House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Andy Slaughter(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I will be even briefer than the Minister.
The Opposition have supported the Bill throughout its passage. I agree with the Minister that the overall impact of the amendments would be to weaken the Bill and, thereby, damage its limited but important purpose.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) spoke about amendment 6 in a moderate and plausible way. He always speaks in a moderate and plausible way. Sometimes—and I thought this might be the case today—what he says is actually moderate and plausible. However, I then listened to the even more emollient words of the Bill’s promoter, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), and, like the Minister, I am persuaded that the amendment is not necessary. It is right to raise the possibility of retrospection but, as has been explained, the Bill is not pregnant with that danger.
We are therefore happy not only to support the Bill, but to oppose the amendments.
Mr Chope
What a short but fascinating debate this has been. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister had a chance to stand at the Dispatch Box and participate. During the latter part of his comments, I became more concerned because he made the case for retrospection in relation to misconduct that would give rise to expulsion. That is exactly the concern that I have.
We heard last week from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that one course of conduct that their lordships are keen to ensure results in expulsion is repeated breaches of offences. That means that if one was guilty of repeated misdemeanours, there would be the possibility of expulsion. There is therefore all the more reason why none of this should be retrospective. If repeat offences are to give rise to expulsion, rather than just a reprimand, that should only be prospective and not retrospective.
If the House had accepted the amendments in the first group, which we debated last Friday, I do not think that I would be so concerned, because those amendments would have linked the code of conduct much more closely to the provisions of the Bill. However, those amendments were not accepted. I remind the House what Lord Wallace of Saltaire said:
“I read the latest Code of Conduct again this morning, thinking that we need to be sure what we are on about. One of the issues that perhaps we need to discuss informally off the Floor is how far this measure is intended to refer only to conduct that is mentioned in the Code of Conduct or to egregious conduct of other sorts conducted by Members of this House. However, that is a question that we need not have in the Bill itself, but it is certainly a question that the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and others will need to consider at a later stage.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 650-651.]
When I read out that quote last week, I did not get any assurance from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that conduct would be confined to what is in the current code of conduct or in any changed code of conduct. As I have said, the code of conduct is not specifically linked to the Bill. What is in the Bill is “conduct”. Unless we have that safeguard, the Standing Orders of the other place could be amended to impact on conduct that took place prior to the amendment of those Standing Orders, but subsequent to the enactment of the Bill. In my view that represents a danger of retrospection, and I cannot understand why the Government are against this measure. They may say that it is unnecessary in the light of assurances that have been given, but it would not be the first piece of Government legislation that was duplication and unnecessary, so that in itself cannot be a convincing and decisive argument against it. Because of the obiter dicta of people such as Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who seems to have a rather different agenda from that discussed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, we should make a final attempt to get one safeguard against retrospection into the Bill.
I will therefore withdraw amendment 1, on which we tried to vote last week, and instead I will test the will of the House on amendment 6. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 6, page 1, line 17, after “Act”, insert “and any Standing Orders made under subsection (1)”—(Mr Chope.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Convicted Prisoners Voting Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Andy Slaughter(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I do not think that any of us quite expected to be debating the Bill, after the exciting afternoon that we have had so far.
Clause 1, which is the operative clause, states:
“A prisoner serving a custodial sentence is disqualified from voting at a parliamentary or local government election.”
I thought I had heard that before, so I looked at section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which states:
“A convicted person during the time that he is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence”—
or unlawfully at large when he would otherwise be so detained—
“is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election.”
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but for him to propose a Bill that appears to repeat the existing law strikes me as otiose, and, given his attitude to many of the Bills with which we deal at this time of the week, it also strikes me as somewhat perplexing.
Mr Slaughter
I suspect that we have hit the nail on the head, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suspect that the Bill has not much to do with prisoners voting, and rather more to do with the European convention on human rights, the European Court of Human Rights and, probably, the Council of Europe and the European Union. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like us to be well away from all those things, and, if he could tow us a bit more westward, would take us well away from Europe full stop. I can only say that I admire his fortitude in these matters. I am more at home with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who has said that sticking to international rules can be “irksome” at times, but that it has been the “settled view” of British Governments for centuries that such obligations should be met.
We do not need this Bill, I am afraid, although Opposition Front Benchers do not disagree with the sentiments that it expresses. I shall end my speech there, as I want to leave a little time for the Minister. I appreciate that it is only a little time.
