High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to support new clauses 26 and 32. Paradoxically, I agree with most of what has been said today, because I do think that it is possible to be pro-infrastructure investment, pro-progress and pro-brand new trains. I am pro the concept of high-speed rail, but I am not pro-HS2 Ltd and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, the rather cavalier way it operates. In the Select Committee its QC called my residents tedious, which I thought showed complete contempt for them.

New clause 26 is about protecting vulnerable businesses and the time given for relocation. I have spoken to some of the businesses in the Park Royal area of my constituency. The businesses there are quite mixed. Many of them deal with food preparation—for example, supplying olives to restaurants in the west end—and need to be close to the A40, which is a vital artery. They are family businesses. They have been told that when it happens they will be given three months to relocate. They have a combined turnover in the millions. They are all extremely concerned that they will be forced to close because three months is not enough time for them to start again.

I spoke with a prop hire company. It occupies thousands of square feet of warehouse space, with antiques and big fat televisions behind wooden veneer cabinets. It supplies props for films such as “Star Wars”. It would find it very difficult to find alternative premises quickly. Those companies would also like an assurance of 100% compensation for their sites, not the 90% on offer.

The Conservative party is the party of business, surely. It is the party of small and medium-sized enterprises. [Interruption.] I think this new clause has genuine cross-party support, judging by the Members who have signed it. It is deeply worrying that those firms are being forced to move towards what is called extinguishment, because apparently their balance sheets do not show enough turnover, so HS2 considered their financial value to be too small to warrant relocation. That is a slap in the face and an insult to hard-working, small family businesses.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is doing a brilliant job of representing her constituents, as she always does. Does she agree—I think this is the purpose of her new clauses—that it is often the businesses in urban areas that are the most fragile and therefore the worst affected, but the levels of compensation and concern shown to them is the worst on offer—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We do not have time for long interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

Given the lack of time, I shall speak only to amendment 16, tabled in my name, which seeks to give statutory protection to Wormwood Scrubs common. I should really say “more statutory protection” because, as metropolitan open land and strategic defence land, it is already protected by an Act of Parliament. More importantly, it hosts an extraordinary range of sports and pastimes. Thousands of disabled children ride at the pony centre every year. An organisation called the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs is seeking to protect its 200 acres of semi-wilderness, which form a substantial proportion of my constituency—an area in which open spaces are at a premium.

However, in the time since HS2 was proposed, we have been asked to put a viaduct across it, and we have been told that it could be turned into formal gardens and that it could be amenity space for the luxury flats being built around the HS2 route. We are now being told that it will be a transit way for hundreds of thousands of people to walk across, which would essentially destroy this London landmark forever.

Although I clearly will not today get the protection that I am seeking, I thank the Select Committee for recognising my representations and acknowledging that they were my only representations. I say to the Government and to HS2 Ltd that it will be a crime if this open space is despoiled over the course of the development.

I wanted to make some more general comments as I think my constituency will see more development than any other. I will not say that I am as adversely affected as other hon. and right hon. Members, and some of the development is of course welcome, but if I am able to catch your eye on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can perhaps make some of those points then. I entirely support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said about the effect on their residents and businesses. As they used to be my constituents, I mention the residents of Wells House Road, Midland Terrace and Stephenson Street, whose homes will be blighted for many years to come and will be entirely surrounded by HS2 works.

I could have tabled something similar to new clause 22 asking for the Old Oak Common development to be regulated, but that should not be necessary because the London Sustainable Development Commission is there to deal with such matters. At the moment, however, it is not working. I hope that it will work under a new Mayor, because we currently have unregulated development on the site and a huge opportunity cost, which is not allowing for proper exploitation of and investment in that land.

[Mr Goodwill]

The new clauses and amendments principally concern environmental issues, which the Government take very seriously. The Bill and the environmental minimum requirements establish robust environmental controls that have proved to be an effective mechanism on other projects, such as Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link. In addition, many of the new clauses and amendments relate to issues on which we have already provided assurances through the Select Committee process. Some comments were made during the debate, not least from the Opposition Front-Bench team, about those assurances not being worth the paper on which they were written, but they are commitments made to Parliament by the Secretary of State and are enforced by Parliament. The process worked well for Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link, so we do not need a belt when have more than adequate braces—or “gallusses” as we call them in my part of the world. The Select Committee process led to nearly 400 alterations to the scheme and provided some 1,600 assurances and undertakings to those affected by HS2.

I specifically want to touch on new clause 22, relating to the development of an integrated station at Euston, and I was pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) managed to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We share an ambition for the integrated redevelopment of Euston station and assurances have been provided to the London Borough of Camden. Indeed, I recently met the leader of the council to discuss such matters. Work is already under way regarding the commitments given in the assurances to Camden, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority on the overall integration of works at Euston and the co-ordination with Crossrail 2. I can also confirm that funding is available to progress initial feasibility work for the preparation of an outline masterplan for Euston station, which includes the classic, Network Rail element of the station.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I support the principle of high-speed rail and this project, not least because it allows the regeneration of the Old Oak area in my constituency—by some distance the largest development area in the country, bringing more than 24,000 homes and 50,000 new jobs to an area of severe deprivation. I support the project with reservations, and I have been happy to work with those on both sides who will be voting against the Bill tonight, because the local implications for residents, businesses and the environment have not been properly considered through this process. I say that with all due respect to the Committee, which has done an excellent job and worked incredibly hard.

In the minute left available to me, let me mention three things. First, if the issue is about capacity and not so much about speed, why are there not more stations, which would make it more beneficial to areas between London and Birmingham? Secondly, why are there not better links with HS1? I accept why the Camden link had to go, but it is ridiculous not to have those better links.

Thirdly, why can we not have a proper integrated centre at Old Oak, which would bring the Great Western line, the overground, the underground and Crossrail together? It is a huge wasted opportunity not to use that land properly. It is a real waste of public money and opportunity in that area. I urge the Government to look at that again and to work with the new Mayor, who I hope will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), to ensure that we have proper regeneration on that site.

Crossrail: Elizabeth Line

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Crossrail is a complex project, as the Minister says, especially where there are interchanges with other lines. At Old Oak, it interchanges with overground, underground, Great Western and, of course, HS2 services. Will she look at the very poor co-ordination of that interchange, where every company is doing its own thing, with the Crossrail depot being built in the middle of prime development land? She might like Lord Adonis to look at that, as he knows what he is talking about.

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the complexity of the project—some of the tunnels have been tunnelled to within 30 cm of existing infrastructure beneath the streets of London, which is an astonishing achievement—and of the interchanges, on which such decisions are often considered to be too complicated. The Government, TfL and Network Rail are working closely with the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation—that is another example of a devolved authority—to make sure that it understands its aspirations for the publicly held land at Old Oak Common. It is a balancing act and it is difficult to get it right for the future, but we will continue to invest in this vital infrastructure and we will make it work for the benefit of the British economy and of rail passengers across the UK.

Transport for London Funding

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Thomas]

I might have been more sympathetic to the Minister’s intervention if there were not plans to shut more of the control rooms on the underground, because London Underground Ltd proposes that all but a few control rooms in the largest stations will be de-staffed. Proposed staffing cuts and that emphasis on customer-facing duties will require staff who are normally allocated to control rooms to work in the ticket hall. The result will be that there will be no routine monitoring of CCTV at more than 90% of stations, including some that have high volumes of passenger traffic, when major events are taking place. Will the Minister be willing to meet, with me, a deputation of the workforce who are concerned about the impact of the various job cuts on passenger safety? I look forward to his answer, and hope that he will, in the spirit of his interventions, and the spirit in which I have taken them, be willing to do that.

I want to raise some concerns about the impact of the cut in TfL funding on the accessibility of the London underground network. My constituency has six tube stations—exclusively tube stations—that are inaccessible to people using a wheelchair, and usually inaccessible to people with a pram. I understand that there are no plans for North Harrow, South Harrow, Sudbury Hill, Rayners Lane or West Harrow to be made accessible. There has long been talk of a plan for Harrow on the Hill to be made accessible, but it is not currently included for access to the small amount of funding that is available to make stations more accessible. I worry that the loss of £3 billion will reduce its chances even further. Perhaps the Minister would use his influence with Mike Brown, the head of Transport for London, who I am pleased to say came to North Harrow station to celebrate its centenary earlier this year, and encourage him to take an interest in the accessibility of Harrow on the Hill station.

My last point about the impact of the cuts concerns property income and the pressure on Transport for London to maximise its income from property sales or assets—essentially from the land that it owns. I should think that the whole House would think it a good thing to encourage Transport for London to make its land available for housing. The concern is that it is being put under heavy pressure to extract as much value as possible from selling its land or the housing on the land, with no consideration of Londoners’ broader needs for affordable housing. There are also concerns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) knows well, about the methods being used to encourage Transport for London down the property development route. It has established a commercial development advisory group, which is chaired by Francis Salway, with Richard Cotton, Mike Jones and Richard Jones as the other members, but I worry that none of them has a background in social or affordable housing. I hope that the Minister may be willing to use his good influence to encourage Transport for London to see the bigger picture about housing in London, while at the same time seeking to maximise its income from its land.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to be suspicious of Transport for London’s motives. It is on record as saying that two thirds of its sites will be in zones 1 and 2 and it is not looking for affordable housing in that area; but it is looking for some if it develops in zones 3 to 5. However, that is affordable rather than social rented housing.

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I look forward to his speech, if he catches your eye later, Mr Hollobone.

There was nothing in the spending review about funding for Crossrail 2. To be fair to the Government, I understand that they have set up a £300 million pot for advanced work on big infrastructure schemes. Will the Minister confirm that Transport for London can bid for money for Crossrail 2 within that pot, and explain whether the Government still support and recognise the need for Crossrail 2?

Of the £687 million in resource funding that Transport for London is getting this year, but which will be axed in future, £63 million is going to the capital programme; £137 million is going for borough improvements; £289 million is going on new greener buses; and £198 million is going for tube renewals and other investments. One has to wonder about the future of the investment in green buses, given the loss of resource funding going forward. It is striking that London Councils took the time to provide a brief for this debate, noting the impact of the funding received under TfL’s resource funding programme. It has been used to invest in road safety and maintenance, cycle parking and cycle training, car clubs, the installation of electric vehicle charging points, school and workplace travel plans, 20 mph zones and some further effort for accessible transport and pedestrian crossings. London Councils points out that much of that work—particularly that on road safety—has led to a significant reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on London’s roads. The implication is that there is concern about how such work is to continue to be funded.

