Russia’s Grand Strategy

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I would like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for convening this debate, and Members on both sides of the House for their contributions. It has been one of the most satisfying and interesting debates that I have participated in, and frankly it could not have come at a more crucial time, given the events in Ukraine, Belarus and the Balkans, and in recent days in Kazakhstan. I want to be clear from the outset that on this side of the House there is no doubt about the threat posed by the current Russian regime to our national security and that of our allies. Britain must therefore demonstrate robust and consistent leadership and careful judgment, and we must be crystal clear about our commitment to ensuring security in Europe.

Christmas day marked 30 years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Since 1989, a new Europe has emerged from behind the iron curtain, with a reunited Germany at its heart and a swathe of newly free countries in central and eastern Europe. Many chose to join the European Union and NATO, or to act in partnership with them. Millions of Europeans have grown up with new liberties and new opportunities. But we need to be frank: in the eyes of President Putin, this liberation was an historic catastrophe.

Putin wants to re-establish Russia’s status and influence, including dominance over the sovereign countries in its near abroad. He longs for parity of status with the United States and sees Russia as locked in an ongoing confrontation with the west. To that end, the Russian Government push our boundaries and constantly test our resolve, threatening or using force, targeting dissidents abroad, spreading disinformation and seeking to take advantage of our open economies through illicit finance and corruption. There are some who believe, wrongly, that the provocation of Russia into an aggressive stance begins in the west, echoing Putin’s view that through the enlargement of the European Union and the expansion of NATO, Russia has somehow been cornered.

The truth is that NATO and the European Union’s enlargement was not the west moving east, but the east looking west. These were free, sovereign states seeking a future of security, prosperity, co-operation and peace in a democratic Europe. It is the Russian regime that seeks to deny these states autonomy and independence; it is the Russian regime that has invaded its neighbours and annexed their territory; and it is the same Russian regime that seeks to veto the democratic aspirations and undermine the rights of people outside its own borders, in the way that it has done to Russian citizens within them.

At present, Russia’s hostility is focused on Ukraine. We must be clear that we face a moment of acute danger, with over 100,000 troops massed on the border and alarming rhetoric and unreasonable demands emerging from the Kremlin. We know that Putin is not afraid to act to undermine Ukraine’s integrity, overtly or covertly. It is right that the whole House sends a clear and united message today that we fully support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and that Russian action to further undermine it will be met with severe consequences. It is also right that we support dialogue to achieve de-escalation consistent with the security of our NATO allies and the integrity of Ukraine.

The Putin regime’s hostile actions go far beyond Ukraine. There is a much wider pattern of destabilising, threatening behaviour and overt hostile action. It is a charge sheet that runs roughshod over international norms and Russia’s own commitments: targeting dissidents and critics abroad with the appalling and irresponsible use of chemical and radiological weapons; committing state-based cyber-attacks against public institutions and private companies in the UK and elsewhere; annexing Crimea and supporting separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine; invading Georgia and sustaining its breakaway entities; propping up the butcher Bashar al-Assad in Syria; sustaining the dictator Lukashenko in Belarus; fomenting dissent in the fragile Balkans; using private military companies to pursue national agendas from Libya to Mali; and overtly or covertly squashing democratic movements in neighbouring states, such as Kazakhstan potentially next.

Too often, efforts to engage Russia have been based on the belief that the Russian Government see the world as we do, or on the hope that they will do so in the future. If we are to interpret Russia’s intentions, respond to its behaviour and hope to deter aggression, we must be realistic about the worldview in the Kremlin. We should understand that the Putin regime feels threatened by NATO’s expansion and Ukraine’s democratic transition, however illegitimate we think those feelings are. It seeks a sphere of influence, whether we like it or not. It will try to enhance Europe’s energy dependence, so that it can manipulate those who might sanction its actions. It believes that domestic survival depends on total dominance of the political sphere, financial security, the elimination of opponents, and the fanning of nationalism and nostalgia. He will ruthlessly pursue its interests as he sees them, in zero-sum terms. We may hope that Russia under Putin changes, but we should not expect it to. In response, we must be strong, consistent and resolute—active at home and abroad on its challenge.

First, that means being a dependable ally. We must be crystal clear in our commitment to NATO. That commitment must be unshakeable. We should collectively send clear and consistent messages to Russia about unacceptable behaviour and ensure that there are consequences, not rewards, for efforts to threaten or intimidate. Secondly, the UK must play a consistent and key leadership role in European security and defence. While Ministers are focused on the Indo-Pacific, these developments remind us about the importance of security in our own backyard in Europe. We have unique responsibilities, both as a member of the UN P5 and as the guarantor to agreements from the Budapest memorandum to the Dayton accords. The UK should give the highest priority to security in Europe and the north Atlantic. Instead, we have seen a decade of decline for Britain’s defence, with billions of pounds of waste and mismanagement, the number of tanks cut by a third and the Army cut to its smallest size in 300 years.

That leadership should also mean rebuilding ties with our European partners, including in the European Union. Today’s debate puts into sharp relief the recent petty and unedifying diplomatic squabbles between the UK and French Governments. France is our closest defence partner in Europe. It is in all our interests for those relationships to be managed, conscious of the real global threats to all of us. We must and should work to build a more consistent approach to Russia across Europe and reduce dependence on Russian gas, and that, of course, includes cancelling Nord Stream 2.

Thirdly, we must strengthen our defences at home. More than 18 months after the Russia report was published, none of its recommendations has been fully implemented. Most damning is the fact that the Government have failed to get to grips with the role of the UK in money laundering and illicit finance, leaving our country a soft touch for corrupt elites that help to sustain the Putin regime. It is past time to get serious, and that is why Labour is creating a taskforce on illicit finance to make Britain a truly inhospitable place for dirty money and to address finally the problem robustly.

Lastly, we must always make it clear that our disagreements with the Russian Government and its actions, and with Putin’s regime, are not with the Russian people, millions of whom want peace, stability and mutual respect with their own neighbours and with the west. Indeed, my own wife’s maternal grandmother and great-grandmother fled from Russia and the Bolsheviks, and my children have Russian blood running through their veins. We must promote continued dialogue, mutual respect and diplomatic engagement—hard-headed, clear-eyed, and rooted in a framework of international law and human rights. The alternatives are too dangerous to contemplate, for Russia and ourselves.

London Black Cabs

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith]

That is the case I was referring to. As I understand it, a member of the GMB was found to have been paid about £1.50 below the minimum wage, which is clearly not acceptable. However, I would like to redirect the right hon. Gentleman’s question to the Minister, who is better placed than I am to understand the legalities.

I ask the Minister—this is perhaps the most important issue—to provide an undertaking to work with the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the London taxi market as a whole. In particular, will he consider whether the low prices offered by some apps are kept artificially low to drive out competition—a form of predatory pricing? I am not clear how much evidence exists on that, but there is a strong suspicion, which I think I share, that it is happening.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

On that point, the hon. Gentleman will understand that companies such as Uber do not pay tax in this country, so they can, of course, keep prices low. We really need the Treasury to tighten up on that.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman—I almost said my right hon. Friend—for his intervention. That is actually a point I made earlier. He is exactly right: that does give the company an unfair advantage, and the issue needs to be looked at.

I do not want to remove choice in the market, and nor does any taxi driver I spoke to in the run-up to the debate, but it is an unarguable fact that, without efforts to level the playing field, we will lose the black cab in London, and London will be a lot poorer for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and on his contribution, and I congratulate and commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on his speech. He articulated in great detail the issues and substance of what is now required.

I want to say a couple of things that have occurred to me over the last little while. First, I want to thank a knowledge school called the Knowledge 4 You academy, which sits in Bethnal Green. I paid a visit to that school, which is run by a wonderful chap called Courtney, who is a Barbadian Rastafarian. Every evening in a little portakabin behind Bethnal Green station, about 40 Londoners gather to go through the knowledge. I met those 40 people. They are men and women, from all the ethnic backgrounds that we see reflected in the city. It might be said that they are overwhelmingly from a working-class background. One was a firefighter and another was a paramedic. Some were working in retail, and actually, I met a student there. It was a real reflection of London, going there every evening and studying for up to three years to get that knowledge, all coveting the yellow badge that gives them the entitlement to drive a black cab around London.

I came from the kind of background in the ’70s and ’80s where, if I had come into the centre of town, say, as a 19 or 20-year-old, and then got home and told my mother that I had got into a black cab, I would have got a clip around the ear. “Where the hell did you get that kind of money?” she would have said. However, later, as I became a barrister and had a little bit more money, it was quite nice to get into a black cab in the centre of town. It was quite nice to have the odd date and take one’s girlfriend home in a black cab, and it was comforting to be able to put one’s partner into a black cab and send them home in safety. It is great to be able to get into a vehicle where the driver knows where he is going. I have to say that all these years later, having seen the dedication of those who work hard to get that badge, it is something we should preserve. It is an institution.