Transport for London Bill [Lords]
Debate between Christopher Chope and Andy Slaughter(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
The short answer to the hon. Lady’s intervention is: once bitten, twice shy. I think that most of us in this House—certainly those of us who have served for a certain time—feel that we were bitten by the enthusiasm of successive Governments for the private finance initiative and the public-private partnership. We were told that they were new ways of financing our public services and public infrastructure and that they could only be good news for everybody. I speak as a member of the Conservative party, which promoted PFI, but what a disaster some of those PFI projects have turned out to be, largely because people thought they could get something for nothing and that, instead of saving on revenue expenditure, they could start borrowing and use rather obscure vehicles and arrangements to do so. Then, however, after reading the small print, we found out that, instead of being transferred, the risk—that was the principle the Treasury kept talking about in relation to PFI: it said it was not possible to have PFI unless there was a transfer of risk—had actually been retained.
As a London Member, the hon. Lady will be all too well aware of the problems in London associated with PFI/PPP projects in the health service, which have been a disaster in many respects. The people or the patients whom we should have helped are finding that the services they want are not now as good as they would like because of the costs of those projects, which in some cases continue to be a millstone around the necks of quite a lot of hospital trusts.
I have answered the hon. Lady by referring to a different sphere, but as soon as people start talking about new practices and methods, as the Minister did when he began his remarks about how the Bill will release a lot of revenue and capital, we need to be suspicious. At the end of the day, the only way to get better quality transport in London is by investing in it, which means using money from fare payers or taxpayers, or encouraging Transport for London to reduce its costs and find alternative revenue streams. Of course, one way would be to sell off surplus assets, and we should use the provisions of the Bill to encourage that, rather than to discourage it.
I do not know about the situation in Earls Court exhibition centre. I have no specialised knowledge about it, and I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who represents the Hammersmith and Fulham interest in it. As a result of the last London borough elections, the issue of political risk has once again raised its head. The people engaged in that project thought that the council was benignly supportive of their proposal, but now that there has been a change of council, the new democratically elected council has said that it wants to revisit it all. I do not know the extent to which the council can do that, or whether the contract was already a done deal.
Mr Andy Slaughter
(Lab) (Hammersmith): I have resisted intervening because I want to get my full whack of time, but I have to come in on that point. There was always going to be a political risk in relation to that massive site—it covers two boroughs, with the mayoralty and various other interests, such as that of TfL—because it was a 20-year project. TfL signed up to a 20-year project, and tied its hands. It, above all people with political masters, should have known that that was the case.
Mr Chope
That is fascinating. I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. When there is talk about reducing risks—the statement from the promoters states that the Bill will reduce risk and the costs of interest—we need to look at such assertions with quite a lot of scepticism.
To finish my point about TfL as the freeholder of Earls Court exhibition centre, let me ask why it is still the freeholder: why does TfL need to own Earls Court exhibition centre, and why does TfL not sell it? I do not know whether it could sell it to Hammersmith and Fulham council. In my view, TfL’s core business should not be to own an exhibition centre. If that had been the situation in my days in Wandsworth, we would very much have regarded it as one of those things to sell and get rid off to benefit local taxpayers, on the basis that if a freehold asset is sold, the receipts from it can be utilised immediately for the vendor’s top priorities. If TfL did not own the freehold of Earls Court exhibition centre, would it think of buying it? That is the sort of question that should be asked by those people who become star-struck by the idea that they are charged with developing some great property.
There has always been a glamour associated with owning assets. Municipalisation, whether of race courses or arts and entertainment centres, was often associated with the desire of the mayor and councillors to be able to get free tickets and hospitality by using what they saw as their role in looking after those important assets. My philosophical view is that they should never have had those assets in the first place. They should have sold them off and then enjoyed going out, paying for a drink themselves and saying, “Great. We’ve reduced the size of the local state and its apparatchiks in our area.” I am suspicious and sceptical about all of this. There are some fine people working for TfL, but if they think that they have skills that can be deployed in the property sector, they should go and get a job in the property sector.
