Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my colleague for stressing the point about Harrow-on-the-Hill station. I know from my use of the Metropolitan line that that is a vital aspect of the improvement that needs to take place. I will use the opportunity with TfL and others to ensure that we get the improvements we all want to see in Harrow, including at Stanmore and Harrow-on-the-Hill.

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

The hon. Gentleman seems to have great influence with TfL, so will he also take up the cause of Caledonian Road tube station, which is going to be closed for six months so that a lift can be renewed? I do not understand why the whole station has to be closed for sixth months, because there are four lift shafts—it is incomprehensible. I have written to TfL about it but do not seem to be getting very sensible replies. I wonder whether he might take up that cause as well.

[Bob Blackman]

I am rapidly taking up a number of causes across London. I know that Caledonian Road tube station is one of the great ways of leaving the Emirates stadium after football matches. Interestingly, substantial amounts of money were secured in order to dramatically improve the transport system around the stadium when it was being rebuilt. The reality is that there are concerns about whether that money was used properly. Clearly I realise that there is a need to renew the lift at Caledonian Road tube station, but I would much rather we ensured that there was a lift at Harrow-on-the-Hill station, because it does not have one, and at Stanmore station.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

TfL has clearly been investing quite dramatically in access for disabled people on the network over the past 10 years. I remember that the points she has made were made under the previous Mayor of London and not delivered, so I think that there is a quid pro quo on that subject.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I am going to move on to the key points about the Bill.

The Bill has only four substantive clauses. None the less, it is of great importance to TfL because it would enable it to deliver better value for money for the fare payer and the tax-paying public. Since the Bill was deposited, TfL’s operational funding from central Government has been cut by 25%, and the Government’s aim is to reduce that funding over time to zero. TfL is required to deliver £16 billion of savings over the period to 2021. The Bill would assist in that regard.

In summary, clause 4 gives TfL subsidiaries the ability to access cheaper finance, subject to the consent of the Mayor and, in respect of core operational assets, the consent of the Secretary of State, so clearly there will be an opportunity for Members of Parliament to have oversight of such proposals.

Clause 5 allows TfL to form limited partnerships. Following scrutiny by the Opposed Bill Committee, the clause was amended to provide that the Secretary of State must consent to the formation of the limited partnership by way of an order to be debated in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, on the principle of transparency of the limited partnerships, which I know was one of the particular concerns raised by objectors, the sponsors of the Bill have given way and ensured that there will be full public debate over such arrangements.

[Bob Blackman]

There is clearly oversight by the Mayor of London, the Assembly and the Assembly’s transport committee. Of course, the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government who set up the arrangements for London in 2000, so no doubt somewhere on the record he has expressed the view that this should have been done, but I do not recall that that was being said at the time. The key point as regards oversight and transparency is that there will be an opportunity for the limited partnership arrangements, in particular, to be scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament.

[Emily Thornberry]

The partnership might be overseen when first established, but will there be anything to stop the identity of those in control of the other partnerships changing at a later stage and our not having control over that?

[Bob Blackman]

The initial set-up will be scrutinised by both Houses. If there were to be any substantial change to the way in which the partnership was structured, there would clearly be an opportunity for oversight. I am sure that nothing would be done that prevented proper oversight of proceedings through the London Assembly, its transport committee and the Mayor of London.

[Emily Thornberry]

Is there anything specific in the Bill that would stop the control of a partnership moving from one organisation or individual to another and ensure that at that point there was some form of oversight that would stop a transfer of control?

[Bob Blackman]

The hon. Lady might wish to probe that point further on the revival of the Bill when we debate particular aspects of changes to it, but it is not about the revival of the Bill in its own right.

Clause 6 expands the list of entities through which TfL can undertake commercial activities to include limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships and companies limited by guarantee. This enables TfL to conduct its affairs more flexibly and meet the maximum value from its assets. Clause 7 gives TfL greater flexibility to mitigate its risks through hedging, including allowing it to hedge commodity prices when it is exposed to fluctuations as a consequence of a transport contract or a contribution risk to the pension fund.

Contrary to assertions made on Second Reading and elsewhere, the Bill does not give TfL any new powers to sell or to develop its land. TfL has had such powers since it was created in 2000 and is not seeking to extend them in any way, shape or form. TfL must obtain the consent of the Mayor to dispose of surplus land by sale or granting a long-term lease. If that land is operational, or has been operational in the past five years, the Secretary of State must also give his or her consent. TfL is also subject to scrutiny by the London Assembly and has various obligations to publish financial details in its accounts and details of its surplus land and building assets. The powers TfL is seeking in the Bill will not detract from its discharge of its core functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

No, I am not giving way any more.