All of us in this room will have travelled to cities all over the world, and we will have seen in those cities how people prize this institution, which is the first face that someone sees of the city when they arrive at Heathrow or Gatwick. That should be preserved and the business of plying for trade, which we established, is now something that, as my right hon. Friend said, should be in statute. This House could sort that out pretty rapidly and it would give that institution the reassurance it needs, not just in this city, but in other cities in the country. That is really the centrality of what the Minister has to come to.

I am absolutely clear that the Government’s slightly relaxed attitude to international companies that do not pay tax in this country must stop. Of course such a company can undercut established institutions. It is well known across the world that people can arrive in London, get a second-hand vehicle, jump through very few hoops—the bar is so low—go to the Uber office, get the technology, and for very little training, they, too, can be part of the explosion that we are seeing across the city which is now polluting our young people’s lungs. Of course the city is congested; it is all the private hire vehicles that people are picking up. In this economy, where one in four young people in London is still unemployed, we are seeing many young students doing this as well. Is that right? Is that good? It cannot be.

I wrote to the Home Secretary not so long ago to raise the issues of homophobia, assault and rape—really concerning activity on the part of some of these unregulated drivers. That is the price of entire deregulation, which is effectively what we are seeing through the back door. My view is that despite Transport for London being a great institution, in this area, it has failed miserably. Many black cab drivers expected the Mayor to intervene and to understand fully the difference between a metred cab plying for trade and actually ringing up a company, but that did not happen in a sufficient way. Will the Minister look again at this and at how this was allowed to happen? Unlike in a city such as Paris, where licensed drivers and new technology are able to exist alongside the long-standing institution of drivers in that capital city, how in London have we got it so badly wrong? The black cab is looked at across the world. It is more iconic than the New York yellow cab, and we are prepared to see it dwindle away on the back of deregulation.

There is the issue of who these drivers are. What is their qualification? What is their background? Why are we hearing of so many incidents of really poor, antisocial, dangerous and sometimes criminal behaviour? Who are they and what is the regulation relating to that?

Why are we so relaxed about a company that is not paying tax? Why are we supporting them? Who are the friends that we are hanging out with? There have been lots of suggestions and there has been lots of contact at different places between the Mayor’s office, the Government and some of these new companies that are entering the market. Are we going to make this a statutory base—plying for trade, the hackney carriage—and move it forward into the 21st century so we protect that institution?

Finally, if someone lives in London locally, they want to be able to ring up a minicab office, where there are local drivers who know their local area. That is usually to do regular routes. Lots of old people make short visits to hospitals, GP surgeries and that sort of thing. It is really worrying to see the collapse of minicab offices in London because of the failure to regulate appropriately in this area.

[Sadiq Khan]

My right hon. Friend has touched a nerve with me and with regard to what my constituents have been saying to me, which is that some private hire vehicles are being driven out of the market by the pricing model of Uber. It is trying to gain a huge share of the private hire vehicle market and the worry is what will happen tomorrow when all these private vehicles that he knows about—the minicabs in Tooting and Tottenham—are run out of business.

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Basically, do we want the high street to have a place not only for the supermarket somewhere, but for small independent shops? Very soon in London, those small independent minicab offices will all be gone. There will be no sense of locality. It will all be one big M25 fudge called Uber. That is what we must stand up to. There is room for everyone, but unfairness must be grappled with over the coming weeks and months.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

As a London MP myself, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on everything that he is saying. He is speaking the utmost sense and I support everything that he has said.

[Mr Lammy]

But!

[Andrew Rosindell]

No, not at all. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real issue is that we need a level playing field? We need equal access to the market for everyone in this trade, but those in the black cab industry have had to go through many hoops to get where they are and it is absolutely wrong that a company can just undercut people who have worked all their lives to establish their trade. I therefore commend the right hon. Gentleman for everything that he is saying. I hope that this can be an issue of cross-party consensus in order to take action to resolve this very serious problem, which could destroy our black cab industry in London.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman has put his points very well and I entirely agree with him. I think that there is consensus in the Chamber today, but there is also concern about those who have the power. The Mayor, the Minister and the Government have the power and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting says, this issue requires action, not just platitudes. I know that he is forensic in his quest for action and will be over the coming weeks and months—I have felt that myself. The point is absolutely right that a level playing field is what is required. There must be fairness to those who put the effort in—those who do the knowledge and go through those hoops. There must be regulation, not a completely deregulated market. That does not work and cannot work in this sector, particularly in relation to safety. And we do need to get a grip on companies that are not paying their tax properly in this country.

Davies Commission Report

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I can definitely confirm that the ministerial code will apply to all Ministers in the way in which we deal with this issue over the next few months.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

In looking at the report over the coming months, will the Secretary of State consider the livelihoods of many in the UK— the 190,000 potential jobs, the 76,000 livelihoods of those currently working at Heathrow and the 10,000 apprenticeships—and not just the livelihoods of the hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The right hon. Gentleman had a good question there, but spoiled it at the end. As I have already said, there are other mayoral candidates from the Labour party who have a similar position to that of my hon. Friend, the present Mayor of London. That is an issue that we shall consider and take forward.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

As a former Universities Minister, may I begin by welcoming the decision on support for PhD students, which obviously builds on the progress previously made for masters students? That is hugely important to our economy. I also think that it is fantastic that the Mayor of London has been given greater powers in relation to skills and planning. The move on the London Land Commission is vital if we are to bring forward land for housing here in London.

I would like to have seen something in the Budget on Crossrail 2. It is hugely important that we build on the developments of Crossrail 1 and do not lose the expertise, so we must move on to Crossrail 2. The Chancellor was previously able to find £2 million to see the concept of that scheme move forward, and it would have been nice to see some determination at the Dispatch Box today, but it was not mentioned. There are also vital infrastructure developments here in London, including a bridge in the south-east and the Bakerloo line extension, but those, too, did not feature in the Budget statement.

The major issue facing London and the south-east is housing. Although the Chancellor set out his plans for a new ISA for first-time buyers, when one looks closely at the figures, it does not look as though that will go very far. The average London house is now being bought for £470,000. The average London earner is making £36,000. On any analysis, despite the ISA, which can be topped up to £15,000, a buyer would need a deposit of £75,000. It is going to take a lot of ISAs and a long time to get to that deposit. The Chancellor gives the impression that the Government support home ownership. My guess is that someone on average earnings might be able to find £1,500 to stick into an ISA, but it is unlikely that they will find £15,000, and if prices continue to rise, getting to that deposit might well take a decade or more.

Most people moving into housing in London this year are moving into private rented accommodation. We have heard nada—zero—from the Government about that lion’s share of our population who are in private rented accommodation. Here it is important to say that I am not talking about students or young professionals, often living in overcrowded circumstances. I am thinking of London’s working families, moving every six months because of shorthold tenancies with dodgy landlords. We heard nothing from the Government in relation to rent caps, the lettings crisis and that important group of Londoners—nothing on rents, nothing meaningful on house building and nothing for those who want to get on the housing ladder.

The real sadness is the travesty of social housing in this country. How many council homes did we build in London last year? Forty. Forty council homes were built in London last year. Because of the lack of grant to housing associations, the number of properties that they brought on to the market is also very low, relative to the need out there. At the same time, with right to buy and the huge discounts that exist, thousands of council houses are coming off the market. Of course, there is a discount. The discount available on council houses is £100,000. What happens? Someone buys their council house, gets the £100,000, and then sells it. In what other area of public policy can anyone get £100,000, handed across from the taxpayer? This Government took the bonds that we introduced for young children so that they would have assets, and they are prepared to give £100,000 to those who want to buy their own home and then sell it off.

So on housing, the biggest crisis facing our country, we have heard nothing. I said that I welcomed the handing over of greater powers in relation to skills to the Mayor, but that is handed over with one hand and taken with the other. It has not gone unnoticed that this Government have plans for a 24% cut in our further education budgets across the country—24%. How does someone get up the ladder if they are stuck in one of those poorly paid jobs in retail in this city and beyond? They often do it by going to night school. I say to the Minister, “Find me a college that’s open past 8 pm for an adult—not a young person—who is available to skill up, and I’ll give you a beer.” There are hardly any such colleges left in the country. The opportunity does not exist. If the Government were serious about vocational skills, they would attend to adults in adult learning who want to move up. Despite all the plaudits on apprenticeships, let us remember that the growth in apprenticeships in London is in customer services and hairdressing. I rest my case.

