of planning and development, Crossrail finally broke ground on 15 May 2009, when the Mayor of London and the then Transport Secretary, the noble Lord Adonis, sank the first pile into the docklands at the new Canary Wharf station. As we approach the conclusion of this most magnificent engineering undertaking, we remember the name of Crossrail with much affection and admiration. Although Crossrail is not dead, I wish the Elizabeth line a long and successful life.

[Claire Perry]

It is a delight to share, as we often do, a cross-party view—total agreement—on transport infrastructure. I would like to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

Crossrail branding will apply for now, but the intention is that from December 2018 the Elizabeth line branding will come into force. The trains are currently under construction, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it is not expensive to repaint and rebrand them, so I do not think that there are any costs associated with this welcome decision.

The hon. Gentleman asked about lessons that have been learned from Crossrail and that can be applied to Network Rail. I would argue that there are lessons that can be applied more broadly. One thing that has worked well is the fact that the project has stuck to its guns—stuck to its knitting. It has resisted demands for deviations from the route and proceeded with its original plan, which it has delivered very effectively. Crucially, it has blazed a trail in engagement with communities who are affected by the work. I have been surprised, when I have visited stations, by how little the people around the stations realise that the work is going on. That is a tribute to the care and consideration behind that engagement. Another enormously important factor has been the engagement of the supply chain. The majority of supply contracts are let to companies outside the south-east and, in many cases, to small and medium- sized enterprises. Those are two important lessons for the future.

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about bringing the project in on time and on budget. I emphasise that that is part of the project’s careful planning.

On the question about the vital link between the Crossrail line and the Great Western main line to the west, I am happy to confirm that that work is on time and on budget, and it will absolutely be in place to ensure that the line runs. It is an enormous priority for all of us to ensure that the first trains can run from December 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

No.

[Claire Perry]

Well, the hon. Gentleman corrects me, but I am delighted to say that this is now happening. Lord Adonis now heads the Government’s National Infrastructure Commission, which has been tasked with looking at—this idea again has cross-party support and consensus—how we can best spend the ongoing investment in infrastructure for the benefit of the British economy.

Great Western Railway Routes

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing this debate on an important subject. There has been many an excellent contribution. I agree with the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) that the Great Western railway is more than just a transport system; it is vital to the areas that it serves, which is why it is so important that the Government deliver on their promises on electrification and improved resilience as a matter of urgency.

As was identified by my hon. Friend the Member for the Crown principality of Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), the recent flooding in much of the country has further highlighted the importance of ensuring that our railways are resilient in extreme weather conditions, which we are witnessing with increased frequency. Commuters on the Great Western railway know that only too well. The breach of the Dawlish sea wall in 2014 forced the closure of the line for two months, creating significant disruption. We saw the rails hanging in the air like a rope bridge. I, too, applaud the heroic efforts of the engineers and workers of Network Rail who brought the repair to a speedy conclusion.

A report published in the Journal of Transport Geography on the likely future impact of weather on trains travelling to and from the south-west predicted that up to a third of rail services could be disrupted over the next 100 years. That report, which was described by Network Rail as “key” to long-term developments, underlines the importance of improving resilience in the region.

The Labour party agreed with the Prime Minister when he said that the Government “needed to find answers” because the Dawlish disaster of 2014 “must not happen again”, but his rhetoric has yet to be matched by action. Despite it being said that “money is no object”, the Peninsula Rail Task Force—we have heard a lot about that this evening—has been examining how to improve the south-west’s rail network following the storm damage, but is currently unable to complete its final report because funding is unavailable.

In a letter to the Secretary of State, Tim Jones, chairman of the Devon and Cornwall Business Council, said that the south-west would be at a “severe disadvantage” should no funding be found to complete those studies. If we are to accept what the Prime Minister told the House when he said that “money was no object”, and if we are to believe that the Government are serious about making our railways resilient to extreme weather conditions, they must ensure that funding is available to complete the report. It is of paramount importance that resilience is improved, and the Government should give their backing to the report so that the task force can get on with delivering a railway that is to be relied on come rain or shine.

