Transport for London Bill [Lords]

George Galloway Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I absolutely concur, and I do not need to labour the point. All I can say to the hon. Member for Harrow East, with whom we have worked over the years on a range of issues in the interests of London, is that if this Bill goes through without my new clause 1 and the subsequent set of amendments, it will make the PPP look like an accounting blip. The Bill is extremely dangerous.

In addition to the financial risks involved in what some have described as a speculator’s charter, we face another potential loss. The mortgaging and development of sites could, in some cases, result in a loss of assets, particularly the land sites essential or invaluable to the future development of the improvement of London’s transport network and services.

[George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)]

I am not a London Member, but I am a London resident and have been for 35 years, and I am listening with mounting horror to the narrative being developed by the hon. Gentleman. I was one of those who opposed the disaster that almost sank—I hope hon. Members forgive the pun—the London underground last time out. What I am asking myself as I listen to him is: where are all the other London Members of Parliament? Why is this Chamber almost deserted, on both sides?

[John McDonnell]

It is because people have not woken up to the consequences of this Bill yet. Unless someone has gone through the experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has in Earls Court and seen the consequences, people do not fully understand this. The Bill is short—

[John McDonnell]

People cannot help but introduce a bit of knockabout in all of this. I have not intervened in the mayoral election yet; I have not made any comment about any candidate so far—

[George Galloway]

I have not intervened in the London mayoralty yet either, but I keep reading of the very Members the Minister has just adumbrated. Is it a coincidence that absolutely none of them is here?

[John McDonnell]

Let me abide by parliamentary convention, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand the point being made, but if someone is to be referred to in the House, it is best to inform them in advance. Let us abide by that convention tonight. I wish to make it very clear that I am not intervening in the mayoral elections, full stop, other than to pass a few comments on issues such as the one before us.

Let me get back to the amendments and the new clause. I want to emphasise not just the financial risk but the potential loss of sites for the use of our future transport system. That is one of the main points made in the RMT’s representation to the Opposed Private Bill Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I urge Members to obtain a copy of Transport for London’s annual report and statement of accounts, to look at them and some of the documents linked to them and to identify in them a list of TfL’s assets. I have tried it. When some of the assets have been identified, we need to link the individual assets to the Mayor of London’s strategy and plan, going down from the macro policy to the micro level, to find out what will happen to a site in our constituency, but that is impossible. That is why I tabled the new clause. We just need openness and transparency.

[George Galloway]

Back in 1967—better days in many respects—in the era of Slater Walker and the rest, was not this kind of thing called asset stripping? Is the Bill not just an asset-strippers charter?

[John McDonnell]

That is a valid point, but I do not want in any way to insinuate anything about the intentions of the Mayor of London, TfL and so on. Our fear is about the unintended consequences. The fear that I and some others expressed on Second Reading concerned the inability in some instances—this might have happened with Earls Court—of Transport for London officers and those directing them to negotiate effectively with people who are ruthless in the development of sites and the maximisation of their profits from those sites. That brings me back to new clause 1.

I want Transport for London to be completely open and transparent and publish a list of the properties and assets it holds and that its subsidiaries hold which it considers eligible for future development, banding them by value so that we can assess the individual values of the properties and the potential borrowing against them. The new clause requires TfL to undertake this exercise every year, because the intentions of TfL and the Mayor will change. It is therefore important that the asset list is updated as well as the list of plans associated with those assets.

Each year, the new clause will insist that Transport for London must inform Londoners of the non-operational assets it holds as well as those that are under consideration for development in which action leading to development is under way or planned in the next 12 months. Part of the problem arising from Earls Court and some of the other discussions is that some people did not even know who owned some of the site and the Mayor and Transport for London were never completely open about their intentions. The new clause will ensure that we know who owns the sites and what sites TfL has, and will also ensure that TfL comes clean about what it intends to do with those sites, whether it be development with a partner, selling the site off or using it to borrow money, as specified under the Bill, to indemnify itself against costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I understand my hon. Friend’s argument, and I do not want to fall out with him—it is a good job that I did not announce my candidature, because I would have expected him to nominate me—but I am just trying to be as realistic as possible. He makes a valid point: there has to be some display of Transport for London’s medium and longer-term intentions for individual sites.