Stansted Airport

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate on an important issue that cuts to the heart of growth and success in our country. Stansted airport began life as a United States air force base during world war two. More than 600 planes took off from that air strip on their historic journey to the French coast in the first hours of D-day in 1944. In the 70 years since then, the small air base has grown rapidly into a thriving modern airport, the fourth busiest in the United Kingdom. Last year, it served nearly 18 million passengers and flights to more than 150 destinations. Its passenger numbers are constantly increasing and are set to rise further in the coming years. Stansted is one of the infrastructure successes of our time, and that is the context in which the future of the airport must be considered. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) here. He represents the area and has taken up the issues over many years. I am also pleased to see other colleagues who have taken an interest.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my constituency is next door to Stansted. Does he agree that the new owners of Stansted airport have already made a huge difference to the running and management of the airport? I have huge praise for their work. Does he agree that for any expansion or development of the airport to take place, the employer should do everything possible to include local people and ensure that they get the jobs that are there?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the next few years should see Stansted continuing to grow from strength to strength. Since being sold by BAA, its prospects have been strong. The new owner, Manchester Airports Group, has committed to building and improving Stansted. He is also right about the importance of local people. He will understand that unemployment in the region around the airport is fairly low, certainly when compared with my constituency. One reason why I am pleased to co-chair the group of MPs that supports the Stansted corridor is our shared interest in growth and employment in the region, as well as in the concerns of local people.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I am pleased to back the right hon. Gentleman in his ongoing campaign on Stansted. Does he share my view that the liberation of Stansted and Gatwick from the monopoly has worked wonders for both those airports? I know more about Gatwick than Stansted. Gatwick has done things that we were told were not possible, such as opening up flights to Vietnam and Indonesia. The beneficial consequences of competition between airports should be borne in mind as we talk about the bigger issues of airport capacity. Some of my colleagues seem keen to recreate what would effectively be a large taxpayer-subsidised, foreign-owned monopoly at Heathrow.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman’s persuasive tones are seductive. He is certainly right that the nature of competition in this market has been hugely important, although I suspect that we might disagree on other points. It was important that the monopoly in the system with BAA was broken. We are seeing a flourishing as a consequence of that monopoly being ended.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

It is wonderful to see so many interventions in a short debate. Because the subject is so important, I give way.

[Guy Opperman]

I support what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. To follow on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), is part of the ability to prosper as an economy that we allow regional airports—I obviously speak for Newcastle airport—to thrive, just as Stansted and Gatwick have been allowed to thrive? Does he agree that that should be the direction of travel from the Treasury and the Department for Transport?

[Mr Lammy]

I agree that that is one direction of travel. It has been interesting to see Newcastle airport recently open up huge new routes with huge new carriers, including flights to Dubai. That supports the hon. Gentleman’s point on regional airports.

The new owners have already signed up new airlines at Stansted, announced an £80 million redevelopment of the airport, launched a campaign to attract long-haul carriers to Stansted and signed deals that will add more than 11 million passengers in the next 10 years. That underlines all that has already been said. With ever increasing use and committed and forward-looking new owners, the future of Stansted looks bright.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

There is no doubt that Stansted is doing well, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the Davies report has not given Stansted a fair analysis, because the analysis stops at 2030? If the Davies report had looked at runway capacity and airport capacity in the south-east until 2050, as we wanted, it might have given a different view on Stansted’s future, which is thriving.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend cuts to the chase. Long-term aviation strategy has been handed to the Davies commission, but it will not report until after 2015, so I do not want to stray too far into second-guessing what it might say. I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend said, because I was somewhat surprised that the new runway at Stansted was not even included in the Davies report’s preliminary shortlist. Given the scope for development there, the predicted increases in passenger numbers and the airport’s ever-evolving success, it is surprising that that runway did not warrant further consideration as an option. I understand that that was in part due to Davies not taking into account the full passenger forecasts or the recent deals that have been signed under the new ownership at Stansted.

I am pleased that the commission, in highlighting the possible need for a new runway at Stansted by 2050, indicates that it at least accepts that the airport has long-term value. Either way, Davies has concluded that the choice over a new runway by 2030 is effectively between Heathrow and Gatwick. My priority for this debate is not what happens in 2030 or 2050, but what happens now. Regardless of what Davies eventually recommends, we have an immediate problem, which is that London urgently needs more air capacity. The prospect of any new runway is at best 15 years away, and those are 15 years that we do not have. London cannot afford to wait and should not sit by as the likes of Frankfurt, Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle surpass us and steal the benefits that accompany better connectivity.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Talking about now and the need to have increased capacity and better facilities at Stansted airport, I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to take note of the impact that an increased number of flights can have on other parts of the United Kingdom. For example, that can increase the number of flights to Belfast City airport and Belfast International airport. That increases competition and drives down prices, and that can encourage more people to take up air travel. We can feel the dividends of what happens to Stansted in Belfast if it is done correctly.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to hear that, as will be my many Irish constituents.

Last year, Germany overtook the UK on new investments, which is hardly surprising when it has many more connections to developing markets in China, India and Latin America. Heathrow has nearly half as many flights to China as Frankfurt. In fact, London has fewer weekly flights than its European rivals to most of the emerging market economies. All that comes despite the fact that British trade increases by up to 20 times when there are direct flights to a country. That is why short-term measures are crucial if we are to prevent yet more business from being lost to our competitors.

Much more can be done in the short term to boost Stansted’s success and to alleviate pressure on London’s other airports, the core of which is urgently improving rail links to Stansted airport. Given the current state of the links, 34 million people in Stansted’s catchment area avoid the airport and catch flights elsewhere.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is being generous in taking interventions. I underline the importance of what he says about rail links and want to emphasise importance of high-speed coach links from places such as Oxford and elsewhere to the west and north-west of London, because the length of journeys to Stansted diminishes its ability to fulfil its undoubted regional potential.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that important point. All these factors put unnecessary pressure on Gatwick and Heathrow, which are already operating at full capacity. In fact, Stansted is the only London airport with spare capacity. As a medium-term solution to our aviation problem, why are we not utilising the Stansted’s 50% unused capacity?

The problem is that the West Anglia main line—the main access route to Stansted—is in a dire state. It has suffered from year after year of underinvestment, and, as a result, it is slow, unreliable and inefficient. It takes 53 minutes to get to Stansted from a London rail terminal, compared with 37 minutes to Luton, 30 minutes to Gatwick and 21 minutes to Heathrow. Reliability, meanwhile, is well below the national average. The rail link is a real impediment to Stansted’s growth and future success. The Davies commission noted that in its interim report, which stated that there are substantial arguments in favour of enhancing the link, which merits urgent consideration. I want to press the Minister on that urgent consideration. Like Davies, Transport for London, Network Rail, the Government and London business groups have all voiced their support for the improvements. There is a consensus that four-tracking the line between Coppermill junction and Broxbourne is vital. I welcome that consensus, although it has been long enough in coming. We need urgent action.

Timing remains a real issue, however. It is a growing concern that the work may be delayed further and further. Network Rail has suggested that the improvements, despite being described by Davies as urgent and vital, may be pushed back into control period 6, which does not even begin for another five years. Similar delays have occurred several times already. I hope that the Minister’s response will outline concrete steps that the Government will take to improve the West Anglia main line. Following Davies stressing the need for urgency, I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government will complete the work in the shortest time possible. If he is unable to give such a response now, will he assure me that it will be included in the Government’s response to Davies’ initial report, which is due to be published this spring? I see no reason why a commitment to proceeding with the upgrades could not be included in this year’s autumn statement, with the start of enabling work being included in next month’s Budget.

London First has reported that four-tracking could be completed by 2021. That should be our aim. There is a minority view that four-tracking is unnecessary, but there are no alternatives. We need to act now. Even if we do not take anything else into account, we cannot ignore that four-tracking is a crucial prerequisite to the development of Crossrail 2. The Minister will be familiar with the undertakings given not only by the Chancellor, but by the Mayor of London to move towards Crossrail 2 over this next period.

I acknowledge the time and know that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) wants to speak, but I want to emphasise the importance of the region to our country as a whole. The London-Cambridge corridor is an essential component of growth in a recovering economy. Cambridge is essential to the region and we need growth in this region akin to that of Boston and the eastern corridor of the United States. That cannot be achieved without a thriving airport with high-speed links to London. A York Aviation study published on Monday found £53 million-worth of journey time savings could be made by improving the quality of the line. A recent report by Oxford Economics concluded that investing in four-tracking could unlock economic benefits to the tune of £4.5 billion by 2021 and £10.7 billion by 2031. Development is also important for jobs in the region. My constituents in Tottenham rely heavily on the success of the Upper Lee valley corridor and on jobs at Stansted. West London accounts for 17% of all jobs in London, for example, and Heathrow supports 230,000 jobs.