A number of suggestions have been made for an additional route to Dawlish, including by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and by Labour South West, including Tudor Evans, the leader of Plymouth City Council. However, the Prime Minister appeared to prejudge any fair assessment of the options when he backed a new Okehampton railway route as the “most resilient” alternative to the vulnerable Dawlish route, saying that the UK is a “wealthy country” that should be making long-term investments in rail, and that the Okehampton line was worth a “long, hard look”. Will the Minister guarantee that all options for an additional route in the south-west will be assessed on a fair basis? Will she also reassure the House that the funding that the Prime Minister promised will be made available, and that no decision has yet been taken on the route that an avoiding line might take?

So far the Government’s track record on delivering the Great Western main line is poor. Electrification will be delivered late and cost substantially more than initially estimated. Labour committed to electrification of the Great Western main line in 2009, but the estimated cost of that has escalated dramatically since Network Rail made its first assessment in 2011.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

The hon. Gentleman has criticised this Government’s track record. Will he enlighten the House about the previous Labour Government’s track record on investing in the Great Western railway line?

[Andy McDonald]

I will happily do so. Let me remind the hon. Lady of the pieces that we had to pick up when coming into government after the disaster of Railtrack and the deaths that were caused as a result of the privatisation of the railways. We do not want to hear any more about that—the investment was significant.

[Mrs Murray]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I have given way. Mark Carne, Network Rail’s chief executive, told Members of Parliament in October that the estimate for the project had been £874 million in January 2013, and £1.5 billion in September 2014. He said that because of “inadequate planning”, the cost of electrification could now reach £2.8 billion.

The upgrades that were expected to have been completed by 2018 are significantly behind schedule. Under the original plan, the Reading to Didcot route should already have been completed, and routes to Oxford and Bristol were on schedule to be completed this year. Didcot is now expected to be two years late, in 2017, and Newbury and Oxford three years late, in 2018 and 2019 respectively. Bristol Temple Meads will not have electric trains until 2020, and the east-west rail link from Oxford to Bletchley is delayed until the early 2020s.

Some of those improvements have been delayed by up to four years, significantly affecting commuters who rely on the Great Western line, as well as on the towns and cities that the line serves. Progress on the Great Western electrification has been hampered by this Government putting electrification on hold after the 2010 election, and not fully confirming the project until July 2012, meaning that essential planning work was delayed. The Office of Rail Regulation has said that because a number of major enhancements were added to control period 5 at a relatively late date, several important projects were started in 2014 without being fully assessed. At the start of control period 5, £7 billion of the £12 billion of enhancement spending had not been signed off by the regulator. Calvin Lloyd, Network Rail’s head of long-term planning and funding said:

“There are cost pressures across the whole portfolio of enhancement projects, which should not be a surprise to anyone given that we did not have the level of confidence we might have wished at the start.”

It is the taxpayer, commuters and those who rely on Great Western who will suffer the consequences of poor cost estimation and poor planning. If the Great Western tracks are not electrified according to schedule, the Department will be liable to pay compensation to the private consortium that is delivering the new generation of electric intercity express programme trains. The Department for Transport is considering converting electric IEP trains so they can run on diesel, at an unclear cost to the taxpayer. They may not be able to reach speeds of 125 mph, raising fears that some journeys could actually slow down, compared with today, if electrification is delayed.

The Government’s plans for replacing uncomfortable and inaccessible Pacer trains on branch lines in the south-west are dependent on the success of the electrification programme. If the Great Western electrification project is significantly delayed, passengers in the south-west could endure vehicles for years that the Government have, quite rightly, said are unacceptable in the north of England.