TfL is working with the Mayor, London boroughs and the commercial property development sector to bring forward developments in an innovative and creative way. The additional powers in this Bill will enable these developments more efficiently, enabling more of the revenue raised from the developments to be reinvested into the transport network and bear down on fares. That means that the people who oppose the revival of the Bill will be saying to Londoners that we do not want 10,000 new homes on redundant TfL land.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am concerned about clause 5, in particular, and the idea of limited liability partnerships. As I understand it, limited liability partnerships were established in 1907 to enable people to become partners without taking on the liability. There needs to be a general partner who will be liable for everything, but then those who are coming into the partnership, and perhaps giving money towards it, would not have any form of liability. I understand that it is a means of raising capital, but I am very worried about who the partners might be. We have heard all kinds of scare stories, and I would be very interested to hear some reassurance.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

When my hon. Friend describes the scope of limited liability, is it her understanding that the limit of the liability in such a partnership arrangement could be nil? If that is the case, what on earth are we doing thinking about such an arrangement?

[Emily Thornberry]

I believe that that is exactly the position. This legal instrument was created in order to help to raise money. However, the difficulty is that we will be raising money on public land—public for the moment, at least. That is land owned by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, by me and by all of us, and we will be handing over some sort of investment in it to organisations that are cloudy, to say the least. Is there anything to stop these partners being offshore companies or being able to establish themselves with £2-worth of capital? Is there anything to stop documents naming certain people as responsible for the company, only for the Russian mafia to take over at a later stage? Are we handing over Caledonian Road, Old Street and potential developments in my constituency to such people? I certainly hope not, but I am worried that this Bill’s revival may allow that to happen.

[Andy Slaughter]

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

[Emily Thornberry]

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

[Clive Efford]

That is a really important point. Too often, people talk about housing numbers and bandy around the word “affordable” for properties that are by no means affordable for most people in London. Making available 300 acres of land for housing that people from London, particularly those on moderate and low incomes, will not be able to access will contribute nothing to their housing needs.

[Emily Thornberry]

I have to say that Islington residents who are on what could be seen as high incomes are very concerned about their children, as are those who are on middle and low incomes. How will children who were born in Islington remain in Islington, given the price of housing? The Mayor of London’s answer has been to redefine affordable housing. It is a little like getting rid of child poverty by taking income out of the definition.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

People in my borough of Westminster now need an income of £77,000 to be able to afford what the Mayor of London has deemed to be an affordable property. My constituents, like those of my hon. Friend, look at the proliferation of new developments and see properties that they will never have the remotest chance of being able to afford. They want not just house building, but the building of affordable homes that they will have a chance to access.

[Emily Thornberry]

The point is this: once the land is gone, it is gone for ever. Once these luxury flats are built, Islington residents will never have a chance of being able to afford to buy them, and if no social housing or real affordable housing is built in inner London, that will be it. We need to defend very carefully the land available.

The Mayor of London has decided that affordable housing equates to 80% of market rent. That would be a laugh if it were not so tragic. It is like newspeak in “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and someone saying, “Say black is white and say it for long enough, and hopefully some fools will start to believe it.” In Islington, 80% of market rent is not affordable housing.

I read with alarm what was said in the Financial Times about housing. Transport for London is talking about affordable housing in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrow East in outer London, but not in inner London. There are 21,000 people on the waiting list for housing in Islington. Does this Bill answer any of their problems?

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

We are being distracted from one of the Bill’s main points, which is of concern to the hon. Lady’s constituents and mine. The explanatory notes to clause 4 state that, as fare payers and taxpayers, they are bearing the cost and the risk of the lack of

“capacity to finance projects and functions at the best available interest rate or at the lowest risk.”

If we do not give the Bill a safe passage, our constituents will continue to bear that risk. Is that acceptable?

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It brings us back to another rumour, which is that £700 million will be taken away from Transport for London in the comprehensive spending review and Transport for London is therefore even more in desperate need of a fire sale of our land to subsidise fares. London is the greatest capital in the world, and we need a proper transport system that is appropriate and helps our city to continue to be the lifeblood of this country. It seems to me to be short-sighted to the greatest extent to take away subsidy from Transport for London, because our city will grind to a halt. Once we have sold off that land and the opportunity for my constituents to live in affordable housing has gone, for the sake of their having cheaper fares for a year or two, what do we do then, having sold off the family silver in the way that is being suggested?