The future of Stansted is hugely important to the UK’s whole economy. It pains me that we are still discussing upgrading the West Anglia main line. It is important that this region of London is put on the map. I have been opposed to the Mayor’s idea of Boris island, largely because of where it would leave west London’s economy and the huge loss of jobs that would be a consequence of Heathrow’s closure. Stansted is a key component of the rebalancing of London’s economy to the east and north-east, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the Minister for agreeing that I can make a small contribution to this debate. It is always interesting to hear from other colleagues about the airport that lies wholly in my constituency. It is a subject about which I have spoken in the House on many occasions over the past 36 years.

The title that the right hon. Gentleman gave this debate raised some eyebrows in my constituency and elsewhere in Essex, almost to the point where briefing was coming in on the basis that we would this afternoon be deciding the future of Stansted airport, but that is perhaps a little optimistic. The reality is accepted by my constituents, who were opposed to the development of Stansted into a major London airport. It currently has an agreed capacity of up to 35 million passengers per annum and it could go further than that on a single runway. It currently handles 7.8 million passengers per annum, so there is a long way to go.

I do not decry the importance of the subject to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but he must recognise that when he talks about job creation in my constituency, he is talking about a constituency with 1.3% unemployment. For all the jobs that will be created at the airport, even with its existing planning permission, a great many of those will be taken by people who will then want to migrate to my constituency, which is essentially a rural area that is already bearing a great burden of demand for more housing. He must understand why there are concerns about the extent to which Stansted can grow.

[Mr Lammy]

I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman about the nature of my constituents, many of whom have migrated to Harlow. I am sure that, if some of them left, he would welcome them.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

We have a common position on the improvement of the railway line, so that people from north London can come to find jobs in the area and commute back again conveniently.

There is resistance in my constituency to the development of Stansted beyond one runway and certainly to its becoming a hub airport, because people see the down side of what could happen. As they see it, there is little up side if development on that scale can take place. Had it been possible to say that there would be a first-class rail line as a result of the original decision to expand Stansted, that might have been seen as a benefit, but the service has got worse. I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important for us soon to have a four-track railway on the West Anglia line.

The blame has to be shared. It starts with the Government of Mrs Thatcher, who agreed the development, but not the infrastructure. It went on through the years of the Labour Government, who wanted not only to expand Stansted, but to put more houses in the M11 corridor, yet they still did nothing about the infrastructure. Under the present Government, we are now waiting for a sign that action will be taken. In that sense, the right hon. Gentleman and I may make common cause, but please do not go away with the thought that my constituents welcome the idea that Stansted should be the hub airport with two, three or four runways. London needs a hub airport, but it does not need it in the Essex countryside.

TfL (Funding and Station Staffing)

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The subject of this debate is future Government funding for Transport for London and station staffing levels. They are matters of considerable concern to many London MPs, but they do extend beyond the capital. Let me first outline the reasons why we sought this debate.

As a result of the Government’s austerity drive, Transport for London’s general grant will, according to its December 2013 business plan, be cut from £1 billion in 2013-14 to £835 million in 2014-15, reaching a low of £629 million in 2015-16 before recovering slightly to £684 million by 2020-21. On 21 November 2013, London Underground, backed by its owner, TfL, and the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, announced a policy called “Fit For The Future—Stations”, which includes closing every ticket office at all 240 stations, cutting 950 of the 5,750 station staff positions, which equates to a 17% cut, and removing supervisors and senior staff from many stations. At the same time as revealing station staffing cuts and ticket office closures, London Underground announced with a big fanfare a separate policy of 24-hour operation at weekends on some tube lines. The timing of that announcement was greeted by the staff of London Underground and others as quite a cynical move designed to distract attention from the plans to close ticket offices and slash station staff numbers.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend also recognise in that business plan Transport for London’s intention to seek year-on-year fare rises for the next decade?

[John McDonnell]

The reactions of my constituents have been remarkable, and other Members may have seen the same. People cannot understand why they are paying more in fares while station staff and ticket offices are being cut. I can understand their being perplexed.

On 18 December, the Labour transport spokesman on the Greater London authority, Valerie Shawcross, asked the following question of the Mayor:

“Will you guarantee that all LUL stations will be staffed at all times?”

The Mayor responded by saying that officers were drafting a response that would be available shortly. We still have not had that response. The fact that the Mayor has still not been able to provide an unequivocal answer suggests that that guarantee cannot be given. Following the King’s Cross fire, a legal requirement was introduced that there be a minimum of two staff at every station, but that applies to sub-surface stations only, so the others are extremely vulnerable.

The business plan also sets out that London Underground will cut the frequency of essential maintenance checks, still plans to introduce driverless trains at some unidentified point in future, is not filling posts, despite large numbers of Londoners looking for jobs, and seems to be plugging the gaps in staffing with casual workers more frequently. My constituency has a railway estate and I represent a number of London Underground workers. To be told a month before Christmas that they would not have a job not only shocked them, but caused real consternation and, understandably, considerable anger. The two rail unions that represent staff at London Underground—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—rightly consulted their members in the light of representations that they received. On Friday 10 January, the RMT issued the following statement:

“RMT members have voted by 77% for strike action and by an even bigger majority for action short of a strike. The results will now be considered by a meeting of the union’s executive.”

Dates will be set and there will be strike action unless meaningful negotiations with the Mayor take place. RMT general secretary, Bob Crow, said:

“RMT members on London Underground have voted by a massive majority for both strike action and action short of a strike in a dispute which is wholly about cash-led cuts”

and

“plans that would see the axing of nearly a thousand safety critical jobs and the closure of ticket offices at a time when the tube network is under growing pressure from customer demand and needs more staff and not less to ensure safe and efficient operation.”

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Example after example has been given. Thoughtistic, which represents people on the autistic spectrum, says that some people on that spectrum are not capable of using, or willing to use, automated systems, and respond better to personal intervention.

Example after example has been given and submitted to the Mayor for consideration, but he has ploughed ahead. The argument that has come back is that gateway stations—King’s Cross, St Pancras and Victoria—will have one third more staff, but that means that staff will be cut at another 125 smaller tube stations, with just one member of staff at certain stations at certain times of day.

At the moment, London Underground offers disabled and older passengers a turn-up-and-go assistance service, in which it provides help with buying tickets, planning routes and getting to the right platform, without passengers having to book in advance. That assistance gives thousands of disabled Londoners the confidence to travel. Many believe that that will be lost.

The recent introduction of manual boarding ramps at 35 stations opened up many more routes to wheelchair users, but those ramps depend on a member of staff operating them. If the staff cuts go ahead, fewer staff will be able to operate the ramps on top of other tasks. The cuts will be a nightmare for many people who suddenly saw their world opening up as a result of increased accessibility following investment over the past 15 or 16 years. Now, we are denying them that.

There is a fear that without the fixed point of a staffed ticket office, visually impaired people will find it harder to locate staff to assist them. Passengers at stations other than mainline stations will have to find a member of staff somewhere on the platform, if they can find one at all.

There have been contradictory answers to questions tabled in the London assembly and in Parliament. On 18 December 2013, Labour members of the London assembly tabled written questions asking the Mayor what assessment he had made of the impact of the cuts on women, disabled people and older passengers. The answer on 7 January was that officers are drafting a response that will be sent shortly. That was despite the fact that parliamentary questions had been answered by Ministers; they said that London Underground had carried out a quality impact assessment to identify the impact of the Mayor’s proposals, and that it showed that the changes will be positive or neutral for all equality target groups. Either Ministers have got it right, or the Mayor has. Someone should tell us the truth of what has happened with the Mayor’s overall assessment.

There will be dangers to staff and we should not underestimate that. The cuts pose a significant threat to staff safety and morale. The official documentation presented to the unions on the day when the cuts were announced was pretty damning. It said that not only would 1,000 posts be on the line, but the remaining staff would be forced to reapply for their jobs, and in addition would have to work in conditions that even on London Underground’s own assessment will carry a medium risk to their safety. It also said that employees will be

“confused, demoralized or distracted due to uncertainty…during”

the HR process. It continued:

“Although there are lone supervisors today this proposal would mean employees at a lower grade would be working alone and may increase employee perception of vulnerability, especially for minority groups at particular risk of abuse.”

That is where we are at. The level of cuts will put passengers at risk, demoralise staff and undermine the overall service.

[Mr Lammy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the conversation about cuts, it has been hugely disappointing that the Mayor has had nothing to say about how alternative revenue might be found? He could lift the borrowing requirements for TfL. He could allow local authorities and the Greater London authority to keep 100% of London property taxes; that might be a way of supporting Transport for London. There are alternatives, and we have not heard enough about them. Does he agree?

[John McDonnell]

Not completely. The alternative, as my right hon. Friend said, is investment, growth, and tax collection. Interestingly, today we received a brief from the London assembly arguing for that specifically. My right hon. Friend’s proposal is supported by the London assembly, and the Mayor should listen, as should the Government.

