Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

The short answer to the hon. Lady’s intervention is: once bitten, twice shy. I think that most of us in this House—certainly those of us who have served for a certain time—feel that we were bitten by the enthusiasm of successive Governments for the private finance initiative and the public-private partnership. We were told that they were new ways of financing our public services and public infrastructure and that they could only be good news for everybody. I speak as a member of the Conservative party, which promoted PFI, but what a disaster some of those PFI projects have turned out to be, largely because people thought they could get something for nothing and that, instead of saving on revenue expenditure, they could start borrowing and use rather obscure vehicles and arrangements to do so. Then, however, after reading the small print, we found out that, instead of being transferred, the risk—that was the principle the Treasury kept talking about in relation to PFI: it said it was not possible to have PFI unless there was a transfer of risk—had actually been retained.

As a London Member, the hon. Lady will be all too well aware of the problems in London associated with PFI/PPP projects in the health service, which have been a disaster in many respects. The people or the patients whom we should have helped are finding that the services they want are not now as good as they would like because of the costs of those projects, which in some cases continue to be a millstone around the necks of quite a lot of hospital trusts.

I have answered the hon. Lady by referring to a different sphere, but as soon as people start talking about new practices and methods, as the Minister did when he began his remarks about how the Bill will release a lot of revenue and capital, we need to be suspicious. At the end of the day, the only way to get better quality transport in London is by investing in it, which means using money from fare payers or taxpayers, or encouraging Transport for London to reduce its costs and find alternative revenue streams. Of course, one way would be to sell off surplus assets, and we should use the provisions of the Bill to encourage that, rather than to discourage it.

I do not know about the situation in Earls Court exhibition centre. I have no specialised knowledge about it, and I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who represents the Hammersmith and Fulham interest in it. As a result of the last London borough elections, the issue of political risk has once again raised its head. The people engaged in that project thought that the council was benignly supportive of their proposal, but now that there has been a change of council, the new democratically elected council has said that it wants to revisit it all. I do not know the extent to which the council can do that, or whether the contract was already a done deal.

[Mr Andy Slaughter]

(Lab) (Hammersmith): I have resisted intervening because I want to get my full whack of time, but I have to come in on that point. There was always going to be a political risk in relation to that massive site—it covers two boroughs, with the mayoralty and various other interests, such as that of TfL—because it was a 20-year project. TfL signed up to a 20-year project, and tied its hands. It, above all people with political masters, should have known that that was the case.

[Mr Chope]

That is fascinating. I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. When there is talk about reducing risks—the statement from the promoters states that the Bill will reduce risk and the costs of interest—we need to look at such assertions with quite a lot of scepticism.

To finish my point about TfL as the freeholder of Earls Court exhibition centre, let me ask why it is still the freeholder: why does TfL need to own Earls Court exhibition centre, and why does TfL not sell it? I do not know whether it could sell it to Hammersmith and Fulham council. In my view, TfL’s core business should not be to own an exhibition centre. If that had been the situation in my days in Wandsworth, we would very much have regarded it as one of those things to sell and get rid off to benefit local taxpayers, on the basis that if a freehold asset is sold, the receipts from it can be utilised immediately for the vendor’s top priorities. If TfL did not own the freehold of Earls Court exhibition centre, would it think of buying it? That is the sort of question that should be asked by those people who become star-struck by the idea that they are charged with developing some great property.

There has always been a glamour associated with owning assets. Municipalisation, whether of race courses or arts and entertainment centres, was often associated with the desire of the mayor and councillors to be able to get free tickets and hospitality by using what they saw as their role in looking after those important assets. My philosophical view is that they should never have had those assets in the first place. They should have sold them off and then enjoyed going out, paying for a drink themselves and saying, “Great. We’ve reduced the size of the local state and its apparatchiks in our area.” I am suspicious and sceptical about all of this. There are some fine people working for TfL, but if they think that they have skills that can be deployed in the property sector, they should go and get a job in the property sector.

I am particularly concerned about clause 4, which is the first clause of substance in the Bill. It proposes that what TfL cannot do itself should be allowed to be done by its subsidiaries. Members often speak of their concern about Henry VIII clauses, and this clause is the private Bill equivalent. It would allow TfL to set up subsidiaries at its own behest without any accountability, and those subsidiaries could then be used to do what TfL itself is not allowed to do. Why are we countenancing that? Why should the original safeguards, which were written into primary legislation—section 164(a) of the 1999 Act—be removed? My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that if one had to go to the Public Works Loan Board or get bonds, one would have to pay higher interest rates than those one could get using these new subsidiaries as vehicles, but I think that is an unproven assertion. Let us consider other ways in which those things could be done.

Clause 5 would extend the power to invest in subsidiary companies to include limited partnership vehicles of one sort or another. Why are we doing that? Surely it would be much more transparent for TfL to set up a limited company that is properly accountable and then ensure that it produces accounts so that people can keep an eye on what it is doing. As soon as we get into the murky waters of partnerships and deal making that is not subject to public scrutiny, the people are not well served. It might be that among the well-paid employees of TfL there is a group of people who are much better than the directors of British Land at making deals to enhance the value of land in their ownership, but I somehow doubt it. Rather than encouraging TfL to aspire to set up subsidiaries that are like British Land, we should say that if it wants to set up subsidiaries, they should be proper companies that, as under the existing law, are subject to limited liability and open to public scrutiny.

We know that when we allow public organisations effectively to engage in devices to get themselves out of a short or longer term financial fix, it often results in tears. I remember when Hammersmith and Fulham was mortgaging all its lamp standards. It sold them—was it to a Japanese bank? I cannot remember—and it then leased them back because it obviously needed to have lamp standards. Those were the early days of what one might describe as a sort of barmy behaviour by Labour councils—that was one of the things that ultimately contributed to Hammersmith and Fulham becoming a Conservative-controlled authority.

There are examples of councils selling their assets then leasing them back and paying a lot more for them in the long term, but in the short term it looks good on the accounts. The council has a capital receipt from the sale of the asset, although local taxpayers will have to pay for the next 50 years for the consequences. That was at a time when the Department of the Environment, as it was then, made clear to the banks that we would not guarantee those assets. The banks thought, “Fantastic. We will buy all these lamp standards from Hammersmith and Fulham, and because we are buying them from Hammersmith and Fulham, if there are any difficulties, the money it owes us will be guaranteed by the Government.” The Department had to make clear to those foreign banks that if Hammersmith and Fulham, or any other council, defaulted on its obligations, the Government were not going to stand behind it.

I fear that some of the same thinking is creeping into this Bill, which is that in order to get over the problem of the £4 billion shortfall we should allow the proliferation of these vehicles. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out, if one couples clause 4 with the schedule, the mind boggles at all the things that could be charged by a TfL subsidiary without the consent of the Secretary of State—always remembering, of course, that under its existing powers TfL is not allowed to subject those things to a charge. If that measure were to go through unamended, it would create the potential for enormous mischief not just to London taxpayers, but to people who use TfL facilities. If Transport for London gets strapped for cash, it will have to put up its fares, reduce staffing or whatever, so the situation would not be without consequences.

I have a number of concerns about the Bill and I hope that some of them can be ironed out during the opposed Bill Committee. Underlying them all is the fact that I think it would be better if Transport for London concentrated on its core business and sought more equity investment—in other words, shareholder investment. Why does Transport for London not set up a subsidiary company, as it can do at the moment, and say, “We are going to sell shares in this limited company to the people of London”? Why not sell shares to users of Transport for London services? Why does it not raise that sort of money and, for good measure, say, “As an incentive, we will throw the assets of the Earls Court exhibition centre into the subsidiary company”? People who enjoy going to exhibitions at Earls Court could buy into that subsidiary company and perhaps get discounted entry prices, or whatever.

