Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I well remember my hon. Friend campaigning for c2c to keep the franchise for that particular line. Obviously any changes early on in a franchise sometimes lead to difficulties, but I am concerned to work with him. c2c is improving the service. It has one of the highest reliabilities among train operators across the country and I know it is going to bring in additional rolling stock in late spring.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

In last week’s Opposition day debate on the cost of public transport, Government Members seemed reluctant to say anything about buses and particularly fares, which is no great surprise, because the Department keeps hardly any information on the issue. Others tell us that fares have risen by 26% since 2010—three times as fast as wages. What does the Secretary of State think about that and when is he going to start collecting and publishing the data—or would he rather the public did not know?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think—I will check this, and if I misinform the House, I will come back to it—we publish the same data and a lot more than the last Government ever published.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Oil prices are now low, but we have not seen bus operators passing on the savings to passengers. It was very different when oil prices were going up: fares quickly went up too. What has the Secretary of State been doing to put pressure on the operators to cut fares? When is he going to start standing up for hard-pressed bus passengers?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I hope that bus fares come down as a result of falling fuel prices, but I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman that fuel prices are only one part of the industry’s costs—I think they represent about 40% of the costs. Another part is investment in new buses, which I very much welcome—I have seen many examples of that. Quite often the oil is bought in advance, but I agree with him that the bus companies should look to see whether there is room to reduce the cost of using buses.

Cost of Public Transport

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

As we debate the cost of travel, thousands of our fellow citizens, in all our constituencies, are in buses, on trains or on roads, in cars or on bikes. The quality of our transport system makes a difference to each of their lives every day, which is why this debate matters. That was brought home to me on the first day of this year, when I was sitting on a train on the way to Ipswich to join Labour campaigners protesting about the ever-rising cost of rail fares. Across the aisle from me, a young woman who worked in a supermarket near Ipswich station was telling her friend, glumly, about the shock she got when she purchased her ticket that morning. It had cost an extra 60p, so it would be an extra three quid a week— £3 out of not much left over. There will have been similar stories on trains and buses up and down the country. For millions of our constituents, every penny counts, and in today’s debate we have not heard enough about the problems on buses, in particular.

Let me start by welcoming the first contribution made in this place by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). Members have expressed their appreciation before for his revered predecessor, who has quite a successor. Like many colleagues, I enjoyed campaigning in my hon. Friend’s constituency in the autumn and noted that before coming to Parliament he had already made a powerful impact on the national scene through his inspirational work leading the local council. His powerful contribution today pointed out some of the very real contradictions and weaknesses in the Government’s devolution policies.

Despite the lack of time, we heard other excellent contributions today, including those from my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), who outlined the very poor services from which his constituents are suffering at the moment, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who talked about the challenges facing her constituents. What they all confirmed was what we already knew, which is that rail and bus fares have shot up since the Conservative party came to power. We all trade figures on these things, but the key one is the comparison between fares and wages: what it really costs people. The truth is that fares have risen three times faster than wages, and that is why it hurts.

There are, however, some who do not feel the pain. The Secretary of State clearly seems impervious to it. Several months ago, he said:

“More transport, better transport...Under our Conservative majority government it's happening.”

Has he really forgotten about the broken election pledges to electrify key routes in the midlands and the north just weeks after the ballot boxes had closed? Or do the Government say that this was just paused? Is it not interesting how Governments introduce new words into the political lexicon. The word “paused” sounds so innocuous but it could ultimately be this Government’s epitaph: a country on pause.

We now have a rail investment programme delayed by years; more than two thirds of councils cutting local bus services; and more than 2,400 local authority-supported bus routes cut or downgraded. We could go on a national tour of bus shelters where there are no buses—perhaps they are paused, too.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Will he comment on the introduction of a fare increase by stealth? People expect rail fares to go up once a year on the first day back in January, but we must not forget that, a year ago in September, this Government introduced an evening peak on Northern Rail, which hit part-time workers and students in particular and caused chaos in railway stations across the north.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Indeed, and my hon. Friend makes a very strong point.

When it comes to buses in particular, we know that the Conservative party always talks about local decisions. The truth is that, by slashing funding to local councils, the Government are passing the buck. It is no good Government Members complaining about problems with their services, as famously the Prime Minister did, when they just troop through the Lobby imposing cuts on local councils. They really must take some responsibility.