[George Galloway]

I, too, am a signatory to the new clause, but I, too, am persuaded by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) in this regard. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is being unusually moderate and reasonable, and he keeps saying that he does not want to insinuate anything about TfL or about the Mayor, so I wonder whether this is indeed a mayoral election speech we are hearing.

[John McDonnell]

Credibility is sinking in this House. I will not rise to that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hope that the Bill does not go through tonight, so that we can address the amendments we have tabled. That will give us the opportunity to look at the new clause and see—let me put it this way, in order to be helpful—whether we can ensure that information is provided by Transport for London and the Mayor on both a short-term assessment of the use of a planned asset or site and a medium-term option within at least the lifetime of a mayoralty. I think that might be a useful compromise—I do not want to be accused of going soft on these issues. I raise that point with the hon. Member for Harrow East because I think it is important.

The purpose of clauses 4, 5 and 6, we are told by the Bill’s promoters, is to enable the Mayor and Transport for London to enter into deals with private sector partners. These are development companies, and the aim is to develop TfL’s or its subsidiaries’ sites to secure a revenue stream to compensate for the 25% cut in Government grant to Transport for London and eventually for the complete loss of all central Government grant. How do we know that? It was raised on Second Reading and we sought confirmation from the Minister, who said:

“The outcome of the 2013 spending review was a 25% cut in TfL’s operational funding from central Government, and we have been clear that the Government’s aim is to reduce TfL’s operational funding over time to zero.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 853.]

So the purpose behind the Bill is to ensure that TfL raises another income stream to compensate for the Government’s cut in grant.

We need to examine the scale of the grant cut, which will be reflected in the potential scale of the use of the asset base. That is another reason why it is crucial that we get a definition and a list of TfL’s asset base on a value banded basis, as set out in new clause 1. I worry about the scale of income that TfL is looking to deliver from its asset base in proportion to the loss of grant.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Thank you for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will abide by it, of course.

[George Galloway]

I do not want to go off the rails that Madam Deputy Speaker has just set, but this “Mind the gap” that the hon. Gentleman is crying goes to the heart of the matter. Is not new clause 1 the place to deal with this? The Bill is driven by the gap that the Government and the Department for Transport have indicated to this Mayor of London—any Mayor of London—and the Mayor and TfL are being driven to asset-strip public assets. Left-wing thinking has moved on. Even the hon. Gentleman’s left-wing thinking has moved on. In principle we are not against public bodies earning money from non-performing assets that they hold, but we are not prepared to do so in secrecy and using dodgy vehicles in the Channel islands or parts even more exotic than that.

[John McDonnell]

Let me focus on the issue that Madam Deputy Speaker raised. TfL is trying to bridge a gap as a result of loss of Government grant. We will come on to the borrowing issues on the second group of amendments. One of the methods, as in Earls Court, is to enter into deals with private developers to secure some form of revenue income from the asset that is then developed.

I understand all that. I was chair of finance on the Greater London council. At 29 I was responsible for a £3 billion budget. What we did was exactly that. We had a capital fund that was agreed on a cross-party basis, secured against the assets of London overall. That is not a risk. We had the assets, we could go to the City and borrow from the City. We would put it into a pool. I think the system was established by a Conservative administration and inherited by a Labour one. We had cross-party agreement that that was the way in which we would go forward. It was not on the basis of mortgaging the individual assets and going into a link-up with a private developer, and it was certainly not about the development of sites to give revenue income in that way.

The point of new clause 1 is that I do not object in principle to going into some forms of partnership for the development of a site that will secure a valid revenue income. The issue is exactly as the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) said—it must be open, transparent and agreed with the local community, London boroughs and all the other stakeholders: the passenger representatives, the trade unions on behalf of their members, and so on. It has to be a way of going forward together and that is not happening. That is why new clause 1 is so relevant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair. I cannot make the Minister speak.

[George Galloway]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a zombie Parliament and this is a grand—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let us not—[Interruption.] Mr Kawczynski, please! Just one moment. Can we deal with this point of order, make sure that every Member knows what they are doing and try to proceed with the business? I would like to hear what Mr Galloway’s point of order is.

