Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Matthew Offord

Friday 22nd March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Offord]

I can assure that hon. Gentleman that in my experience it certainly has not. I certainly would never wish to impugn his reputation, or indeed the work he has done over the past 20 years on the housing authority. I only wish that some of my Labour councillors had the credibility that he has.

[Mr Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Offord]

I can only extend to the hon. Gentleman the same courtesy he extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) and say, “I think we’ve heard enough from you today, thank you.”

All those schemes in my constituency will allow my constituents to get a home near their family and friends, which can only be a good thing. I urge the Government to agree on those proposals as quickly as possible so that my constituents can start buying their first homes. That is a good thing that we can agree will emerge from the Budget.

The Budget rewards those who aspire to work hard and get on. It is for those who want to own their own home in Hendon, or indeed in Easington. It is for those who want to get their first job, to start a business or to save for their retirement. It is a Budget for people who realise that there are no easy answers to our financial problems but that we are on the right track, so let us get on with it.

Israel and the Peace Process

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Matthew Offord

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Walker. In the few minutes that I have, I will first declare an interest. My entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests notes that I went to Egypt last March with the Council for European Palestinian Relations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has usefully introduced the debate and I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss the issue at greater length on the Floor of the House. The picture painted by my hon. Friend and Government Members, however, is not one that those of us who regularly visit Gaza, the west bank and Israeli Arabs in Israel would recognise. The actual picture is one of occupation.

[Mr Offord]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Slaughter]

I will give way once, and that will be it.

[Mr Offord]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. When he went to Gaza, did he visit the Gaza city shopping centre, where many of the goods are provided by Israel at a much cheaper price than those coming through the tunnels from Egypt?

[Mr Slaughter]

I am not sure that that is relevant; I wish I had not given way.

The Palestinian people experience occupation, persecution and discrimination. I wish that some of the rights that Israelis give to their own citizens—some hon. Members have rightly mentioned them—were also provided for the Palestinian people. When considering this issue, the judgment of some hon. Members seems to lapse in a way that it would not in relation to other issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has given the example of Operation Cast Lead, in which 1,500 people, the majority of them civilians—many of them women and children—were massacred by bombardment from sea, land and air. I visited Gaza two to three weeks after that happened and saw the devastation that it wrought.

Over the 20 years since Oslo, the number of settlements has doubled from 250,000 to 500,000, irrespective of how the Palestinians were negotiating or of which parties were in government.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Matthew Offord

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

In London, there is a real need for improvement to the sewerage system. The present network of major sewers was designed for a 19th century city. London’s population is now 7.6 million, but it is projected to rise to 8.3 million by 2021 and to 8.8 million by 2031. It will then have doubled since the major sewers were built. It is remarkable that the system has managed so well for so long, and is a tribute to Bazalgette and the others who designed and built it. It is, however, clearly inadequate, and has been so for some time.

The present system consists of combined sewers, which convey foul sewage and rainwater run-off to the sewage treatment works before they are discharged. When the combined sewers reach capacity, the combined sewer overflows—CSOs—are designed to discharge excess untreated waste water into the River Thames. This avoids overflows and back-ups through manholes and into individual properties, but it means that as soon as the hydraulic capacity of the sewage treatment works is exceeded, sewage is pumped directly into the Thames. In fact, some parts of London, including my constituency, also have a problem with sewage back-up, and the Counters Creek relief scheme that Thames Water is seeking to implement will bring an end to that appalling problem, which has affected thousands of my constituents over the past few years. It happened three times in four years during the latter part of the last decade. I welcome the implementation of the Counters Creek relief scheme—a major scheme across west London—but the result will be even more sewage going into the Thames. The river will continue to bear the brunt.

Discharges can occur following as little as 2 mm of rain; they happen approximately 60 times a year. The Thames is tidal between Hammersmith and Beckton, and when CSOs discharge, the resulting sewage and litter flows up and down the river with the tide. In winter, it takes about a month for non-biodegradable waste to get from the head of the estuary at Teddington to the sea. In summer, when water levels are lower, it can take up to three months. It is in summer that we get the worst response and the worst smells.