We on Labour’s Benches strongly believe in the principle of local communities having a say over their public transport, and we have long been committed to that, but what the Government are offering for bus services is a sham. They are giving localities power with one hand while taking funding away with the other. With a 37% reduction in central Government funding to English local authorities over the course of the previous Parliament, and a further reduction of 24% to come, local authorities have been left with little choice but to cut to the bone.

For Labour, the devolution agenda seems to be little more than a front for public transport funding cuts and fare increases. As Labour Members have observed before, this is not so much a northern powerhouse, as a northern power cut. Whatever the Government spin on being in for a penny, in for a pound, it is clear that the link between fare rises and investment has been broken.

When the Government’s bus service operators grant, which is effectively used to subsidise bus services, was cut by 20% after 2010, the Department for Transport warned that small towns, and particularly rural areas, would be worst affected. It certainly got that right— they were.

What needs to be done? The answer is this: not carry on as we are. It has been fascinating to watch the delicate U-turn being carried out in the DfT as it grasps that the Treasury has finally cottoned on to the fact that we are being taken for a ride by many of the bus operators. It is an irony, is it not, that the Government are now looking to pursue Labour’s policy of bus reregulation? In the past, they were totally opposed to such deregulation. In fact, in the previous Parliament, they directly punished those areas that attempted to pursue bus tendering.

At the election, we promised the biggest shake-up of the bus industry in years. How astonished the operators must have been to find that, after the election, it is now a Conservative Government who are looking to learn from the positive experience in London and apply it across the country. Some of us are just a bit sceptical about this conversion, but we eagerly await the forthcoming bus legislation, and hope to see within it genuine power for local people and local authorities to have real leverage over their local services. The case for reform is incontrovertible and urgent because the status quo just is not working. Private bus operators have abandoned bus routes and services that they found to be commercially unprofitable, leaving the most vulnerable in our society stranded.

We want to give communities genuine power to plan fares and timetables, and to reflect local needs. Although some bus operators have strongly resisted moves towards greater co-ordination, these powers are already in use in London and they are the norm in Europe. If it is good enough for London then it is good enough for the north-east, Greater Manchester, Sheffield, Cornwall, and any other area that wants them. The alternative of continuing to watch bus services uncontrollably deteriorate is no alternative at all. At the election, the Prime Minister made many promises that have not stood up to scrutiny. He promised older people that the free bus pass, introduced by Labour, would be maintained, but, as so often with this Prime Minister, it is important to read the small print. He kept the bus pass, but said nothing about keeping the bus. The number of concessionary passes has gone up, but the number of concessionary bus journeys has gone down. How useful is a bus pass without a bus? We need a better way.

Airport Expansion: East Anglia

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on securing this debate. He has been passionate about this issue for many years, and in a previous debate said that,

“the word ‘Stansted’ will be found engraved on my heart.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1562.]

His contribution today confirms how strongly he feels about this issue, and particularly about the rail infrastructure linking Stansted to our region. Everyone who has spoken in this debate is united in wanting the best possible outcome for people in our region, a region whose economic prosperity and job growth have perhaps too often been let down by poor transport infrastructure. Alongside those concerns, many of my constituents in Cambridge—I share their concerns—feel just as strongly about the environmental and community factors linked with airport expansion, which must always be weighed carefully against the economic and operational arguments for expansion.

We have had some strong contributions today. I am delighted to say that three quarters of the members of Labour’s east of England parliamentary team are here today—it is amazing what can be done with statistics. I am delighted to hear the kind words of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), for which I thank him. He has always been a good friend to Cambridge, which we have always appreciated. He made a series of points about the important role of London City airport.

Obviously, my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Mr Shuker) and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) also require commendation. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North is always a passionate advocate for Luton—both my hon. Friends always are—but I was particularly struck by his comments on the opportunities offered by new aircraft, which brings something new to the debate.

There were also strong contributions from Government Members, including my regular sparring partner from up the road, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). On this occasion, we probably find ourselves much more in agreement than on some other occasions. His points about regional connectivity were very well made. It was good to hear some kind words about Cambridgeshire’s guided bus, which has been much maligned over the years, but I agree is now doing rather well.

I think we can all agree that the aviation industry is important to Britain’s economy. As we have heard, it generates some £50 billion in GDP, 1 million jobs and £8 billion in tax revenue, servicing and connecting millions of passengers every year. On Labour’s side there is no doubt that if Britain wishes to remain a global player in the aviation market and to enjoy the subsequent economic benefits, there is a strong case for a new runway in the south-east. Heathrow is operating at full capacity while Gatwick is operating at 85%. The Airports Commission has found that, without action, the entire London airport network would be operating at the limits of capacity by 2040.