I am particularly concerned about clause 4, which is the first clause of substance in the Bill. It proposes that what TfL cannot do itself should be allowed to be done by its subsidiaries. Members often speak of their concern about Henry VIII clauses, and this clause is the private Bill equivalent. It would allow TfL to set up subsidiaries at its own behest without any accountability, and those subsidiaries could then be used to do what TfL itself is not allowed to do. Why are we countenancing that? Why should the original safeguards, which were written into primary legislation—section 164(a) of the 1999 Act—be removed? My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that if one had to go to the Public Works Loan Board or get bonds, one would have to pay higher interest rates than those one could get using these new subsidiaries as vehicles, but I think that is an unproven assertion. Let us consider other ways in which those things could be done.
Clause 5 would extend the power to invest in subsidiary companies to include limited partnership vehicles of one sort or another. Why are we doing that? Surely it would be much more transparent for TfL to set up a limited company that is properly accountable and then ensure that it produces accounts so that people can keep an eye on what it is doing. As soon as we get into the murky waters of partnerships and deal making that is not subject to public scrutiny, the people are not well served. It might be that among the well-paid employees of TfL there is a group of people who are much better than the directors of British Land at making deals to enhance the value of land in their ownership, but I somehow doubt it. Rather than encouraging TfL to aspire to set up subsidiaries that are like British Land, we should say that if it wants to set up subsidiaries, they should be proper companies that, as under the existing law, are subject to limited liability and open to public scrutiny.
We know that when we allow public organisations effectively to engage in devices to get themselves out of a short or longer term financial fix, it often results in tears. I remember when Hammersmith and Fulham was mortgaging all its lamp standards. It sold them—was it to a Japanese bank? I cannot remember—and it then leased them back because it obviously needed to have lamp standards. Those were the early days of what one might describe as a sort of barmy behaviour by Labour councils—that was one of the things that ultimately contributed to Hammersmith and Fulham becoming a Conservative-controlled authority.
There are examples of councils selling their assets then leasing them back and paying a lot more for them in the long term, but in the short term it looks good on the accounts. The council has a capital receipt from the sale of the asset, although local taxpayers will have to pay for the next 50 years for the consequences. That was at a time when the Department of the Environment, as it was then, made clear to the banks that we would not guarantee those assets. The banks thought, “Fantastic. We will buy all these lamp standards from Hammersmith and Fulham, and because we are buying them from Hammersmith and Fulham, if there are any difficulties, the money it owes us will be guaranteed by the Government.” The Department had to make clear to those foreign banks that if Hammersmith and Fulham, or any other council, defaulted on its obligations, the Government were not going to stand behind it.
I fear that some of the same thinking is creeping into this Bill, which is that in order to get over the problem of the £4 billion shortfall we should allow the proliferation of these vehicles. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out, if one couples clause 4 with the schedule, the mind boggles at all the things that could be charged by a TfL subsidiary without the consent of the Secretary of State—always remembering, of course, that under its existing powers TfL is not allowed to subject those things to a charge. If that measure were to go through unamended, it would create the potential for enormous mischief not just to London taxpayers, but to people who use TfL facilities. If Transport for London gets strapped for cash, it will have to put up its fares, reduce staffing or whatever, so the situation would not be without consequences.
I have a number of concerns about the Bill and I hope that some of them can be ironed out during the opposed Bill Committee. Underlying them all is the fact that I think it would be better if Transport for London concentrated on its core business and sought more equity investment—in other words, shareholder investment. Why does Transport for London not set up a subsidiary company, as it can do at the moment, and say, “We are going to sell shares in this limited company to the people of London”? Why not sell shares to users of Transport for London services? Why does it not raise that sort of money and, for good measure, say, “As an incentive, we will throw the assets of the Earls Court exhibition centre into the subsidiary company”? People who enjoy going to exhibitions at Earls Court could buy into that subsidiary company and perhaps get discounted entry prices, or whatever.
There is a lack of imagination in some of this, possibly because this process has been dragged out for so long that people have got into a tramline way of looking at it. Why do we not think more radically? Why do we need to be stuck with TfL, however good it is, and the same structure? Why do we not allow British taxpayers and property owners to buy shares in TfL, instead of using this sort of device, which will probably give the benefits to sovereign wealth funds, foreign banks, Russian oligarchs and whoever? They will be benefiting at the expense of the people of London. As somebody who was born in London, has spent a lot of time in London and had the privilege of leading a London council, I have the interests of the people of London at heart.
Mr Slaughter
Absolutely. I do not know whether I am right in suggesting that Earls Court was the fons et origo of that, but in any event the potential for it across London is huge. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Christchurch pointed out, the potential for it to go wrong is huge, and I think that that is what is going to happen.