[Ms Buck]

Does my hon. Friend agree that risk comes in many different forms? The Evening Standard revealed a few weeks ago that there has been £100 billion of investment in the London property market from overseas since 2008. Some of that money comes from very dodgy sources, including money laundering. That kind of investment in property—where it is not transparent and the property is not properly managed—involves a fundamental risk to the London property market and all other sources that depend on such revenue.

[Emily Thornberry]

All of us have probably been down the river and seen all the developments that are happening. Members should look for how many flats have lights on at night, because if they do not, people are not living there. It is simply that somebody in Singapore can either invest a bag of gold or they can think, “No. Let’s buy a flat in south London, on the river with a lovely view. There will be someone to look after it. We can invest in that and keep it empty for years or decades.” Those empty flats are laughing at my constituents, who are in desperate need of proper housing. It seems to me that this opportunity is being frittered away.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

I apologise to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for appearing uncharitable to him—one should always be charitable to him, as a Tottenham fan—but does my hon. Friend not accept that the Old Oak Common experience, with its lack of affordable housing and the poor negotiation that TfL entered into with its partner on that site, has scarred those of us who have looked at this Bill? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might persuade TfL to look afresh at the Bill in the light of such concerns and to come back with more amendments, perhaps on the future governance and oversight of any deals that are done.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Essentially, the sponsor of the Bill and TfL are saying, “Trust us. Let us enter into limited partnerships with who knows who.” TfL wants to enter into a limited partnership, which is not a distinct legal entity, which has a clear consequence for public transparency. For example, we cannot use the Freedom of Information Act to find out who is behind the partnerships that TfL may get into. TfL says, “Don’t worry about it. We can be trusted.” The difficulty is that TfL’s behaviour during the past few years, with some of the developments we know about, shows that we cannot in fact trust it.

Caledonian Road is not a frivolous example. As the hon. Member for Harrow East said, it is one of the few tube stations that has disabled access that is available to the large number of people who go to watch the highly successful Arsenal football club, but it will be closed for six months. What about Arsenal fans in wheelchairs during that time? TfL cannot look after a tube station with four shafts. It tells me that it needs to close it for six months to renew one of the lift shafts; yet it has two functioning lifts at the moment, both of which it will stop. I said, “The lift capacity is only 50%, so just use one lift while you are repairing the other one.” It replied, “Oh, but what happens if the lift that is in use breaks down?” I said, “Well, excuse me, TfL, but you’ve got lift engineers on site. You are re-doing the other lift shafts, so what’s your problem?”

If TfL has difficulty running a tube station, I have some concerns about its ability as a property developer, particularly if it goes into partnership with others. Those people may be perfectly adequate. TfL may go into partnership with a latter-day Peabody. That would be fantastic, would it not? It would be great if it went into partnership with somebody who really wanted to provide housing that was entirely appropriate for my constituents. The difficulty is that I do not really believe that, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Harrow East does either. TfL is trying to make as much money as it possibly can out of that land, and it will make as much money from affordable housing as it will from luxury flats.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend hits the issue on the head. Of course the value of the assets needs to be maximised, but the structure is based on the best investment opportunity. It will not be a Peabody Trust that comes along: it will be someone who wants to make the maximum money out of it. That is why the flexibility is there. It is an “ask no questions” policy—“we do not care who you are”.

[Emily Thornberry]

My concern is that we will be the partner who takes unlimited risks. My constituents will not get what they need, but their public assets will have been subject to a fire sale and they will be taking the risk.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend rightly talks about risk. A further risk is the partner that TfL goes into business with on a site—for example, the Caledonian Road tube station site she mentioned—going bust. TfL would be left with a large potential cost to taxpayers and that would make getting the lifts at Harrow on the Hill—which, if she will forgive me, I think are more important than her lift at Caledonian Road—an even more distant prospect.

[Emily Thornberry]

It is as though the risk is being nationalised and the profit privatised. That is what is happening for the sake of George Osborne being able to balance the books in the CSR.

[Rachael Maskell]

A further risk is that profits for some of those property developers may be invested offshore and they may not pay tax here. The Treasury would lose even more money on that land.