As the Opposition, it is our job to scrutinise decisions on airport expansion made by the Government whom we are opposing. That puts us in a slightly difficult position because, of course, the Government have been unable to set out that decision, breaking their own promises and leaving the country effectively on hold. The Prime Minister guaranteed a decision by the end of last year but is now dragging his heels. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Transport has said only that he hopes to make a decision this year. That strategic dithering is not only farcical and weak; it is completely unacceptable. It potentially means years of additional uncertainty for people living close to airports. That tactical indecision is also economically damaging. Furthermore, considering that the Government have claimed that the delay on airport expansion is for environmental reasons, it seems absurd that they are not backing the industry’s attempts to deliver cleaner fuels. Aviation is not included in the renewable transport fuels obligation, thereby damaging potential investment.

In addition to their promise to unveil a decision by the end of last year, the Conservatives also pledged in their 2010 manifesto not to add a runway to Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted, which means there is likely to be yet another promise reneged upon by the Government. It seems that we will just have to wait and see which one it will be.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I do not wish to take away from the hon. Gentleman’s kind words on those matters on which we are in accord, but I am slightly disappointed that he has chosen to bring party political differences into the debate. There is blood on all hands over the years as far as airports policy is concerned. I could somewhat mischievously say to him that, had a Government of his political colour not cancelled the Maplin project in 1974, we would not be in the difficulties we are in now.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. As a historian, I always find it interesting to note which point in history people like to go back to in order to attribute blame but, as the Opposition representative in the Chamber, I fear it is my role to make these important points about the potential damage being done to our country by the Government’s lack of decision. We shall see. Probably after the London mayoral election, all will become clear.

Once the Government set out their expansion recommendation, we will be able to examine its relative merits properly based on four tests that the Labour party has set out, including commitments to meet our legal climate change obligations and mitigate local environmental impacts. Only then can we truly assess the impact that expansion will have on the south-east, the wider Anglian region and the rest of the UK.

We know now that, regardless of the decision made, its effects will not be felt quickly. A new runway will take about a decade to come into being, even without further delay in Government decision making. Thus any short-term changes should positively impact the connectivity of our country, including our region. Indeed, the fourth test that Labour set out to inform our response before the publication of the Airports Commission report was that the benefits of any expansion should not be confined to London and the south-east. The Government might be standing still, but the aviation industry will not. We must act to help connect UK businesses and people with new markets and places in the meantime.

The Airports Commission has also called for the improvement of surface access links to other airports, which has formed the basis for much of our discussion in this debate. In its response to Network Rail’s consultation on the Anglia route strategy, the Airports Commission called for a more joined-up approach to meeting the needs of Stansted airport users. Improving rail infrastructure to Stansted is a key request of both Stansted and the London-Stansted-Cambridge Consortium. It is worth noting in passing that the current Stansted Express service uses a relatively new fleet of trains introduced under a Labour Government.

[Mr Shuker]

My hon. Friend is making the point that surface access is key to all airports, including Luton airport in my constituency. It sets the airport’s reputational standard. People do not judge an airport based only on the airlines, the airport itself or the journey there but on the whole experience. Certainly in Luton, surface access is letting us down at the moment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I suspect that we can all agree on that. I assure the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden that we heartily agree with his argument about improving surface access. I am absolutely sure that local commuters would benefit, including those in my constituency. We can agree that the Government should invest in a West Anglia line, making life that little bit easier for many in our region.

To conclude, the Government need to stop dawdling and decide. Until they get their policy off the ground, we will be unconvinced that they are taking environmental concerns and capacity needs seriously. While in this state of flux, the Government could still take decisive steps to improve access to our country’s airports, helping provide short-term solutions to capacity and connectivity problems. Anything less would do a disservice to people and businesses in our region and across the UK.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind him that, under the new Standing Orders for this Parliament, as I am sure he is aware, the mover of the motion is allowed two or three minutes to wind up the debate. I remind the mover of the motion that if he wants the question to be put formally, he must allow the Chair at least 30 seconds to do so.

Community Transport

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) on securing this debate. I am glad she recognises how essential community transport services are, particularly at a time when her Government are destroying bus services across our country. The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), visited the hon. Lady’s constituency last year and met a group of residents from the Fields Farm estate who have a bus stop but no bus. I have exactly the same problem in my constituency, so I know how it feels.