I want lastly to consider how the gap in Transport for London’s books might be filled. I have always been a strong supporter of fiscal devolution to the capital, and having criticised the Mayor of London for big fare hikes I should at least acknowledge the important work that he got Tony Travers to undertake on fiscal devolution. I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to devolve business rates to London, but I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that business rate income is often lumpy, if that is the word, and not always easy to predict. It would be helpful if, as the Tony Travers commission suggested, other property taxes were to be devolved to London. The devolution of stamp duty land tax to the London Mayor might help to unlock new investment in transport development, particularly in relation to the building of new homes that would be enabled by improved transport links. I understand that the vehicle excise duty incurred by Londoners who own cars amounts to about £500 million at the moment, and it might be suitable to invest that in London’s transport rather than taking it out of London and investing it in roads in the rest of England. I ask gently of the Minister, whom I saw shaking his head a little earlier, whether it is time for him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to redirect that £500 million to City Hall, to ensure that London’s road network gets the investment it needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I, too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on securing this timely and important debate? This issue is raised frequently in both Houses. Yesterday, during questions in the other place, two of the points that my hon. Friend mentioned were raised. Lord Tope noted that the £639 million operational grant for this year will decline to nothing within three years, while Lord Dubs raised an important question that I will deal with: if Transport for London is going to become a property developer over the next decade, where and how will it build, and what will it will build? It is particularly important to note that there will be little social housing among the alleged 10,000 homes to be built.

The other place is also shortly to discuss the Transport for London Bill, a private Bill that has been limping through both Houses for five years. It would have been killed off in the main Chamber a couple of weeks ago, had not the Government whipped 140 of their Members to vote for the revival of that rather sad and sagging Bill. If London MPs had their way, the Bill would be put to rest quite quickly. If I have time, I will deal with that issue but, in any event, I have no doubt that we will consider the final stages of that Bill in the new year and discuss at length the problems with it.

Should TfL become a property developer to make up the £2.8 billion that the Government are taking away from it between now and 2021, it will of course need to manage its estate properly. It has not always done that well in the past, and I doubt the capability and competence of transport organisations—even though many very good people work for them—to deal with some of the most rapacious and greedy property developers in London. Somehow the public sector also seems to come off worse when it enters into such deals.

Even what TfL is planning at the moment does not fill me with enthusiasm. It is looking for 75 sites spanning 300 acres, with the aim of raising £1 billion. As I said in my intervention, two thirds of those sites will be in zones 1 and 2, presumably because although there is less land in those zones, it is more profitable. Only when TfL subsequently begins to look at zones 3 to 5 does it expect to include affordable housing in its considerations. It is going to work in joint ventures with private companies, and the model for that is the tragic site at Earls Court, which is one of the largest development sites in London, with two thirds of it owned by TfL. The joint venture with Capital and Counties Properties plc covers 77 acres and includes the Earls Court exhibition centres and the Lillie Bridge depot. The third part of the site—22 acres —consists of two local authority housing estates with 760 affordable and social homes.

The development of that site, which I believe is a template for what TfL will do in the future, will provide 8,000 homes with no additional social homes, even though according to planning targets, and even the targets of the Mayor of London, there should be 2,000 such homes. The 760 existing homes will be demolished, which will affect the entire community. The Earls Court exhibition centres are beautiful and their loss is tragic. Earls Court One, an art deco building that is currently being demolished, provided 30% of London’s exhibition space.

I laughed at what TfL told the Financial Times when it announced its plans about six weeks ago. It said it was

“working with its operations team to ensure that it learns from mistakes made by the national rail network in the past and only ‘develops sites where no transport capacity growth is expected so as not to constrain operations.’”

The other part of the Earls Court site that is going is the Lillie Bridge depot, which is one of the main manufacturing and servicing depots. It is an ideal place for servicing and provides 500 skilled jobs, which is why the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has considerable concerns about the development.

If Earls Court is a blueprint, God help us when TfL begins to develop other sites around London. It has already identified three. One, which is in Hammersmith and Fulham but not in my constituency, is the Parsons Green depot site. The very good Labour council there is negotiating hard with TfL to include affordable housing on the site. There will be 120 new homes, but no homes for social rent are planned, although I hope that that will change following negotiation with the local authority.

As I know that area extremely well, I can give an example of what can happen. Almost opposite the proposed site is an almost identical depot site that was owned by the Co-operative Group. That has been developed with 100% affordable housing—50% intermediate and 50% for social renting. If such a target can be reached, TfL’s ambitions in an area with a crying need for affordable housing, especially in zones 1 and 2, should be at least a lot greater. I note from the property pages of today’s Metro that the average price of a property in Hammersmith, let alone Fulham, is more than £1 million, and that is exactly the type of luxury property that TfL is endeavouring to build on its land.

A measure in the Transport for London Bill—during its early stages some four years ago, my constituents petitioned against it—would have given TfL the power to sell land without reference to the Secretary of State or any outside body. I am pleased to say that, following scrutiny, the relevant clause was withdrawn, because otherwise TfL could have done exactly what it liked. Given the Government’s housing policy, which we will discuss in the House later today, I have no confidence that the Secretary of State’s intervention will represent a proper remedy. In any event, the Bill is deeply flawed because it encourages TfL to enter into limited partnership agreements and allows it to go further even than it went at Earls Court by having unsuitable, voracious partners in the property development market. That may or may not provide a profit for TfL, but it will do nothing for the neighbourhood and interests of ordinary Londoners.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West talked about the upgrading of the sub-surface network, which includes the Hammersmith and City, Circle and District lines. It would be a tragedy if that were postponed for another five years. Those incredibly busy lines have some of the worst signalling on the underground network. I believe the signalling at Earls Court dates from the 1960s, so perhaps the Minister will comment on that today. My constituents would not welcome him saying blithely that the upgrading will be delayed by another five years.

A specific problem is the removal of Olympia station from the timetabled network. I was pleased to have the first newly built station in a century on an existing tube line at Wood Lane as part of the Westfield development. TfL made a big song and dance about that, but less of a song and dance when it took a station off the timetabled network, despite Olympia serving one of the most densely populated communities in London and linking to the very good overground service at that station. We were told at the time that the reason was congestion at Earls Court—that has been the case for about 40 years—and that TfL wanted to prioritise the Wimbledon branch of the line. That was not popular with my constituents.

When the signalling is upgraded—whether that is in 2019 or 2023—it will relieve the problem. There will be more capacity, longer and more effective trains and better signalling. With that full expectation, I wrote to the new managing director of London Underground to ask for at least a commitment that Olympia would be put on the timetabled network again, but I was told, “No. There is no intention of doing that.” What is the point of investment and of TfL becoming a property developer if the net result is that the investment in its own network does not do what its passengers and fare payers want?

In May 2016, we will have a new Mayor—hopefully a Labour Mayor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has promised to freeze fares, to provide one-hour hopper tickets and to run TfL in the interests of all Londoners, not in the interests of property developers, its own highly paid managers or bailing out the Chancellor. However, we currently face a double whammy of losing central Government investment, which no other civilised country would do to its capital city, while at the same time we do not see any other improvement in Londoners’ quality of life because TfL is simply rushing madly into property development.

Airports Capacity

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

One suggestion for alleviation in the commissioner’s report is an end to night flights and the flights to which the hon. Lady refers. These things always have to be taken into account. Although I live in her constituency, I do not exercise my vote there.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Either the Government have decided to go ahead with Heathrow expansion but are delaying the announcement to avoid embarrassing their candidate for London Mayor, or they need more time to massage Heathrow’s terrible record on noise and pollution. If it were to be Gatwick, we would have been told today. Is this not a cowardly and pathetic way to decide an issue that will blight the health and lives of millions of Londoners?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman has taken a view on the Government’s decision before the Government have made the decision. That is fairly typical of what he does. I have been very open with the House on the reason for the extra work that needs to be done. There are people on the Government Benches who have been incredibly consistent on this matter and there are people on the Opposition Benches who have been less consistent. I went through the whole programme of where we got to on the timetable, and if there has been a deliberate wasting of time, it was by the previous Labour Government.

Airports Commission: Final Report

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) on her speech and on promoting me to a right hon. Member. Giving the looming decision on Heathrow, that has never been less likely, but I thank her all the same.

Big infrastructure is always disruptive. That is why we are having this debate, because whenever a big infrastructure project is discussed, it always causes pain. Often, however, the gain justifies that pain. Clearly that is the view of those who support Heathrow expansion, but I implore them to look properly at the costs and benefits of this project before taking a view, because I think the figures speak for themselves.

Let me revisit some of the cost—much of it has already been discussed, so I will be brief. Noise is the principal concern. Heathrow is already Europe’s biggest noise polluter by far—720,000 people are already affected, and a third runway would increase flights from 480,000 to around 740,000 a year and affect well over 1 million people. In addition, people would lose half the respite periods, which they treasure, because those would be cut from eight hours to four hours.

When Heathrow says that fewer people will be impacted by noise under an expanded airport with a third runway, that merely tells us that Heathrow as a company is so used to getting its way with the Government that it no longer feels the need even to appear reasonable. The Government have admitted—we might get clarity on this later in the debate—that they have not analysed the impact of noise on residents if Heathrow expands. I do not believe that they have even seen the proposed flight paths, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that point later in the debate.

Then there is pollution. With only two runways, air pollution around Heathrow already massively exceeds existing legal limits. A third runway would see 75 million more people using the airport and travelling to and from it—Transport for London believes that an extra runway would add 25 million more lorry and car journeys each year. Nobody in the world believes that Heathrow expansion can be reconciled with any of the aspirations, legal or otherwise, on air quality—nobody except Heathrow that is, which tells us that a third runway would take place with a zero increase in car movements. It is hard even to know how to respond to that assertion.

Howard Davies has begun to nuance his position on air quality on the back of the Volkswagen scandal, because the data on which he based his assumptions have been revealed to be entirely fraudulent. A few days ago he said to a Committee of MPs, including me:

“I do think the Government will need to satisfy itself on this particular point, clearly some things have moved on. The Government will need to satisfy itself that this can be safely done.”

The financial cost has already been mentioned, and we have an unlikely new ally in this campaign in the form of Willie Walsh, the head of BA. He described the proposed costs as “outrageous”, and said that they make the project impossible and undeliverable. If we consider surface transport costs alone, he is obviously right. How do we accommodate 25 million extra road passenger journeys per year? The Airports Commission puts the cost at £6 billion, while Heathrow puts it at £l billion. Transport for London has put that cost at around £20 billion—it goes on, and on.

That is just some of the downside, and it is big. People might consider accepting that downside if the economic case was utterly overwhelming, but what is amazing about the Howard Davies report is that it makes the economic case against Heathrow expansion for us. There is a giant gap between the report and the conclusion it reaches. It is as if Howard Davies began with a conclusion, spent £20 million and three years—or however long it took—cobbling together analysis, data and information, and then stuck the same conclusion on the end of the report.