[Emily Thornberry]

Many questions need to be asked about the status of the partners that TfL will be able to join in partnership. Will they be offshore? Will they pay taxes here? Will they be able to move the control of the partnerships from one party to another without the public—it is our land—being able to stop it? One hears many scary stories, such as money from Moldova being laundered through Scotland—all sorts of extraordinary things go on under these instruments—and my concern is that the limited partners are liable only for the value of any investment they make and do not need to be involved in the management of the partnership. They put their money in, that is the extent of their liability, and we do not know what sort of profits they will then be able to make and we do not know whether they will pay any tax in this country. Those questions need to be asked before we revive this Bill.

[Mr Burrowes]

My fare-paying, tax-paying constituents— and the hon. Lady’s—will want to know whether future projects offer the best available interest rate at the lowest risk. Everyone wants that to be achieved. Would not clause 4 enable that to happen?

[Emily Thornberry]

I do not know that it would. It is vague in the extreme. In my view, it is inappropriate for a public company to go into partnership with public assets with who knows who—for us to take the risk of putting the assets out there and see who will put up the money. That is not the sort of slippery Joe operation we should deal with. We are talking about public land in my constituency in the centre of London, and frankly I do not want it to be controlled by the Russian mafia, for instance.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I realise that the hon. Lady has concerns, so I will try to be helpful. To answer the questions she has asked, she might want to talk to Labour Sheffield, Labour Barking and Dagenham or Labour Gateshead, which have all entered into similar joint limited partnership arrangements, to see how they have worked.

[Emily Thornberry]

I do not know what the conditions are in those limited partnerships. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to enlighten me, I will give way again. It is a question of what controls are available.

[Mike Freer]

From my limited investigations, I understand that Sheffield entered into a local housing company in which the council invested the land and the joint venture partner invested the finance, with shared risk. Barking and Dagenham had a special purpose vehicle, in which the council put in the land and the private investor put in the money. Gateshead had a local asset backed vehicle—I believe such vehicles were introduced by the previous Government—where the council put in the property but the private sector put in the finance.

[Emily Thornberry]

As the hon. Gentleman said, there was some form of shared risk, but there is no shared risk in this instrument as I understand it. If I am wrong I am open to being corrected, but I do not believe I am. That, essentially, is my concern.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for raising the example of Sheffield. Sheffield Housing Company is an extremely interesting model. I am surprised to hear a Conservative pushing an example of local housing companies being set up, because they enable the right to buy not to apply to any properties built by such housing companies. It is very odd that the hon. Gentleman should pray that in aid, given some of the other proposed legislation this House is debating at the moment.

[Emily Thornberry]

There we are. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe we ought to be focusing on whether the Bill should be revived and whether it will make London a better place. My fundamental belief is that it will not.

There are more questions in relation to the Bill than there are answers. It is about disposing of land all over London, much of it operational land. Some of it may be appropriate for development, but some of it may not. Who is to say whether these shady partners might not be pushing TfL into inappropriate developments? Yes of course we need housing, but where may we have it? For example, there is a large tract of land next to Farringdon station just by Farringdon road that on the face of it is very valuable. At the moment, it is just tracks. Is there a possibility of that land being built over and some form of flats being built there? I do not know.

Is there a possibility of something being built over Old Street? Old Street is a phenomenal station. It has two wells in it. I do not know how it functions as a tube station, but what kind of property might be built on top of it? We may well find these shady partners pushing TfL into developing such areas, which would be entirely inappropriate for the building of flats, even luxury flats. We should be very careful about that.

Another risk of the Bill is that we may end up restricting TfL’s ability to invest more in transport in London, because we have caged in a particular area or built a block of flats on a particular place, not allowing it to continue to develop the transport system that London needs and deserves.

[Andy McDonald]

We have heard examples of investments in other places in other cities, but is there not a stark distinction between other places and London? There is no risk involved whatever in investing in the property market in London. People are investing in a goldmine, so there is no need for special purpose vehicles or any other such arrangements that may not withstand scrutiny. Is that not the reality of the situation?

[Emily Thornberry]

Certainly, the way things seem at the moment is that the property market in London only goes upwards. We will see what happens in the future. There has to be, in the end, a limit to it, and there may be some form of risk. One risk has to be, for example, finding asbestos. If asbestos is found at a development site, what happens then? Again, the risk is nationalised and the profits are privatised.