We have heard a series of powerful and passionate accounts from hon. Members about the importance of community transport. It seems to me that all hon. Members want to support community transport, but I did think that a political attack on Derbyshire County Council was perhaps inevitable. I understand the motives of the hon. Member for Erewash, and I am sure that equally, she will understand that I have to make a few points for the sake of balance. The council informs me that it is facing cuts of £157 million before 2018. She mentioned the level of reserves, and my understanding is that the council is managing to continue to support bus services by digging into those reserves, which will not be able to go on forever. It tells me that it has had an in-year cut in its public health budget, and of course, like every other shire county, it has a huge problem with the adult social care budget. I understand why an impassioned debate is going on in Derbyshire, and I am sure that it will continue, but I have every sympathy with my colleagues who are trying to deal with a very difficult situation in that county, as they are in other shire counties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) made a powerful point. I have to say that I was unaware of the Government’s largesse just before the election: £25 million was suddenly available from a Government who had no money. Excuse me for being cynical, Mr Nuttall—I would not want to say anything unparliamentary. I just hope that the Minister can assure us that some of the promises will have been delivered by Christmas time. That would be a good thing to do, particularly for such worthy schemes as my hon. Friend outlined.

The account given by the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) corresponds exactly with my recollections—in a former life, I was a councillor in very rural Norfolk. Again, I think we all understand just how important the social aspect of community transport is. I would also reflect that if the good people of eastern England had services that were remotely at that level of those in Derbyshire, they would be amazed, because in rural East Anglia we have not seen many such services for a long time.

Having made my political points, I will be charitable and suggest that all of us in this Chamber probably have the same goal—to ensure that everyone, no matter who they are or where they live, is able to connect with their community and get to school, shops, work, hospitals, friends and family. That is why buses are vital, especially for disabled people and those from low-income households. Indeed, almost half of the poorest households in the country do not have access to a car, and people in the lowest income group use the bus almost four times more often than those in the highest income group. Moreover, about 60% of disabled people live in a household with no car, and disabled people uses buses about 20% more frequently than people without disabilities. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with those statistics; I suspect that he quotes them too.

We can therefore agree that we need buses, but the current situation just is not working. In many areas, private bus operators have abandoned bus routes and services that they have found to be commercially unprofitable, leaving many people isolated. Of course, local authorities, as I have mentioned, face deep cuts, leaving them unable to step in. As hon. Members have suggested, those responsible for various modes of community transport have valiantly attempted to perform the vital connective role that buses should play. Community transport serves areas that the bus companies have turned their back on.

However, there is something on which we cannot agree—the Government and Government Members continually refusing to take any responsibility for what is happening and blaming local councils for having to make cuts to transport funding. The Government are passing the buck and forcing local authorities to take the blame for those cuts, while keeping their own hands clean. It is estimated that central Government funding to English local authorities shrank by almost 40% between 2010-11 and 2014-15. The bus service operators grant, which subsidises bus fares for all, was also cut, by 20% in the previous Parliament. It is therefore no surprise that since 2010, 70% of local authorities, stuck between a rock and a hard place, have been forced to cut funding for bus services.

To suggest that councils are playing politics with these community services is slightly unworthy. The Government have been talking the devolution talk on one hand while taking funding away with the other, leaving councils and councillors in a near impossible position. That is not localism; it is a con. Furthermore, the Minister told us in July that he believes that decisions about funding to support local bus services are best made at local level, but in their comprehensive spending review the Government quietly included a further reduction of almost a quarter in central Government funding for local government over this Parliament. When local authorities face funding cuts that are that severe, it is really the Treasury making the decisions about which services to fund, not local authorities, whatever the rhetoric.

Against the backdrop of reduced services, community transport is more crucial than ever in helping people to get around, but as the Campaign for Better Transport has shown, community transport can only fill between 10% and 15% of the gap left by formerly supported transport provision. That suggests that although community transport has a very important role to play, it is only a partial solution to plugging the growing gap left by the Government’s policies and the subsequent cuts to services. We believe that the Government should be much more ambitious for the sector and should aim to develop and expand the role of not-for-profit bus operators, giving them the power to take up routes and services in all areas of the bus market and not only in unserviced and unprofitable areas. Expanding community transport could challenge the virtual monopoly of the bus market enjoyed by just a handful of conglomerates and, most significantly, put passengers before profits. Indeed, the People’s Bus campaign says:

“By keeping routes open and fares low, community transport operators are enabling people to access work and education, tackling social exclusion and loneliness, and can be the lifeblood of isolated communities.”