There is an alternative if we invest, but the growth in the number of passengers must be recognised. London Underground faces cuts not because of falling demand, but the opposite. Since 1996, there has been a 60% increase in passenger numbers. Transport for London’s business plan predicts that passenger journeys will rise by 13.7% from 1.273 billion in 2013-14 to 1.448 billion in 2020-21. The same plan predicts that the population growth in London will be to 10 million in 2030. The alternative to cuts is to accept reality, and that sheer passenger demand will require London Underground to take on more staff, not fewer.

In recent decades, various London Underground contracts were taken over by private companies. That has caused public money to leave the system while bureaucracy and inefficiency has increased. Some of those contracts have since returned to the public sector, as hon. Members know, including those relating to Metronet, Jubilee line train maintenance and London Underground’s power supply. TfL saved £56 million by bringing power supply back into London Underground at a lower than expected cost. It expects that to bring significant savings in future years that will more than offset the initial cost.

Re-integrating Metronet has provided London Underground with an ongoing year-on-year saving; it was £53 million in 2012-13. If TfL re-integrated other elements of London Underground that were previously privatised, it would save significant sums of money. That could include tube lines that are in public ownership but not integrated with the rest of the tube. I am talking about cleaning, catering, ticket machine maintenance, engineering contracts, Northern line train maintenance and recruitment.

Let me finally counter some of the arguments that TfL put forward, some of which are bizarre. TfL has said that only 3% of journeys involve a visit to a ticket office, but that is 100,000 people a day. Even if the majority do not visit ticket offices, it is essential that there is a service for those passengers who do. TfL has said that London Underground’s plan will make its staff more visible around the stations. I find that difficult to believe when 950 staff—17% of existing staff—will be removed. Staff will be scattered around the station, rather than at one location.

Aviation Strategy

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I am sorry, but I am not going to give way again as I do not have much time.

I just want to deal with the point about the closure of Heathrow. It would be a very big decision, but not a catastrophe—it is an opportunity.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

I am not giving way.

It is an opportunity to create 250,000 new homes west of London—a new hi-tech city that has all the infrastructure already in place. It is a huge opportunity to solve the shortage of housing problem in London, and to drive growth west of London, not to close it down. I am afraid that we can come to a slightly myopic view if we do no more than talk to people who work at Heathrow. We will get the view that somehow this change is bad. All change is difficult, but this is a change that needs to be made.

In this age, nobody in their right mind would choose to put London’s hub airport where Heathrow is located. There only needs to be one accident, and we nearly had that a few years ago when the airliner with frozen fuel came down on the edge of the runway. If it had come down half a mile short of that spot, it would have landed on a densely populated area and people would be crying out for the airport to be closed on safety grounds.

Big airports have been moved before: notably British engineers and British planning in Hong Kong moved Hong Kong international airport—an airport of comparable size—to a new island site. As that has been done before, it can be done again, and this is the vision the Davies commission needs to have to deliver on its remit. It must not get sucked back into a shorter-term view and propose a patch-and-mend solution—a runway here and a runway there. I believe that Manston will have a big role to play, particularly in the interim, because it will take time to build a four-runway airport in the Thames estuary. We have to solve this problem once and for all and to take the really big strategic decision that will ensure that London and the south-east remain a globally connected part of the world, and that London remains the global city it deserves to be.

--- 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.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I am yet to meet a single person other than those who occupy the Government Front Bench who supports the deadline falling after the next general election. I do not think that anyone on our Back Benches believes that that is a credible deadline, so in real terms this is probably in the hands of the Labour party. If it wants to force the agenda, I suspect that would be very easy to achieve. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could put some pressure on his own Front Benchers.

[Mr Lammy]

I think the pressure I am able to put on my Front Benchers is about exactly the same as the pressure the hon. Gentleman is able to put on his, he makes a very good point.

I hope that the Davies interim report due at the end of the year will show that real progress has been made in coming to a conclusion. It would be disappointing if the interim report consists merely of a long list of all the options we already know are on the table, many of which have been discussed today. The commission was set up over a year ago. We must begin to get some concrete early results. I would like to see a shortlist of two or three of the best options for increasing Britain’s airport capacity. That would provide a much clearer idea of the way forward and focus the debate on aviation, which is very much needed.

I am especially clear on one thing: one of London’s biggest success stories must not simply be wiped off the map. Heathrow airport is the busiest airport in the world on the basis of passenger numbers. It directly or indirectly employs 230,000 people. The contribution of the western wedge of London and the home counties accounts for 10% of the country’s GDP. The percentage of GDP that is contributed by London, at 21.9%, is the highest that it has been since 1911. We therefore ought to be very careful in talking about the idea that Heathrow could somehow be shut overnight with no problem.

It was right that the last proposal for a third runway at Heathrow was rejected, but that was largely because it took no account of the population in the wider west London area. The recent proposals contain more consideration of how to minimise noise levels and disruption to residents. It is obvious that the expansion of Heathrow is one of the main options that the Davies commission must consider.

This debate must be based on the assumption that airport capacity will be increased in addition to the continued success of Heathrow, not at its expense. Let us be clear: any strategy that results in closing one of Britain’s most successful and important infrastructure locations should be avoided like the plague. We should rule out right now any option that would close Heathrow airport because it would be a disaster for London and for the country.

That includes the idea of a new hub airport in the Thames estuary. It is clear that building a new hub airport in the east of London would require Heathrow to be closed. That would decimate the west London economy and end all the wider benefits that Heathrow brings to the city. If that option ever was on the table, it should be taken off the table right now. Not only is it economically and technically unfeasible; it would mean closing Britain’s best and most successful airport. Thankfully, there is only one person in this country who genuinely seems to believe that the answer to Britain’s airport problem lies in building a new £65-billion airport in the middle of a river. Unfortunately, that person happens to be the Mayor of London.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I suspect that there is a second person. I give way.

[Mr Jenkin]

Moving a major airport is a dramatic idea, but it would happen over a period of time and would be an evolution. If Heathrow ceased to be an airport, there would not just be a big hole. There would be a massive opportunity to fill the space with new industries, homes and economic activity. That would be a huge opportunity for the whole of west London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

Ministers often talk about the country’s finances. We must be absolutely clear about the staggering cost of that proposal.

I will end by saying that it is important that we recognise the contribution of Stansted—an airport that is below capacity as we speak. It is ridiculous that the journey from London to Stansted takes so long and is so unpredictable. We need to deal with the infrastructure on the West Anglia line. It needs to be upgraded so that Stansted is more viable.

[Mr Jenkin]

What about the cost?

[Mr Lammy]

That is a cost that would benefit Stratford, London and the airport.

Cycling

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on all their work in the all-party group. I also congratulate my constituent Adam Coffman on all he has done to raise the issue of cycling in our national life. In these debates it is easy to get a sense that people are paying lip service to cycling, but the profound and cultural change we need in this country has not yet happened and now has to arrive. It is important that we recognise that the debate about cycling, certainly here in London, is being held against the backdrop of people having to wrestle with issues of not only quality of life, but the cost of living—petrol prices, transport costs, and rises in bus and tube fares. Transport costs beyond London mean that people want cycling to be a serious option.

For many of the reasons hon. Members have raised, and for some that I will touch on, cycling does not feel like a realistic option. I think that hon. Members want the Government to get behind the vision behind this report to make it one. We need long-term commitments and aims, not simply the short-term and headline-grabbing initiatives we have had in the past. The target of a 10% modal share for cycling by 2025 is good, but that will not happen by itself. Shockingly, just 6% of people in Britain cycle for more than 30 minutes once a week and only 2% use a bike to get to work.

Hon. Members will recall that, sadly, the Labour party lost the election in 2010. It has been said about Ministers, “You know you’re no longer a Minister when you get into the back of a car and it does not start.” I found myself in that situation, but at that point, when I was 30-whatever, I was not a driver. When I hit 40, I decided that I would learn to drive and I could be found driving up Barnet high road trying to do so. On my third attempt, I recently got my driving licence—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.] But I hate driving, and I have not really been back in a car since.

What I like doing is cycling. I, too, took my family to Holland this summer on a cycling holiday. I took a five-year-old and a seven-year-old, and we did about 80 km in 10 days. I do not think I could do that in this country. I certainly do not think I could do it easily in London, because I simply would not feel secure enough about the safety of a five-year-old and a seven-year-old on their bikes on the cycleways. Parents up and down the country want this report to be taken seriously, because they want to see their children cycling.

Nobody has touched on this next point, but I am concerned that the cycling proficiency training, which many hon. Members will recall from when they were younger, seems to be patchy across the country; it varies from school to school, and from local authority to local authority. We have raised this debate about helmets, but we also have to invest in proper cycling proficiency training if we want cycling to increase among young people.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that one superb way of commencing on the cycling pathway is to have an electric bicycle? I have one and they are a wonderful way of commencing cycling and getting people interested in it. They have not received much attention in this debate until now, but I urge him to plug the advantages and merits of electric bikes.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very good point. I knew nothing about electric bikes until I saw some in Holland just a few days ago. I thought that perhaps I should get one, but as I want to get rid of this girth I decided against it.