There is a lack of imagination in some of this, possibly because this process has been dragged out for so long that people have got into a tramline way of looking at it. Why do we not think more radically? Why do we need to be stuck with TfL, however good it is, and the same structure? Why do we not allow British taxpayers and property owners to buy shares in TfL, instead of using this sort of device, which will probably give the benefits to sovereign wealth funds, foreign banks, Russian oligarchs and whoever? They will be benefiting at the expense of the people of London. As somebody who was born in London, has spent a lot of time in London and had the privilege of leading a London council, I have the interests of the people of London at heart.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for their excellent contributions, not least because they will allow me to be more succinct.

I was impressed by the knowledge of the hon. Member for Christchurch of landownership in west London. I do not have the same knowledge about Christchurch. Without wishing to go off on a tangent, however, I must say that his knowledge of politics in west London is not so good. Though other councils did, I do not think that Hammersmith and Fulham council ever engaged in the selling off and buying back of lamp posts. It indulged in capital market swaps, which is perhaps more historically famous, but that began under a Conservative council, as I know because I was chair of finance and was involved in unravelling all that, and we were granted, as a privilege for doing so, 15 years of glorious rule thereafter. He has conflated political events, therefore, but I forgive him because his summation of the arguments against the Bill was so good.

I would be interested in this Bill in any event, being a London MP and given the many concerns, which I will not repeat, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the hon. Member for Christchurch, who from their different political perspectives have put their finger on the issues at stake, but I have an additional and perhaps more specific—some might say parochial—interest. I can demonstrate that the origin of the proposals lie in the Earls Court-West Kensington development in west London and might well end there, unless things happen.

I shall say more about that development in a moment, but first I want to resolve the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about, “Hasn’t the Earls Court deal already been done?”. Yes, part of the deal—concerning the exhibition centres—has been done, to the extent that the partnership agreement has been entered into, but the other major part of the site, also owned by TfL, the Lillie Bridge depot, is a minimum of five or six years down the line.

In any event, what happened at Earls Court is highly relevant to the Bill, and had the developer not pushed to get on with the proposals and had TfL not delayed the Bill, I suspect that the original idea would have been exactly the sort of vehicle envisaged in clause 5 and that the clause would have been used for the first part of the scheme.

[John McDonnell]

For the record, I can confirm that point. On 6 May, TfL and Sir Peter Hendy CBE wrote to the RMT that TfL

“may only use a company limited by shares as the joint venture vehicle”.

So that facility is open to it. He wrote:

“The new powers will be of most relevance to joint ventures with the private sector involving property development”,

and he

“anticipated that any such projects will be done using a partnership structure. Indeed, the choice of joint venture vehicle for the Earls Court development would have been different if TfL had the powers it is now seeking.”

[Mr Slaughter]

I am juggling a lot of papers here, so I am most grateful that my hon. Friend had that letter to hand to confirm the point.

It is important to note the ideas and the opportunity that came out of the Earls Court scheme. Let us be clear that this scheme is the Tennessee Valley authority in all of this: it is not just a scheme; it is a magic scheme—an £8 billion development and currently the largest site under planning development in London. It will remain so until the High Speed 2 site, also in my borough, comes along.

As to the history, it has been pointed out that the legislation for the scheme was presented to Parliament on 29 November 2010. It had an uneventful Second Reading on 13 December 2011, largely because it was below the radar for many people. Before I come on to the current petitioners, I must thank the then petitioner Mark Ballaam on behalf of the West London Line group, which is a fantastic organisation. It would be absolutely wrong to call it an amateur group. It had such a degree of professional expertise that it became the de facto guardian of the railway system in west London, doing a huge amount to promote it.

The group spotted what TfL was up to and got its petition in. Were it not for that group, I am not sure whether we would ever have got the first major concession. The Bill came before the Unopposed Bill Committee of the House of Lords, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has mentioned. It is peculiar when we go back and look at these documents: there had to be a corrected transcript because the first entry in Hansard showed that there was no debate or discussion at all. In fact, we have quoted from the quite substantive debate that took place.

There is a slight confusion because the clause numbers have changed. What was discussed in the earlier debate as clause 5 is now clause 4. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington rightly pointed out, what appeared to be a major concession was not quite such a concession because of the schedule that lists all the circumstances under which TfL can continue to dispose of land.

It was said to the Chair of that Lords Committee:

“My Lord, I would mention that following discussions with DfT, TfL has proposed certain amendments to Clause 5”—

now clause 4—

“which are contained in the filled-up Bill before the Committee today, and those amendments provide that TfL subsidiaries may not grant security without the consent of the Secretary of State, other than in respect of those matters that are specified in a new schedule proposed to be included in the Bill.”

Yes, there was a concession, but it might have been more apparent than real. It was to deal effectively with the objections at that stage in January this year. The issue limped on until it arrived here, with no urgency or hurry at all as far as I can see—until very recently when things take on a frenetic aspect.

With the petitioners, I have had three lengthy meetings with TfL, the last of which was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington last Friday. That is good; I am glad that it is prepared to put in that time. It is an important Bill to TfL and it has been courteous throughout the process. That is true, but it concerns me that, having allowed things to drift for four years, it has now taken on this extraordinary degree of urgency. Similarly, it concerned me when the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that we should support the Bill because it would make public-private partnerships run rather more smoothly. I do not think we want anything like PPP to be run more smoothly. There are lessons for us to learn that we do not want to be repeated in the context of this Bill.

Yesterday, the letter arrived, as has been said, following the Friday meeting. It said:

“We have considered the comments made at the meeting regarding clause 5 and the concerns expressed and, consequently, TfL intends to propose an amendment to clause 5. The amendment will insert a new sub-clause in clause 5 which will provide that TfL must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent to form, promote or assist a limited partnership when the purpose for it doing so is to carry on the development of land otherwise than for the purposes of TfL’s functions.”

Well, so be it. That is another attempt to deal with the objections that have been received in an emollient way, albeit at the eleventh hour. The concession has been made, and it is right that it should have been made, just as it was right that it should have been made in relation to what is now clause 4. However, it misses the point of our objection—at least, my objection, and what I understand to be the objection of the petitioners—which is that we do not think that this is the right approach for TfL to take. The fact that there will be a check is helpful, but we would prefer the clause not to be included in the Bill at all.

[John McDonnell]

During the meeting that my hon. Friend and I attended on Friday, one of the points raised—and it has been raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—concerned not the principle of limited partnership, but the need to establish some sense of the scale of these operations. In July, my hon. Friend had a meeting with a Mr Graeme Craig of Transport for London, during which Mr Craig said that TfL had 5,700 acres of land across London, and approximately 800 archways. There was a list of schemes involving South Kensington, Baker Street, Old Street, Oxford Circus, Victoria, Golders Green and Northwood stations. Whether we look at the schedule, which relates to charges against land, or whether we look at clause 5, which provides for developments by a limited partnership, we are talking about a huge property portfolio for potential development with the private sector.

[Mr Slaughter]

Absolutely. I do not know whether I am right in suggesting that Earls Court was the fons et origo of that, but in any event the potential for it across London is huge. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Christchurch pointed out, the potential for it to go wrong is huge, and I think that that is what is going to happen.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for complimenting me earlier on what I had had to say. May I ask whether he thinks that TfL should sell off many of these surplus assets, rather than risking the setting up of vehicles for their development?