That is because unlike private operators, community transport operators reinvest profits in services, refocusing bus services on the shared interests of communities rather than shareholders.

A shining example of successful community transport is Hackney Community Transport. Formed more than 30 years ago, it has since expanded into Yorkshire, Humberside and the south-west. That social enterprise provides an aspirational model for community transport and a symbol of just what can be done. It provides more than 20 million passenger trips each year and delivers a variety of transport services: mainstream bus services, school transport, social care transport and more. The bus operator recently raised a £10 million investment—the largest growth capital investment in the UK impact investing sector. That demonstrates the potential of community and not-for-profit transport providers to ensure a fairer bus system by breaking the stranglehold that private bus operators retain over the market and giving communities a voice over the transport that they need to be delivered.

Clearly, buses face huge challenges in our country, and we want to give local authorities genuine power over their bus services. Local authority budgets have been decimated of late, and the Government need to stop wilfully ignoring both the financial pressure that authorities are under and the value of investing in subsidised transport.

We eagerly anticipate the Government’s forthcoming bus legislation and hope to see within it local authorities being given both power and money to deliver much-needed services, as well as a recognition of the huge economic and social potential of community transport. Devolution for Nottingham and Derbyshire is being long drawn out and delayed, and we want discussions to give way to real local powers. We just hope that when that legislation is on the table, it provides for authentic devolution. We will not settle for more of the same. We need a better bus system, but also a community transport system that can flourish and prosper in its own right, rather than propping up ever diminishing bus routes as the Government withdraw support. What an irony that the Prime Minister pledged to retain the bus pass, but neglected to keep the bus.

Transport for London Funding

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on securing this debate, and the Minister on his recent promotion. We have had a fantastic discussion in which hon. Members have spoken with passion and conviction about their local area. It is important that those points are heard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West gave an excellent account of the whole range of issues. I was struck by his mention of potential delays to the upgrade of the underground system. I hope that the Minister responds positively to my hon. Friend’s hope that he might meet a delegation of staff, particularly given the number of staff cuts in the control rooms. My hon. Friend concluded with some interesting suggestions about how the funding gap might be closed, and I am sure that the Communities and Local Government team will listen closely to that.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

Will my hon. Friend encourage the Minister to clarify—if not today, then shortly—whether the British Transport police will maintain their funding levels and, therefore, the numbers of constables and other police able to operate on the tube? There seems to be some doubt about whether they have benefited from the Government’s largesse to other police forces.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sure that the Minister will have heard that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) made some fascinating points. The point about the cruise terminal was new to me, but I hope that others will hear it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) continued his fantastic campaign on the Transport for London Bill, reiterating points that were made in a debate a few weeks ago and that, doubtless, will be made again. I will return to those.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) took me back to my childhood: I used to be driven by my parents from south London through the Blackwall tunnel when there was only one tunnel. I remember the pong, which I think was from a dog biscuit factory. Some things do not change, really, and there is clearly much more work to be done. His points about the unfairness of potentially charging his constituents to cross the river were well made.

I want to talk a little more generally about London’s transport system. As someone from outside London, I have to say that London’s system is widely admired as a model of excellence. There are now more passenger journeys in the capital than in the rest of England combined. In the UK, other metropolitan areas—including Manchester, notably—are keen to bring in Oyster-style, multi-platform, integrated smart ticketing. Indeed, I understand that Singapore’s Land Transport Authority last year announced a new Government contracting model after explicitly studying the bus systems of London and Australia; they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and that is clearly the case here.

We all know that the Department for Transport took a huge hit in the comprehensive spending review, as did the Department for Communities and Local Government. I fear that the repercussions will reverberate through the quality and connectivity of the transport system across the entire country. I am also sure, regrettably, that the savage reductions in funding and subsequent cuts to transport services will be keenly felt by all those who rely on them to go about their daily life. It is distressing but simple: cuts to central Government funding and local authority budgets mean that services will suffer.

Let us remember that in 2013 TfL’s operational funding was slashed by a quarter, requiring it to identify £16 billion in savings by 2021. Last month it was announced that the grant worth £700 million in 2015-16 will be phased out by the end of the decade. The Department for Transport said that this may be mitigated by “new commercial freedoms” for TfL. The implications of those commercial freedoms are potentially significant, and I will largely focus on them.