[Nicola Blackwood]

I wish to take the right hon. Gentleman back to his point about cycling proficiency. Would another point of transition for introducing cycling proficiency be when young people go to university, when they often get back on bikes having not been on them since they were young children? That can lead to dangerous situations and, often, to road deaths.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Those people are getting on bikes for cost-saving reasons, but they are doing so in towns and cities, where the prioritisation we need on cycling is not there. The resulting deaths and serious injuries should be of great concern.

Nearly half of all car journeys made in London are under 2 miles long. That is an easily bikeable distance, so we have to ask why so many people are not choosing to bike. As the hon. Lady indicated, in London alone more than 500 cyclists were seriously injured in just one year, which is a rise of 22% on the previous year’s figure. It is right that the current Mayor has done much to encourage cycling in London, and he should be congratulated on getting behind cycling. His appointment of a cycling tsar has also been very important, but targets for reducing cycle casualties have been consistently missed. The number of cycling casualties in London has increased every year since 2008, which is only partly explained by the cycling participation rates. Nationally, 122 cyclists were killed on British roads last year. So road accidents are still proportionately involving cycling, despite the incidence of other road accidents falling. That issue has to be addressed and it can be done only if we challenge the culture of cycling and do not have a transport policy that sometimes feels like just a motorists’ policy. We need a policy that is prepared to put both pedestrians and cyclists alongside motorists.

Remarks have been made about the share of investment in cycling. Those remarks need to be taken seriously if we are to get the shift that the Minister has said he wants and that I suspect he will say he wants, as it feels a long way off for those of us who want cycling to get up to where it needs to be. Investment and participation campaigns are crucial, but they will go only so far. Ministers must treat British roads as existing not just for cars, but for cyclists. Much greater priority also needs to be put on safety, which means proper investment in cycling paths, borough to borough, road to road, and new radical solutions that promote cycling.

I welcome this debate, although it is only really the very beginning on this subject. I hope that the House will return to it, but I hope that we will see the step change that we need in this country over the coming months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, but the Local Government Association has many issues on which to share best practice. I agree that it provides an excellent forum for that, but the strength of Cycling England was that it did exactly what its name said—it was about cycling in England. Having lost that organisation, we need something to fulfil that role.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that we do not see the initiatives and half-policies such as those she is talking about in the Government’s transport policy on trains, buses, cars and roads? That is why we need a proper integrated strategy.

Crossrail 2

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate.

No debate on London can start without an assessment of where the capital city finds itself. Without doubt, London is the world’s greatest city. No other metropolis can claim to be so vibrant or so beautiful. London is a magnet for the world’s greatest talents, and it is the birthplace of some of the world’s most successful businesses and the adopted home of countless others. This city has been the inspiration to so many of our musicians, authors and artists.

There are thousands of reasons, including London’s great multi-culturalism, that make this a modern city that outfaces the world, but peel away the veneer of the capital’s dramatic skyline, scratch away at the patina of the city’s bustling shopping streets, and we will see one of them—the tube is the engine room that has propelled London’s success story for 150 years.

The Metropolitan line shooting off from Baker Street up towards Harrow and into Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire began to make commuting to London possible. The City and South London railway, to be rechristened the Northern line, first tunnelled deep under the Thames so that people in Clapham no longer had to ride the omnibus to get to Bank or Euston, and in the middle of the great depression it was the Piccadilly line extension north to Finsbury Park on the edge of my constituency that drove growth and jobs to places such as Finsbury Park, Wood Green and Enfield. Yet that history of infrastructure has slowly been squandered by inertia, chronic underinvestment and a cowardly lack of ambition.

There has been relatively little investment since the Victoria line opened in 1967. The opening of the Fleet line, or the Jubilee line as we now know it, was, for the most part, a rebranding of an existing branch of the Metropolitan line. Although the subsequent extension to Stratford was impressive, it was also horrifically over-budget and over-deadline.

Small extensions to the docklands light railway and the construction of the Croydon tramlink have made differences in some quarters, but it is still fair to say that the overall reach of London’s transport network has barely changed for almost 50 years. Sadly, the signs of decay are there for all to see.

Despite the illusion created by Harry Beck’s distorted London underground map that coverage is almost universal, huge pockets of London are actually islands of isolation. Even in 2013, my constituents in the Northumberland Park ward of Tottenham, which has among the highest unemployment rates in London, are served by just one train an hour on weekdays and no trains at all at weekends.

Dalston Junction is just 3½ miles from Tottenham Court Road, but the journey on public transport takes more than half an hour. Huge swathes of south London rely on consistently inconsistent suburban rail services that are plagued by delays, cancellations and overcrowding. [Interruption.] I see my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) nodding her head, because she has waited for those trains on many occasions.

That those areas have the highest rates of unemployment, the highest levels of child poverty and the lowest levels of attainment is no coincidence. Without vital transport links, they are starved of investment, bled of ambition and left marooned from the city’s throbbing economic heart. In areas where services are frequent and extensive, users find themselves on some of the most overcrowded and expensive journeys in Europe.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On my right hon. Friend’s point about overcrowding, the section of the underground that goes up to Finsbury Park runs through my constituency. Does he agree that, although in 2007 we had more than four people per square metre in my part of the underground, even after 2021, when more investment is proposed, there will still be more than four people per square metre? That is why I put on record my complete support for Crossrail 2.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the morning rush hour more than four people stand per square metre on rail services in her constituency and across London. More than four people stand per square metre on all peak-time District line trains from Putney Bridge to Earl’s Court. The same is true for Victoria line trains from Finsbury Park to Victoria, for all Piccadilly line trains from Finsbury Park to Holborn, for Bank branch Northern line trains from Clapham Common to Euston and for Central line trains from Stratford to Holborn.

In this country it is illegal to transport cattle if there is more than one cow per square metre, to transport pigs if there are more than two pigs per square metre or to transport sheep if there are more than three sheep per square metre. Yet each rush hour in our capital city, more than four human beings cram into every square metre available just to go to and from work. At present, Londoners can only dream of being herded like cattle as they commute to work.

London’s viability as a global centre is already being undermined by a failure to resolve questions over its airport capacity, but the unspoken fact is that we are soon to lose out to our competitors because of what happens to those passengers the minute they leave the terminal building, wherever the new airport capacity is located. As Tony Travers puts it:

“London survives despite, rather than because of, its transport infrastructure planning and implementation”.

There are some who dismiss those concerns. They say that London’s congestion will be relieved once tube upgrades are completed and the long-awaited Crossrail 1 opens at the end of this decade. There will be some relief, of course, but such an attitude ignores the enduring lesson of the past century that, even if the economy stops, London does not. The capital is about to be hit by a demographic tsunami that, worse still, has taken policy makers by complete surprise.

The Mayor’s London plan forecast that the capital’s population would break 8.5 million in 2027. Data from the 2011 census suggest that that will now be exceeded in 2016 or earlier. By 2031, there will be almost 10 million people living in London, more than 1.5 million more than are living here today. An extra 700,000 jobs are expected to accompany that growth over the next 20 years, which means 700,000 extra daily commutes.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. In addition to population growth and jobs, does he agree that, as London tries to develop beyond the Olympics in attracting visitors, the last thing inward investors and tourists on short holidays want is a massively overcrowded underground as they go to see the attractions?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and he will know that there are great cities with great histories such as Athens that have been plagued by a sense that they do not work, that they are polluted and that they are not the great cities that many would like. The Olympics made a difference, but, of course, there are big economic problems in Greece. Nevertheless, cities can establish reputations. Before Mayor Giuliani, New York had a reputation for crime and congestion, and the horribleness of getting on the subway there undermined the attempts being made to promote it as a world city.

The hon. Gentleman will also know that we have good plans, which we must get on with, to bring High Speed 2 to our country. That will increase the number of morning arrivals at Euston station by 30%. What capacity gains are made by Crossrail 1, the tube updates or the Thameslink programme are set to be wiped out by 2030. By 2031, overcrowding on network rail routes into London and London underground lines will be at the same utterly unacceptable levels as today. On the main north-south lines—the Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly lines—they will be even worse.

The Chancellor is fond of saying that Britain is open for business. Is it open for business if it takes the average worker more than an hour to commute? Is it open for business if we ask our business men and women to travel to and from work in conditions unfit for livestock? Is it open for business if the underground interchanges at the main line termini in our capital city—Victoria, Euston, King’s Cross and Waterloo—must close during rush hour due to dangerous overcrowding? Members will have found themselves in such shutdowns while attempting to get into or out of Victoria station as they commute in this city. What use is High Speed 2 if we must wait an hour and a half to leave Euston station?