Poor planning and the premature announcement of projects have left commuters uncertain of the future of the Great Western, yet the Government were repeatedly warned that rising costs could lead to some projects being delayed or cancelled. Labour first raised problems with the Great Western main line electrification programme in May 2014, just weeks into the start of the investment period, and challenged the Government to explain which electrification projects will be delayed or cancelled as a consequence of rising costs. Those concerns were echoed by the Transport Committee, which warned in January 2015:

“We are concerned that key rail enhancement projects—such as electrification in the North and North West of England—have been announced by Ministers without Network Rail having a clear estimate of what the projects will cost, leading to uncertainty about whether the projects will be delivered on time, or at all.”

Worse still, commuters were kept in the dark by the Government throughout this period. The chief executive of Network Rail confirmed:

“In mid-March 2015, Network Rail informed the Department for Transport that decisions may need to be made in the coming months about the deferral of certain schemes.”

However, Ministers in the Department are still refusing to say whether they were informed before the election of the plans to defer major schemes. It is now clear that the agreed work could never have been delivered within the agreed budget and timeframe. Yet Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, signed up to the plans anyway, resulting in a great deal of unnecessary uncertainty and confusion. It is passengers and the public who pay the price for such failures, and serious questions must be asked of the Government about how such a shambles was allowed to occur on their watch.

It will be a great relief to passengers reliant on the Great Western that track upgrades will arrive late rather than never. We on the Labour Benches encourage the Government properly to examine their adequacy and the adequacy of Network Rail in budgeting, planning and delivering such programmes in future. It is those issues that should be focused on, so it is an issue of concern that Nicola Shaw, who is heading the Department’s review of the future of Network Rail, has said that privatisation of Network Rail is an option that is on the table. The Government should be asking how better to deliver major projects such as rail electrification in the future, not looking to devote time to managing yet further privatisation and fragmentation of our national rail infrastructure.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the Financial Times, Great Western also raised objections to the possibility of privatising Network Rail, saying it would fragment the system and remove the advantage Network Rail has currently in being able to buy in bulk—and therefore cheaply—on behalf of the taxpayer?

[Andy McDonald]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a matter of huge concern that the critical mass of Network Rail is now under threat from this review. It makes no sense whatever to break up a national network. We all remember the days of the private enterprise adventure into our country’s rail infrastructure—and the consequences that flowed therefrom. I would therefore encourage Members strenuously to resist the proposals for the privatisation of Network Rail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

We have not been asked to put in a penny. Great Western Railway has funded the study, as part of our negotiations with it. No Government money was ever being put into these studies. We stood by to make sure the studies happened—

[Andy McDonald]

Stood by!

[Claire Perry]

No, we were prepared to backstop any shortfall, but Great Western Railway agreed to fund this small part of the overall plan. We are talking about £200,000 to £300,000, as opposed to the £3.5 million Network Rail has already spent. I hope the right hon. Member for Exeter, just for once, is going to crack a smile and welcome something. Go on! Just welcome something the Government have done. No? I think we will move on.

The Government are committed to the region, and these studies will go ahead. This is a vital region of the country for transport investment and economic growth, and I am delighted, as both a south-west MP and the rail Minister, to confirm that those studies will go ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

In 2011, FirstGroup, which runs Great Western, avoided paying contractual premium payments to the Treasury by choosing not to take up its option of a three-year extension, but in January 2013, the Secretary of State abandoned the competition for a new franchise and simply agreed a renewal with First until 2015, and subsequently announced a second direct award running till 2019, thereby avoiding the inconvenience of a competitive bidding process. Have not the Government made a mockery of free market franchising?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. As I said last week in a transport debate, I hope he lasts longer than his predecessor—[Interruption.] I think there was somebody in between. The contract to which he refers did have a break clause for First, but it was negotiated by the Labour Government. Therefore, they caused that break and it was part of their contract.