[Mr Slaughter]

I am coming to that point. I have given the House the benefit of what could be described as my knowledge of how things have progressed so far and what concessions have been made, but it is clear that clause 5 is intended to enable such vehicles to be set up, along with deals with pension funds and development partners for the management of secondary incomes to create income streams.

Obviously—this brings me back to the point that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington was making—if TfL manages its property portfolio in the best interests of the farepayer with the aim of keeping fares down and, indeed, reducing them, I do not object to its finding ways of establishing the best return on assets, provided that those ways are legitimate and sound. In some cases, that might involve not selling an asset and investing the money at what would possibly be a low rate of return, but embarking on some form of joint venture. However, let me now deal with the rest of what I am against. I promise that, before I finish, I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about whether sales per se are simply a better option, and whether we trust them.

There is a sense in which I would say yes to that. I do not want to be rude to TfL’s management, because I think that many of them are very good at what they do, particularly on the technical side. On the whole, however, they are no match for the major property developers of London. I am afraid that the same could be said about local authority regeneration and planning officers. Property developers see them coming and fleece them for everything they have, which is very unfortunate. It is particularly unfortunate because it is our money. What is presented in the first instance as a way of maximising return for the farepayer ends up with the poor old farepayer— and the taxpayer—picking up the major share of the bill. I think that when I say a little about Earls Court the House will understand exactly what I mean, because that is the best example.

It surprised me to learn that, unlike local authorities and other public bodies, TfL does not have a duty of best value under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. It says that it still tries to obtain best value for a site—presumably from a commercial point of view as much as for any other reason—but for a public body such as TfL this is a balancing exercise.

Of course we want TfL to maximise the return on its assets in the interests of its core business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, but we also want it, as a public body under democratic control, to behave responsibly in environmental, social and economic terms. I fear that we are getting the worst of both worlds. We are getting poor-quality development, poor-quality decision making and poor-quality financial return. Therefore, the point about TfL’s area of competence is a serious one. I do not make it as a debating point to have a go at TfL. I wish it every success. But I have seen the evidence with my own eyes over many years.

Another reservation is to do with the collateral effects. Again, I will be brief on those, because they have been dealt with. According to the committee minutes, there will be some tax benefits in avoiding stamp duty, at least for TfL—it is a moot point whether we think that is a good thing to do or not—but when the benefits of avoiding tax go to the partner, that is a concern. As is the case with the Earls Court partner, major multinational property companies are avoiding paying UK tax by being registered in Jersey. TfL is facilitating that. That is plain wrong. A lack of transparency comes from the limited partnership model, rather than the limited liability partnership model. That is also plain wrong.

I also think, to put it crudely, that TfL is getting into bed with some dodgy characters. If they are not dodgy characters, then the people those people are getting into bed with are certainly dodgy. Capco, developers of Earls Court, has a partnership with the Kwok brothers, who are on trial for fraud in Hong Kong. When I put it to TfL last Friday that it should not be in that company, it said, “We have no association with the Kwoks”, but they signed a section 106 agreement for the site they were developing.

Let me give this example because it makes the point. The Earls Court area is subject to a masterplan. That was devised by Capco and everyone fell into line: the Mayor of London fell into line, as did TfL and the two Conservative-controlled boroughs. Therefore, we had the obscenity of a planning framework being designed around a planning application and of allowing a developer to act as predator on almost 80 acres of prime land in central London without any competition. The developer dictated its terms over a period of years, feeling that it had such pliant partners that it could do whatever it had to do.

As the hon. Member for Christchurch, who is long in the tooth and rather shrewder than a lot of politicians, said, that may work for a year or two or even five, but it will not work for longer than that and sooner or later there will be a change of regime in Hammersmith and Fulham and the apple cart will be upset. Possibly, in a year and a half, there will be a change of control at city hall and these schemes will still be in their infancy. Yet TfL has signed up to that masterplan, which I can evidence is not just a terrible scheme for the whole of west London but a terrible financial deal for the public sector partners.

All that land is being lost. Those premier exhibition centres in London contribute 16% of exhibition space in the UK and 30% of exhibition space in London. We will lose over 750 good-quality affordable homes, which will be demolished to make way for unaffordable homes. We will also lose the main engineering and maintenance depot for TfL and even TfL admits it does not know how it will cope without it. The first I heard about the move to Acton was when the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned it today. It may have been a surprise to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray). It was certainly a surprise to me.

At the Friday meeting and previously, I was told by TfL that there were no plans, and that the operational decisions had not been taken and probably would not be taken until 2020. However, it is a question not only of manufacture and maintenance but of the stabling of the trains. At the moment, TfL says that they have nowhere else to go. Therefore, we have a peculiar situation in which TfL has signed and voluntarily bound itself up to that masterplan, a terrible financial plan, a terrible social deal for my constituents and a terrible deal for the economic life of west London even though it is not in a position to deliver on it and does not look as if it ever will be. I cannot believe that by 2020 there will not have been some change in political control that would rule that out entirely. That is what I mean by the naivety, for want of a better word, in the way it has operated these schemes.

We have some of the players from the earlier debate here. The Minister and the shadow Minister and myself are present, and I wish we still had my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), because we had a very similar debate about the plans for HS2. As was largely not the case with Old Oak Common but is largely the case with King’s Cross, they involved going into an area that was already populated and already had housing that people wanted to live in and jobs that people wanted to do, and they were sold on the belief that it was a good commercial deal for the owner of that site. In my view it is simply unacceptable for that to happen. It is unacceptable that there should be that loss of homes—affordable, good-quality homes that people have occupied for 40 or 50 years—and their being demolished simply to hand over a site.

Yes, TfL got a terrible deal, but Hammersmith and Fulham council got an extraordinarily negligent deal that has to be investigated. It sold 23 acres of prime residential land for a net sum of £50 million, except within that £50 million it has to pay for the relocation and the purchase of the properties on that land, and with every month that property prices rise, that net sum is decreasing. Hammersmith and Fulham council—under its new Labour ownership, but gifted by its previous Conservative administration—could end up actually owing money for having given away 23 acres of prime land and having to displace 2,000 people who did not want to be displaced. That is what is happening in west London at the moment but it is on the basis of that strategy and plan that TfL wants to go forward with this kind of proposal. Can you wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not terribly happy by it pursuing this course of action?

[Mr Chope]

What the hon. Gentleman has said is fascinating. Does he accept that what he has just described is available to us because of the transparency of the existing arrangements? However, if this Bill goes through, it may not be so easy in the future to be able to describe exactly what happens because there will not be that transparency.

[Mr Slaughter]

I have to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although it has not been that transparent: it has taken rather a lot of work, over the last six of seven years and I am probably prematurely grey as a consequence. It has been like getting blood out of a stone, and so much work has been done, not primarily by me, but by the residents, the RMT, and people like my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the petitioners. They have worked day and night on this and have harried these people who are so irresponsible with the public assets that they hold—all public land at Earls Court, all being squandered and given away to developers, for losses of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds.

[John McDonnell]

The greyness becomes my hon. Friend, by the way, but on the point he is making, the issue is that a limited liability company will lodge its accounts at Companies House, whereas a limited partnership has no responsibility to do that, so even then there will be complete opaqueness about the financial transactions of that limited partnership.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

I was going to talk more about the formal instrument, but we have heard quite a lot about that already and I hope we will have more time to look at it in Committee. I also hope that if this Bill does go ahead we will at least remove this pernicious clause 5.