As long as London keeps growing, the Government and this Mayor must ensure that our infrastructure is one step ahead, not two steps behind, yet if they pursue the same course that they have trodden during the first half of this Parliament, they will condemn London to some degree of failure. After all, they almost cancelled Crossrail 1 on entering office, the Thameslink programme is beset by delays, they cancelled the third runway at Heathrow and kicked the search for an alternative into the long grass and they cancelled the four-tracking of the west Anglia line, which would finally have provided a decent train service to some of the poorest neighbourhoods in the capital.

The only ambition that this Government presently have for the capital—the only vignette of a solution to the challenge that they face—is the two-station spur of the Northern line to Battersea power station, an extension that will make its Malaysian owners incredibly rich but do little for the businesses in Lambeth and Wandsworth that are being asked to foot the bill.

London needs a game-changer. We need a wholly new project to alleviate congestion, drive growth and improve journey times for Londoners. The Minister will have seen the report, published last month by Lord Adonis and London First, detailing the case for a new line, dubbed Crossrail 2, linking south-west with north-east London. He will also notice the breadth of support for Crossrail 2. It commands the support of London’s businesses: 69% of members of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry say that Crossrail 2 is vital to London, and a ComRes poll showed that 95% of London businesses believe that any cut to transport investment will damage the capital’s businesses in the long term. It commands the support of the major transport unions, and of successive Mayors of London.

The reason why Crossrail 2 unites so many frequent foes is that the case for it is utterly compelling. As Lord Adonis and his colleagues made clear, it is the only way that London will be able to cope with the challenges that it will face over the next 20 years and handle the 700,000 extra commuters who will be working in central London by 2031, and it is certainly the only way to deal with the extra burdens that High Speed 2 will put on congestion in the capital.

Better still, the report sets out the case for a regional and suburban route that will deliver immense benefits to London and beyond. It will finally bring tube stations to Mare street in Hackney, and it will double train frequency to places such as Kingston and Twickenham. It will also free track for South West Trains to increase the number of trains from Portsmouth, Basingstoke, Southampton and Farnham to London Waterloo that serve stations throughout Hampshire and Berkshire. Most importantly, it will provide a reliable train service and huge economic benefits to some of the most isolated and deprived areas of the Upper Lea valley, which includes my constituency.

The line can also be developed from Cheshunt through to Stansted airport, providing a stopping service on new tracks to complement a more frequent and faster Stansted express service. Not only could that mean better use of the excess capacity at Stansted airport, it would mean that communities with some of the highest unemployment rates in the country could benefit economically from having an airport on their doorstep and a new line connecting areas such as Northumberland Park, Edmonton, Tottenham, Dalston, Hackney and Wood Green to central London, Clapham, Wimbledon and Stansted station. It would clearly leverage investment from businesses and developers, create jobs each year after it had been completed and open up the Upper Lea valley as a growth area for the capital.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I am grateful to him for allowing me to intervene. Does he agree that London is already well served in its number of runways and its total airport capacity? I think it has more than any other city in Europe, with the exception of Paris, which has one more runway. The problem in London is that we do not make good use of the capacity that we have. The point that he has just made, which is exactly right, is that by extending Crossrail to Stansted, for which the current Mayor of London has been pushing hard, at a stroke we would transform Stansted, which is only half used at the moment, into a natural destination for business travellers, which would in turn relieve pressure on Heathrow. To me, it seems like a no-brainer solution to our airport capacity problem. What does the right hon. Gentleman think?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I tend to agree with much that he says, even though he belongs to another party. He makes his point incredibly well. Stansted is key to London’s development. It is extraordinary that the line currently running from Stansted to Liverpool Street is as chaotic, delay-prone and slow as it is. Clearly, efforts must be made to improve that service. He is absolutely right: a lot of attention has been paid to airport capacity. That is not the subject of this debate, but it is clear that investment in our train capacity, so that people can move around the city, will take a fine eye and focus. I hope that it will command the attention not just of the Mayor, as he rightly pointed out, but of the Government.

Yes, Crossrail 2 is ambitious. Its ambition comes with a price tag, but the central question is: what price doing nothing? What is the price of leaving communities cut off from central London, letting travel across London become more arduous than it is and causing major businesses to leave our capital for more mobile and modern competitors in Asia, Europe and America?

Some will still say that this is all too sudden and that more time is needed to consider and contemplate before the Government can decide, presumably, to consider and contemplate a bit more. I have sat where the Minister is sitting, as a Minister in different Departments, and I know the business of kicking things slightly into the long grass as one negotiates hard with the Treasury, but let us not forget that Crossrail 2 is quite long in the tooth. Part of the route was originally conceived as early as 1901, only to be dropped five years later. After the second world war, the idea of a Chelsea to Hackney line peppered almost every London rail study. In the early 1990s a route was finally safeguarded, and mutations of it have slowly been making their way between Whitehall in-trays ever since. Successive Governments have already had time to contemplate and consider the plan. It is now time for leadership and action.

As I outlined, London’s congestion problems will come to a head during the next period. The line needs to be open in the early 2030s, which means breaking ground in the early 2020s. We therefore need a hybrid Bill sooner rather than later and, because this project will no doubt be completed, owned and amended by successive Governments, it is critical that we establish cross-party support now, before the parliamentary cycle begins to gear up for the 2015 general election. In that spirit, I invite the Minister to address the inaugural meeting of the all-party group on Crossrail 2 that I am hoping to set up with colleagues here and in the other place over the coming weeks. Most importantly, will he detail exactly when he expects the review of the safeguarded route to begin, with an outline of the process involved, and when he expects it to be complete?

The Government’s role is not only to take leadership on this issue but to empower others to do the same. The most recent comprehensive spending review outlined funding for the Department for Transport only up until 2014-15, scrapping the long-term funding guarantee in previous spending reviews that provided a 10-year forecast of budgets. In December 2012, therefore, we had the ludicrous scenario of Transport for London publishing a 10-year business plan that could only outline funding until 2014-15. If that practice continues in the second spending review later this year, TfL will still have no certainty over its funding settlement after the 2015-16 financial year. It is clear that we need a proper funding settlement and that that need is great. Does the Minister agree that the best way to ensure the delivery of transport investment projects such as Crossrail 2 is to provide the bodies tasked with delivering them with clear indications of their future funding settlement over the long term?

Furthermore, I am sure that all of us who are keen to see more transport investment are concerned at the enduring silence of the Secretary of State for Transport while his Cabinet colleagues are peacocking across television studios to try to spare their Departments from further cuts. I invite the Minister to put all our minds at rest when he responds. Will he announce his membership of the national union of Ministers and will he put on record that he would like to see Crossrail 2 explicitly included in the comprehensive spending review in the same manner in which Crossrail 1 was included in the spending reviews of 2004, 2007 and 2010?

Will the Minister ensure that he does his best to get us into position to have a hybrid Bill shortly, with cross-party support and with some certainty that the dates will hold? Although 2030 or 2031 is still some distance away, we want to be sure of getting there so that we can begin the work now and not delay it until after a general election kicks the project into the long grass, in which case we will not see Crossrail 2 come to fruition during the lifetime of anyone in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing the debate and on his eloquent and intelligent speech. His opening remarks rightly stressed the history, from which, of course, we can learn. He is right: here we are celebrating 150 years of London Underground. London has long relied on transport for its prosperity. The first underground trains, in the 19th century, brought prosperity to London and the suburbs, as the right hon. Gentleman said, but that process has continued through the extension of the bus network in the 20th century, and today’s concentration on other aspects of travel, such as bikes.

The future of London’s economy will depend on transport systems, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to say we must think about what London needs in the long term to meet the demands of the economy, as well as of the people who live here. A modern, customer-focused transport system should meet that rising demand. Several hon. Members have referred to the demand forecast that shows that, without additional investment, crowding, on which we have made some progress, will return to unacceptable levels. There have been several comments on the growth of this great city, and it is right to think about the challenges that will arise as we try to meet demand for 2030 and beyond. The debate about Crossrail 2 is an opportunity to consider how to meet some of the challenges.

I welcome the work that has been done by Transport for London and London First. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) was right to praise the work that Andrew Adonis did. The proposal was also supported by the Mayor. I understand that it would provide a north-east to south-west transport link that would complement the current Crossrail project, and that it would complement and work alongside the tube upgrade project. It would also have the potential to support increased journeys right across the capital. As several hon. Members have pointed out, it would also, of course, help to create jobs, both directly, in construction, and indirectly, in communities. The right hon. Member for Tottenham spoke about what it could do for his constituency, and it would also have an effect in Hackney and the Lea Valley. Perhaps I should declare an interest, because I hope that it will bring jobs to Wimbledon too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), in an intervention, talked about extending the proposed line northwards to Stansted. That should be an option for both TfL and the Mayor to think about in the planning stages. I hope that they will do so, and that they will work in conjunction with Network Rail. Several hon. Members pointed out the interconnectivity and linkages of the systems. It would be inappropriate for the Mayor to think about connecting the line to Stansted without making sure that he was working in conjunction with Network Rail.