Along with funding for cycling nationally, London’s dedicated transport funding has been deliberately targeted in the spending review. As of 2014-15, a record 8.6 million people were living in the capital. By 2030, that figure is forecast to reach 10 million, rising again to 11 million by 2050. The pressures on the capital’s transport system will only intensify. TfL has already been making fierce and highly controversial cuts, but even it said in its annual budget last year:

“It is becoming progressively more difficult to achieve this without compromising our core services.”

I would be grateful if the Minister could offer some assurances about how the cut to TfL’s revenue support has been planned. It is well known that before the late 1990s, London Regional Transport was plagued by a pattern of annualised budgets and sudden funding reductions, which in turn created huge inefficiencies. TfL has more long-term financial certainty under Labour’s Greater London Authority Act 1999, but can the Minister really guarantee that additional costs will not be created—for example, in variations to TfL’s commercial contracts—as a result of this decision? We need further assurances.

Since October 2013, the bus service operators grant, which was previously paid to bus operators that were running bus services under franchise to TfL, has been incorporated into the general grant paid to TfL and the Greater London Authority. Now that TfL’s grant is being snatched by the Treasury, so too is this important grant that pays bus operators to keep costs down and helps to subsidise fares for ordinary people. BSOG was already cut by 20% in the previous Parliament, with the total value of the grant across the country falling from £469 million in 2009-10 to £298 million in 2013-14. Now the Government are quietly removing it from TfL entirely. That is unacceptable, and we will not let it go unnoticed. I would greatly appreciate the Minister’s assurance that BSOG will again be allocated to the capital on a separate basis; otherwise, this is clear discrimination against London.

TfL passes part of its grant to the boroughs to spend on local road maintenance and improvement. I am sure that those boroughs would be pleased to be told how that will be funded when TfL’s operational funding is soon reduced to zero. We have heard about the other possible method that TfL might use to alleviate the loss of the grant and to raise revenue to invest in London’s transport network. That method—the so-called commercial freedoms—is proving especially controversial, and many of my hon. Friends have already raised concerns about the wider implications.

The Department for Transport has stated that TfL could save the necessary £700 million a year by generating additional income from the land it owns in London, or with the “additional financial flexibility” that the Government will provide it with. TfL is one of the largest landowners, owning 5,700 acres of land in the capital and more than 500 potential major development sites. Against this backdrop of cuts, it is only natural that TfL wants to plug at least partially the gap that the grant will leave by selling off existing or underused facilities. We support making good use of assets, but there are certain issues that really must be addressed.

First, we need to be sure that forced sales will not, paradoxically, have an adverse impact on the very transport system that they are trying to fund. Selling off land might seem like a good deal in the short term, but it might not look so bright a few years later, when it transpires that the land is needed to expand transport services to meet increasing demand. If TfL land is to be used for housing, let us at least ensure that it is housing at a price that ordinary Londoners can afford. We need a pledge from the Minster that there will be a strong affordable housing element in such developments—particularly important given the disastrous general housing policies being pursued by the Government. Sadly, I have little confidence that that will be achieved.

We are deeply sceptical of the Government’s motives and fear that the asset sell-offs will be all about short-term gain at the expense of securing a future transport system for ordinary Londoners. I do not have time to go into the nitty-gritty of the argument, but the proposed mechanism for property development—namely, the provision allowing limited partnerships—is deeply worrying. I am sure that there will be time enough to discuss that controversial element when the Transport for London Bill wends its way back to us from the other place. Ultimately, a long-term investment strategy aimed at raising money to reinvest in the transport system is one thing, but short-term profiteering on property development is quite another.

In conclusion, TfL’s transport system works, and it ought to be protected, but it is at serious risk from a Government who seek short-term savings and do not understand the importance and value of a widely admired but pressured system that keeps our great capital city moving.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

It would be appreciated if the Minister would be kind enough to allow Mr Thomas just a few minutes to sum up at the end.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I commend the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) for their co-chairmanship of the all-party group. She is right to focus on the need to invest, but in our view, and hers I think, the investment should be targeted, which is why the cycling ambition cities get more than £10 per head. Her analysis does not include our commitment that every mile of new road built by Highways England must be cycle-proof or the additional money for local growth funds so that cities and towns that want to encourage cycling have the freedom to do so.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is now clear that cycling took a big hit in the spending review and that there will be little left for the cycling and walking investment strategy when it finally appears. The Minister has had the air let out of her tyres. Will she confirm that the figure of £1.49 is the real figure for cycling outside London and that spending on cycling has effectively been halved?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman represents a cycling city that I am proud to visit, but I have yet to see him on his bike pedalling past our front door when I am up there—but I am sure I will soon. I completely refute his assertion, however: we have made incredible progress on cycling. He need only drive in to see the chaos created by the Mayor’s east-west cycle highway being delivered in the city with the highest level of cycle spending historically. That is the cycling ambition target now being reached in eight other cities. I want to reconfirm that we have ensured that every mile of new road built will be cycle-proof, which is something Labour neglected to do.