[Andy Slaughter]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes. Representing and living in the area that I do, I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. The property market continues to be stoked. The Government say “Let’s cut back on the amount of housing benefit available and that will dampen down the property market.” I laugh, because clearly that is not what happens. Instead, rents and property prices continue to rise, and we continue to price Londoners out of London. If it continues to eat itself, London will cease to function. But perhaps that is fine by TfL: no one will need to travel into London because no one will be able to live or work in London. They will need to live so far out that working in the centre will not be viable.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend, like me, heard the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) say that TfL should be able to maximise the income from the sale of this land, but, as she pointed out, where land values are extremely high, that is likely to squeeze out affordable and social housing. TfL is a public body, however, and there is a shortage of public land on which to build social housing, which is why we need properly to scrutinise how this land is used, instead of selling it off to the highest bidder in every case.

[Emily Thornberry]

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

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

[Andy Slaughter]

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

[Emily Thornberry]

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

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

If the scenario my hon. Friend paints, of £700 million being taken out of TfL’s budget in the spending review, if the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) vote for it, quite clearly against the interests of their constituents, and if the Bill becomes a reality, could not the gap be better plugged by ensuring full fiscal devolution, including of property taxes raised in London, to the Mayor and London local authorities? In that way, some of the rising value in the London property market could be captured for investment in housing or public transport, and the sort of controversial things we are discussing now might not be needed.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend tempts me. I understand what he says, and there are times when London MPs argue for investment in our infrastructure, yet wonder why it is that London has to beg when it is the driving force behind our economy—

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Emily Thornberry]

I will give way in a moment!

London is a driving force, so it seems a ridiculous idea that TfL can be so short-changed at a time like this, when the economy is supposed to be getting back on its feet, and we are finally coming out of the recession caused by the international financial crisis. We seem finally to be staggering our way out of it, despite the Tories crowing about it over a large number of years. At a time like this—[Interruption.] The Minister says “Staggering?” from a sedentary position. There are 3 million people in this country who believe themselves to be underemployed, and, despite the fact that there may seem to be more people employed, the last lot of statistics show that the number of hours we are working as a nation has gone down. So, yes, I do say “staggering”.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. She is being tempted down a particular path, so I simply wish to bring to her attention the fact that, at least on the Labour Benches, we are all in it together, and there is a momentum and imperative towards us staying together in solidarity, which is the order of the day. We should not forget the regions that have made a major contribution to this city in building its sewers, its stadiums and all the rest of it. I ask my hon. Friend not to be too tempted by the proposition suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas).

[Emily Thornberry]

I am very grateful to my comrade for bringing me back from the brink. In those circumstances, there is nothing more to say about that.

[Andy Slaughter]

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

[Emily Thornberry]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

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

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Claire Perry]

No, I will not.

We are trying to find flexible ways to allow the public sector to use its assets more effectively. Only a party whose face is firmly turned to the past—preferably the nationalised past of the 1970s—would find that an unpalatable mechanism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman.

We believe that giving TfL greater flexibility—

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

I am a bit confused by the hon. Lady’s intervention. I think what she is suggesting is we should not give TfL powers—that somehow we should retain these powers or not give it powers at all to try and maximise the commercial value. I will agree with the hon. Lady on this: most state-owned institutions are not good at maximising the value from these particular developments. The same is true across the railway network, but we have to look at different mechanisms to enable organisations to unlock the value from that public-private partnership which is so crucial.

TfL runs a world-class transport system. It is led by an expert transport commissioner.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way.

The hon. Lady has just talked about TfL running a world-class transport system. There are concerns about some of the changes that have been made, however, such as the closure of the ticket offices. Women in my constituency are very concerned about safety on the lines as a result. The hon. Lady referred to children, but children are unable to get their tickets because the ticket offices are closed and they are not able to get their tickets through the machines.

[Claire Perry]

I do not know when the hon. Lady last took the tube, but there are such things as Oyster and contactless, which mean in many cases that ticket offices are not required by those taking the tube. I also gently remind the hon. Lady that the 21st-century investments TfL has made are now being looked at by transport systems across the world. I wish Members representing London would realise what we have is a public transport system that moves more than 4 million people on a daily basis and that is the envy of the world in its technology and its investments in the ticketing system. There is this idea that somehow we should be keeping ticket offices open, but in many cases they are kept open. By the way, the British Transport Police, which again the hon. Lady does not appear to recognise, plays an incredible job in keeping people safe. Its Operation Guardian has led to a great jump in the reporting of sexual violence on the tube, the number of cases of which I am determined to drive down. If she would ever like to write to me about transport-related matters, I would be delighted to share such information with her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course I welcome the opportunity to visit his constituency to see what he has described.