In future, sewage might flow into the Thames even on dry days unless the situation is managed. In any typical year, 39 million cubic metres of untreated waste water—a mixture of sewage and rainwater—are discharged. The frequency and volume of untreated waste water entering the tidal reaches of the Thames have increased, and will only increase further. This level of waste entering the environment is not tolerated anywhere else in the UK, and it should not be flowing into the main river of our capital city. Something clearly needs to be done.

The discharges affect the river in several ways. First, polluted water increases health risks to recreational users of the Thames, whose numbers I am pleased to say are increasing year on year. Secondly, the aesthetic impact of CSO discharges is offensive. Materials such as faeces, toilet paper, wipes, sanitary products and other “flushable” items, including hypodermic needles, regularly end up in the Thames at Hammersmith. All of this causes slicks of pollution to float on the river before being washed up on the foreshore. Thirdly, sewage discharges harm the ecology of the river by reducing dissolved oxygen levels in the water. In extreme events, this can result in the death of fish and other wildlife, often in large numbers. There are therefore strong environmental, health and economic cases for the Thames tunnel.

The Thames tunnel will work with the existing system of sewers, with improved sewage treatment works and with the Lee tunnel to reduce the frequency of CSO discharges. This Government and the previous one have conducted serious studies of the issues behind the tunnel. Investigations have been carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by independent bodies, resulting in the 2007 regulatory impact assessment, the Thames tunnel needs report, and DEFRA’s 2011 strategic and economic case for the Thames tunnel. They all conclude that the tunnel is the most comprehensive solution available at the most proportionate cost.

A number of alternatives have been suggested. The first is that we have a system to mitigate and reduce the dissolved oxygen levels in the Thames. This involves using the so-called Thames Bubbler oxygenation craft, as well as hydrogen peroxide dosing. This has helped with fish mortality in some places, but it is not sustainable; neither is it a complete solution and neither will it work in a tidal river.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech. Does he agree that the Bubbler and the sustainable drainage system will not remove things like heavy metals, pesticides and all the other contaminants that go into the river through the CSO system he describes?

[Mr Slaughter]

That is absolutely right; it is a sticking plaster approach. I have reservations about the tunnel, which I shall come on to, but I am making the case that the tunnel is the only sensible solution thought of so far because many alternatives have been put forward but they are simply not sustainable.

SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—are one alternative. There is nothing wrong with them. They reduce the amount of surface run-off blowing into the sewerage system and complement other measures. However, the Government policy statement makes it clear that to prevent rain water and run-off entering sewerage systems completely will require either a new system designed to meet the principles of SUDS and source control or a completely new conventional separate water system, which would be disproportionately expensive. Although it can be installed effectively in new developments, trying to retrofit all London’s properties to the required level is simply impractical. It is impractical, too, to create extra capacity in the existing sewerage system. Existing sewers cannot be enlarged or duplicated because the system is so large and complex and has so many cross-connections that most of the network would need to be enlarged to prevent CSOs from discharging.

The Government’s report says that substantial duplication and enlargement to most of the sewers would entail massive construction work throughout inner London, enormous disruption and extremely high costs. Converting a combined drainage system into a separate drainage system would involve the provision of a completely new network of sewers approximately 12,000 km in length. Every existing property would require connecting to the new system and the cost and disruption would be high and might lead to a large number of misconnections, which could create a legacy of problems.

Any of those alternatives, if they were sustainable, would cost many times the cost of the tunnel—whether it be a SUD system or a separate rain water and sewerage system. What the opponents of the tunnel have been left with—I am sorry to see that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) appears to have joined them—is the idea of a shorter tunnel. This is a tunnel that would cover just west London—the so-called Selborne tunnel, named after the author of the report sponsored by Hammersmith and Fulham council.