In the report Howard Davies tells us that in the most optimistic scenario, an expanded Heathrow would give us just 12 additional international routes. Even worse, much of the additional activity—if not all of it—would be at the expense of neighbouring airports such as Stansted and Gatwick. In other words, we would not be creating new activity; we would be centralising existing activity. We would be recreating the old monopoly—a giant, foreign-owned, subsidised monopoly on the edge of our city. It is a pitifully small upside, even more so when compared with the colossal dose of pain that Heathrow expansion encompasses.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, including on the Airport Commission report. We are where we are, however, and a choice has to be made. It is a binary choice the Government will make within, we are told, the next three or four weeks. Is he going further than his previous position and does he support the second runway at Gatwick, the only credible other option on the table?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I noticed the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) briefing the hon. Gentleman with that question a few moments ago. I will answer that point, but I have to say that the position of the right hon. Member for Tooting on this issue seems to ebb and flow with the weather. He seems to say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience. His position on Heathrow is about as authentic as Donald Trump’s hair, and the same applies to his position on almost every issue on which he has opined in the past few months. Nevertheless, I will answer the question.

The alternative to monopoly, which is what is proposed as the first choice of the Howard Davies commission, is competition. We know competition works. We only have to look at Gatwick to know that competition works: it has become a better airport. It has opened up routes to places we were told it would not be able to open routes up to, including Hanoi, Jakarta and two routes to China. Competition is the answer.

Despite coming down in favour of monopoly, even Howard Davies has acknowledged that the third runway would stifle growth at the other airports. He has said:

“a competing airport system is right for London”.

So how do we encourage that? We invest in transport links to, from and between the three main airports in London. If and when—as is likely—we have a capacity problem, we expand. We do not expand at Heathrow, however; we expand at a place in such a way that maximises rather than suffocates competition. That has always been my position: today, as it has been in any number of articles, interviews and comments. I have always come down in favour of competition, because it is the obvious answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Let me begin by reflecting, very briefly, the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), not just because he is unable to take part in the debate by virtue of his position in the shadow Cabinet, but because he has been the foremost opponent of Heathrow expansion for many years. He says:

“At the southern tip of my constituency is an 11th century village. Harmondsworth. It contains the oldest tithe barn in England. It has an ancient church and two vintage pubs. But it is also home to thousands of people; to a settled community. But many of these homes and buildings which have stood for a thousand years will be demolished if a third runway is built at Heathrow. Heathrow airport will require 783 properties in Harmondsworth. But it also has said it will buy homes in the neighbouring villages of Sipson and Harlington should people want to move to escape the constant noise of planes landing and taking off just above their heads. In total, up to 4,000 homes might need to be acquired. There are parts of my constituency where air pollution levels already exceed the EU…limits”,

and while

“a lot of the pollution comes from motor vehicles…I believe that Heathrow is being disingenuous in stating that it can a bring in a quarter of a million more planes each year…and expect air pollution levels to fall. Planes will get cleaner but their belief is more an act of faith than one rooted in hard evidence.”

The impact of the third runway will be felt not just in Hayes and Harlington and Hammersmith, of course, but right across London and the home counties. The noise figures are well known. According to the European Commission, more than 725,000 people are impacted by noise from Heathrow—that is 28% of all people disturbed by aircraft noise across Europe. Heathrow is stretching credibility to claim that the number of people affected by noise will fall when 250,000 extra planes are using the third runway.

The economics of a third runway are equally questionable. The Airports Commission could not make up its mind on the figures, but it chose to highlight the fact that the third runway would benefit UK plc to the tune of £147 billion over 60 years, but its own advisers said there were difficulties with the model used to get that figure. Using traditional, tested modelling methods, it was found that a third runway would bring benefits of £69 billion over 60 years, but if the costs of the disbenefits, such as noise and emissions, and of delivering the third runway are included, the economic benefits fall to £11.8 billion over 60 years. Given that significant social and economic cost, as well as the damage to the climate, my plea—and, I am sure, that of my hon. Friend—is that the Government not be swayed by advertising slogans and self-interested voices but recognise that the UK’s economy is not dependent on this destructive third runway at Heathrow.

The time for talking is now over. As recently as this Monday in the other place, we were promised that the Government would make an announcement before Christmas about Heathrow and Gatwick, and I am sure the Minister will confirm that. I support the Gatwick option. We have to make that choice. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who is no longer in his place, gave a furtive answer to my question. I think his bid for high office has made him less frank than he was. We have to back Gatwick, because it is the only other choice, but it is also necessary as a driver of the south-west economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) earlier pleaded the case for Birmingham. When HS2 is built, it will be quicker for people in the north of my constituency to get to Birmingham airport than Heathrow on the Piccadilly line. There are other viable options to a third runway at Heathrow.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

HS2 will stop at Euston, which is nowhere near Heathrow. My scheme would provide for a direct rail link from Birmingham airport to Heathrow on a one-hour service. It would effectively make Birmingham and Heathrow partner airports and take a lot of the pressure off Heathrow.

[Andy Slaughter]

Old Oak Common station in my constituency would be the major interchange, making it 31 minutes from Birmingham airport, so I would welcome that scheme.

Heathrow has ruled the roost for too long. Of course, it could keep Stansted and Gatwick when it owned those airports. It also seemed to mesmerise successive Governments. It was only when my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) became leader of the Labour party that our party’s policy changed. We hoped that when the Prime Minister said, “no ifs, no buts, no third runway”, that Conservative party policy had changed as well. Unfortunately, I do not believe it was ever really the case, and I believe the commission was set up on a false prospectus. One only has to look at the change in the terms of reference from “whether” we should have expansion to “where” it should be. As has already been said, the inevitable conclusion is that the decision was deliberately delayed until after the election.

I declare an interest. A third runway, as proposed, would directly affect Hammersmith and Shepherd’s Bush and would subject communities in that area to sustained aircraft noise for the first time. The effect would be dramatic across the whole of west London. A third runway is also unnecessary. I would like to praise the work of Hammersmith and Fulham council in opposing the proposal over many years. I myself have been involved in those campaigns for more than 30 years.

I also praise the council for setting up an independent residents commission, chaired by the former senior civil servant Christina Smyth, which took evidence from all parties and came to the following conclusions. It said that, yes, if Heathrow were chosen we would enjoy some

“economic benefits by way of inward investment”,

and, yes, there would be an

“increased choice of flights and destinations for residents and visitors using Heathrow.”

That is true, but the report also highlighted the additional flights overhead, the additional noise and traffic congestion, the effects on air quality, the failure to mitigate noise properly, the safety concerns and, above all, the effect on residents’ health and quality of life. They are a price that is not worth paying. No other country would think of subjecting 2 million people in the most densely populated part of the country to that intolerable burden. This is insanity, particularly when there is an acceptable alternative. I hope that, when the Government make their decision on this matter, they will finally see sense.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

This is a private Bill promoted by Transport for London that was deposited on 26 November 2010 and ordered to commence in the House of Lords.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

Perhaps I might make some progress on what has happened and on timescales before I give way.

The Bill was considered by an Opposed Private Bill Committee of this House on 13 January 2015 and one of the clauses was amended. The Bill was subsequently debated on Report on Monday 16 March, but the time allocated for the debate expired before proceedings could be brought to a conclusion. Parliament was prorogued shortly thereafter and the Bill fell.

In accordance with the practice of the House, at the beginning of the present Session the promoters requested that the Bill be revived under Standing Order No. 188B on private business. The revival motion that was subsequently tabled in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means has continued to be objected to, leading to the necessity for this debate. I stress that this debate is about the revival of the Bill, rather than its substance.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that a revival motion is needed because the Bill did not succeed earlier this year, but I wonder whether he raises his eyebrows slightly, as other Members do, at the fact that it has taken five years to reach this stage. Will he indicate why he thinks that might be the case?

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly the process in the other place has taken some time, and there were various applications to the Opposed Bill Committee for consideration of amendments, which is why the promoters of the Bill have amended it to allow those who objected to it to see changes that would benefit the overall process.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide TfL with additional powers so that it can meet its business needs more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient arrangements for the stewardship of its financial affairs. It would allow TfL to maximise the value of its assets and deliver significantly better value for money to the paying public, which is a laudable aim, and one with which I am sure we all agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I will not give way any more.

The discrete scope of the Bill should be taken as indicative of a desire by TfL to meet its business needs more flexibly, and cost-effectively.

One of the key issues that has been identified during the whole process, which I think we all agree on, is the opportunity to maximise the development of assets for housing purposes. If the Bill were finally to become law, TfL would release more than 300 acres of land in London to help create more than 10,000 new homes across London. Sixty-seven per cent. of this phase of development is in travel zones 1 and 2.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is asking extremely pertinent questions, but I wonder who is going to answer them. If I get the opportunity to make a speech, I will try to answer them with the aid of the promoter’s statement on the one hand and the legal opinion obtained by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers on the other. The Bill’s sponsor, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), is now deep in thought, having gabbled through the end of his remarks without taking interventions on any of the substantive matters covered by the Bill. If this Bill is to be revived, does my hon. Friend agree that our questions should be answered tonight?

[Emily Thornberry]

I genuinely think so, because, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has said, we are talking about large swathes of publicly owned land in the centre of our capital. My constituency has the least amount of green space of any in the entire country, and all our brownfield sites need to be looked at very carefully in order to maximise housing. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the need for housing, but frankly we do not need developments such as that currently taking place on our canal, where a one-bedroom flat is being sold for £826,000. That is not affordable housing for anyone who lives in Islington. We need real affordable housing, but the Bill does not seem to have any control over that.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend mentions asbestos. The site that begat all this nonsense in the first place is the Earls Court exhibition site, which is coming down at the moment and is absolutely full of asbestos. There are huge risks here. The brakes are being taken off. It seems ironic that Transport for London should think it needs to do something to ease up the London property market. The London property market is out of control as it is. Only TfL, with its lack of commercial acumen, could really think that it should prioritise building more luxury flats with whoever turns up to build them and make it as easy as possible, with no questions asked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

If we do not use public land to build affordable housing, what land will we use? If we sell off the land, and it ends up in the hands of private property speculators, that will be the end of it, in terms of its being within the reach of Londoners.

Again, perhaps someone can enlighten me, but there has been talk that TfL could set up a subsidiary to insulate itself against risk. I do not understand what TfL has said about that, but, on the face of it, if it continues to own the land, or at least to manage it, it seems that a court would say, “The legal instrument might say one thing, but the reality is quite clear”, and strike it down. The project is being built on the never-never, and on very dubious grounds. We are asking serious questions about the risk this public body is being put under. What is TfL going to be doing with our land? What does it mean for the future of London? There are so many questions. I appreciate the Bill has a long history, but that makes it even more disappointing—to say the least—that these questions cannot be answered. They have been asked of TfL many times, yet we still do not have answers. In the absence of such answers, it does not seem correct to revive the Bill.