Before concluding, however, I must make two final points. The first is that I must pay tribute to the petitioners. Richard Osband has been quoted at length and he is an absolute star. He is a constituent of mine and he was a property developer. He bought a house on the west Kensington estate, a large council estate in my constituency, because he liked the area and he wanted to live there, and he is utterly affronted by the fact that he is being forced out of his home—that, with the connivance of public authorities, his home is being compulsorily purchased and he is being chucked out of it in order to do this terrible deal. I must also mention Joss Bell and Anabela Hardwick. Anabela is also a constituent of mine and Joss is an environmental campaigner, and they are also petitioners, and the next stage with this will involve their formidable talents being ranged against TfL.

I shall end my speech in a moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington is waiting patiently to speak, but I want to make one more point about the sale of land. Until recently, TfL owned Shepherd’s Bush market. Indeed, I think it still owns part of the freehold. The market is not only an iconic London market but a massively important asset to my constituents. It sells relatively low-priced and incredibly varied produce, with a wider range of ethnic produce than almost any other market in London. It is highly successful. The only thing that makes it less successful is the fact that its landlord, TfL, has failed to maintain it. Every stall is let, and it is very popular, but what has TfL done? Rather than take the revenue stream, it has sold it to facilitate the demise and destruction of the market and the building of 200 luxury flats on the site. I am pleased to say, however, that with the help of local residents and shopkeepers, the new Hammersmith and Fulham council is endeavouring to prevent that from happening.

How contradictory is that? Is this new policy of setting up these wonderful joint ventures instead of selling off sites, as we have seen in Earls Court, going to spread across London? It is a policy that TfL appears to have no control over but every liability for. The partnership in Earls Court is with a £2 company with no covenant strength based in Jersey. If things go wrong and the project goes belly up, that company could be dissolved and the parent company, Capco, which has all the assets, could simply walk away. Who would be left to pick up the tab? It would be TfL. In the meantime, however, it has sold off substantial assets—namely, the freehold of its property in Earls Court—for a 37% stake. In my view, the way in which TfL negotiated that deal is almost criminal, yet we are being asked to give it more powers to do more of the same. That is absolutely not on. In Shepherd’s Bush, TfL had an income stream from a successful market that needed just a little investment, but for political reasons, it sold the development to facilitate another developer making a mint out of it.

I put it to the hon. Member for Christchurch that TfL gets it wrong every time, whether it is selling property or entering into a deal. It needs rather more financial rigour and better financial officers. It also needs to be less ambitious about being a property developer and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, more ambitious when it comes to managing our money and providing reliable bus and tube services. If TfL focused a little more on that, rather than on spending four years getting this needless Bill through, we would have a better transport system in London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

I will come on to deal with political direction later. The point I make is that on the long-term strategic development of transport in London the key elements in the current TfL management have an exemplary record, be it under a Mayor for whom I did not vote or under a Mayor for whom I did vote twice. It is a little unfair to accuse them of not having any long-term strategic vision. A lot of what has been spoken about by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Hammersmith, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is the consequence not of malign forces within TfL’s management, but an overheated property market in London, predatory developments and a climate of tax avoidance generally among multinationals. The House must address such things. We need changes in planning law; enhancement of local authority powers; and fiscal measures to deal with issues relating to the overheated property market in London and some of the consequences.

[Mr Slaughter]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Abbott]

I will not, because I am mindful of the time and I believe there is a wish to close this debate at 7.15 pm.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, much of what is happening is due to financial pressures from the Government—they would say that they are obliged to do this. It is important not to confuse TfL, which was named throughout this debate, with the Mayor of London. It is not my role to stand up to defend him, but I would want to defend the long-term, responsible, strategic approach taken by the management of TfL.

There is no question that there is a danger that TfL may be dazzled by the glories of the property world. I was looking on TfL’s website at what it says about itself and property development. It states:

“Transport for London is a brand that is recognised around the world and owns great properties in prime locations. Our unique selling point is the:

Location of our assets

Impressive property space”

and so on. Clearly, it sounds like people who are perhaps overly dazzled by the notion of being property developers, but I remind the House that it is not a question of TfL buying and selling property just to make a profit; TfL, in the course of its activity, has acquired assets that could be developed, be it airspace above tube stations, bus stations, disused depots, archways, surplus London underground land or large-scale transport projects. It is not as if TfL has been wilfully engaged in property development; it has these assets, which in some cases have transpired because of changes in the nature of public transport and in technical aspects relating to transport, and clearly it wants to do the best with them. I do not think TfL has any aspirations to be a property developer.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

It’s a laugh a minute today. The net saving is of course welcome. Will the Minister also tell us, when he responds to the debate, when we can expect the first report on HS2’s initial expenditure, under the terms of the preparation Act?

There are two motions before us today: the carry-over motion and the instruction motion to the Select Committee. The hybrid Bill is reckoned to be the longest piece of legislation ever produced, once the environmental statement is included. When the new documents published today are included, it will have broken its own record. It is therefore right that the provisions for the electronic depositing of Bill documents should continue, although there should also continue to be a number of specified sites where residents can consult physical copies.

The instruction motion requires the Committee to consider a number of alterations to the route, which take the form of additional provisions. The additional provisions published by the Department cover a range of recommendations, from the location of balancing ponds and the preservation of public rights of way to the maintenance of golf course car parks. They mainly affect the constituencies of Government Members and I shall do my best to finish my speech in a timely fashion, because I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak.

It must be noted, however, that these provisions cover the end of phase 1 in Lichfield and Birmingham Curzon Street to Hillingdon, but no further. I am mindful of the many contributions made in the House by London colleagues, especially those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who I note is in his place today. It is vital that, when future additional provisions are brought forward, those areas should be given at least equal consideration to the local authorities affected by the proposals.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

As a London MP who is majorly affected by HS2, I echo what my hon. Friend has just said. I wish that the Minister had mentioned London in his speech. I know that it is not the subject of the motions, but will he look again at the subject of the compensation for London being adequate and commensurate with that being given to the rest of the country? I have just had details of a brand-new part of the rail link dumped on me today, as an afterthought, in the form of a letter. If there are to be significant changes, proper notice must be given to Members of Parliament and residents, and a full consultation must be carried out. That is not happening at the moment.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend speaks on behalf of his constituents, who will be particularly affected by the proposals for Old Oak Common.

In the area around Euston station in particular, considerable uncertainty has been caused by revisions to the designs for HS2’s London terminus. Three times now, alternative plans for Euston have been presented. Local residents deserve better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

The right hon. Lady’s point simply emphasises how the detail is important. With Euston, however, it is not a matter of detail. The current proposal that the House voted through has been abandoned. In fact, it was abandoned before the House voted it through. The situation is utterly crazy. The proposition included in the Bill was basically to build a rather elegant lean-to engine shed at the west side of the existing Euston station, so most of the concern and the emphasis and the source of petitions have been from people, homes and businesses to the west of the station. The proposition now is to abandon that and demolish the whole of the existing Euston station, which will clearly take longer and extend the impact. More time will be required because of the increase in scale and the impact on businesses and people living to the east of the station will massively increase.

[Mr Slaughter]

I share my right hon. Friend’s pain about the shifting sands. The letter to which I referred earlier, which I received today, invites me to a meeting this Sunday at which I will have

“an opportunity to learn more about a possible new rail link that has been proposed and how it might affect you. The new line would connect the planned HS2 and Crossrail interchange station at Old Oak Common with the West Coast Main Line.”

That might be very desirable—in fact, I thought it was happening already—but it suddenly introduces a new railway line that skirts around a few streets on the edge of my constituency. The picture changes every day, the consultation becomes redundant and we move to another phase.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

We are investing in the new intercity express programme, or IEP, trains, which is a massive upgrade of the railway network serving my hon. Friend’s constituency and region, and in this spending round we will be electrifying more than 800 miles of line throughout the country, which will benefit the northern hub, which I have just talked about.