The shorter tunnel has none of the advantages of the longer tunnel and brings many more problems. It would effectively mean sewage stuck in the shorter tunnel for up to two weeks at a time while it became septic and could go nowhere—clearly it can flow only through the existing network of sewers in east London as capacity becomes available there. It would also require far more storage on land in west London. Thames Water’s response to the Selborne report—I have no brief for Thames Water—was quite devastating, pointing out its follies and fallacies. Indeed, if we read the Selborne report, we find that it does not talk about the shorter tunnel because it was realised that it was not a workable proposition. It would cover only half of the CSOs in London—that is, it would do only half the job. East of Battersea, sewage would continue to go into the Thames; west of Battersea, including in my constituency, the tunnel would regularly be full of sewage, with all the attendant problems of smell and disease that that can cause.

[Mr Offord]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our aim is to address some of the environmental problems of the river apart from the death of the fish on which so many people seem to focus, and that because the shorter tunnel would not comply with the urban waste water directive, the whole exercise would be pointless?

[Mr Slaughter]

The whole exercise has been a PR exercise, a sham and a spoiler. Those who have supported, or are supporting, the shorter tunnel have no credibility when it comes to resolving environmental and other problems. By all means let people criticise the Thames tunnel on its merits, but let them not propose this chimera as an alternative.

As a Hammersmith Member of Parliament, I have had to deal with all the propaganda and misleading statements that have appeared over the past five years under the auspices of Hammersmith and Fulham council. In fact, there is a huge amount of consensus about what needs to be done, and, to a large extent, about the solution, at least in principle. It is agreed that we must resolve the problems of sewers flooding the Thames, and that a tunnel is the best way to do that. We can argue about the route and about the cost, but both this and the last Government, mayoral candidates, most local authorities and most London Members of Parliament of all parties are of one mind, and it is not helpful to suggest otherwise.

Let me summarise the recent history of the campaign against the tunnel in Hammersmith. It began because this was an EU scheme: it began as an anti-EU campaign. Then it was claimed that it would despoil all the local parks—such as Ravenscourt park, which is about half a mile from the Thames—or that Furnival gardens would be dug up, which was never the intention. There were also false claims that housing estates would be demolished to make way for the tunnel portals. None of that has helped to identify the reasons for what is being done.

I sympathise with individual residents’ groups who are concerned about what is happening in their immediate areas. My constituency contains at least two of the sites involved. The Acton sewage tanks are on the very border of my constituency, and I hope that the fact that the tunnel will begin at that point will mean an improvement, because tanks that often cause problems of smell and are unsightly will no longer be needed. The other site is the Hammersmith pumping station. I have had the pleasure of going down into it—as have the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) and many others—to see the appalling conditions that exist when raw sewage is pumped into the Thames. At that site, the necessary building work will be contained within the parameters of Thames Water’s own development area. Of course we should be concerned about the disruption caused by building work, and should encourage Thames Water to use the river wherever possible to take spoil away, but, as far as I can see, Thames Water is working quite closely with local authorities and others, when that is allowed, to ensure that that disruption is minimised. It will clearly be necessary to keep an eye on the situation.

The one issue that is of concern in Hammersmith and Fulham is what is going to be the main drive shaft of the tunnel, which was to have been at Barn Elms in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) but will now be in south Fulham, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands). I feel for the residents of Fulham if disruptive work is to take place there, but much of the blame for that must lie with the local authority, which, by running an extraordinarily outrageous campaign against the tunnel on principle and on entirely false premises, has failed to engage with Thames Water other than to try to take it to court to prevent it from proceeding with the project at all. By contrast, the hon. Member for Richmond Park and other London local authorities have played a blinder in negotiating with Thames Water, pointing out the problems involved in development in one area or another. It seems that the people in Hammersmith and Fulham will have to put up with the main drive shaft because of the incompetence of their own local authority.

I find it strange that the main defence put up by Hammersmith is that 95% of what is going into the river at present is water, and only 5% is sewage. Raw sewage is, by definition, a mixture of water and other products. I am not sure that that quite answers the question of how we are to have a sustainable River Thames in the future. I was fascinated by the following statement by the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham in his explanation of why he is opposed to the tunnel:

“Anglers, rowers and sailors will experience personal benefits from the tunnel”.