Mr Slaughter
I am coming to that point. I have given the House the benefit of what could be described as my knowledge of how things have progressed so far and what concessions have been made, but it is clear that clause 5 is intended to enable such vehicles to be set up, along with deals with pension funds and development partners for the management of secondary incomes to create income streams.
Obviously—this brings me back to the point that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington was making—if TfL manages its property portfolio in the best interests of the farepayer with the aim of keeping fares down and, indeed, reducing them, I do not object to its finding ways of establishing the best return on assets, provided that those ways are legitimate and sound. In some cases, that might involve not selling an asset and investing the money at what would possibly be a low rate of return, but embarking on some form of joint venture. However, let me now deal with the rest of what I am against. I promise that, before I finish, I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about whether sales per se are simply a better option, and whether we trust them.
There is a sense in which I would say yes to that. I do not want to be rude to TfL’s management, because I think that many of them are very good at what they do, particularly on the technical side. On the whole, however, they are no match for the major property developers of London. I am afraid that the same could be said about local authority regeneration and planning officers. Property developers see them coming and fleece them for everything they have, which is very unfortunate. It is particularly unfortunate because it is our money. What is presented in the first instance as a way of maximising return for the farepayer ends up with the poor old farepayer— and the taxpayer—picking up the major share of the bill. I think that when I say a little about Earls Court the House will understand exactly what I mean, because that is the best example.
It surprised me to learn that, unlike local authorities and other public bodies, TfL does not have a duty of best value under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. It says that it still tries to obtain best value for a site—presumably from a commercial point of view as much as for any other reason—but for a public body such as TfL this is a balancing exercise.
Of course we want TfL to maximise the return on its assets in the interests of its core business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, but we also want it, as a public body under democratic control, to behave responsibly in environmental, social and economic terms. I fear that we are getting the worst of both worlds. We are getting poor-quality development, poor-quality decision making and poor-quality financial return. Therefore, the point about TfL’s area of competence is a serious one. I do not make it as a debating point to have a go at TfL. I wish it every success. But I have seen the evidence with my own eyes over many years.
Another reservation is to do with the collateral effects. Again, I will be brief on those, because they have been dealt with. According to the committee minutes, there will be some tax benefits in avoiding stamp duty, at least for TfL—it is a moot point whether we think that is a good thing to do or not—but when the benefits of avoiding tax go to the partner, that is a concern. As is the case with the Earls Court partner, major multinational property companies are avoiding paying UK tax by being registered in Jersey. TfL is facilitating that. That is plain wrong. A lack of transparency comes from the limited partnership model, rather than the limited liability partnership model. That is also plain wrong.
I also think, to put it crudely, that TfL is getting into bed with some dodgy characters. If they are not dodgy characters, then the people those people are getting into bed with are certainly dodgy. Capco, developers of Earls Court, has a partnership with the Kwok brothers, who are on trial for fraud in Hong Kong. When I put it to TfL last Friday that it should not be in that company, it said, “We have no association with the Kwoks”, but they signed a section 106 agreement for the site they were developing.
Let me give this example because it makes the point. The Earls Court area is subject to a masterplan. That was devised by Capco and everyone fell into line: the Mayor of London fell into line, as did TfL and the two Conservative-controlled boroughs. Therefore, we had the obscenity of a planning framework being designed around a planning application and of allowing a developer to act as predator on almost 80 acres of prime land in central London without any competition. The developer dictated its terms over a period of years, feeling that it had such pliant partners that it could do whatever it had to do.
As the hon. Member for Christchurch, who is long in the tooth and rather shrewder than a lot of politicians, said, that may work for a year or two or even five, but it will not work for longer than that and sooner or later there will be a change of regime in Hammersmith and Fulham and the apple cart will be upset. Possibly, in a year and a half, there will be a change of control at city hall and these schemes will still be in their infancy. Yet TfL has signed up to that masterplan, which I can evidence is not just a terrible scheme for the whole of west London but a terrible financial deal for the public sector partners.
All that land is being lost. Those premier exhibition centres in London contribute 16% of exhibition space in the UK and 30% of exhibition space in London. We will lose over 750 good-quality affordable homes, which will be demolished to make way for unaffordable homes. We will also lose the main engineering and maintenance depot for TfL and even TfL admits it does not know how it will cope without it. The first I heard about the move to Acton was when the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned it today. It may have been a surprise to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray). It was certainly a surprise to me.