[George Galloway]

This is a grand theft auto Bill concerning billions of pounds of public assets. A closure motion was moved after just over an hour, which the Opposition did not turn up for, except in the case of 14 people, and now the Minister will not even speak on the matter. What kind of Parliament is this? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Just one moment, Minister. That is not a point of order for me. Let us be clear that we are now debating new clause 1 and the other amendments in the group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point at the conclusion of his comments, which goes to the heart of the point he raised earlier on consultation and transparency. Since the Minister has not been prepared to address that here, I sincerely hope he will address it in a subsequent group or on summing up the whole debate.

I well understand the intentions behind the amendments. The Bill has already been improved through parliamentary scrutiny. It is important that draft legislation, whether private or public, is tested even at this late stage in the parliamentary process. I welcome the opportunity the amendments have presented to probe the Minister and the Bill’s sponsor, the hon. Member for Harrow East, and the clarification, even at this late stage, that I hope they will bring to the concerns.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the difficulties that members of the London assembly have had in getting information on the assets concerned. Let us be in no doubt whatever: it is the responsibility of the Minister and the sponsor to justify the accountability agreements to the House tonight. I am interested to know whether members of the Greater London authority have asked for the powers that would oblige them to be consulted.

The issues that lie behind the first set of amendments go to the heart of transparency and accountability—whether of Governments or public corporations. It is important that they be given every probing and every ventilation in the Chamber tonight.

[George Galloway]

This has not been our finest hour, as I tried to say in a point of order just 10 minutes or so ago. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) drew attention to the dog that did not bark in the form of the Minister, but there have been other dogs that have not barked or even turned up. In a short speech, that is the first point I should like to make.

I am not a London Member, but I am a user of London transport and I have been a resident of London for 35 years. My eye was caught by this item of business because of a strong point of view I have about Earls Court. I expected to come into a packed Chamber. I especially expected to come into a Chamber packed with London Members of Parliament, but they have been very thin on the ground, with the honourable exceptions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on either side of me, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) who unavoidably had to leave. That, however, has been the size of it. That is truly extraordinary given the importance of this measure.

This is, potentially, a grand theft auto Bill. It deals with 3,000 properties. I have no idea of their value because no figure has been published. Taking a rudimentary guess, I think TfL—about which more later—will have £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion of potentially disposable public assets, with almost no transparency or accountability, and no discussion or negotiation with other stakeholders.

By anyone’s standards, this is truly a remarkably important measure. It is more important even than I had thought before entering the Chamber. As I listened with horror to the narrative developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, it took me back—your esteemed father was there, Mr Deputy Speaker, as was Madam Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair a moment ago, as she was in the Treasury at the time—to when the Treasury forced the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, down the road of a private finance initiative that came within an ace of sinking the London underground and costing the taxpayer £3 billion.

[John McDonnell]

This was the point I raised earlier. The key aspect of the public-private partnership was the inability of the House, London Members and others just to get their hands on the information about the architecture of that PPP before it was imposed. Otherwise, I think it would have been exposed very early on.

[George Galloway]

It was indeed a PPP, not a PFI—that alphabet soup is frequently jumbled in my mind. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If we had had proper scrutiny at the time, rather than the dragooning of Labour Members into supporting the Treasury position, it would have been exposed far earlier.

With the new clauses and amendments, and with the arguments made this evening, we have tried to expose folly on a potentially even larger scale. My hon. Friend’s speech was truncated rather ham-fistedly—if the promoter of the Bill will forgive my saying so—such that it did not achieve what the promoter wanted; it just made my hon. Friend, our expert on these matters, sit down, but we are still discussing what he was proposing. And this was after only one hour and 10 minutes. His argument was forensic. As I have often opined in here, Government Members do not like it up them—some of them do, that is true, but the promoter of the Bill did not, and it was because arrow after arrow of logic and forensic examination from my hon. Friend was hitting home that the attempt to close down the debate was mounted.