I am pleased to be able to remind the hon. Gentleman of the words of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who I believe has an important role in the Labour party—I hope it is a very unsuccessful one in a few weeks’ time. He said that:

“one reason we are able to invest record sums in our railway service is the revenues that the franchises bring in and the premiums that they pay”.—[Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 430.]

He said that when he was in a position of responsibility: that of Transport Minister.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I am concerned about clause 5, in particular, and the idea of limited liability partnerships. As I understand it, limited liability partnerships were established in 1907 to enable people to become partners without taking on the liability. There needs to be a general partner who will be liable for everything, but then those who are coming into the partnership, and perhaps giving money towards it, would not have any form of liability. I understand that it is a means of raising capital, but I am very worried about who the partners might be. We have heard all kinds of scare stories, and I would be very interested to hear some reassurance.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

When my hon. Friend describes the scope of limited liability, is it her understanding that the limit of the liability in such a partnership arrangement could be nil? If that is the case, what on earth are we doing thinking about such an arrangement?

[Emily Thornberry]

I believe that that is exactly the position. This legal instrument was created in order to help to raise money. However, the difficulty is that we will be raising money on public land—public for the moment, at least. That is land owned by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, by me and by all of us, and we will be handing over some sort of investment in it to organisations that are cloudy, to say the least. Is there anything to stop these partners being offshore companies or being able to establish themselves with £2-worth of capital? Is there anything to stop documents naming certain people as responsible for the company, only for the Russian mafia to take over at a later stage? Are we handing over Caledonian Road, Old Street and potential developments in my constituency to such people? I certainly hope not, but I am worried that this Bill’s revival may allow that to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Essentially, the sponsor of the Bill and TfL are saying, “Trust us. Let us enter into limited partnerships with who knows who.” TfL wants to enter into a limited partnership, which is not a distinct legal entity, which has a clear consequence for public transparency. For example, we cannot use the Freedom of Information Act to find out who is behind the partnerships that TfL may get into. TfL says, “Don’t worry about it. We can be trusted.” The difficulty is that TfL’s behaviour during the past few years, with some of the developments we know about, shows that we cannot in fact trust it.

Caledonian Road is not a frivolous example. As the hon. Member for Harrow East said, it is one of the few tube stations that has disabled access that is available to the large number of people who go to watch the highly successful Arsenal football club, but it will be closed for six months. What about Arsenal fans in wheelchairs during that time? TfL cannot look after a tube station with four shafts. It tells me that it needs to close it for six months to renew one of the lift shafts; yet it has two functioning lifts at the moment, both of which it will stop. I said, “The lift capacity is only 50%, so just use one lift while you are repairing the other one.” It replied, “Oh, but what happens if the lift that is in use breaks down?” I said, “Well, excuse me, TfL, but you’ve got lift engineers on site. You are re-doing the other lift shafts, so what’s your problem?”

If TfL has difficulty running a tube station, I have some concerns about its ability as a property developer, particularly if it goes into partnership with others. Those people may be perfectly adequate. TfL may go into partnership with a latter-day Peabody. That would be fantastic, would it not? It would be great if it went into partnership with somebody who really wanted to provide housing that was entirely appropriate for my constituents. The difficulty is that I do not really believe that, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Harrow East does either. TfL is trying to make as much money as it possibly can out of that land, and it will make as much money from affordable housing as it will from luxury flats.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend hits the issue on the head. Of course the value of the assets needs to be maximised, but the structure is based on the best investment opportunity. It will not be a Peabody Trust that comes along: it will be someone who wants to make the maximum money out of it. That is why the flexibility is there. It is an “ask no questions” policy—“we do not care who you are”.

[Emily Thornberry]

My concern is that we will be the partner who takes unlimited risks. My constituents will not get what they need, but their public assets will have been subject to a fire sale and they will be taking the risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

There we are. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe we ought to be focusing on whether the Bill should be revived and whether it will make London a better place. My fundamental belief is that it will not.