[Andy Slaughter]

I will attempt to answer my hon. Friend’s question, although, again, it would be better if the sponsor did. Counsel’s opinion, on exactly this point, expresses doubt about whether such an approach would be within the vires of TfL and lawful and that, even if such a subsidiary was formed, it might also give rise to the issue of vertical liability for TfL. It seems that, if that is what TfL is attempting, it has failed to do so in the Bill.

[Emily Thornberry]

That is very interesting. If that is counsel’s opinion, why can TfL not allay our fears? It is a pretty fundamental question. As I understand it, attempts have been made over several years to progress the Bill, yet there are still no answers to these important questions. It is not enough for TfL to say to the House, “Please revive the Bill. The Chancellor is going to take £700 million away from us, and we need to sell off our assets to fill the gap.” Economically, it makes no sense; socially, it is appalling; and, politically, it is extremely short sighted and not the sort of thing the House should allow.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Andy Slaughter]

I wonder whether I can help my hon. Friend by putting it slightly differently. As London MPs we are very grateful for the support from great engineering and great railway towns around the country, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I think the nail was hit on the head in the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who is no longer in his place, about whether there is a balance between Londoners who want access to housing and Londoners who want reasonable fares. The answer is that everybody is losing out under this scheme. The cover on this Bill has been blown by the revelation that money is going to be sucked out of London and that TfL is going to have to scrabble around, selling the family silver simply to pay the fares bill over the next year or two. That is a disgraceful way to run the economy.

[Emily Thornberry]

That, in summary, is my objection to the Bill. It seems to me that we need to call out its true intentions. I am afraid that, supporter as I am of TfL—I have written to its director to praise him, but I have to criticise other things—I have to say that TfL is making a mistake about this. I suspect that the reason it is trying to make this terrible mistake is that it is being pushed by the Government who are looking to entirely short-term gain. This is not in the interest of Londoners, so the Bill should not be revived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

I want to make some progress.

TfL is an organisation that manages, extremely effectively, more than £9 billion of revenue every year. It has delivered incredible increases in reliability and efficiency since 2008. Labour Members are displaying a great lack of confidence in our nation’s transport systems.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister does not represent a London constituency. That is not her fault; we all have our cross to bear. However, those of us who have put up with 30 years of incompetence from TfL—both financial and operational—would beg to differ with her. Will she confirm that, as was stated in the Financial Times on 12 November, the London transport network is facing a loss of £700 million a year in state subsidy as a consequence of the comprehensive spending review?

[Claire Perry]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Financial Times, but he will have to wait until next week to hear about the spending review. I did not quite catch his other comment, but I think he said something about our not using the tube. I suspect that I have been using it for many more years than he has. Let me return to the point, however. We are trying to find flexible ways—

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, to be clear, I am afraid that we heard all sorts of rather pointless interventions earlier, and what we would like to do is make some progress, I think, so we can understand what this Bill is all about.

So let me put some numbers in front of Opposition Members to give them some facts, rather than having them shroud-waving. I understand from TfL that this private Bill could immediately generate savings in excess of £50 million by improving its hedging power, enabling it to borrow money in a cost-effective way and make the most of its assets. If Opposition Members do ever take the tube, they will see the money the tube generates is reinvested in investment programmes, delivering the sorts of transport investments their constituents need.

The Department supports TfL’s commercial programme. We want TfL to better maximise its unique commercial position. We want it to generate the maximum potential from the public assets that it will continue to own, and we believe—

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Claire Perry]

I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman.

We believe that giving TfL greater flexibility—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Of course. I could not put it better myself and I fully agree.

Let me get back to the issue. The Bill is about property developments that have contained very low levels of affordable housing. It has been suggested that the likes of the now infamous Earls Court development potentially contain only 10% affordable housing.

[Andy Slaughter]

The master plan for the Earls Court and west Kensington area shows the construction of 8,000 properties, which will include no social rented housing additional to that currently on the site, of which only 11% will be affordable housing. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, “affordable” can mean 80% of market sale or rental value. I am afraid that in central London, that is unaffordable to anyone at all.

[Ian Lavery]

That is the point, really. The Bill is about the fact that Transport for London has been totally underfunded. It has undergone a huge reduction in funding and there will be more reductions in the spending review. The Minister let the cat out of the bag when she said that we will have to take difficult choices. As far as the Conservative party is concerned, that means taking money away. Wait until next week and see what the reduction in the spending review will be.

[Andy Slaughter]

We all noticed that the Minister did not deny that £700 million might be withheld from TfL, but it is also the case that in any of the proposed developments in zone 1 or 2, about which the sponsor of the Bill talked, TfL has no intention of providing any affordable housing at all.

[Ian Lavery]

Again, that is extremely concerning. I am not from the area, but I am sure that such cases have been experienced many times in many constituencies in the city. If any of my hon. Friends wanted to give any examples, I would be interested. The House should be prepared to listen to past experiences and to what has happened, as that is what we are likely to see if clause 5 is agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Are not people right to be jaundiced? They are sick to death of austerity. When the Government close fire stations, police stations, public buildings and public toilets, they always give the excuse that it will result in a better service for the public purse, and on every occasion the opposite is the case. That is why we need to ensure that this issue is discussed and that the people involved—not just the politicians, TfL and the developers, but everybody—understand what is likely to happen if the Bill is passed.

There have been many arguments about this issue. It has been suggested that TfL should not be able to enter into these partnerships until it proves that it can manage them properly, and I think that is fair. Why should an organisation—a first-class organisation, as the Minister called it—that was created to look after transport infrastructure be allowed to go into property development without proper accountability? I think that is a fair and reasonable question. The Bill would give TfL more power to enter into speculative developments on the sites it owns. We have discussed whether the property prices for these developments are affordable. That needs to reflect what people in the city actually need.

There is also an argument about whether TfL should be getting involved in these limited partnerships, and whether it has the financial competence to do so, because the people it will be getting into bed with under clause 5 are no mice or shrinking violets; they will be used to delivering development projects not just in this country but around the globe, so they will be shrewd cookies. We want to ensure that, whatever happens, the people of London get the best deal.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to be very suspicious of those partners. He said that he thought it might be a slight exaggeration to say that we are dealing not only with people who might take commercial advantage, but with actual fraudsters. That is not so. In relation to the Earls Court development, TfL’s partner, Capco, went into partnership for another part of the site with the Kwok brothers, one of whom is currently serving a five-year sentence for corruption in Hong Kong. If they are the sorts of people who will be involved in the deals, frankly we should have nothing to do with them.

[Ian Lavery]

I think that it is really wise counsel to scrutinise the qualifications of the people involved with TfL, to see whether they have any nous at all with regard to this. Somebody mentioned gangsters earlier, and perhaps gangsters are getting involved in this. I am sure that more than one has ended up with a five-year prison sentence. Who knows what has been happening behind the scenes, and who knows what is likely to happen if the Bill goes ahead?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). I wonder whether he could repeat exactly what he said. [Laughter.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was taking liberties and it was said merely in jest.

In conclusion, it is widely accepted by many of the British public that Transport for London needs to be saved from itself. It faces financial challenges that we had all, in the main, hoped would be different.

[Andy Slaughter]

I know my hon. Friend is about to conclude, but Transport for London is being saved from itself by the process of scrutinising this Bill. The Minister, who has become garrulous now that she does not have to take interventions, should have added that the only reason the Secretary of State’s consent is needed on clause 5 is that that concession was achieved in the Bill Committee.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker isn’t happy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that fact. Those figures were not quite on the tip of my tongue, but it does show that the level of overseas investment in the city is pricing everybody else out, leaving the centre of the city void of community life. People are spotted around the city, but do not actually live in a community.

We are not looking at the infrastructure needed to support these developments—social areas, additional staff, schools and other facilities—because that is not part of the legislation either. One concern is this: we talk about limited partnerships being agreed, but what happens after that agreement? Plans and proposals can change. Ultimately, we could end up with a very different animal from what we started with.

[Andy Slaughter]

We know what happens, because TfL has given the game away: a 100% market housing development in zones 1 and 2. The only guard against that are councils—Labour councils, principally—insisting on affordable housing. The provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill will remove that guard. This is the dirty little deal between the Government and TfL to ensure there is no affordable housing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Talking about housing tangentially to the Bill, because it has an effect on property and the owning of land, is in order. Having a debate almost entirely about housing and the provision of social housing is not in order when discussing the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I acknowledge, as have others from both sides of the House, that TfL, like many other public bodies, is trying to deliver savings against a tough backdrop. We recognise how difficult that is at a time of deep spending cuts, and we all want TfL to be able to utilise its unused assets, but we think it should be done without damaging future transport provision and in a way that works with local communities.

The Minister delivered a eulogy on the joys of travelling in London that I am not sure all our constituents would recognise, so I make her an offer—she referred to a white van: would she like to join us on our pink bus for a tour of London so that her eyes might be opened to these very joys? [Interruption.] We’ll stick with the pink bus.

In 2013, TfL’s operational funding was slashed by a quarter, which, combined with earlier funding reductions, has required it to identify £16 billion of savings by 2021. We have asked the Government for an insight into what is going to happen next, but they are keeping shtum about next week. It is no great secret, however, that the Department for Transport’s budget is facing another deep cut—perhaps about 30%. We do not yet know what the consequences will be for TfL, but it is hard to see how they might be positive. So we appreciate the difficult background against which the Bill is being brought forward—it has been coming forward for a long time—and we understand TfL’s desire to maximise the value of its assets and to increase its revenue to reinvest in the capital’s transport network, but we are deeply concerned about some aspects of the Bill and are disappointed by the lack of progress made during the long period that has elapsed since it began its slow progress in the last Parliament.

TfL, caught, like so many bodies across the country, between a rock and a hard place, faces difficult spending decisions. With some 5,700 acres of land and more than 500 major potential development sites, it is one of the capital’s largest landowners. As we have said, Labour supports TfL earning revenue by utilising its underused facilities, but we have to be absolutely sure that such activities do not risk having an adverse impact on the current provision of transport services and, importantly, on TfL’s ability to expand transport services in the future. We do not want it rushing to sell its assets, given that we have to build a future transport system for the city. We saw the same issues in my city of Cambridge: had we rushed into the same decisions a few years ago, some of the excellent initiatives there would not have been possible because the land would have gone.

The changes must allow us to meet increasing demand. I heard your warnings, Madam Deputy Speaker, about discussing housing, but Labour Members’ points about the desperate need for affordable housing in our city are real. When we have a public landowner with so much resource, it is hardly unreasonable for us to raise these issues, and it is right that we demand a commitment to maximise affordable housing in developments in which TfL has a stake. For goodness’ sake, if TfL is not going to do it, who in this city is going to do it, if people on the public side are not going to stand up for our citizens?