I thank the Commercial Secretary for his work in leading the growth taskforce, developing proposals for maximising the benefits of HS2, alongside senior industrialists, senior trade union leaders and city leaders. That task matters because designing and planning work on the project is already under way and construction is set to begin in 2017, just three years away. Firms throughout the country are bidding for contracts, and places from Penzance to Edinburgh can benefit. Engineering students, currently sitting in classrooms in our towns and cities, will be the ones shaping and delivering the scheme, and pupils who are today in secondary school will be using it.

I come now to the content of the Bill. Put simply, Parliament is being asked to grant planning permission and the other powers needed for the first phase. A number of motions have been laid to facilitate the Bill’s passage, most of which will be debated tomorrow. Tonight the House is being asked to vote on the principle of the Bill: that there should be a high-speed railway between Euston and a junction with the west coast main line at Handsacre. The railway should include a spur to Birmingham Curzon Street and intermediate stations at Birmingham Interchange and Old Oak Common. If agreed tonight, this means it cannot be re-aligned or extended as part of the Bill. The proposed link to High Speed 1 will be removed from the Bill. It is not part of the principle of the Bill; instead, we are working on proposals to improve connections between the rail network and HS1.

Of course, projects of this size do not come without negative impacts. Rather than shy away from the challenges, however, we have been transparent. Parliament, as the decision maker, has a duty to ensure that the Government have met their legal obligations. We have carried out the largest environmental impact assessment of a major project ever undertaken in the UK. We have considered the alternatives, invited the views of the public and presented an environmental statement to Parliament alongside deposit of the Bill. We have observed all the European requirements, taking measures to protect species, to avoid harming special areas of conservation and to comply with the water framework directive. It is, however, not only about meeting our obligations, but about ensuring that we carefully balance the scheme’s progress with its impact. It is right that those directly affected by the scheme will have the opportunity to be heard by the Select Committee.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Nearly all those who support the scheme are pleased that the route in the Bill, which the Secretary of State has just outlined, has substantive support across the House. There is, however, one exception. Given that the London chamber of commerce and industry has said that it is unlikely that Heathrow will close in the foreseeable future, why can the Secretary of State not be clear about what link there will be to the airport?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not want to pre-empt the review of the Davies commission, which is doing excellent work, but there is no doubt that Old Oak Common will serve Heathrow as far as Crossrail is concerned.

Our proposals strike the right balance. More than half the route is in tunnels or cuttings and more than two thirds of the line’s surface sections will be insulated by cuttings and landscaping. No grade I listed building is affected and only some 100 homes will be demolished in the nearly 100 miles of the rural part of phase 1. The line is designed to be secure against flooding. Indeed, it is notable that while weather affected many rail lines this winter, the HS1 line in Kent ran as normal.

We have also consulted and changed. There will be a longer tunnel at Northolt, a new tunnel at Bromford and a bypass at Stoke Mandeville. We have worked hard on state-of-the-art noise mitigation, but if more can be done by spending the budget better, I will ensure that that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill, as I welcomed Lord Adonis’s announcement some years ago that first proposed this project. It is a shame that the Government have taken four years to bring it forward, but in the spirit of consensus among the majority of Members from all the major parties, I say that it is good that we have agreement on the route. I am particularly pleased that we are settled on the major interchange being at Old Oak in my constituency, which means that not only HS2 but Crossrail and interchanges with the underground, the overground and the great western line will come to one of the poorest areas of London—an area much in need of regeneration.

There is one aspect which I raised with the Secretary of State earlier and which is not decided—the link to Heathrow. This is not a detail. It is a symptom of the political fix that is the Davies commission and affects not only the future of Heathrow, but the Piccadilly line upgrade, as well as one of the most congested parts of the M25 and M4, and HS2.

It threatens the integrity of the project that we cannot say that there is no threat to Heathrow as an airport. Yes, there is major disagreement—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I are at the forefront of disagreeing with the expansion of Heathrow—but there will be a major airport at Heathrow. The only person who disagrees with that is the Mayor of London, who would like to see some bloated, gated community on the site. That is fantasy. If we believe in this project and we want major infrastructure to go ahead, we should be prepared to say what the link to Heathrow will be.

I am afraid that is symptomatic of the fact that the project has not been well handled. The design of areas such as Euston and Old Oak has been appalling so far. The proposals for compensation—the weaker compensation for urban areas and businesses in urban areas—is to be deprecated. The cost of the project is a major concern, although the arrival of Sir David Higgins has improved that, and the consultation has been abysmal throughout. It is not a good way to proceed.

In the limited time available, let me concentrate on Old Oak. According to the planning document, Old Oak is 155 hectares—almost 400 acres of prime land in inner London—and it is mainly Network Rail and other publicly owned land. The area could be a major part of the regeneration of London, yet businesses large and small—such as Car Giant, a fantastic business on a 40-acre site that has grown up over 30 years, and hundreds of small businesses—are being intimidated and threatened to make them move off the site by a combination of aggressive developers and the Greater London authority and the Mayor of London.

Wormwood Scrubs, a major piece of metropolitan open land that has hitherto been protected by Act of Parliament, is threatened. That piece of land is important to the natural environment. It is not a manicured park, but that is what the developers would like. They would like it to be an adjunct, with skyscrapers, not affordable housing, overlooking the scrubs, turning it into something it was never intended to be. Organisations such as the friends of Wormwood Scrubs and many of the residents’ groups in my constituency are fighting an action against that. They will petition against it and they will have my support in that. The type of development that the Mayor of London intends, and for which I am afraid the Secretary of State has abdicated responsibility, is a mayoral development corporation along the lines of the Olympic park, which is totally unnecessary. The area should be controlled by local people.

Six months ago, I was told that there would 90,000 jobs and 19,000 new homes on the site; now I am told that there will be 24,000 new homes and 50,000 jobs. I do not have any confidence in what I am being told, but I am confident that this is another land grab. It will be another way of avoiding providing affordable housing and homes and jobs for local people in London, so that speculators and developers can make profits from that land. I urge the Secretary of State to listen to organisations such as the West London Line Group, which have huge experience in railways, particularly in west London, and have designed a much better scheme for the operation of Old Oak—not to use compulsory powers, not to take local areas out of the hands of local people, but to allow this excellent project for the UK to go ahead with the maximum possible support from everybody across the country by bringing people with it, not imposing decisions on them from outside.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I agree. I just wish we had some certainty and that certain politicians kept to their word. Who said:

“no ifs, no buts…no third runway”?

That came from the Prime Minister. He never said, “No third runway during just one Parliament.” What he said was interpreted by most of us as a permanent commitment. I agree with the right hon. Lady that we need certainty on this matter, and the one group of people who have no certainty are my constituents. I would like the Secretary of State or the Minister to explain to me what the process will be for consultation and decision making on the link with Heathrow. Will there be additional legislation? Clause 50 enables further expansion of the route to go on under a transport works order and not full legislation, so I fear that there will not be full consultation and that we will not be presented with a Bill that we can debate in this House and vote on with regard to the link to Heathrow. In that way, yet again, my constituents will be left with uncertainty. This is no way to run a railway, no way to plan a railway and certainly no way to spend £50 billion—on a project that could be going nowhere.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend mentions clause 50, but clause 47 allows the Secretary of State, willy-nilly, to take land where he sees an opportunity for regeneration or development of that land. As far as I can see, that gives him carte blanche to do whatever he feels right, whether or not that is in the interests of the railway.

[John McDonnell]

My constituents do not know the route, do not know what land is threatened and do not know what compensation they will be offered. That is not acceptable, so I would welcome at least some certainty about the process in which the Government will engage when they eventually decide on moving this issue forward with regard to HS2.