Pavement Parking (Protection of Vulnerable Pedestrians) Bill

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I first congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on bringing forward the Bill and on introducing me to the concept of a child at heel—not something of which I have had much experience.

Where drivers may or may not park is an issue that confuses drivers who find the current law applied inconsistently; frustrates local residents who suffer inappropriate parking; causes misery to people with disabilities and visual impairments who find pavements blocked; and is a subject on which I know many campaigning groups have worked very hard, and I pay tribute to them. Some of them were listed earlier and it is an impressive array of campaigning organisations, as well as the Local Government Association, the British Parking Association and, according to research, more than three quarters of councillors across the country.

That has helped to inform the view on the Opposition side of the House, and we broadly support the proposed measures, although we, too, believe that there is more work to be done. We want clarity for motorists and accessible pavements for all, but we also want to be sure that the Bill will not simply substitute one bureaucratic burden on local councils with another.

Everyone is affected by parking on pavements, which were clearly not designed to bear the weight of cars. Pavement parking can cause obstruction and damage, such as cracked paving and tarmac, and needs to be properly managed. The cost of maintaining damaged pavements can be significant, adding an extra financial burden to councils already faced with deep funding cuts and stretched to breaking point.

As we have heard, vehicles parked on pavements are an issue particularly for vulnerable pedestrians—especially for older people, families with pushchairs, wheelchair users and people with visual or mobility impairments. Banks of parked cars can also force cyclists to swerve into dangerous traffic flows, which can be especially dangerous on narrow roads. With the levels of congestion we have in our country, it seems unlikely that these problems are going to disappear, and we need better legislative intervention.

Let me first address the state of the current pavement parking laws outside of London, which to any independent observer may well seem both illogical and impractical. As has been pointed out, the current law is inconsistent across the country and it is inconsistently applied. Although pavement parking is legal, it is actually illegal to drive on to the pavement, whether with the intention to park or not. The ambiguity in the law means that most local authorities, as we have heard, struggle to enforce restrictions.

As the law stands, my understanding is that local authorities are able to prohibit parking in specific areas by issuing a traffic regulation order. Since 2011 local authorities are no longer compelled to obtain permission from the Department for Transport to issue traffic regulation orders, but the process is still time-consuming, taking up to two years, and it must go through a period of extensive consultation. Furthermore, it is estimated that the average cost for each traffic regulation order is between £1,000 and £3,000, a not inconsiderable sum.

Some tell us that local authorities outside London already have wide-ranging powers to prohibit pavement parking, but when one looks at the attempts of some local authorities to discourage pavement parking, they can be described only as inventive in some cases. They include installing guardrails, planting trees and strategically placing bollards on pavements, and I understand that there is even Government guidance on non-legislative methods to prevent pavement parking. These methods are sometimes farcical, and they are not always effective. As the LGA points out, such physical barrier schemes may simply transfer the location of a parking problem to another nearby area.

This is not a new problem. As long ago as 2006, the Transport Select Committee said:

“The Government must grip the problem of pavement parking once and for all and ensure that it is outlawed throughout the country rather than relying on the use of individual Traffic Regulation Orders on specific streets and local Acts to impose a ban.”

The Committee also called for reform to end

“the confusing patchwork approach across the country”.

We are close to celebrating a decade since the Transport Committee said that. What we want is a Bill that will create a new system, such as the one suggested in this Bill, under which local authorities would be able to apply for exemptions from pavement parking bans on a street-by-street basis rather than applying to prohibit parking in specific areas.

This is already the experience in London for the 32 London boroughs and the City of London, which has had a general prohibition on pavement parking since 1974. I understand that pavement parking is also banned in Exeter through a byelaw, but the use of byelaws to address pavement parking is, I am advised, no longer approved. The fact that pavement parking bans have worked in these areas is an encouraging sign that a ban could work on a national scale, ending the regional disparity and the “patchwork approach” mentioned by the Transport Select Committee.