At the Friday meeting and previously, I was told by TfL that there were no plans, and that the operational decisions had not been taken and probably would not be taken until 2020. However, it is a question not only of manufacture and maintenance but of the stabling of the trains. At the moment, TfL says that they have nowhere else to go. Therefore, we have a peculiar situation in which TfL has signed and voluntarily bound itself up to that masterplan, a terrible financial plan, a terrible social deal for my constituents and a terrible deal for the economic life of west London even though it is not in a position to deliver on it and does not look as if it ever will be. I cannot believe that by 2020 there will not have been some change in political control that would rule that out entirely. That is what I mean by the naivety, for want of a better word, in the way it has operated these schemes.
We have some of the players from the earlier debate here. The Minister and the shadow Minister and myself are present, and I wish we still had my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), because we had a very similar debate about the plans for HS2. As was largely not the case with Old Oak Common but is largely the case with King’s Cross, they involved going into an area that was already populated and already had housing that people wanted to live in and jobs that people wanted to do, and they were sold on the belief that it was a good commercial deal for the owner of that site. In my view it is simply unacceptable for that to happen. It is unacceptable that there should be that loss of homes—affordable, good-quality homes that people have occupied for 40 or 50 years—and their being demolished simply to hand over a site.
Yes, TfL got a terrible deal, but Hammersmith and Fulham council got an extraordinarily negligent deal that has to be investigated. It sold 23 acres of prime residential land for a net sum of £50 million, except within that £50 million it has to pay for the relocation and the purchase of the properties on that land, and with every month that property prices rise, that net sum is decreasing. Hammersmith and Fulham council—under its new Labour ownership, but gifted by its previous Conservative administration—could end up actually owing money for having given away 23 acres of prime land and having to displace 2,000 people who did not want to be displaced. That is what is happening in west London at the moment but it is on the basis of that strategy and plan that TfL wants to go forward with this kind of proposal. Can you wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not terribly happy by it pursuing this course of action?
Mr Chope
What the hon. Gentleman has said is fascinating. Does he accept that what he has just described is available to us because of the transparency of the existing arrangements? However, if this Bill goes through, it may not be so easy in the future to be able to describe exactly what happens because there will not be that transparency.
Mr Slaughter
I have to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although it has not been that transparent: it has taken rather a lot of work, over the last six of seven years and I am probably prematurely grey as a consequence. It has been like getting blood out of a stone, and so much work has been done, not primarily by me, but by the residents, the RMT, and people like my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the petitioners. They have worked day and night on this and have harried these people who are so irresponsible with the public assets that they hold—all public land at Earls Court, all being squandered and given away to developers, for losses of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds.
Parliament (Amendment) Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and Andy Slaughter(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
I had the privilege of listening to my hon. Friend when he made a very powerful speech introducing that Bill under the ten-minute rule. Nothing in my Bill cuts across or undermines anything in his Bill, which I hope will make swift progress when it comes before the House.
The Government’s argument against clause 2 of my Bill is given in paragraph 91 of today’s Command Paper:
“There is no immediate need to resolve this issue, since the provisions relating to a reduced number of MPs will not take effect until 2015. The Government therefore intends to reflect on the arguments made during the passage of this Bill”—
the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill—
“and set out its plans once there is greater clarity on the composition of the second Chamber, including how many Ministers could be drawn from there.”
It seems as though the Government are moving in the same direction, but clause 2 of my Bill would be a bit more of a nudge in that direction. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the matter will be resolved during this Parliament. I certainly remain concerned about that.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government and now the Boundary Commission are pressing on speedily with reviewing the legislature. Indeed, the Boundary Commission has, also today, published its new electoral quotas and confirmed the numbers of seats for each of the countries in the United Kingdom. It has also said that it intends to produce its provisional recommendations this autumn. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government are pressing on so quickly with the reduction in the legislature, they should at the same time look at the Executive?
Mr Chope
I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely. This is very important because we do not want the issue of how large the Executive will be to be left to the Executive to decide after the next general election. I think that the balance between the size of the Executive and the size of the legislature should be for the legislature to decide. If we are to have a smaller legislature, we need to impose a smaller Executive well in advance of the next election.