I missed the speech that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) made, but I am sure he raised some of the environmental concerns relating to the north of our borough. May I just raise one such concern, which was raised with me by Bert May, an elderly gentleman who has worked extremely hard with Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre, developing it through the Queensmead school sailing club into a sailing centre that has given thousands of young people in our area the opportunity to learn how to sail and enjoy the environment? HOAC is threatened and on behalf of Bert May, my 80-year-old constituent who has put his life into that project, I ask for some certainty about what will happen to our local area, because this affects community facilities such as that and will have a devastating effect on the livelihood, if not the well-being, of many of my constituents. That is unacceptable. Any MP facing this in their constituency would do what I am about to do, which is to vote against the Bill and to vote for the reasoned amendment. We need a reasonable approach to decision making in this House that restores some confidence that we have the capacity to take decisions on major infrastructure programmes that bring people with us rather than alienating them at each stage.

High-speed Rail

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

One of the problems at the moment is that people cannot get to the northern cities by high-speed trains, yet they can get to Europe in that way. I want the people of Birmingham and Manchester to have the same opportunities as those who wish to travel from London to Paris or London to Brussels. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to have a good link between Euston and St Pancras. Sir David says in his report, and has said to me, that that can be done at a much more efficient rate than what is currently planned under the High Speed 1-High Speed 2 link, which will now be removed from the Bill.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to the Old Oak Common interchange, but I am alarmed that they are handing control of the whole area, including Wormwood Scrubs, to the Mayor of London, with instructions that any development must exclude separate funding schemes. Some 24,000 new homes are planned for Old Oak. How will the Government ensure that some of these are affordable homes for Londoners, and not the empty luxury flats for foreign investors that the Mayor prefers?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about what the Mayor prefers. I think I am right in saying that he was one of the supporters of a Mayor for London. Perhaps he just does not like the democratic outcome and the Mayor he has today. I think the Mayor knows exactly what is needed at Old Oak Common and will act on it.

Transport Infrastructure

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The commission has looked at a number of options. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the conclusions on page 102, where it is made clear that the UK does not face an immediate capacity crisis. Sir Howard and the whole commission are clear that we need to take this decision so that we have the option of a new runway by 2030. That is exactly what we will be doing.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

For my constituents, today’s report is proof that the Heathrow lobby’s hold over the Conservative party never went away. The hands of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are all over this report. One third of those seriously affected by airport noise in Europe live around Heathrow. What is the Secretary of State offering to the 2 million people in west London other than a continued deterioration in their quality of life by the expansion of Heathrow.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that he fought the election on the basis of a manifesto saying that there would be a third runway at Heathrow airport. Before he gets on his high horse about what I am doing, perhaps he should consider what that manifesto said. As I have said, the simple fact is that we need to do everything we can to alleviate noise problems; we need to look carefully at the eventual recommendations of the final report. We do not yet have the final recommendations; the time to conduct this type of debate is when we get them.

Aviation Strategy

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I am about to address that very point. The situation could be dealt with in three ways: build an entirely new hub airport; link existing airports through high-speed rail to form a split hub; or expand one or more existing airports.

Many of the proposals for a new hub airport would locate it to the east of London in the Thames estuary area. There are significant challenges associated with building such an airport, including the difficulty of designing airspace in an already crowded environment, and the need to mitigate bird strike and to deal with environmental challenges such as future sea-level rises and the risk of flooding. Noise would also become an issue for the many people who inevitably would move into the area.

We commissioned specific research into the options and it became clear that, in addition to the factors I have mentioned, the first option would inevitably lead to the closure of Heathrow, threatening more than 100,000 jobs, which would be devastating. It would also require a significant public subsidy of up to £30 billion towards surface infrastructure and compensation for the closure of Heathrow, which would be on top of the tens of billions of pounds that it would cost to build the new airport itself.

The second option is to link existing airports through high-speed rail to form a split hub, perhaps involving Gatwick and Heathrow—Heathwick. That was rejected because of uncompetitive connection times for transferring passengers, especially compared with the transfer times of competitor hubs overseas. The third option is to expand one or more of our existing airports. We looked in detail at the possibility of expanding Gatwick and/or Stansted as alternatives to the expansion of Heathrow, but new runways alone, distributed across a number of airports, will not provide a long-term solution to the specific problem of hub capacity. We concluded that expansion of Heathrow with a third runway would be the best way forward, and that was also the solution that British business throughout the country overwhelmingly favoured.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I appreciate the work the Committee has done, but I wonder whether it has been somewhat bamboozled by the public relations operation that is Heathrow. The fact is that it has been the only game in town for a number of years. To dismiss the option of expanding other south-east airports as a split hub, rather than viewing them as a network serving the whole of the huge city of London and the south-east, is somewhat too glib.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Our report looks specifically at his suggestions, but we came to the very clear conclusion that the expansion of Heathrow was the only realistic option. We recognise that there might be a case for additional runways at Gatwick and perhaps Stansted, but that is not an alternative to additional hub capacity at Heathrow.

We acknowledged the need to address the very real environmental objections that may arise. In particular, noise in excess of 55 dB is a major problem for more than 700,000 people in the airport’s vicinity. We have suggested a number of steps that could be taken to mitigate that serious issue. Planes are getting quieter, but aircraft manufacturers must continue to develop quieter aircraft. To facilitate that, we recommend that the Government, through their involvement with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, try to influence global noise standards. Airports themselves should encourage airlines to take older, noisier aircraft out of service at the earliest opportunity, and people living under the flight path who are affected by excessive noise should be adequately compensated. We have called on the Government to develop a comprehensive, nationwide approach to noise compensation. The Civil Aviation Authority should review existing flight paths and landing approach angles to reduce noise pollution.

Local air quality is also important, and the Government should draw up plans to ensure that the EU limits on air pollutants are met. We were especially concerned about unnecessary emissions that are generated due to the stacking of aircraft over London. We recommended that NATS, the air traffic controllers, should carry out modelling work to identify the extent to which stacking might be reduced if an additional runway was built at Heathrow. Ultimately, any plans for increased aviation capacity must take account of progress on global initiatives to deal with emissions.

It is vital to remember that a hub airport is about serving the national interest, meaning that 63 million people in the UK are affected. Local problems must be addressed, but that must be done in the context of considering the needs of the UK as a whole.

Our report looked at the important role that is played by airports outside the south-east. We hope that increased capacity at Heathrow would improve connectivity to other UK regions as more slots became available. The Government should do more to reduce the barriers that are faced by airports when trying to secure new routes, such as through better marketing or the introduction of an unrestricted open skies policy outside the south-east. The introduction of an air passenger duty holiday, which we have recommended, would also encourage the development of new routes.

In the course of our inquiry, we heard numerous concerns about the high rate of air passenger duty, which is damaging to UK plc and puts UK aviation at a disadvantage compared with our European competitors. We were disappointed that the Government rejected our recommendation to reduce significantly or abolish air passenger duty and we are concerned that they show no willingness to undertake a full review of its economic impact.

Parliament has shied away from deciding whether and where to permit additional aviation capacity in the south-east. That is a prime example of a failure to recognise our infrastructure needs. The Davies commission will produce an interim report at the end of this year with recommendations for immediate action to improve the use of existing runway capacity over the next five years, as well as a short list of options to address capacity over the longer term, but the commission’s final report will not be published until after the general election in 2015.