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making a very considered speech. He identifies first that we expect TfL to run a proper transport system and, secondly, that if TfL as a public body is quite properly going to develop land, it must be done in the public interest. That is not what the Bill provides. Given that neither the Minister nor the sponsor was able to justify the Bill in any terms, does my hon. Friend agree that it should not be revived in this Parliament?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right that at the heart of this debate is the issue of whether public bodies exist just to make a quick buck or to act in the public interest. On the Labour side, we understand that public bodies need to exercise some responsibility in the long-term interest of our citizens.

Let me return to my point. It is TfL’s proposal to enter into limited partnerships with private companies in order to develop its land and increase revenue that is at the heart of tonight’s discussion. That is the aspect on which I shall focus most of my comments.

Let me first reflect on the controversial developments at Earls Court, to which several Members have unsurprisingly drawn our attention. It exemplifies the problems that clause 5, which would allow TfL to enter into limited partnerships, would bring about. The dismantling of Earls Court exhibition centre to make way for, exactly as we have heard, totally unaffordable flats in what some have described as London’s worst major regeneration scheme, is the result of an agreement between TfL and a private developer, Capital & Counties. Our concern is that aspects of the Bill make it more likely that TfL will use limited partnerships more extensively for more ventures, based on the model of the Earls Court development. Let us reflect for a moment on what that might mean.

Just looking at this development within the Earls Court project area, facing prospective demolition are the Gibbs Green and West Kensington housing estates, containing 760 homes. Labour Members continue to watch closely the discussions about the future between Capital & Counties and Hammersmith and Fulham council. According to the council’s own consultation in 2012, a huge majority—80%—of residents oppose demolition. Hammersmith and Fulham’s Labour leader Stephen Cowan has described the scheme for the redevelopment of the estates, which was agreed by the predecessor Conservative administration, as

“a bad deal for residents”—

and it seems that the residents agree.

The issue goes beyond housing. Just a few weeks ago, the 1,300 tonnes roof of Earls Court exhibition centre was removed and there have been justifiable fears about asbestos exposure and worsening air quality in the area as a result. The consequent health impact of the proposed demolition on nearby residents is clearly a cause for concern. Let us be clear: we want improvement and regeneration, but with the consent of local people, not at their expense and not while private property developers obstinately stick their fingers in their ears and wilfully ignore local objections.

[Andy Slaughter]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the issue of Earls Court. I have the fortune to have both the Earls Court development site and the Old Oak site—the two sites most mentioned today—in my constituency. What is being proposed by TfL and Network Rail amounts to a terrible deal for residents, but also for TfL itself. Despite being the freeholder of the land in Earls Court, it is ending up with a 37% stake—evidence that TfL does not do good deals and that the developer always wins.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point that a number of other Members have made: we are not convinced that TfL gets good deals, so why should we make it easier for it to make even less good deals in the future? We worry about that.

Our fear is that the really contentious clause 5 will make it still harder for local people to have influence over major decisions that affect their community. Our view is that regeneration is much better done from the bottom-up, with the assent of those who will be most directly affected—not top-down. Given that the land has already been sold off, the Earls Court development seems to be a bit of a done deal. What we seek to prevent are further lopsided private-public agreements that steamroll over neighbourhoods in the name of regeneration. We understand that TfL wants greater commercial freedoms, but those freedoms cannot come at the cost of denying a voice to ordinary people in London.

The core of the issue is the imprecise nature of the limited partnership itself. A partnership of that kind is not a distinct legal entity, and a lack of clarity surrounds the roles that would be played by each party in the partnership, where responsibility and accountability would lie, and who would really benefit most, the private developer or the public. We are advised that a limited partnership is able to change its general partner, but the partnership agreement would be unlikely to be made public, and its terms would not be open to public scrutiny. To be in the public body interest, genuine partnerships need far more transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, unless it is agreed for a fixed term, a limited partnership will be at will. A limited partnership at will may be dissolved on notice by a general partner, but, unless the agreement provides otherwise, not by a limited partner, which TfL is likely to be. Limited partnerships clearly vest a large amount of risk in their ventures, and we do not believe that these issues have been properly addressed. There is a real danger that TfL would be taking very large risks—indeed, unlimited risks. We do not think that it has considered carefully enough the long-term impacts of introducing powers to enter into such partnerships. For those reasons, we are cautious about the potential precedent, and we believe that the Government should also assess very carefully the appropriateness of other public transport authorities’ entering into limited partnerships.

Some of my hon. Friends have made powerful points. Much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—who is no longer in the Chamber—hit the nail on the head. She was particularly critical about the prospect of a partnership’s changing at some future stage. It was telling that, when she challenged Conservative Members to explain how the process might work, they looked thoroughly uncomfortable and were unable to provide any reassurance.

I think that what my hon. Friend said about the price of a flat being £826,000 was one of the most telling comments that we have heard tonight. It told us so much about the current crisis. I feel deeply about that crisis, being an almost outer-outer London Member. Cambridge, which I represent, reflects all the attributes of the London housing market nowadays. [Interruption.] These are serious issues. Conservative Members are chuntering away as though it did not matter that people cannot afford to live in our great cities, but it does matter. The point that we are making is that if public bodies like TfL do not take this seriously, we are not relying on anyone else to do it.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am glad that we have clarified the purpose of this debate. When we debated AP2, some of us believed that we were to consider the detail of the proposals, but no detail was available. I understand from the Minister’s letter of 8 September that this is simply a permissive motion to allow debate in the Bill Committee, and that there will be an opportunity to challenge matters there.

We were promised an environmental statement to deal with matters of detail, but I am afraid that the statement on AP2 did not exactly do that. It was written in a peculiarly liturgical style that was highly repetitious and confusing, and did not clarify matters. It took several meetings and correspondence with HS2—HS2 now responds promptly and with courtesy, although it did not use to—before such clarification was possible. Where significant proposals affect the route, I ask that the technical details be expressed as clearly as possible so that we and our constituents can understand them.

I will not pass judgment on the Euston scheme or vote against the motion, but I will raise some notes of caution. This is not the first significant change to the proposals for Euston, but it is a significant change. When I put it to HS2 that seven extra years will be required to complete the scheme, it said that a long time had been allowed for the rebuilding of Reading station, but that was completed 18 months early. All that says to me is that these time frames are notional, and for the building and rebuilding of the station we are looking to 2033—a very long time.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) asked why this change is happening. It is happening because it is potentially better, or less disruptive, for existing users of Euston station. However, it will undoubtedly be worse for my hon. and learned Friend’s constituents and others who have to navigate their way around the Euston area.

Who is in charge of these projects and who will ensure that they function properly? Euston and Old Oak, which is in my constituency, are by far the two biggest projects within this huge project. Euston will have 22 platforms, 11 of them new, and Old Oak will have at least 14 new platforms, including Crossrail and the Great Western main line, not to mention overground and underground services. These are massive and complex schemes that will take place in very built-up areas. We should all pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) for fighting her corner and to other Members with rural seats, but the compensation on offer and the regard that is had to urban areas is clearly less than is the case elsewhere. That is as true of my constituency as it is of Camden, but there are differences. Fewer residents will be affected, I am pleased to say, around Old Oak than around Euston, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) has said—if they will be affected, they will be mightily affected and for many years.

I suspect, however, that the Euston scheme will receive more scrutiny because it is a landmark site in the centre of London. In Old Oak, we are in danger of getting second best, such as a sort of industrial warehouse environment rather than something more prestigious—although having seen the design for the entrance to Euston, I have to say that it looks like the entrance to Le Grand Macabre: I am not sure that the designers have got it quite right yet.

I urge the Government to turn their mind to the operational and logistical configuration at Euston and Old Oak. The rumour is that the two will be joined together and the mayoral development corporation will be extended to include Euston. That is not a sensible idea. I did not think that the mayoral development corporation was a sensible idea for Old Oak, which involves three boroughs—albeit three boroughs that are co-operating very closely. I doubt that the London borough of Camden will wish to have all its planning and regeneration powers seized by the Mayor, whoever that is, although I am sure that it will want to co-operate—as we do—with the Greater London Authority. The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation is now a statutory body with statutory powers that was set up by this House, whereas Euston has an area planning board, which is not a statutory body and effectively relies on the good will of the co-operating parties.

At least three issues need to be addressed. The first is the competing interests of the locality and the national interest in an important national scheme—which I support. The second is ensuring that the planning and regeneration powers—and the conflicts of interest in bodies that have both at their disposition—are dealt with transparently and accountably. The third is the competent management of the scheme. I agree with what the leader of Camden council said about insufficient integration between what Network Rail is doing with the existing station and what HS2 intends to do. Exactly the same could be said about the integration of Crossrail and HS2 at Old Oak. We have to get this right in the economic interests of regenerating the area, in the national interests of ensuring that the country can be proud of these projects, and in the interests of local people living in the area. That is simply not happening at the moment.

I shall finish with an anecdote about my meeting yesterday with my clinical commissioning group. Hon. Members may wonder what that has to do with this issue, but it was part of my continuing campaign to persuade the CCG not to close down large parts of the acute hospital services in west London. I pointed to Old Oak and said, “Well, here are 24,000 new homes and there are 50,000 being built locally. How are you going to deal with that with much less provision?” “Oh don’t worry,” they said, “we have been assured”—I am sure the same is exactly true for Euston as well—“that these will just be occupied by young professional people of working age and they won’t really need health services in the way that other people do.” I wish somebody had told me that. Who is taking these decisions? Who, in smoke-filled rooms—probably not smoke-filled rooms in the health service these days—is making decisions about major infrastructure projects, looking decades or more ahead, without democratic input, without the input of local residents and businesses, and without the proper scrutiny of us in this House and of local authorities?

Davies Commission Report

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I referenced those two airports in my statement, but others are trying to get the advantage that they see the United Kingdom has. We must ensure that they do not get that advantage.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and Sir Howard can go on all they like about mitigating the effects of a third runway at Heathrow, but for hundreds of thousands of Londoners it just means more noise, pollution and congestion. What is the Secretary of State’s message for them, and will he answer, as he has not so far, the question about what the Prime Minister meant when he said that a third runway at Heathrow was not going ahead, no ifs, no buts?

[Mr McLoughlin]

He was talking about the proposal at the time, which the hon. Gentleman supported—

[Andy Slaughter]

indicated dissent.

[Mr McLoughlin]

Perhaps he was not a Member, but his party supported that proposal in government. We asked Sir Howard to consider and address some of these issues, which is what he has done. Some of the changes that he would make as far as the noise and the levy on passengers are concerned are very important. As I say, the report has three options and we are considering all three.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No. 3)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

They will have no effect at all on the journey times. This is about delivering the project by and large as planned. HS2 is more about capacity than it is about journey times. This is about addressing the real capacity issues that we have on our rail network, particularly between Birmingham and London.