[Mr Lammy]

Does the Minister recognise the fact that the Maidenhead connection off Crossrail 1 is at the same distance as the Stansted connection would be for Crossrail 2? If we have achieved that connection into what might be called the south-east/London shires, for Crossrail 1, a Mayor should be able to do it for Crossrail 2.

[Stephen Hammond]

I recognise that fact about distance. I was agreeing with the point about linkages and interconnectivities in planning, development and, hopefully, later construction; I think that the right hon. Gentleman was agreeing with me. Something particularly worth considering is what the work has spared—not only at Maidenhead, but some of the works further out at Reading. That is all as a result of work on Crossrail. The linkages with Network Rail are hugely important.

The case has been made, this afternoon, that Crossrail 2 will offer essential congestion relief and help to meet demand on the underground and at London termini. Also, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said, it will offer essential access and opportunity to areas of London that are less well provided with public transport at the moment, as well as suburban connectivity.

It is right to say that, as with Crossrail 1, the genesis of the idea was not the report; it has been around a long time. The idea of a Chelsea-Hackney line has been around in one form or another for many years; some people can trace it back to before 1920, I think. The proposals for Crossrail 2 have similarly generated wide support, and they would benefit London, without question.

The issues for the Mayor and TfL to consider carefully include the scheme engineering design and technical design, the consultation process and the views of those who will benefit, and the route alleviation procedures. They will also need to consider how the route will be funded. Those are clearly some of the challenges. For my part I reaffirm that the Government will work with TfL to safeguard the route for Crossrail 2, which is scheduled to start later this year. It is essential that we do so, because we have agreed with TfL that the previous safeguarding, which was last updated in 2008, would leave several areas uncovered. I was asked about that, and my understanding is that the safeguarding process for the new route will start in April.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for that assurance. There is some urgency about the matter, which I hope the Minister recognises, and I am concerned about a hybrid Bill—something that must come from the Government. I hear what he said about the Mayor, and that is obviously right, but, as Crossrail 1 comes to an end in about 2018, we want a transfer of engineers, project managers and others on to Crossrail 2. I suspect that that will be part of the Mayor’s thinking, and I hope that the Government would support that approach, and understand why it is sensible.

[Stephen Hammond]

I understand entirely the right hon. Gentleman’s point. That is why, in terms of the next stages, the challenge for TfL—I could have gone into it in greater depth, but he understood the point that I was making about why it is important for TfL to lead—is to go from the London First report into schematic detail and engineering detail. Those sorts of issues can be thought about and a business case properly developed only once the initial work is done. Clearly, one challenge for the Mayor and the Department—the Department wants the Mayor to undertake the challenge—is to look at building a comprehensive business case in the near future.

The right hon. Gentleman challenged me, saying that he had sat in my place and that he knew some of the tricks about discussions with the Treasury, and pushing things into the long grass. I also sat in his place and made exactly the same challenge to Ministers. He will know, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said, that I do not have a cheque book in my back pocket and I will not be wielding it this afternoon. I can, however, give this commitment: before the next spending review, the onus is clearly on the Government to give serious consideration to Crossrail 2, its business case and the options for funding, and we will do so. The challenge, therefore, is for the Mayor to come forward with a proposition—a business case—that could be delivered in time for this spending review, and if not, it potentially looks to be a post-election issue. We can commit to giving the issue serious consideration, but the Mayor needs to develop that business case.

The Government’s record on making those commitments has been good. We have protected capital spending in spending round 10. We are determined to invest in essential infrastructure to support the economic recovery, both in London and nationally. We want to prioritise the schemes that offer best value for the taxpayers’ pound and the best growth potential. The business case must be developed and it is essential, therefore, that the Mayor and TfL show that the efficiency of the spending that they are using in this spending round, and in this spending review period, can be continued. The Mayor needs to ensure that there is the same rigour as has been seen—we would like to see more rigour—in terms of the efficiency of how he is spending the taxpayers’ pound when he develops the business case. For instance, it is also clear that in central Government we have borne down on administrative costs in that area. Administrative costs across Whitehall in this spending review have gone down by 33%, which is important. It is important to show that where we are spending the taxpayers’ pound, we are spending it efficiently.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham was slightly unkind to the Government—I would expect nothing less—in terms of the picture that he gave about investment in London. It was certainly not a picture that I recognised. A massive amount of transport investment is going into London. The Government have clearly, and rightly, recognised that London is the economic engine of the UK economy. In the last spending review, we provided TfL and the Mayor with a settlement, despite the tough economic environment, that allowed progress on the tube upgrade, Thameslink, and Crossrail. They have had certainty through this spending round, and another settlement and spending round will allow them to make their case.

Spending review 10 provided a multi-billion pound funding package for Crossrail, and we can think of the package coming through: for instance, there is £4.5 billion for the tube upgrade programme. The Jubilee upgrade that was completed last year has increased capacity by 33%. The Victoria line upgrade that was completed in January this year gave another 21% capacity. Delays on the underground have been reduced by more than 40% since 2007. That is not to be complacent. This is exactly the challenge. We have done these things to catch up. This is the 150-year celebration, and both the previous Government and this Government have made that investment to catch up. The potential for Crossrail 2 is the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

Whenever I meet the Mayor, I discuss many things with him. I promise that when I next meet him—in one of our regular meetings—I will make sure that that is on the agenda. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that any proposal to extend the underground is a matter for the Mayor and TfL.

The Government are committed to extending the Northern line into Battersea. The funding agreement with TfL has enabled Crossrail to go ahead. The Government are making a contribution of some £5 billion over the lifetime of the project. That will transform the south-east, delivering faster journey times, and it is likely to generate 14,000 jobs during the peak construction period. It will have a major impact on London’s economy, and I therefore accept the potential for Crossrail 2 to have a similar impact.

[Mr Lammy]

On the Northern line extension, the Minister will recognise that it involves two stations. There has been quite some coverage of the Malaysians who now come to own Battersea power station and of the very luxurious flats that attract a lot of money. There is some disquiet, particularly in the London borough of Lambeth, that local people are being asked to pick up a tab for effectively two stations; the stations are, of course, important to London’s development, but there are other transport options around. I want some clarification on the funding formula for the Northern line extension, because Crossrail 2 could benefit the area greatly, and I am slightly worried that Londoners will be saddled with a bill that could overrun into billions, as the Jubilee line extension did.

[Stephen Hammond]

I hear that point. I shall say two things to the right hon. Gentleman, if I may. He will recognise that although the Northern line extension involves only two stations, it has the potential to achieve a transformational impact in terms of housing development, job creation and journey times to the City and the west end—further job creation. He has asked me about the funding package. Because I am not clear on some of the elements of commercial confidentiality, I will, if I may, write to him and set out what is in the public domain or what I am allowed to tell him. I do not want to be injudicious and I hope that he will accept that as my response.

In opening the debate, the right hon. Gentleman showed that Crossrail 2 could have huge potential for his constituency. The Government have supported his constituency through the London enterprise fund, aimed solely at Tottenham and Croydon. There is further potential to regenerate London directly through some of the aspects of the Localism Act 2011 that are going to the Mayor. None the less, it is clear that the key thing is to ensure that the transport system is fit for the development and the regeneration of London, not only for our generation, our children’s generation and our grandchildren’s generation, but for the generation of Members of Parliament who will be sitting here in 100 years’ time saying that this was a new Victorian age.

The Government are clearly committed to supporting transport in London. Of course, it should not be the default position that the Government fund everything. In a world of constrained public sector resources, it has been recognised, rightly, that there is a role for alternative financing mechanisms, such as tax increment financing and the community infrastructure levy. I have no doubt that in formulating the business case for Crossrail 2, the Mayor will be considering those as well. We want TfL, London boroughs and the Mayor to share in the profits of London’s growth, giving them a much greater incentive to invest in business-friendly measures and to work with business to develop the measures that will ensure the regeneration and continued growth of this great city. That is one reason why some of those important changes took place in local government finance.

The Government will continue to support London, continue to support transport and continue to support infrastructure, not just today but tomorrow and through the next spending review. I welcome this debate on Crossrail 2. It has been an excellent debate. It has highlighted the potential for Crossrail 2 and what it might deliver for London. I note the invitation to address the all-party group’s inaugural meeting; I would be delighted to accept. The key challenge now is for the business case to be developed, so that it can be properly assessed and the project can move forward.