We must act decisively on this issue before we lose our competitive edge as a global hub for aviation. The commission must provide a robust and independent evidence base for future decisions, as well as recommendations for action. The failure to take a decision has consequences for the UK because it puts our competitiveness and economic success at risk. When the Davies commission reports, it will be time to decide, and that will be the challenge for the 2015 Parliament. I hope that today’s debate assists the House in identifying the key issues so that a conclusion that is in the interests of the UK can be reached.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

It is now 10 years since a Government White Paper highlighted the need for action on London’s airport capacity—10 years of dithering and hand-wringing, of refusing to make difficult decisions about aviation and of inaction—so I welcome this debate as an opportunity to highlight the urgency with which this issue must now be addressed.

In the time that successive Governments have pushed this problem into the long grass, London and Britain have lost out. The number of destinations served by Heathrow has dropped by a fifth in the past 20 years and it now has connections to just half the number of cities served by Amsterdam Schiphol. We have been overtaken by our rivals—that is for sure. Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt all now outrun us. Delays to flights landing at Heathrow are now the highest of any major airport in Europe. This simply cannot continue.

I want to be clear: it is beyond doubt that London and the south-east vitally need increased air capacity. I am pleased that the Davies commission has also reached that conclusion, as, of course, has the Transport Committee. Our capital and the surrounding area face an air-capacity shortfall of £16 million by 2030 and £57 million by 2040. The Department for Transport forecasts that demand for UK airports will double by 2050—an increase of more than 100 million passengers.

There are no easy choices in tackling this problem, but not tackling it is simply out of the question. Last year, Germany overtook the UK for new investments, which is hardly surprising given that it has significantly more connections to developing markets in China, India and Latin America. In fact, London has fewer weekly flights than its European rivals to most of the emerging market economies. Heathrow has nearly half as many flights as Frankfurt to China’s airports, despite the fact that Britain’s trade always increases 20 times over when we have direct flights to that country. That is why, if London is to have a next chapter in its ever-evolving success story, measures must be introduced to increase its airport capacity.

I support the Government’s decision to set up the Davies commission to investigate all options and make a comprehensive recommendation on the best way forward, but I see no need at all for Davies to take three years to make a recommendation. Why does this commission need three years to report on something that the Transport Committee managed to report on in a matter of months? Yes, it is crucial that we get the right decision, that a recommendation is not made hastily and that we should properly examine all of the options, but let us be honest: that will not take three years.

[Mr Slaughter]

I think everybody now knows that the reason why the commission will not report until after the next election is that the Conservative party does not want to lose marginal seats in west London before it comes out in favour of a third runway at Heathrow, which it undoubtedly will if it is in power after the next election.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend makes the point that I was about to make. He is absolutely right.

We have to be bold, honest and ambitious about what this country needs. Every week delayed is a week in which London and our country lose and our competitors gain. Every week lost is a week in which British industry loses potential business to its international rivals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

“Aviation Strategy” is a great title for a debate; what we are actually having is the “Is Heathrow going to get away with it yet again?” debate yet again. I fear that those at Heathrow might get away with it, as those of us in west London who have debated these issues with them over 30 years and seen how they operate think they might, because of political cowardice and the way in which politicians of all parties have given in to the airport lobby over that time.

Although we have had some excellent speeches today, I am somewhat surprised by that, because at the moment we have very little of substance to say that is new. The reason for that is partly the vacuum caused by the Airports Commission not reporting until after 2015, for no reason whatever other than political convenience. That has created a vacuum into which has floated the Mayor of London, with his frankly ludicrous suggestion of an estuary airport.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not think I should.

Not only is the idea of an estuary airport distraction politics of the worst kind; it is now affecting Stansted as well. Because the Mayor has virtually abandoned the idea of an airport actually in the river, he is now looking at the four-runway option at Stansted as a fallback position, which has mesmerised those at Stansted, who cannot get on with their ordinary work.

The fact that we had three London airports in the same ownership for so long has constrained the debate and let BAA, as it was then, keep control of the argument. I still do not understand why so many politicians—this includes the last Labour Government—are mesmerised by the airports and airline industry, which are simply looking after their commercial advantage. That has happened to such an extent that the Conservatives in opposition were saying that HS2 should go via Heathrow. That was another mad suggestion, which slowed down high-speed rail, but it has now been abandoned.

We have been ill served by the debate so far—that goes not just for my constituents, but for the general public. Because Heathrow has been making the weather on this issue and because the other airports in the south-east have been so far behind the curve, it has been left to organisations such as HACAN—the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, led by John Stewart—and community groups to provide the rationale and the arguments, which they have done admirably.

We are now faced with the prospect of two options. I do not have the time to go into this, but I am pleased that other colleagues have talked about the horrendous effects that Heathrow expansion would have, and not just on noise—the fact that 25% of those in the EU who are bothered by serious noise nuisance are from around Heathrow should rule out expansion alone. However, there is also the congestion and pollution, as well health and safety issues. Expansion is therefore simply unthinkable, but so is an estuary airport. Not only would an estuary airport be in the wrong place—hon. Members should see what the chambers of commerce have said about the prospect of that much public money going into such a white elephant; it is a ludicrous suggestion—but it would close Heathrow, as the Mayor of London, its chief cheerleader, says it would, or Heathrow would otherwise be reduced to the size of City airport.

That is not sustainable for either the west London or the UK economy, so why are we so hung up on this idea of a hub airport? In advocating expansion, I am not expert enough to say exactly how it would occur and where it would be possible in a city and a region that has five airports, but Gatwick, which is now making some money, Stansted and Heathrow should all get together and look at that proposal. Failing that, our politicians from all parties should get together, show leadership and put forward a proposal that can deliver short-term gains for public transport and free up the existing capacity and, in the longer term, deliver a network to serve the great capital city, rather than going for an expansion of Heathrow.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am delighted to be at this debate and supporting this Bill, providing, as it will, the ability for the Government to spend money preparing the way for a second high-speed rail service serving London and the regions. My constituency has running through it the route of High Speed 1 and, in talking about spending and finance, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the need to ensure that spending on the new route is planned in a way that capitalises on investment already made, so that we get more bang for the taxpayers’ bucks.

How we will do that is by providing for a substantial link between HS1 and HS2. This new spending should provide this link, with the most obvious and effective way being to utilise the connection to Stratford in my constituency of West Ham. I am arguing that the link between HS1 and HS2 should be substantial and robust enough to enable Stratford to play a major role in the wider high-speed network. That would include it being the London stop for those international services that originate in the regions, thus adding to the viability and the financial business case of those services and, indeed, of HS2 itself. I am not aware of any costings yet undertaken on the funding needed for a robust link, so I ask the Minister to enlighten me in his summing up as to whether any are so far available.

If Stratford becomes a major support station in east London catering for HS2, inter-city and inter-regional services, that would significantly reduce the numbers needing to use the Euston terminus, and Euston could be smaller as a result. The planned Old Oak interchange on its own will not enable enough HS2 travellers to avoid the Euston terminus; we need an enhanced role for Stratford in the east to cater for a similar proportion and then we can have a much slimmed-down Euston terminus.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, particularly as she is my Whip, but I think she will see that the overwhelming consensus of opinion is in favour of the Old Oak interchange. Although I understand that she is standing up for her constituents, I think she is whistling in the wind rather here.

[Lyn Brown]

Old Oak—where? All I would say to my hon. Friend is that Stratford has an international station, called the Stratford International station—the message is in the title. I suggest that he needs to look further and wider than his local concerns in order to understand the case. And if he ever wants to be slipped again, I suggest he stays seated.