The most significant other change concerns the Heathrow Express depot. It is currently located at Old Oak Common, but it needs to be relocated in order to construct the new Old Oak Common station. It was originally intended to be moved to another site nearby, but more detailed operational work undertaken by Network Rail since the Bill’s deposit has revealed that that site would not work operationally. We therefore propose to relocate the depot to a site in Langley, near Slough.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the Minister shed more light on his statement that this “would not work operationally”? What I have heard on the grapevine, which has been my only source of information, is that there is more potential to make money out of the Old Oak site than out of the Langley site, and so Network Rail wants a depot out and more commercial development in.

[Mr Goodwill]

We looked closely at the North Pole depot site, but the Langley site is operationally more effective, and it also means that we would not block any proposal that might come forward for the Great Western line to connect with Crossrail at terminal 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I support HS2 and the potential for jobs, homes and regeneration in the Old Oak Common area in my constituency. I even appreciate some of the difficulties that everyone, from the Minister down, has with this scheme—not least because Old Oak itself must be one of the most complex as well as the largest development sites in London, and possibly in the country. It involves not only HS2, but Crossrail, Overground, the Great Western main line and, of course, the commercial and residential developments. The Minister will anticipate a “but” coming here.

The first I knew of some of these proposals was when I picked up the additional provision document yesterday, certainly in respect of the relocation of the Heathrow Express depot to Langley. That does not feature. Perhaps it is thought that it is more significant for my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), where it is going, rather than for me, from where it is being removed. Nevertheless, these are—as acknowledged by HS2 itself—significant changes. Indeed, I received an email today from HS2, saying:

“I understand there is a motion tabled for debate tomorrow on changes along the proposed HS2 route, including some substantial changes to the Old Oak Common area.”

It went on to mention

“three turnback sidings for the Crossrail service and passive provision for a West Coast Main Line Crossrail link”,

which I shall return to in a moment. It referred to the need to acquire additional land

“for the diversion of a sewer…for the construction of a temporary logistics tunnel…for…a construction compound…for…a conveyer route”,

and, as an afterthought, to the relocation of the depot. There is a public meeting on Saturday, which I cannot attend, advertised to my constituents, but no mention is made of some of these changes taking place.

It is right to say that some prior notice of the west coast main line-Crossrail link was given. HS2 was very clear to me that this was not an HS2 project, but a Crossrail project. Crossrail was very clear to me that it was not really part of the Crossrail scheme either. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said, it is a temporary measure to deal with the construction phase. It must be the most expensive “diversion” ever in the history of the country. I am not quite sure exactly how many millions of pounds it is costing. It may be a nice adornment to the railway network, but nothing more than that. During the construction and when it is built, it is certainly going to cause very severe disruption.

As I say, I do not object to the proposals, and I am sympathetic to the difficulties of the logistics of the task, but I do find that HS2 acts in a vacuum and often in a way that does not appear to take account of anything else going on around it—and that includes other railways. I am pleased to have one of the country’s major interchanges in my constituency, but the way things are going at the moment, it is going to be a dog’s breakfast of an interchange. I missed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough, but I suspect she asked why she was getting the depot rather than it being in Shepherd’s Bush. I suspect that the real answer—the Minister cites purely logistical reasons—is that it is better to put it somewhere where prices are probably a little cheaper than in Shepherd’s Bush.

[Mr Goodwill]

rose—

[Andy Slaughter]

I will give way to the Minister in a moment. There will be room for more of “Boris’s mini-Manhattans”, which is what we will be graced with: these sky-high blocks of flats—all of which are empty, all of which are sold overseas and all of which are safe deposit boxes for dirty money from abroad—that will loom over Wormwood Scrubs for the foreseeable future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think the Minister needs to come in on this.

[Mr Goodwill]

I wish that that were the cheapest option. We considered a number of options including North Pole East, the Crossrail depot, Reading, Southall, Ealing and Langley. Langley was the best option, as all the others involved operational issues, but it was certainly not the cheapest .

[Andy Slaughter]

I realise that the Minister is reading from his brief, and that he cannot be expected to know every single detail of all the immaculate plans that are in the document. However, those who are in the middle of this—and a very large part of my constituency is being developed: it is the largest development site in London—are genuinely worried. I plead with the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Government, and to appoint a tsar, a sultan or whatever the title of such a person might be, to oversee what is happening at Old Oak Common, because otherwise we shall end up with a terrible, terrible mess.

[Mrs Gillan]

Obviously the hon. Gentleman and I do not see entirely eye to eye on this project. However, he may agree with me that it is time for the Department for Transport to sit down, have a look at the administration of HS2 Ltd, and come up with a proper communication strategy that keeps all of us informed, whether we are pro or anti. We need accurate and detailed information to be provided on a timely basis.

[Andy Slaughter]

I agree with the right hon. Lady, who is assiduous in her pursuit of this issue. I think that, in time, HS2 Ltd may even thank her for that. There is nothing better than a well-informed critic to keep people on their toes. I am even sympathetic towards HS2 Ltd. I know that the Government are saying, “Make sure that you keep within budget and keep to time, because any further increase in the costs will not be sustainable.” However, HS2 must be clear about the fact that it is not just building a 21st-century railway, but engaging some of the major regeneration projects in the country. It needs to think about the potential for collateral damage, and I am not referring just to the obvious problems.

Members have rightly objected, on behalf of their constituents, to the fact that the development is despoiling countryside, or causing noise or other pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) intervened on behalf of her constituents in Wells House Road and Midland Terrace, who are right up against it. I visited the area, which is in my old constituency, with other members of the Select Committee. My hon. Friend’s constituents will be surrounded on three sides by the development for 15 to 20 years, which is horrific, while on the fourth side the main road, Old Oak Common Lane, will be closed for a year or two. That does not bear thinking about, and I am afraid that it either has not been thought about, or has been thought about and then dismissed and put in the “too difficult” box.

The issue that I raised in a short 80-minute speech in Westminster Hall at the end of last year, when I spoke about the effect on my constituency—particularly the environmental effect, and notably the effect on Wormwood Scrubs, a unique and very large piece of open land—has still not been addressed. I do not believe that the meetings that we were told would take place with amenity groups, environmental groups, residents’ groups and, indeed, transport groups have indeed taken place. I do not believe that the voice of local residents is being listened to. Those residents may be speaking in an entirely parochial way—quite properly—about their property or land and their need for adequate compensation, which we in the urban areas are certainly not receiving. They may be speaking for the wider public good and the environment, or coming up with innovative and better transport schemes. In any event, I plead with the Minister to go back to HS2 and say that it must take a more responsible attitude. It must balance its duty to build the railway, which I support, with its duty to the constituencies through which is passes.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I was shocked, but not surprised, to hear what was said by the Bill’s sponsor, which was symptomatic of the arrogance that TfL has shown towards the House. The Bill’s progress began in the other place on 29 November 2010. I think that the summary dismissal of every single one of the amendments is symptomatic of not only TfL’s attitude but the faults in the Bill, which is why I have added my name to a number of the amendments.

[John McDonnell]

I will not labour the point. Let me now deal with the amendments. I shall begin by outlining the general justification for the group, and will then deal with them individually.

This group of amendments was prompted by the raising of a number of issues on Second Reading, in the Opposed Private Bill Committee and in the other place. None of those issues seems to have been taken on board bar one, and that only because the Committee forced it on the promoter after its consideration of the representation of petitioners who included members of community organisations, a member of the Greater London authority and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. I am sure that he will pay tribute to the objectors, who painstakingly gave their time in several meetings that I attended with representatives of TfL, and who were given the same short shrift that my hon. Friend is being given today. Two of them are constituents of mine, and they have become experts on this subject. They have been entirely reasonable throughout the process, but they have been treated with a large degree of disregard. Had it not been for the Bill Committee, we would not have secured even the concession to which my hon. Friend has referred.

[John McDonnell]

I do indeed pay tribute to the petitioners. The amendments that are in my name and those of others—and those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), which I support—arise from the views expressed by the petitioners on particular issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

That is a valid point, which I will try to address when we turn to the specific amendments. I thought there were issues on which we could have had compromise; the main thrust of the first group of amendments is to secure openness, transparency and, most importantly, a consultative decision-making process. I have sat down with each of the petitioners. The whole point of these amendments is the need for consultative engagement by TfL and its subsidiaries when dealing with sites in their areas.

[Mr Slaughter]

May I, too, add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field)? I do not think anyone objects to sustainable responsible development by TfL, but this Bill permits not that type of development, but the type that I have seen in my constituency—irresponsible development that is in hock to developers and that, to use the parallel with the Heathrow proposal, can lead to huge damage to communities: 750 homes would be destroyed in my constituency as part of the Earls Court development, similar to the number in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as a consequence of the third runway.

[John McDonnell]

That is it exactly. That is what new clause 1 seeks to address to a certain extent, as I will come on to. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has got a valid point, however, in mentioning concerns about antipathy to investment in London and that we need a balance in terms of non-London infrastructure investment and infrastructure investment in London. However, I do not think that this Bill solves that—in fact, I do not think it even addresses it. It makes matters worse.

The prime principle behind this group of amendments is accountability. Why are those key elements of openness, transparency, a consultative decision-making process and accountability so important to the petitioners who have come to us and so important to our constituents who have raised these matters with us—the genesis of these amendments? It is because the Bill extends the power of TfL—and, via TfL, the Mayor of London’s power—to use an immense range and quantity of assets.

Members may wish to correct me on this, but when we last asked how many sites could be identified as being such assets, I think the figure I was told was about 3,000 sites in the ownership or control of TfL. As a result of this legislation, those sites could be used for the placement of charges and mortgages to guarantee indemnity, and therefore for borrowing to raise funds.

We will come to the other issue to arise from these amendments largely in the second block of amendments, but it relates to the first block as well. It is the concern about the vehicles that will be used, or which are proposed in this legislation. It is why new clause 1 is so crucial to the way forward. There are concerns about the range of vehicles, from the limited partnerships, which I think are the most worrying vehicle, as identified in the evidence to the Opposed Private Bill Committee, to the limited liability partnerships.

What we have in the Bill, and what this group of amendments addresses, is potentially the largest use for generations of public assets in the capital to raise funds. It amounts to an immense mortgaging of London’s future, but also, more dangerously, as has been put to us in discussion after discussion with the regional petitioners, it opens up what one has described as a speculators’ bonanza in our capital city. New clause 1 would address that to some extent, as would the other amendments.