“Mind the gap” is the rubric to remember. This is all about the gap in funding from central Government to Transport for London and closing that gap through the disposal of public assets. I said earlier in an intervention that on these matters left-wing thinking has moved on—even such left-wing thinking as that personified by my hon. Friend. We are not against making non-performing public assets perform in one way or another, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North pointed out, we do not want them performing in such a way that they can never again be used to perform the purpose for which they were originally intended, which in this case, of course, is to provide transport for London—the clue being in the name. In other words, we do not want land disposed of in a way that Transport for London can no longer control, so that assets are lost for ever. We are not against making public assets perform, if they are not necessary now—or perhaps even for many years and decades in the future—but we have certain conditions, and one of them has to be transparency.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

New clause 1 does not actually require anything other than publication of information about non-operational assets that may be considered for any future activity or sale. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it extraordinary that the promoter of the Bill, and apparently the Government en masse, are opposed to the publication—no more, no less—of the information?

[George Galloway]

I can think of only one reason why they would be so opposed—public outrage would result. I am absolutely sure, in respect of the Earls Court development, to which I am about to turn, that had the public been properly informed about its development, public opposition to what in many respects is an act of vandalism would not have permitted the development—or at least the political cost would have been much higher.

On the subject of transparency, the promoter of the Bill is simply wrong. He said he was against a list because it would be too expensive, but then, in the same breath, he said that there was a list, and he prayed in aid the existence of a Greater London assembly. However, the assembly’s budget committee, no less, told the Committee—the House of Commons—that it had had to go to law, through freedom of information searches, to force Transport for London, which nominally it is supposed to supervise, to give it any information at all. So transparency is definitely not the middle name of Transport for London, and as long as that is the case, a suspicion will linger that grand theft auto is the game.

We have a right to say that if a public authority—in this case, Transport for London—is to get into bed with the private sector, the bed partners should be reputable and transparent and located here in Britain and paying tax in Britain. We know that in the case of Earls Court that is not true. Why do companies locate in the Channel Islands? Because they prefer the climate, or because they prefer the opaque nature of taxation matters there? Surely we all know, given what has happened over the past few years, exactly why these cowboy developers locate themselves as far from public scrutiny, media scrutiny and the rest as they possibly can.

I said that I would turn to Earls Court and I shall, but I notice that the brother of the Mayor has just left the Chamber. I had wanted him to be here when I said this. Forgive me, I have to say it: if public authorities and elected figures are going to play fast and loose, potentially, with large sums of public money, it is crucial that the public have trust in that institution or those public figures, but I do not believe that that trust exits when it comes to Transport for London or the current Mayor. I can speak ill of him now, but perhaps not in the new Parliament, should he be elected—no doubt you would be on your feet, Mr Deputy Speaker, and telling me to sit down. However, I do not believe that the conduct of public affairs by Boris Johnson over the past five years, or four years—of course he is going to continue breaking a promise in both offices—or the conduct of Transport for London—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is straying. I allowed him some leeway in this group of amendments, but it certainly does not cover the election of the Mayor of London, which is something we will pass over when this goes through. We need to stick to the new clauses and amendments.

[George Galloway]

I stand corrected, Mr Deputy Speaker.

That leads me to my last point. The Earls Court exhibition centre was a particular favourite of mine—I declare that interest: I have skated in it, I have shopped for my ideal home in it, I have listened to Bob Dylan in it several times. It was an act of vandalism to have it closed, but even worse was the loss of hundreds of TfL jobs—skilled jobs, real jobs, jobs that most Members have no idea how to do, jobs where men and women make things and fix things. Those jobs were cleansed out of central London. That was an absolute outrage.

Even worse than that is the fact that hundreds and hundreds of affordable homes were cleansed from Earls Court to be replaced by apartments so lavish and so expensive that even Members of Parliament could not afford to live in them, let alone the local people whose housing stock was devastated at a stroke. That was all done with virtually no public scrutiny or accountability, and certainly no offer was made to other public authorities for the use of this land, as was the case prior to legislation in the 1980s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said.