As I was saying, we need an enhanced role for Stratford in the east to cater for a similar proportion and then we can have a much more slimmed-down Euston terminus. With a twin-track link to Stratford from Camden town, and with the proposals for Old Oak, the number of platforms at Euston would reduce from 12 to six or fewer. Recent research shows that there would be almost as much demand for trips to east London, docklands, Essex, East Anglia and Kent from HS2 travellers as for trips to central London. Using Stratford helps to cater for those needs. Perhaps the Minister would like to talk to the leader of his local county council, who, along with others, funded this research. His constituents will also, I am sure, be interested in the better travel options that will be available to them if this money is spent wisely. The interconnectivity of Stratford is already good, unlike—where was it? The two stations at Stratford serve 100 million passengers a year and it is the UK’s rail hub with the sixth highest use. It has two tube lines, regional rail services to Kent, Essex and East Anglia, and the docklands light railway, and it is strategically positioned for Canary Wharf, London City airport, and the Excel exhibition centre. Of course, it will have Crossrail.

The expenditure we are talking about today must include a robust and substantial link to Stratford between HS1 and HS2. About £1 billion of taxpayers’ money has already been invested in Newham’s international station, so it should get the international services for which it was built. To do otherwise would be crazy.

The business case for spend on HS2 will be greatly strengthened by a link that enables Stratford International to play a full role in the new network and the spending we are talking about today will be more effective as a result. I urge the Minister to try to ensure that that link is delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow, even at two thirds of the rate, the stirring speech made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). I support the Bill, the principle and, indeed, the route—with the caveat about the London terminus—for many of the reasons given by the Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State. It seems bizarre that when most of the developed world believes in having a high-speed rail network, we might want to rely on 19th-century railways. That is not to disparage the existing railways, which have stood us and continue to stand us in good stead, but the example of how they were built is one that I think we should follow, rather than shy away from. Having said that, I am concerned about pricing. Completion is a long way off, and there is a danger of this becoming a rich man’s railway. Cost control is an issue, and costs have spiralled before the project has even left the drawing board. There is also the issue of compensation, and whether it will be adequate.

It appears, however that there is consensus—given the time, I shall restrict myself to this—about the proposal that Old Oak, which is in my constituency, should be the major interchange. It would become the fifth busiest station in the country, with a Crossrail station, and links to HS1, tube lines, First Great Western services and Heathrow. A rail interchange in west London would be of massive benefit in an area much of which is categorised as being in the 1% most deprived in the country. Within a mile of the proposed station, 50% of the adult working population is unemployed.

On Friday, the boroughs and the Greater London authority will publish a vision for the future of Old Oak, described in rather hyperbolic terms as the new Canary Wharf. There is talk of 90,000 jobs and 19,000 new homes, and I am pleased that the boroughs have already taken an interest. However, there are local problems. As currently envisaged, there are poor links with HS1, tube lines and the west London line. There is an inadequate road network and poor-quality station design. We should look at the option of making Old Oak the terminus. I have an open mind on that, although I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) would urge me to be stronger in my opinion because he does not want the line to go to Euston, and he is certainly right that the connectivity from Old Oak is better than the connectivity from Euston. It appears that HS2 Ltd wanted to go to Euston simply because it wanted to say that it had a central London terminus, but it should look at that again. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is no longer in the Chamber, Stratford International is an exception to the rule, “If you build it, they will come.” There is consensus about where the interchange should be.

My other caveat is that we have to take care with the construction. Most compulsory purchase schemes are hopelessly inadequate both in the compensation that they offer and the way in which people are dealt with. The effect on small businesses and even large businesses—Cargiant is in my constituency, as well as Wormwood scrubs, which is a large area of important open space—must be considered, and I hope that the project will be undertaken sympathetically, however important it is to the nation. Finally, I back my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras in saying, “Please take HS2 Ltd off the job”. The company is not making a good job of promoting the scheme, and we should find someone who will take this national project forward in the way that it should be done.

Select Committee Inquiry (Aviation Strategy)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

The Committee is calling for the submission of evidence and it will then decide who it sees as appropriate to invite to give oral evidence. We are asking for the most diverse possible evidence to be given, and we will consider it all very carefully.

It is important for Parliament to be involved in the aviation debate and to be able to assess the evidence on these key issues in the public interest. The Select Committee’s work should enable that to happen.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

All Members will welcome an independent inquiry, as I suspect we already know that the Government’s inquiry will opt for the third runway at Heathrow, and the Mayor of London’s inquiry will go for Boris island. We welcome the independence, but will my hon. Friend take on board the dismay felt in west London that after many years of uncertainty all three main parties were against the third runway, but that that consensus has now been overturned? The prospect of a third runway in the middle of London is not conscionable, so will my hon. Friend consider excluding it, as the Mayor’s inquiry does, from her inquiry?

Cycling

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I suspect that many Members wish to intervene, and I will give way as many times as I can as long as they are brief.

I met the Mayor’s director of the environment yesterday specifically to talk about the Bow roundabout. I notice that the London cycling campaign has some proposals on the matter as well. It is not in my constituency and I am not an expert on the details. There are clearly other such junctions where much more work needs to be done to make them safe.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I should like to move on from the Bow roundabout. Members will have the chance to speak later. I do not want to take up too much of anyone else’s time.

There is rightly intense media interest when cyclists are killed or seriously injured. Such stories are vital and often harrowing. The Times campaign is partly based on the awful injuries suffered by Mary Bowers, who is a journalist and a former student from my constituency. The stories highlight the need for improved safety. One of the problems is that Government policy has tended to be largely reactionary and that has put people off cycling, which is a real problem. The evidence is clear that the more people who cycle, the safer that it gets. There is a strong group effect in that regard.

One study showed that if the number of cyclists is doubled, the accident risk is reduced by more than a third. The Dutch have a lower accident rate because of, not in spite of, the number of cyclists. Anything that deters people from cycling is very damaging and risks increasing the dangers for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Rural towns and rural areas can also do things to promote cycling. The details will obviously be different, but the principle is the same. The benefits from having more cyclists on our roads are also the same, in that drivers and other road users will understand what is happening.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is being very persistent, so I will give way.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he is being very generous. Does he agree that one easy and cheap way of improving cycling safety is to improve training? One of my constituents, Philippa Robb of londoncycletraining.co who is here today, says that two hours of training costs £70 and would absolutely transform cyclists’ safety on the road. We are not talking about millions of pounds of infrastructure investment. Of course we need other measures as well, but surely that is something that the Government can do. Companies, too, can get involved. They often sponsor the cycle-to-work scheme but not the training.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct about training support, and I will talk later about that issue. I am very pleased that the Government have continued to fund Bikeability training for young people. It is very important to catch people at a young age.

High-speed Rail

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend will know that one of the things I am committed to doing in my role is to bring about a more strategic relationship, in terms of our procurement, with suppliers in the UK, and non-UK suppliers. I think that puts companies in production in the UK in a good position. There is unprecedented investment going into the railways at the moment. I have just announced the biggest railway infrastructure project that this country has seen in over a century. I think that is good news for Britain, but also good news for jobs and good news, hopefully, for companies like Tata.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State dismisses in one sentence the Select Committee’s recommendation that the London terminus should be at Old Oak rather than at Euston. Will she look at that again, or at least publish the evidence on which she bases that view, and will she assure us that the mitigation will apply at least as much to Labour seats in west London as Tory seats in the Chilterns?

[Justine Greening]

We looked very carefully at where the HS2 line should terminate when it got to London. Our decision was that it was far better to terminate it in London than, as it were, at Old Oak Common, which would have seen people then have to transfer again. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says Crossrail, but of course they would have to transfer on to Crossrail. That is an added advantage that they will have, but we believe it is far better for HS2 to come in to Euston.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I worked as hard looking at mitigation elsewhere on the line as I did looking at it in the AONB in the Chilterns, and I am committed to making sure that I continue to do that throughout this entire process.