The Bill puts at risk the finances of Transport for London, as well as its operations and its supply of transport services to London, including the tubes, the buses and even, I have to say, the Boris bikes. In the event of the catastrophic failure of some of what can only be described as the Mayor of London’s escapades, the burden would fall on London fare payers, London council tax payers, London business rate payers and, eventually, the general taxpayer. That is the risk behind this Bill if it goes through unamended tonight, and this group of new clauses and amendments has been tabled to ensure that we have a proper debate. I hope that the Bill will not go through unamended, but if it does, the new clauses and amendments will at least form the agenda for a dialogue between our communities and their elected representatives and Transport for London.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The Bill as currently drafted will be bad for the fare payer, and for the taxpayer in general, but it is also likely to be bad for those who work for Transport for London and for the communities in which the developments are likely to take place. This extraordinary cocktail of poor ideas is being pushed through, and I am not surprised to hear him say that it is being done in an atmosphere of secrecy.

[John McDonnell]

I come at this objectively, without any party political motivation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow East and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will remember when the last Government imposed the public-private partnership on London, the GLA and the then Mayor. At that point, a few of us in this House warned that it would put at risk the future of London Transport if it was forced on it, and it nearly did. This Bill has the same dangerous implications. I remember the debates on the PPP, and I think I was the first Member of Parliament to raise those concerns in the House. I urged new Labour, as it then was, to pull back. The then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, sought to ensure that the PPP would not be imposed. I have tabled new clause 1 to try to ensure that we do not go down the same route.

Members will remember that the scale of the PPP extended to £3 billion. That was the extent of the bail-out as a result of that poor legislation being imposed on the then Mayor of London against his wishes and, I believe, against the wishes of the GLA on a cross-party basis. We subsequently discovered that the cost of the imposition of that £3 billion was £400 million in accountancy and consultancy fees alone. That money was wasted, and it was an absolute scandal. The Bill that we are discussing tonight will have the same implications if we cannot amend it. I do not say this with any arrogance, but those of us who opposed the PPP were proved absolutely right, and I believe that we will be proved right about this Bill if it is allowed to go through unamended.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend does not need to speculate—if I may use that word—about the outcome of this Bill. He has already been proved right by the scheme that is the begetter of the Bill, the Earls Court and West Kensington scheme. It is demonstrably a terrible deal for the taxpayer and the fare payer, yet it is being used as the basis for institutionalising that type of development in legislation.

[John McDonnell]

I agree. It was with some sadness that I listened to the representations of the opponents of the Bill when they presented their petitions to the Opposed Private Bill Committee and, more importantly, when they held an open meeting in this House to explain the consequences of the scheme for their homes, their businesses and their environment. It was a scandal. The problem is exactly as has been described, which is why new clause 1 is so crucial and why we have tabled amendments to the scheme. As Transport for London said in its letter to the general secretary of the RMT, Mick Cash, if this legislation had been in place this vehicle would have been used for that scheme. This vehicle, under this legislation, would have been more precarious than even the existing arrangements under the Earls Court scheme.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It has not stopped TfL selling a majority interest in the site for a minority stake; and it has not stopped TfL going into a partnership where the fare payer takes all the risks and the developer takes none, and the developer is indeed represented by a £2 company that, for tax-avoidance reasons, is domiciled in Jersey. But at least we know some of the facts of that case. The deal before us is the type that TfL wishes to make the norm, rather than the exception, and wishes to hide from public scrutiny.

[John McDonnell]

I absolutely concur, and I do not need to labour the point. All I can say to the hon. Member for Harrow East, with whom we have worked over the years on a range of issues in the interests of London, is that if this Bill goes through without my new clause 1 and the subsequent set of amendments, it will make the PPP look like an accounting blip. The Bill is extremely dangerous.

In addition to the financial risks involved in what some have described as a speculator’s charter, we face another potential loss. The mortgaging and development of sites could, in some cases, result in a loss of assets, particularly the land sites essential or invaluable to the future development of the improvement of London’s transport network and services.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Let me abide by parliamentary convention, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand the point being made, but if someone is to be referred to in the House, it is best to inform them in advance. Let us abide by that convention tonight. I wish to make it very clear that I am not intervening in the mayoral elections, full stop, other than to pass a few comments on issues such as the one before us.

Let me get back to the amendments and the new clause. I want to emphasise not just the financial risk but the potential loss of sites for the use of our future transport system. That is one of the main points made in the RMT’s representation to the Opposed Private Bill Committee.

[Mr Slaughter]

These are highly technical matters. My hon. Friend has a record of getting his head round such matters, and we have had excellent briefing from the RMT and support from the petitioners in this. I am not surprised that other Members are not on top of the matter. In all fairness to those who could not be present today, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), we should not pick on individual Members. However, I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is holding back on his endorsement of a mayoral candidate—I am sure that all the candidates are waiting for it with bated breath.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I think that some Members will be surprised that such a list has not already been published. This is a public authority. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend has often had occasion to wonder who owns particular pieces of land. That may be for any reason to do with public nuisance, neglect, development or other matters. Should TfL not be publishing a full list of its assets, including operational and non-operational assets, whether or not they are ready for development?

[John McDonnell]

Somewhere deep in the heart of TfL’s offices, there will be a list. It is not a list that has been published in this form. Individual community groups, passenger groups and trade unions have been pressing for a clear list showing TfL’s intentions for those sites.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

That is a valid point, but I do not want in any way to insinuate anything about the intentions of the Mayor of London, TfL and so on. Our fear is about the unintended consequences. The fear that I and some others expressed on Second Reading concerned the inability in some instances—this might have happened with Earls Court—of Transport for London officers and those directing them to negotiate effectively with people who are ruthless in the development of sites and the maximisation of their profits from those sites. That brings me back to new clause 1.

I want Transport for London to be completely open and transparent and publish a list of the properties and assets it holds and that its subsidiaries hold which it considers eligible for future development, banding them by value so that we can assess the individual values of the properties and the potential borrowing against them. The new clause requires TfL to undertake this exercise every year, because the intentions of TfL and the Mayor will change. It is therefore important that the asset list is updated as well as the list of plans associated with those assets.

Each year, the new clause will insist that Transport for London must inform Londoners of the non-operational assets it holds as well as those that are under consideration for development in which action leading to development is under way or planned in the next 12 months. Part of the problem arising from Earls Court and some of the other discussions is that some people did not even know who owned some of the site and the Mayor and Transport for London were never completely open about their intentions. The new clause will ensure that we know who owns the sites and what sites TfL has, and will also ensure that TfL comes clean about what it intends to do with those sites, whether it be development with a partner, selling the site off or using it to borrow money, as specified under the Bill, to indemnify itself against costs.

[Mr Slaughter]

The new clause is extremely sensible, for the reasons that have been set out. It may well also assist TfL as I suspect that, despite my hon. Friend’s confidence, TfL probably does not know where some of its assets are. In my experience, it certainly does not know their value, and that is the cause of mistakes in how it disposes of property. Notwithstanding the fact that I have put my name to the new clause, I would quarrel with the reference to commencement within the next 12 months. In some instances—I shall expand on this point if I have the opportunity to do so—development is planned and proposed but for operational or other reasons the plans are made several years ahead.

[John McDonnell]

Okay, let us have that argument. The reason I specified 12 months is that I think it is a realistic timetable for concretising the plans that TfL and the Mayor have for a site, so that they are more focused on being absolutely clear about what is imminent. I agree that it would be good to have a longer-term plan, but I think that 12 months is more realistic, given that the Mayor has a five-year period in office.

[Mr Slaughter]

I understand what my hon. Friend says, but the example I was thinking of is Lillie Bridge depot, which is the third element of the Earls Court site. At the moment we are being told that development might happen in five or six years’ time, but I fear that in the interim—it is not only a major employment site for skilled labour, but a manufacturing site and a key site for TfL—it is being run down or that other changes are being made that will make unsuitable development a fait accompli.

[John McDonnell]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I am trying to be as realistic as possible about the burdens we place on Transport for London and the Mayor. I say to the hon. Member for Harrow East that it is worth looking at the Lillie Bridge site, and speaking with some of the workers there, to see how it is being degraded over time, which I think is with a view to selling it off and bartering with a developer.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Credibility is sinking in this House. I will not rise to that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hope that the Bill does not go through tonight, so that we can address the amendments we have tabled. That will give us the opportunity to look at the new clause and see—let me put it this way, in order to be helpful—whether we can ensure that information is provided by Transport for London and the Mayor on both a short-term assessment of the use of a planned asset or site and a medium-term option within at least the lifetime of a mayoralty. I think that might be a useful compromise—I do not want to be accused of going soft on these issues. I raise that point with the hon. Member for Harrow East because I think it is important.

The purpose of clauses 4, 5 and 6, we are told by the Bill’s promoters, is to enable the Mayor and Transport for London to enter into deals with private sector partners. These are development companies, and the aim is to develop TfL’s or its subsidiaries’ sites to secure a revenue stream to compensate for the 25% cut in Government grant to Transport for London and eventually for the complete loss of all central Government grant. How do we know that? It was raised on Second Reading and we sought confirmation from the Minister, who said:

“The outcome of the 2013 spending review was a 25% cut in TfL’s operational funding from central Government, and we have been clear that the Government’s aim is to reduce TfL’s operational funding over time to zero.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 853.]

So the purpose behind the Bill is to ensure that TfL raises another income stream to compensate for the Government’s cut in grant.

We need to examine the scale of the grant cut, which will be reflected in the potential scale of the use of the asset base. That is another reason why it is crucial that we get a definition and a list of TfL’s asset base on a value banded basis, as set out in new clause 1. I worry about the scale of income that TfL is looking to deliver from its asset base in proportion to the loss of grant.

[Mr Slaughter]

I have no objection to TfL developing its non-operational land or retaining a stake in that land and deriving an income from it. What I object to—I think my hon. Friend agrees with me on this point—is the vehicles that TfL is using for doing that, and the underlying secrecy and inconsistency. Having set that out as a policy, in cases where it suits TfL—I am thinking of another site in my constituency, Shepherd’s Bush market—it simply threw up its hands and said, “We’re going to sell the asset anyway.”

[John McDonnell]

I disagree. I agree about the importance of new clause 1 requiring a list of assets, but I inserted the identification of their value by band because I am worried about the scale of the overall risk if, for example, as in the Bill, all or any of these assets can be used against borrowing—can be charged or mortgaged to secure borrowing. The scale of that risk is enormous. If we look at the scale of the loss of grant, which is the funding gap that Transport for London and the Mayor are trying to deal with, that will give us an idea of the scale of the use of TfL’s assets for borrowing purposes and development deal purposes, and the risk that Londoners could then face. It is enormous.