There are more questions in relation to the Bill than there are answers. It is about disposing of land all over London, much of it operational land. Some of it may be appropriate for development, but some of it may not. Who is to say whether these shady partners might not be pushing TfL into inappropriate developments? Yes of course we need housing, but where may we have it? For example, there is a large tract of land next to Farringdon station just by Farringdon road that on the face of it is very valuable. At the moment, it is just tracks. Is there a possibility of that land being built over and some form of flats being built there? I do not know.

Is there a possibility of something being built over Old Street? Old Street is a phenomenal station. It has two wells in it. I do not know how it functions as a tube station, but what kind of property might be built on top of it? We may well find these shady partners pushing TfL into developing such areas, which would be entirely inappropriate for the building of flats, even luxury flats. We should be very careful about that.

Another risk of the Bill is that we may end up restricting TfL’s ability to invest more in transport in London, because we have caged in a particular area or built a block of flats on a particular place, not allowing it to continue to develop the transport system that London needs and deserves.

[Andy McDonald]

We have heard examples of investments in other places in other cities, but is there not a stark distinction between other places and London? There is no risk involved whatever in investing in the property market in London. People are investing in a goldmine, so there is no need for special purpose vehicles or any other such arrangements that may not withstand scrutiny. Is that not the reality of the situation?

[Emily Thornberry]

Certainly, the way things seem at the moment is that the property market in London only goes upwards. We will see what happens in the future. There has to be, in the end, a limit to it, and there may be some form of risk. One risk has to be, for example, finding asbestos. If asbestos is found at a development site, what happens then? Again, the risk is nationalised and the profits are privatised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend tempts me. I understand what he says, and there are times when London MPs argue for investment in our infrastructure, yet wonder why it is that London has to beg when it is the driving force behind our economy—

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Emily Thornberry]

I will give way in a moment!

London is a driving force, so it seems a ridiculous idea that TfL can be so short-changed at a time like this, when the economy is supposed to be getting back on its feet, and we are finally coming out of the recession caused by the international financial crisis. We seem finally to be staggering our way out of it, despite the Tories crowing about it over a large number of years. At a time like this—[Interruption.] The Minister says “Staggering?” from a sedentary position. There are 3 million people in this country who believe themselves to be underemployed, and, despite the fact that there may seem to be more people employed, the last lot of statistics show that the number of hours we are working as a nation has gone down. So, yes, I do say “staggering”.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. She is being tempted down a particular path, so I simply wish to bring to her attention the fact that, at least on the Labour Benches, we are all in it together, and there is a momentum and imperative towards us staying together in solidarity, which is the order of the day. We should not forget the regions that have made a major contribution to this city in building its sewers, its stadiums and all the rest of it. I ask my hon. Friend not to be too tempted by the proposition suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas).

[Emily Thornberry]

I am very grateful to my comrade for bringing me back from the brink. In those circumstances, there is nothing more to say about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has been an assiduous campaigner for this Bill and made some very important points in seeking its revival on the Floor of the House today. I have listened with interest to the contributions and I hope to continue to do so. I have say, however, that we have meandered—nay, staggered—round a very circuitous path in talking about this Bill. We have talked about mafias, Moldova and the city of York, which the last time I looked was a little way away from the city of London. We have staggered around a special purpose vehicle, and for some reason the image of a white van is flashing before my eyes.

What I have also noticed is a revival of interest in transport matters on the Opposition Benches. Many Labour Members are frequent and assiduous campaigners on behalf of constituents in London, but there are also those I have neither heard nor seen in my time as the Minister—either at Transport questions or in any correspondence coming across my desk. I am therefore delighted that we are seeing that revival of interest in transport matters this evening.