Never before have I heard not having to swallow human excrement proposed as a personal benefit. There is a complete lack of reality about what is actually happening. At present, people who walk along the Thames towpath see raw sewage floating in the river on a regular, weekly basis. That is a disgrace to London, our capital city, and something must be done about it.

We must keep a careful eye on both where Thames Water is intending to build and the cost of this project. It is true that costs have escalated over time. Both Front-Bench teams have made the point that Thames Water’s bills are the lowest in the country, and even after the anticipated additional cost of the tunnel, its bills will be near or below the national average water bill. Although that is true, it is no great comfort to those of my constituents on low incomes who will have to pay the additional cost. Because there is a clear and overwhelming need for the alleviation of sewer flooding, the attitude to this issue of both Thames Water and the Government has been somewhat blasé.

Ironically, the Bill contains provisions for both the construction of the tunnel and subsidies in respect of excessive water bills. I am not suggesting that that may be required in the London area at present, but we must be aware that there are many very poor people in my constituency and across London who find it difficult to pay their water bills in addition to everything else. I would like either the Government or Ofwat to conduct a more critical analysis of Thames Water’s plans and the costs. We did that in respect of Crossrail, which is another major civil engineering project in London, to try to keep down, or drive down, costs, and I believe we should do the same for the Thames tunnel. It is not good enough simply to say that there are social tariffs and that the bills will be no higher than the national average. People are being asked to pay substantially extra on top of bills they may already be struggling to pay.

I am grateful for the House finding additional time to debate this issue, which is vital for London. There are only a handful of opponents, including those representing Hammersmith and Fulham. It is extraordinary that they do not have a response to what is a national embarrassment and a health hazard, and something that we can no longer sustain in London—a river that is getting back to the state it was in in the 19th century, when the Bazalgette scheme was necessary. Whenever we discuss projects such as HS2, Crossrail and the Thames tunnel, I am always ashamed that there seems to be a reluctance to undertake great civil engineering projects, in which this country led the world in the 19th century.

I hope that there is a solution, and I suspect that it is the Thames tunnel project. In going forward with it, the Government must consider the sensitivities of the various local areas and the cost.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Matthew Offord

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill, as I have much experience of both South West Water and Thames Water, However, I must say that my perceptions of the two companies differ widely. They appear to operate at different ends of the spectrum: South West Water levies one of the highest surcharges in the UK and has the lowest number of consumers, while Thames Water levies one of the lowest surcharges and has the highest number of consumers.

The Bill is about a decade overdue. The shadow Secretary of State said that many of the problems are the result of privatisation, but that is an erroneous assertion. If we look at the value of the water companies before privatisation, we will see that Anglian Water was worth £357 million, North West Water £458 million, Severn Trent £476 million and Thames Water £558 million, but South West Water was worth a lowly £106 million. In general terms, at the time of privatisation South West Water had the lowest amount of assets per property, and since privatisation the company has invested about £2 billion, in 2007 prices, to bring its infrastructure to the same level as that elsewhere in England and Wales.

At privatisation, South West Water’s bills were about £50 higher than the national average. This disparity was exacerbated by the impact of the bathing water directive and, of course, the urban waste water treatment directive. As the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office recognised in 1992, privatisation of the water industry was an unprecedented task, with 10 utility monopolies floated on the stock market at the same time after years of restricted investment and an obligation then to spend more than £24 billion in a decade in order to catch up. Any perception of failure now can be attributed only to the lack of governmental interest in the industry 10 years after privatisation and, in the case of South West Water, in the 19 years its consumers have had to wait for the Walker review.

If greater interest had been shown, one industry practice that is causing problems across the country would have been identified: the use of combined sewer overflows. CSOs are intended to act as release valves at times of higher operational use. When Sir Joseph Bazalgette first planned the sewers for London, he gave every person a sewage production allowance and decided the diameter of pipe needed to remove it. He then doubled that diameter. We should all be grateful that he did so; had he not, the smaller size of the sewers would have ensured that they overflowed in the 1960s.

