Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Andy McDonald

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.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Andy McDonald

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

On that fateful day, in those dramatic circumstances, a Conservative-led Government did what history has regularly called on Conservatives to do and begin to pull the nation back from the brink of ruin after the disastrous denouement of a period of Labour Government. During the five years that followed, Britain’s prospects have been transformed, with the deficit cut by half, 1 million low earners taken out of income tax and spending on the NHS and schools safeguarded. More people are working than ever before in our history and Britain’s economy is the strongest growing in the western world. Thanks to the hard work and enterprise of the British people, our nation is on the rise again, but our task is far from complete. On 7 May this year, the British people looked at the past, looked to the future and asked us to finish the job. We are determined to repay their trust.

The Chancellor’s Budget puts our economic security first by cutting the deficit at the same pace as in the last Parliament until we have a surplus and ensuring that Britain pays its way in the world. It will help working people, support aspiration and boost productivity. It will reward work and allow people to keep more of the money they have earned. As the Chancellor said last week, the Budget is a new settlement for Britain.

Let me be frank: not every Budget goes according to plan. Some are cheered and others are jeered, such are the ups and downs of government, but it takes a special kind of genius to have an omnishambles Budget while in Opposition. I am sure that the whole House is eagerly awaiting the latest news from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on whether the Opposition have a view on the Budget. Yesterday, the acting Leader of the Opposition announced that Labour would support the welfare cap and the restrictions on family tax credits, but within hours of her announcement three of the four leadership contenders—the right hon. Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—denounced her and a policy that they had presumably agreed. We await the view of the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), but we have her representative on earth here—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East, who supports her campaign—and we want to find out whether the chaos is complete or partial. After the disarray of the last 24 hours, who could disagree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) when he said yesterday:

“The speed and rapidity with which we are beginning to be regarded as irrelevant…is really terrifying”?

We on the Government Benches have a settled view on the matters at hand. This afternoon, I will talk about two aspects of the Budget in particular: the opportunity that it offers to every part of the country to participate in our national success; and the imperative that it sets to move our economy to one of high productivity by addressing vital challenges, at the centre of which is building more homes.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

rose—

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—