Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Debate between Ian Lavery and Catherine West

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend could not possibly fail to come to Finsbury Park, because that leads into the Stroud Green part of my constituency. Indeed, we have a problem with step-free access. Perhaps I will use this opportunity to lobby the Minister on that matter. We have long been promised step-free access at Finsbury Park. We have also been promised proper ticket barriers; ours is the only station in London without proper ticket barriers. My hon. Friend is welcome at any time to join us in Finsbury Park.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Again, that is extremely concerning. I am not from the area, but I am sure that such cases have been experienced many times in many constituencies in the city. If any of my hon. Friends wanted to give any examples, I would be interested. The House should be prepared to listen to past experiences and to what has happened, as that is what we are likely to see if clause 5 is agreed to.

[Catherine West]

Will my hon. Friend accept as an example what happens now in the private rented sector, as opposed to the possibilities we might have had under a social housing deal? An income of £75,000 is needed for a household to rent in Finsbury Park. This is not Chelsea: in Finsbury Park, a family with three children wanting to rent in the private sector needs an annual income of £75,000. Is not that why we have such a desperate need for affordable homes? TfL has proved severely wanting as regards the Earls Court scheme and other schemes and that is why we are so desperate to stay in the Chamber at this late hour debating this important matter.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Indeed. Although the Bill is not long, it lacks transparency. A limited partnership differs slightly from a limited liability partnership. A limited partnership is a form of agreement between parties, not a distinct legal entity, with unclear consequences for public transparency measures, such as the Freedom of Information Act. In the other form of partnership, the general partner assumes unlimited risk, whereas the secondary or limited partners are liable only for the value of any investment they make. The limited partner may not be involved in the management of the partnership.

Although it is assumed that Transport for London would primarily take the role of a limited partner, the Bill would not prevent the organisation from acting as a general partner. If it assumed the role of limited partner, Transport for London would not be able to end the arrangement without the agreement of the general partner, as has already been mentioned.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those on the Labour Benches would feel much more generous towards the Bill had there been examples of Transport for London achieving what Londoners want, which is 50% affordable housing on all such deals? We got that in the case of Earl’s Court, rather than 10%. We need genuinely affordable homes—not the current definition of “affordable”, which is 80% of the market rate. We know that 80% of the market rate in London is completely unaffordable for the average earner, who is on about £28,000, £29,000 or £30,000 a year.

[Ian Lavery]

That is another excellent intervention that explains what a lot of people in this city are experiencing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I am not sure whether that was an intervention or another speech, but I thank the Minister.

[Catherine West]

This is not about the private sector per se, but the track record. In a large investment such as Earls Court, 10% affordable homes is not acceptable. The fire station in Clerkenwell closed because the Mayor of London was keen to see posh flats instead of services. Muswell Hill police station closed and is about to be sold for half a dozen posh flats. There is the continual sense that we are being ripped off. Transport providers are not necessarily the best people to be running property developments.

[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.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Catherine West

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

There is no doubt about that. I fully concur with my hon. Friend about the impact this will have on women in particular. Whether we like it or not, the Bill will have a disproportionately negative impact on women in the workplace.

Getting back to these ordinary people, trade union members are taxpayers. They want their children to get to school in the morning, to counter the argument made by a number of Members on the Government Benches. Do people think that trade union members do not have children?

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the tone of this debate is very similar to that on working tax credits? How do Conservative Members think they can make the case for working people if they are going to be ideologically driven on the subject of working people? It does not make sense.

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree and hope to develop that point.

This is the gagging Bill, part 2. It is about disarming any dissent, particularly in the public sector. When we look at the thresholds, the ballot provisions, the measures on agency workers and all the new clauses and amendments, we begin to see the big picture. The Bill is about criminalising working people and eradicating any resistance, particularly in the public sector and particularly with regard to women. Why are the Government bashing low-paid people in the public sector, imposing pay restraints on them and coming up with crazy ideas about stripping tax credits from hard-working, low-paid people? They do not want to give those people the right to fight back. That is what the Bill is about. It is about eradicating that dissent while the Conservative Government keep their foot firmly on the necks of the low paid who are struggling even to make ends meet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. Many, many papers have been presented by professors, doctors and other experts with regard to facility time. There have been many battles on industrial relations problems over many, many years—decades and decades—resulting in a decent industrial relations policy that allows for facility time. Facility time could involve, for example, discussions on health and safety, avoidance of industrial disputes or avoidance of the progression of court cases. It is not about people sitting in an office on the telephone organising disputes—quite the opposite; it is about trying to avoid these disputes.

[Catherine West]

When I was a council leader employing thousands of staff, facility time was given to cope with all the casework as a result of the then Government forcing cuts on local government that led to many redundancies. We had to triple the amount of casework time, which was crucial in ensuring that that terrible period of redundancy was managed in a humane way that helped people.

[Ian Lavery]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. If the Government start to decide how much, or how little, facility time individuals should have, there will be a breakdown in communication between the trade unions, the workforce and, indeed, the employers. In local government and the NHS, facility time is much valued and to the benefit of the general public.

If we applied the 40% and 50% thresholds to members of the coalition Cabinet prior to the election, not one of them would have been elected. We have to be fair and consistent with regard to thresholds. The average turnout for the police and crime commissioner elections was 17%, but nobody is saying that we should not listen to anything they have to say. The Government themselves were elected by only 24% of the electorate, but not many people are saying—although a lot of people are wishing it—that they should not have the right to govern. Fairness should prevail.

There have been many discussions about how e-balloting would provide for a much bigger turnout. That is what the Conservative Government want, and I agree: we want more people to participate in the ballot, hence the threshold issue. It is terribly unfair to suggest that e-balloting is not a secure way to ballot individuals, because it is.