It really is an outrage—but it is, we fear, a sign of things to come. If this new clause is not passed and these amendments are not taken on board—no concession has been made from the other side—we fear that a sweetheart relationship between TfL and the Mayor, any Mayor, will exist to the detriment of the railway workers and of the bus workers whom I was proud to represent here in Parliament for many years as an MP sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. Local people, whose homes are razed as a result of these sweetheart deals, will be disadvantaged. What will be prejudiced most of all is the strategic need to keep London moving smoothly, economically and cheaply for the millions who depend on public transport.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I must say that I find the performance of the sponsor of this Bill utterly extraordinary. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke for an hour or so and took many interventions. He put on the record many serious concerns about the Bill and took interventions quite happily from anyone and everyone. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) then moved a procedural motion to prevent my hon. Friend from continuing his speech. That procedural motion was, unfortunately, carried. The sponsor then spoke for the briefest possible time—about 10 minutes, taking two or three interventions—and said no more. The Minister has absolutely nothing whatever to say, yet there seems to be a determination on the Government side to prevent us from having a proper debate about new clauses 1 and 2 and the other amendments in the group.

I find it utterly extraordinary that the sponsor of a Bill that has huge implications for transport infrastructure developments and the people of London—4 million of whom use London underground at its busiest times every day, with many more using buses, overground interchanges and so forth—has so little to say about the crucial aspects of future planning and the possible disposal of assets. I think it is utterly extraordinary, and I would have thought that Transport for London would have briefed the hon. Member for Harrow East a bit better or got somebody to promote the Bill who was serious about promoting it and showed some proper knowledge and concern about the subject. The hon. Gentleman should be utterly ashamed of himself for his performance today. If he believes in this Bill, he presumably has something to say about it and presumably has some knowledge of its contents. It is not good enough to come here, mutter a few words and say, “I am the sponsor of this Bill.”

I hope this Bill does not pass. I hope we do not achieve the end of this Bill in this Parliament. Sadly, under parliamentary procedures, it can be transferred to the next Parliament. I hope to be here in the next Parliament, and I will continue my defence of access to public transport for the people of London and of their access to the assets that have been built up so carefully and so diligently by public servants of London Underground and later Transport for London. Whoever takes over the promotion of this Bill—the hon. Gentleman might no longer be with us after the next election—will, I hope, be somebody a bit more diligent than him in understanding its contents. I find what we have gone through thus far to be utterly unbelievable.

There is nothing very dramatic in new clause 1 that the Bill’s sponsor—perhaps he did not have a chance to read the new clause—could not have accepted or agreed to. It says simply:

“Within 3 months of…Royal Asset, TfL shall publish a list of non-operational assets, held by itself or a subsidiary”.

What possible problem could there be from that? It goes to say that TfL

“shall publish each year a list of non-operational assets that are under consideration for development where steps towards such development are planned to commence”.

We all have a right to know about publicly owned assets. Any self-respecting organisation should publish those assets. Local authorities have to publish them and do publish them, so what is so different about Transport for London in this respect?

--- Later in debate ---

If TfL in its infinite wisdom—and its wisdom is absolutely infinite in all matters—decides to get rid of an area that is a location of automated ticket machines, or any other type of machine, and lease it back from the people it has sold it to, that is the road to nowhere. That is a small dollop of cash in from the private sector, and a very large payment out over years from the public sector to the private sector to maintain what was once ours in the public sector. That cannot be a sensible way of running—

[George Galloway]

A railroad.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Of running anything actually, but particularly a railroad, as my friend reminds me.

Something else that

“may be charged by a TfL subsidiary without the consent of the Secretary of State”

is, as sub-paragraph (m) states,

“property related to the use of land for commercial letting”.

That makes me very worried, because if it is a building that has been let our leased out by TfL, possibly at a very high rent, and it decides to sell it off and cash in on it, then the public income and the capital value are lost, and at the end of the lease the capital opportunity of doing something else with that building is also lost.

My local authority, the London borough of Islington, tries not to sell property. It would much rather maximise the income from it, but maintain the capital, so that it is its for the future and for future use. [Interruption.] Does my Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wish to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Galloway]

Just before the hon. Gentleman concludes—and being mindful of your stricture, Mr Deputy Speaker—is not the point that this is a Bill to sell off the family silver, as Harold Macmillan famously put it, and we can only sell off the family silver once?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The stewardship of public assets is very important. As someone who believes in public enterprise and public endeavour, I have to concede that the London Passenger Transport Board was established under a Tory Government in 1933. Lord Ashfield was its first chairman and he did a fine job in promoting its development. So even then, in the depths of the recession in the 1930s, there was a consensus that the public ownership of assets mattered, and he stood up against a lot of private interests to achieve that. Let us preserve what we have got, and recognise that the future inevitably is very unpredictable.