However, the Metropolitan Board of Works said that the cost of Bazalgette’s plans was too high, so he proposed and installed the combined sewer overflow system. This ensured that when it rained the accumulation of rain water that enters the sewerage system can be released through the CSOs, taking the sewage with it. London’s current population is estimated to be about 8 million and rising. In a typical year, 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage is discharged into the River Thames with as little as 2 mm of rainfall. To put that in perspective, that is enough to fill the Royal Albert hall 450 times, and the discharges occur about once a week on average.

The emerging effluent contains not only sewage and storm water, but biochemical oxygen demand material, pathogens, nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, oils and suspended solids. In short, London’s Victorian sewers can no longer cope, which is why London desperately needs the super-sewer, or Thames tunnel. The CSOs discharge into the river not only chemical and biological contaminants, but nearly 10,000 tonnes of litter every year, including toilet paper, wipes, sanitary towels, condoms, cotton buds and other flushable items. I know that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) accompanied Thames Water on a trip, as I did, where he saw for himself the problems at the pumping station at Fulham. The hidden dangers of the effluent that goes into the river include pathogens, viruses and bacteria, such as E. coli, hepatitis A and faecal streptococci.

Due to the ebb and flow of the tide, it can take up to three months for sewage that has entered the uppermost reaches of the Thames to reach the sea. That is a problem in itself, but the persistence of infection is a real problem. Around 50% of typhoid bacteria are destroyed in an aquatic environment in one to three days, and 90% is destroyed in three to 13 days, but the most resistant can remain for weeks and retain their power of infection, which has an impact on not only the people who use the river, but those who live around it.

[Mr Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, and he is right to say that I visited a pumping station, although it was the Hammersmith one. When most people think about pumping stations, they think that some form of treatment is going on there. On the contrary: a structure that is probably half the size of this Chamber fills up with raw sewage, which is then pumped straight into the Thames, and that happens on at least a weekly basis. Does he agree that it is highly irresponsible to say that we should clean up the Thames so that it is so clean that salmon can thrive and prosper in it? We need to clean it up because it is an essential health matter.

[Mr Offord]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am probably aware who he is citing, and, having had conversations with the former leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not agree on this subject, though we may agree on many others.

The super-sewer in London is essential to ensure that the UK complies with European environmental standards and, most particularly, the urban waste water treatment directive. All British taxpayers are at risk of having to fund hefty EU fines if the UK is confirmed to be in breach of that directive.

It is not just London and Thames Water that need to take action, however. All water companies have a contract with their consumers not only to provide them with clean water, but to remove their sewage and to treat it responsibly, but that is not happening. The water quality of Britain’s beaches is being jeopardised by thousands of unregulated overflow pipes that dump raw sewage into coastal waters and rivers. It has been estimated that 3,500 pipes operated by water companies pump unlimited amounts of raw sewage into more than 80 rivers and along sections of our coastline. That comprises more than 60 operated by South West Water, including pipes on the River Torridge, which flows to a popular Devon beach; more than 250 outlets operated by Yorkshire Water, including sewage flowing into the North sea; sewage overflows on the River Don, where thousands of fish were killed by sewage pollution in 2006; and an overflow, operated by United Utilities near Manchester, which was blamed for polluting a fishery in 2005.

Social Housing in London

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Matthew Offord

Thursday 5th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Today’s debate is very valuable and I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing it. I do not always agree with everything he says, but on this point there is a lot of common ground between his party, mine and that of my colleagues in the coalition Government.

Labour Members speak about housing as though it is an issue that affects only them and their constituents. We are demonstrating today that there is a housing problem across London that is experienced by all Members, particularly in their surgeries and postbags. People regularly come to see me about this in my surgery and I feel a fraud in many ways because they are concerned and upset about their housing or lack of housing and I know that we will not be able to do anything to help. I feel greatly sorry for them and we recommend that they go to the private sector in the knowledge that we have nothing in the public or social rented sectors.

I want to cover a few points that the Government are addressing as well as to speak about my experience. Some people seem to think that all London is completely the same, but it is not. We have diverse areas and different experiences, which is exemplified in the housing crisis across the city. It is a crisis; we have a problem. Many people are not only unable to afford their own homes but have a problem housing themselves in the type of quality accommodation we would expect all our families to live in.