I have looked at Transport for London’s annual report and accounts. They are not easy reading. For 2013 the total amount of grant aid from central Government, excluding Crossrail, for general and capital grants was £3.2 billion. On page 140 of the annual report and accounts for 2013-14, table 9 shows the entitlement of grant income which identifies the non-ring-fenced grant from the Department for Transport to Transport for London, which is £632.8 million. Non-ring-fenced grant to fund capital from the Department for Transport is £1,578.4 million. So when the Minister talks about reducing the Department for Transport grant to Transport for London to zero, the magnitude of the sum that the Mayor and Transport for London want to raise from these deals with private developers or to borrow against these assets becomes clear. It is staggering. It is enormous—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the issue that his new clause seeks to address, which is that, frightened by the idea that it will lose substantial amounts of grant, TfL is rushing into deals to try to maximise its income. At the Earls Court exhibition centre site, all that will be built is luxury housing, with no affordable housing. At the Shepherd’s Bush market site, the market will be lost and luxury flats will be built. The one redeeming factor—that TfL might raise some money—is mitigated by the fact that it is entering into terrible deals. It ruins the communities where it develops and does not benefit the fare payer in the way that it intends.

[John McDonnell]

I agree.

The purpose of the new clause is to provide a list of assets and the intentions, or ambitions, that the Mayor has for the development of those assets to secure additional income. Another reason for the requirement to publish such a prospective asset development list is to ensure that these potential development sites are known to all interested parties. It has emerged in the discussions so far—Earls Court is the best example, but there may be others—that unless there is an open and transparent process and lists of available assets are produced, the information becomes almost private and there is an arrangement with an individual developer rather than a proper open, competitive process whereby others can make proposals for the site. In addition, unless there is clarity about the sites that TfL has and its intentions for them, local authorities, for example, are prevented from coming forward with their views about how they could work together with TfL on using the sites for the better development of the whole community as well as transport.

[Mr Slaughter]

That is exactly so. I wonder whether, in drafting new clause 1, my hon. Friend intended—I think he has now explained that he did—to address these other evils: first, with all the sites we have mentioned, a deal is made with a single developer, without advertisement or competition, so we have no idea whether the market has been tested; and secondly, the developer then enters into a deal, usually a master-plan agreement, that then dictates to the local planning authorities how the land should be developed. That is exactly the wrong way in which local development plans should work.

[John McDonnell]

That sort of process is a scandal, to be frank. We would not tolerate it in other public bodies, and I do not understand why we are allowing it to happen with TfL.

The whole purpose of having the lists proposed in new clause 1 is to make sure that the information is genuinely public. At the moment, even some of the people living on these sites are unaware of TfL’s ambitions. They were certainly not consulted about, or, at some stages, even aware of, the Earls Court development. I want to ensure that those who live on or have businesses on the sites or near them and the London boroughs and the communities in which they are located are fully aware of, fully conversant with, and fully informed about TfL’s asset base and its intentions for the assets within their area. If an asset is listed by TfL publishing information in this way, those stakeholders, including TfL’s employees and subsidiaries, will have at least an early warning of the development prospects of the site or asset in question.

This is one of the critical issues raised at the Opposed Bill Committee hearing on Tuesday 13 January 2015. I refer in particular to the evidence provided by Greater London Assembly member, Mr Murad Qureshi, on the basis of whose statements I tried to draft the new clause. Paragraph 115 of his evidence contains a startling example of the lack of information being provided by TfL. He said that his concerns about the whole Bill, particularly clause 5, relate to TfL’s transparency as a public body. Further on in his evidence, it emerged that the GLA had had to go through a freedom of information process to obtain information about TfL’s land holdings. It cannot be right that a public, democratically elected body has had to go through that process. In paragraph 116, he cited the Earls Court development as a perfect example of a TfL asset being developed with a lack of transparency on its decision making. In paragraph 122, he said that, to gain information on TfL’s planned investment programme, the GLA’s budget and performance committee—not individual members but a committee—was forced to make a freedom of information request. In paragraph 241, he sums up the fears that GLA members have about the secrecy and lack of transparency of TfL’s activities. Throughout the evidence session, petitioners gave examples of the difficulties they faced in securing any information about the plans that TfL and the Mayor had for the development and use of TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets. That was raised continually.

The new clause would ensure that at least one report is published that brings together all the information to which Londoners, London boroughs, the City of London corporation—if we have not abolished it by then—passenger groups and TfL’s own employees can refer when they want to know what assets TfL and its subsidiaries hold, but more importantly, what plans TfL and its subsidiaries, and therefore the Mayor, have for the development or use of these assets. This is a simple exercise in openness and transparency, and I cannot see why anyone, least of all TfL and its subsidiaries and the Mayor, would object to it.

[Mr Slaughter]

I think that people would be shocked to find that the GLA has had to use quasi-legal processes to obtain information from TfL. There is nothing new about TfL being a secretive body. I remember dealing with it 30 years ago over the appalling development of Hammersmith centre. I hoped that the GLA and the Mayor would provide some democratic accountability in that regard, but my hon. Friend’s example shows that that is clearly not happening. It is therefore all the more necessary that we put into statute the responsibility that TfL should have.

[John McDonnell]

As I said, this is a simple exercise; it is not difficult to do. In fact, most local authorities regularly undertake an asset base review that is published, and will often be translated into a link with their planning policies as well, so that people can know about these sites.

The new clause was drafted in the context of the deep suspicion that has arisen about the Mayor’s and TfL’s intentions with regard to linking up with private developers on grandiose development schemes that could curtail or impede the use of TfL’s land holdings and other assets for the long-term improvements of London’s transport network. Londoners, especially London’s elected representatives on the GLA and the London boroughs, have expressed their concerns about whether the rush to use TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets to bridge the current projected funding gap is overriding sound investment and operational judgments—indeed, at times, common sense—in relation to the use of those assets.

On Second Reading, hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed concern about TfL’s capacity to negotiate these schemes. At the evidence session on 13 January, people questioned whether TfL and its subsidiaries and the Mayor have the expertise to exercise sound judgments in the necessary negotiations with developers and development partners to determine what use an asset will be put to. They queried what ratio of benefit will be allocated to TfL and its subsidiaries, as against the benefit derived by the private sector partner, and what value for money TfL, and therefore London council tax payers and fare payers, will achieve in these deals.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point, which was also raised on Second Reading by myself, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and others. We keep coming back to the Earls Court site, but it is a £12 billion development—the largest in London—and TfL jobs, affordable homes and one of London’s premier exhibition centres are being lost to provide, in effect, safe-deposit flats that probably no one will live in. TfL’s judgment has to be seriously brought into question even before we turn to the finances.

[John McDonnell]

New clause 1 will inform all stakeholders and interested parties that an asset held by TfL is being considered for use in a development deal and that action is under way or being planned over the next 12 months to use it in some way. That information will trigger the interest of stakeholders and enable them to gear up for discussions and consultations with TfL about the development and use of that asset. If the new clause is agreed to, no more would we see communities and local authorities shocked and surprised to find, late in the day and contrary to their wishes, that a site in their area has been included in a development deal with a private development company.

The proposal for the publication of a list of TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets and a statement of TfL’s intentions for them also goes to the heart of the concern of many hon. Members and others in relation to clauses 4 and 5. They are anxious about the Mayor’s ambition to use the vast range and magnitude of TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets to secure borrowing, which we will come to in the second group of amendments. There is concern that TfL’s standing could be put in serious jeopardy.

This is simply about ensuring that people are properly informed about the intentions, so that they can calculate the risk involved. The proposed report would be an invaluable tool in enabling all stakeholders to hold TfL and the Mayor to account if they launch a new venture as part of large-scale property development deals. Hon. Members should not underestimate TfL’s massive asset base—it has 3,000 properties across London—and in particular the assets located in central London. Those historic inherited sites are located in the most lucrative parts of the city, which private developers have an interest in developing. In fact, it is widely known in property circles that property developers from across the world are desperate to engage in dialogue with TfL on the prospect of gaining access to those sites and, to be frank, of running rings around TfL and the Mayor and walking away with massive profits.

There is a risk in so many TfL sites and assets coming into the market as part of such development deals. A report requiring TfL to identify the value of the assets, in bands, and its plans for the asset sites over the next 12 months would at least result in a proper assessment taking place. The report would shed critical light on both the quantum and the timing of the potential risk to TfL, Londoners, passengers, employees and council tax payers. That is why new clause 1 is so fundamental to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

On the agreement entered into on the Earls Court exhibition centre, the publication of such a list might reveal that, on Earls Court 1, which is the largest piece of land, the developer held a relatively short lease on the property and the freehold and the reversion remained with TfL. However, TfL has a 37% stake in that joint venture company, which means that it has a minority of votes on the board. Effectively, it has surrendered all decision making on the site to the developer, but, should the developer of this £2 company go bust, the taxpayer would be left with the liability.

[John McDonnell]

I would hope that a publication in which TfL indicated its plans for specific sites would include information about which companies and corporations it is dealing with as partners. On the Earls Court development, there are real concerns that TfL has got into bed with a company that is based in a tax haven, and I believe that some directors of individual companies have been prosecuted. That allegation has been made before on the Floor of the House and I think it is accurate.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before you make your next intervention, Mr Slaughter, do you think you could make them a bit shorter? They are getting very long. It is obviously short-hand intervention except when it is a Slaughter intervention. Please be brief.

[Mr Slaughter]

Shorter, not Slaughter—I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply want to say, for the avoidance of doubt, that it is true that some of the partner organisations involved in the Earls Court development have been convicted of fraud, but not on the TfL-owned land and not including Capco, which is the major developer. It has many faults, but that is not one of them.

[John McDonnell]

In developments of TfL assets, it is important to have full transparency on the relationship with individual companies. I say that in the light of the report published last week, which stated:

“Hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of UK properties held in secretive offshore companies have been used to launder the proceeds of international corruption”.

That has been identified by Scotland Yard. The report went on:

“The scale of the problem has been revealed by Transparency International on Wednesday, with the anti-corruption campaign group warning that the UK has become ‘a safe haven for corrupt capital stolen from around the world’.”

It is absolutely critical to ensure openness and transparency on the proposals for individual sites to guard against TfL and others entering into relationships with companies and corporations that we do not consider appropriate.

I now turn to new clause 2, which is another attempt to safeguard the assets with regard to landholdings that may be required for the development of the transport network in London. In its submission to Members of the House, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has publicly made a point with which I fully concur. Its briefing quite clearly sets out the anxiety about the loss of potential sites, saying that new clause 2 will therefore ensure that when TfL or any subsidiary seeks to lease or develop such sites, there is full consultation with the local communities likely to be affected, the Greater London Authority, London boroughs, the City of London and relevant trade unions. That consultation has to take place before Transport for London or any subsidiary enters into a contract involving the development of land other than for the provision or maintenance of transport services.

[Mr Slaughter]

I fully support new clause 2 and, indeed, all the amendments tabled in my hon. Friend’s name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I fear that this is my last intervention. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will think it no discourtesy to the House if I say that an unbreakable constituency commitment means that I am unable to participate further in the debate or to join my hon. Friends in the Lobby. Nevertheless, I put on the record my great concerns about the Bill. I hope that it will be fully debated tonight, and that it will not pass in its current form, because that would do a serious injustice not only to my constituents, but to all Londoners.

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interventions.