Let us now return to reality, rather than remaining in the meandering world that we have been inhabiting. The Bill simply seeks to enable TfL to expand its financial freedoms, and to use practices and mechanisms that will allow it to release greater value from its financing arrangements. It is not some back-door attempt to—what was it?—allow members of the Russian mafia in to finance Londoners through special purpose vehicles.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister says that the Bill is not a back-door deal to let in various nefarious characters, but how does she know that? How can she guarantee that someone will not come along and exploit this arrangement? Given the lack of transparency, we might never know who that person was.

[Claire Perry]

Like many Labour Members, the hon. Gentleman is displaying a complete disregard for the scrutiny role of London Assembly members, and, indeed, for the Independent Investment Programme Advisory Group, which provides the Mayor with independent insurance and expert advice in relation to TfL’s investment programme. Labour Members are displaying a blatant disregard for the devolved authority that we have given to the Mayor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Gold-diggers with money to burn will buy the properties, and will not use them at all.

[Andy McDonald]

We talk about outer-London MPs, and there are no more outer-London MPs than those from the north-east and Scotland. This is not just a matter of London votes for London laws; it is a matter for everybody. What we have been seeing in this capital city are safety deposit boxes in the sky, with nobody living in them. Those properties could provide proper housing for the population of London, rather than investments. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is indicative of the way the Government are going? I do not know whether it is true, but I strongly suspect that a contractor might be able to get away without even putting proper finishes on such properties, because nobody is ever going to live in them.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is the point that I have been making from the outset. The essence of communities in the capital city and elsewhere across the country is affordable properties. Nobody would disagree that we also need private properties. The right balance is needed, and the right balance is different in different areas. But if a huge swathe of properties without the proper finishes is bought up by property developers who live across the globe, what will that contribute to the local economy? Nothing. It will lead to the development of ghost towns in this wonderful city. That is something we must all try to avoid.

The main point of contention, as I mentioned, is clause 5, which refers to limited partnerships. Clause 5 would give Transport for London a new power which would enable it to enter into limited partnerships with private developers and to incur unlimited liabilities. That is a huge gamble with public funds. It is a casino-type economy, which we cannot afford when the economy generally is not at its best. Not only that, but if the Bill is passed, Transport for London could undertake wider activities than it is permitted to undertake now.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend rightly focuses on clause 5. Does he agree that the reason there is such freedom in the arrangement, as opposed to the return that is going to be made, is self-evident? If somebody is given the maximum possible return, it is because of the freedoms that that delivers. There is a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability in that arrangement which is utterly dangerous. Does my hon. Friend agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. I am not criticising limited partnerships but the potential for bad limited partnerships, and I am wondering whether it is in the best interests of people in the capital city for transport in London to become part of these limited partnerships. She mentioned the donations that the Labour party has received from limited partnerships. I wish I had done my homework to find out exactly how much the property developers, rather than limited partnerships, have donated to the Conservative party.

[Andy McDonald]

Is there not also a concern about the stamp duty arrangements that are made on these potential transfers down the track? As I understand it, if those are transferred to the limited liability partnerships there will be an exemption from stamp duty. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that before this debate is out we should hear from the Minister the assessment made of the loss of stamp duty as opposed to the returns that will be got on this deal?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

6. What recent progress his Department has made on its rail electrification programme.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

14. What recent progress his Department has made on its rail electrification programme.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

16. What recent progress his Department has made on its rail electrification programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady’s constituents cannot wait until 2019—they waited for 13 years between 1997 and 2010 with nothing happening.

[Andy McDonald]

Teesside has had a hammering in this place over the past weeks, but we are a resilient bunch and nothing demonstrates that better than the magnificent victory at Old Trafford last night. We are top of the league on the electrification taskforce list for the connection between Northallerton and Middlesbrough. Can the Secretary of State indicate when we might expect progress on that important economic development?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman because I, too, am a football supporter—I support Derby County and any team that plays Manchester United—and his team has done incredibly well. He makes a fair point, and Network Rail uses a huge amount of steel, which helps his constituency. I will look into his point and write to him once I get the results of Peter Hendy’s re-plan.