I came into parliamentary politics at a time when London’s population was falling and bus and tube use was falling. I remember the then director of London Underground telling me how there were going to be fewer trains and fewer passengers and how LU was thinking about which assets it could get rid of because it did not need them. I cautioned against that, saying that it was a counsel of despair. I said that we needed more people on trains and buses and that fewer people in cars would lead to less congestion. That big public debate happened in London, and we moved into an era not of road building but of rail development and other improvements. London became the first capital city in which public transport usage started to go up; others have now followed.

I ask the Bill’s promoters to think more carefully about what they are doing and to think more carefully about the precious asset that they have and about how they can develop and protect it. I thank the Minister again for his preparedness to engage on the issues that I have raised tonight. I am really grateful to him for that, and I hope that we can make some progress. That is the kind of engagement that we would like to see on the Bill, instead of this peremptory refusal even to discuss the serious concerns that have been raised by a number of Members this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

May I say at this stage that I would like to press amendments 1 and 33 to a Division? Amendment 1 straightforwardly takes out paragraph (2) from the preamble of the Bill. Paragraph (2) refers to the powers set out in clause 4. I will then turn to amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on.

Amendment 1 is consequential to amendment 15. What they do is delete the powers of Transport for London, set out in the Bill, to borrow by giving securities in the way prescribed in clause 4. The amendments strike at one of the main objectives of the Bill. Even if we took out clause 4, and even clause 5, we would still retain clause 7, which I support. Clause 7 concerns the mitigation of risk through hedging powers to be provided to Transport for London.

I want to delete clause 4, to which amendments 1 and 15 relate, because I do not consider that it should be part of a private Bill. The purpose of the clause and the scale of the potential financial responsibility levied on London council tax payers and taxpayers militate against this being a private Bill; it should be a public Bill. Clause 4 should not stand in the Bill.

[George Galloway]

That is the point that struck me between the eyes. I am talking about having words such as “risk” and “hedging” in a private measure. Surely we have learned enough about the risk at the hands of private individuals and about the grave economic consequences to argue that this matter should be postponed until the next Government, when the state and the civil service can give it proper attention.

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree, and I shall develop that argument. What my hon. Friend is suggesting in his proposal is that it would be better if this clause were brought forward by the Government rather than in a private Bill. That is because of the scale of the risk involved in the exercise of these powers.

I would welcome it if these powers were brought forward in a public Bill. Why do I believe that? Madam Deputy Speaker, let me take you to pages 929, 930 and 931 of “Erskine May”, with which I am sure you are fully conversant. On those pages, we see identified the subjects that should be considered as unsuitable for private legislation, but which should be dealt with by a public Bill. It says that a private Bill has sometimes been rejected, although properly introduced—as this one has been—because the House has decided, given the merits of the Bill in question, that the subject matter was unsuitable for private legislation.

There are examples in “Erskine May”, on pages 929, 930 and 931, of attempts to use private Bills to raise money for public purposes; it argues that they should fall under a public Bill. I will not go through them at length, but I will draw the House’s attention to the decisions made by previous Speakers. Those decisions have been based on “Erskine May”, which says:

“A bill the sole object of which was the creation of a charge on public funds has not been allowed to proceed as a private bill.”

There has also been the example of previous legislation. The Aberfan Disaster Fund Bill was rejected as a private Bill, but sections of it were brought forward as a public Bill. “Erskine May” says:

“A bill concerning a government guarantee, even though it amended a private Act, has been a public bill.”

That is exactly what the clause does.

I am not saying that the whole Bill is unsuitable for private legislation, but clause 4 certainly is, and it should be deleted. The whole purpose of the clause, as far as I can see, is to allow Transport for London to raise funds by mortgaging assets. However, at the end of the day, the final guarantor of those charges will be the taxpayer, or the Treasury. Therefore, the provision should be brought forward as part of a public Bill rather than a private Bill.

I do not want to go over the arguments that we have already had with regard to the magnitude of the financial risk, the values of the sites involved, the billions of pounds at risk or the long-term consequences for the travelling public if a number of these speculative developments by the Mayor of London or Transport for London go pear-shaped. As far as I see it, that risk is intolerable.