[Emily Thornberry]

While my hon. Friend is doing a tour of London’s stations, perhaps he could visit Angel tube station, which has the longest escalator in the country, but no lifts. In fact, a Norwegian student skied down the escalator, which my hon. Friend can see on YouTube. Disabled people are unable to get to the Angel, because there are no lifts available for them.

[Ian Lavery]

I have never had so many kind invitations in my life. I will enjoy the two visits that have been lined up. I wonder whether there is a third such visit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; £75,000 is a king’s ransom to many people. It is not affordable in any way, shape or form.

[Emily Thornberry]

I can give my hon. Friend another example of public land that has been frittered away by the Mayor of London: Mount Pleasant, which used to belong to Royal Mail. It was privatised and has since been used for luxury flats. There are no affordable homes there for Islington residents. It is a disgrace. The Mayor of London railroaded that change through, in the teeth of united opposition from local people who are desperate for housing.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fine example. It appears that there is huge potential for land development in central London. Property developers snap up public sector properties for luxury homes, driving those who cannot afford to buy them out of central London. This will keep going, believe me; that is what is happening in the capital. She mentioned that in her constituency alone, there are 21,000 people on the housing list. How will the proposal help any one of them, in any way, shape, or form? How many children are associated with those 21,000 people? How many people just want a decent property to rent? Many people cannot even afford to rent these properties, but big property dealers snap them up. Someone mentioned gangsters, I think with tongue in cheek, but international corporations and individuals with money to burn will buy these properties in the city. They will be snapped up in seconds. That land, which is really owned by, and should be for the use of, the public—constituents—in London, will be lost for ever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I am not sure I would be comfortable with assurances from the likes of Transport for London on the split between private and public. I have the simple view that Transport for London, as its name suggests, should look after the transport systems in London. It should involve itself in upgrading and updating the transport infrastructure in London, and perhaps not in property development. I would draw the line there. Perhaps my view is wholly different from that of other people on that issue.

[Emily Thornberry]

That is a point well made, but if there is land that can be developed, I, for one, would not stand in the way of that. If we get a promise from TfL that half the property will be social housing—that, frankly, is what affordable housing means in inner London—it may well find that it has more friends than it thinks it does. At the moment, we are nowhere near that. In fact, we have the exact opposite. We are told that zones 1 and 2 will not even have what is laughably called affordable housing.

[Ian Lavery]

That is interesting. It shows that Labour Members are open to the potential development of land, as long as assurances are given by Transport for London that guarantee the split of the asset. I am not sure whether I would accept such guarantees, but it is important that people recognise that if guarantees were given, there would be room at the table for much more consultation and discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who mentioned that ordinary people in London are jaundiced by the experiences they have had before. The police station or the fire station is bulldozed, there are the luxury flats that people do not live in, and then we have ghost towns, which means that there is a downward spiral in the local economies. The only people who make anything from it will be the property developers.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The fact is that our communities are being hollowed out. We do not object in principle to people coming from all over the world to live in London, as they always have done, so long as they do live here—it is buying properties and leaving them empty that is the problem.

[Ian Lavery]

That is a good point. London is a fantastic multicultural community, and we welcome people from all corners of the globe. We welcome them coming here to spend their money—of course we do. What is unacceptable is what the people of London could face if this Bill goes through. Property developers will be coming in, snapping up the land, and giving money to Transport for London that it should have had in the first place if it had not had these huge cuts, with more to come. That is the real issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I am not going to give way. I heard the point the Minister made from a sedentary position. It is clear that the Bill carries a potential risk. We have heard about financial risk, housing risk and the skills risk. As a result, and given the changing world we live in, we have serious questions about what the limited partnerships would bring. Opposition Members are concerned that we are seeing the social remodelling of London. Housing that is inaccessible is being built in the heart of the city, in zones 1 and 2 and further afield, which means that people cannot afford to live where they work.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend began with the important point that the property market has changed so much in recent years. Is she aware that overseas developers have been especially active in the land market, accounting for nearly three quarters of the £1.8 billion spent on land for development in central London in the second quarter of 2015?

[Rachael Maskell]

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

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