All 2 Debates between Emily Thornberry and Mike Freer

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Mike Freer
Monday 16th November 2015

(9 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry Portrait Emily Thornberry
- Hansard - -

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 Portrait Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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 Portrait Emily Thornberry
- Hansard - -

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 Portrait Mike Freer
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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 Portrait Emily Thornberry
- Hansard - -

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.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Mike Freer
Tuesday 12th November 2013

(11 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Freer Portrait Mike Freer
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is right. My casework is about families living in overcrowded accommodation who cannot get into the right accommodation. That is what we need to put right.

With reference to London, as that is the most populous part of the UK, let us not forget how Labour’s Ken Livingstone destroyed social house building at a stroke when he was Mayor. His arbitrary thresholds ground social house building to a halt because builders built to the threshold and then they stopped.

Mike Freer Portrait Mike Freer
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, I am sorry. I have given way once and I am running out of time.

Under that policy, we got no social housing at all on smaller developments because builders built to the threshold. That was Labour’s legacy in London. Of course there are difficulties, as the population makes the transition to the new arrangements, but, as I mentioned, I cannot be alone in the Chamber in having to deal with constituents in accommodation that is too small for them, where children and parents are sharing bedrooms, where children of different sexes approaching puberty have to share bedrooms, or where living rooms are doubling up as bedrooms.

What about the families consigned to emergency accommodation? We do not hear much about that from the Opposition today. That is a problem forgotten by Labour and being dealt with by the Government. It is argued that it is cheaper to subsidise spare rooms than to move people or adapt homes, yet the overall costs of converting larger properties to smaller accommodation would be repaid by the savings on emergency accommodation alone.