That is why it is vital that the Government and local authorities continue to promote the development of attractive mixed-tenure communities in our local areas instead of the monolithic estates about which many of us have been concerned. We have seen not a rush but an agenda to knock those estates down, and they are crime-ridden in many parts of London. Promoting such a development is the only way we will help people into home ownership. At the very least we should change their tenancies so they are better suited to individual needs. That is how we will stop people being trapped in that vicious dependency cycle.

I shall not reel off a lot of statistics, but one thing that I am very keen on—I spoke about it in my maiden speech—is social aspiration. I do not believe that people who go into the social rented sector lack social aspiration, but I do think that they have it hammered out of them. In 2008-09, only 49% of tenants of working age in the social rented sector were in work, down from 71% in 1981. I have heard the comments about cardboard boxes under Blackfriars bridge, but they do not stack up with the statistics. In comparison, in that same year, 89% of home owners, and 75% of private renters, of working age were in work. About 60% of social rented households report that they are in receipt of housing benefit compared with just 20% in the private rented sector. I would not say that people in the social rented sector were failures, but I believe that they certainly end up feeling that they are at a disadvantage in comparison with other people who are perhaps attracted to, or able to afford, the private rented sector.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am just glancing through a report from Family Mosaic, a large housing association that is very good, on the whole. It states that

“setting rents at 80% of market rent would increase our clients’ requirement for housing benefit by 151%”.

What does the hon. Gentleman think of that policy?

[Mr Offord]

We should allow the social rented sector to help the people who really need that help. The hon. Gentleman asked the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) who should be thrown out of their homes, and it is quite clear that no demographic section of the community should be thrown out, whether that is the elderly or people with children. It should be done on a financial basis to people such as Lee Jasper and Bob Crow, whom I read about in the paper today and who earns £145,000. If we removed people such as him, we would open up the social rented market to the people who really need it. That is what I think of that policy.

The point I want to make, which helpfully illustrates that answer, is that social landlords are required by inflexible and centrally determined rules to grant lifetime tenancies in the vast majority of cases, and I presume that someone like Mr Crow would have that sort of tenancy. There is no account of how their individual and household circumstances have changed and they cannot be removed. I spoke to my office today and I have received a telephone call from a lady in my constituency who said that she urgently needs to move house as her husband has become disabled, but she is unable to do so because of the rigid rules and structures that I have just described. In shocking contrast, other people’s tenancies can be inherited by family members who might no longer be in need of the housing that they have been allocated. That is clearly not a system that helps to serve the people we represent.

Labour Members have spoken about the development proposals in their local areas and how they feel that the local authority alone should be allowed to develop. That has not been the experience in my constituency.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Mr Offord]

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, so I am going to continue with my speech.

My experience has been very good. Large elements of the constituency certainly need development—I am thinking of the West Hendon estate and Perryfields, as well as areas of Burnt Oak and, significantly, the Grahame Park estate, of which some hon. Members might be aware. It was the site of the old RAF Hendon base and it is a location that has now changed to allow development from the private sector. That has been a great success and many of my friends live in that area, which is proving to be a real boon to the local economy.

I was pleased a couple of weeks ago to attend the first phase of Choices for Grahame Park, which is a separate phase of development in Colindale, with the mayor of Barnet, Councillor Anthony Finn. When that is completed, it will form a central part of the Colindale area action plan and will create a new community in my constituency, providing greater transport links on the tube, greater community health facilities and a radical rebuilding programme that will transform the estate, which has been a blight for many years. This will happen in the next 15 years and we expect to see about 3,000 new homes as part of this new heart of my constituency.

The regeneration of the area will also provide retail facilities and 25% of the existing homes are built in a traditional layout, instead of like the cardboard boxes and rabbit hutches that some hon. Members have described. In total, we will demolish 1,314 outdated and overused homes and replace them with 2,977 brand-new, purpose-built family homes that will revolutionise life in the Grahame Park area and in my constituency as a whole.