We recognise that the implications of the Bill need to be gone through with a fine-toothed comb, and we need to acknowledge that with different issues in different part of the country, a one-size-fits-all approach would probably not be appropriate. That is why we would need assurances that the process to exempt locations will be far less complex than the current process of issuing a traffic regulation order, and that all options for change, including reforms to an opt-in system, will be properly considered.

We must ensure that local authorities will not be saddled with unnecessary financial and administrative burdens. Historic cities struggle with modern volumes of traffic, as we have heard. In my city of Cambridge and others such as Oxford and Durham, large numbers of narrow streets could necessitate numerous exemptions from a ban on pavement parking. We would need to know that the process would not create a bureaucratic nightmare. Perhaps in such places councils could apply for larger areas to be exempt from a pavement parking ban, circumventing the tedium and cost of a street-by-street approach.

Clause 3 makes reference to “a fair increase” in the level of fines that local authorities could levy, subject to a consultation led by the Secretary of State. This is certainly a concern for the Opposition. We do not want to see drivers unfairly penalised. If the Bill is to be considered further, this point must be addressed.

In conclusion, we all recognise a need for far greater clarity and that the issues surrounding pavement parking should not continue to be shunted aside. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for North Dorset has brought forward the Bill, and we want to ensure that progress is made on the issue. Although we are slightly disappointed that the Government have chosen not to support the Bill proceeding further, we welcome the fact that there will be further discussions. We hope that we ultimately end up with legislation that will help local authorities to make decisions about parking more simply, with reduced costs, and that we will be able to protect vulnerable pedestrians and all those who use our roads and pavements in our country.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. Conservative Members are making light of what is the most important issue in London. Does he agree that it is outrageous that people need an annual income of £75,000 to be able to afford to rent a property in Finsbury Park—not Chelsea—for their families? [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hear Conservative Members saying, from sedentary positions, that these are spurious points. I must tell them that for the hundreds of people who marched through my city of Cambridge at the weekend, it is not a spurious point that people cannot afford to live in our great cities. It is not a minor point in terms of our future economic prosperity either, because unless people can afford to live in our great cities, that future prosperity is not assured, for Cambridge or for London. These things really matter.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of concern shown by Conservative Members for the consequences of the Bill may be explained by the fact that, during Prime Minister’s Question Time a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that an appropriate price for a starter home was up to £450,000?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I made it very clear that we were not discussing housing. We are discussing Transport for London, and housing is tangential to that. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) is absolutely in order when he is talking about clause 5.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Our worry is that, as a major landowner in London TfL, has a real responsibility. That is why Opposition Members have made it so clear that we feel that once that land is gone, it is gone forever, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) put so well. That is a very powerful point. She also pointed out that we have a deep unhappiness about these limited partnerships. She put that very well, too—partnerships with who knows who; the risk being nationalised, the profit being privatised. That point is absolutely right.

I enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), whose ability to smell a rat at 300 miles is legendary. He, too, has spotted exactly what is going on in this Bill.

I also endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). She pointed out that the financial consequences of this Bill are very poorly explained, which gives us yet further cause for concern.

We appreciate that TfL needs to be looking at a long-term strategy for London’s transport infrastructure. It is absolutely right to do so; it is its job. But there is a real fear, which has been raised by many of my hon. Friends as well as by trade unionists and London residents, that elements of this Bill would lead not to a long-term investment strategy, but to profiteering in the short term on property development, an outcome which is totally unacceptable.

As a number of my hon. Friends have said, we do not feel the way the powers provided in this Bill would be used has been scrutinised adequately, and we are not assured that local councils and communities will be properly protected.

I think we all recognise that this Bill has been on something of an odyssey through Parliament over the years, but we are not persuaded the proposals in clause 5 should ever make it to Ithaca—that is a reference for the good Mayor to pick up. Given the bad feeling generated over this Bill for years, it is now time for TfL to reflect, go back to the drawing board and bring forward new legislation in this Session that we trust will command greater consensus and confidence and genuinely allow TfL to utilise its assets in ways that are consistent with the wider long-term public good.

[Bob Blackman]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are all now better informed.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that about 60% of disabled people live in a household without a car and that disabled people use buses 20% more than others. He will also know that since 2010, 70% of local authorities have cut funding for bus services. We know that more cuts are on the way, like those that were announced in my county this week. Does he understand what impact those cuts will have on disabled people? What proper assessment has he made of the potential impact on disabled people?

[Andrew Jones]

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I am acutely aware of how important buses are for disabled people, as well as for other communities. That is why I have been a great champion of the bus industry. Of course, the implications for all bus users are considered when budgets are planned.