High Speed 2

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Is this not an example of a very bad national planning process? HS2 does not link up with HS1; all the pain and disruption around Euston will have been for naught; and if it is completed as far as Birmingham, all it will do is join an already overcrowded rail network. Surely we have either a high-speed network or nothing at all. The Minister seems unable to answer any questions at all.

[Mr Holden]

I say to the right hon. Member that a huge amount of investment is already going into HS1, which will deliver transformation, particularly at Old Oak Common, as I have mentioned, where there will be a huge boost to economic growth in quite a deprived area of London as well as that massive investment. I do not know whether he has been down to Curzon Street and seen the transformation happening in central Birmingham. I would have thought that jobs, housing and general prosperity were outcomes that he would welcome.

Rail Strikes

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the vital role of the railways in supporting people and businesses across the UK every day; condemns the decision of the rail unions to hold three days of strikes; believes those strikes will adversely affect students taking examinations, have an unacceptable effect on working people and a negative effect on the economy; and calls on the rail unions to reconsider their strike action and continue discussions with the industry.

The railway is one of the nation’s greatest legacies. The industrial revolution was forged upon it, and for two centuries it has been the means by which we have connected north and south, east and west. It is a proud part of our history, but the truth is that the railways in this country have fallen behind the times. When I became Transport Secretary three years ago, it was clear that our railways were expensive, inefficient, fragmented, unaccountable and desperately in need of modernising and reform. There were delays to upgrades, collapsing franchises and busy lines operating at the very peak of, and sometimes beyond, their capacity, suffering overcrowding and delays. Some working practices had not changed for decades. As a result, we have a railway today that is struggling to keep pace with modern living, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. Our railways need a new direction.

Office workers are working from home more often and the railway has lost around a fifth of its passengers, and also a fifth of its income. The Government kept the railway running when most passengers stayed at home. We kept trains available for key workers and protected the brilliant railway workers who managed the track and ran the trains. So this Government have stepped in. We put our money where our mouth is and we committed £16 billion to support the railways through covid. That is taxpayers’ money, and it is the equivalent of £600 for every household in this country. Put another way, it is the equivalent to £160,000 per rail worker in this country. As a result, the trains continued to operate, the industry survived and not a single railway worker had to be furloughed or lost their job—not one. We stepped up, but the honest truth is that this level of subsidy—which, let us not forget, is not the Government’s money but the taxpayer’s—simply cannot continue forever. If our railways are to thrive, things must change.

As I see it, there are four ways to bring about that change. First, we could continue to attempt to pump billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into the system in the same unsustainable way we have been doing for the last two years, but that would take money away from the NHS and schools. Secondly, we could ramp up fares, but that would price working people off our railways completely. Thirdly, we could cut services and lines, emulating those sweeping cuts made by Dr Beeching in the 1960s, making it harder for people to access our railways. I do not support any of those options, which leaves us with the fourth option: modernise the railways, making them more productive and getting the industry off taxpayer-funded life support.

Make no mistake, as a Government we profoundly believe in our railways, which is why we have reopened abandoned routes and electrified thousands of miles of lines—not just the 63 miles that Labour managed to electrify over 13 years. It is why we have got behind projects such as High Speed 2, the Elizabeth line and Northern Powerhouse Rail, and rolled out contactless to 900 more stations and digital signalling across the network. And it is why we are transforming the industry through Great British Railways, ending the fragmentation and putting passengers first, but we need the industry to help with that transformation.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State rightly says that billions were pumped into the railways during the covid pandemic. That money kept the system going, and a lot of people worked very hard to keep it going. The train operating companies were preserved and supported, and they did very well during that period, as did many others in the private sector. Why is he now punishing the people who kept the railway system working, and who do all the difficult jobs on the railways, with job losses, inadequate pay and a loss of morale? Should he not talk to their representative unions about the real situation on the railways and work with them to ensure we have an effective, efficient and secure rail system for the future?

[Grant Shapps]

I pay tribute to the workers on the railway who kept things running, with a lot of taxpayers’ cash, during the pandemic. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that, but he talks about inadequate pay. I remind him and the House that the median salary for a train driver is £59,000, compared with £31,000 for a nurse and £21,000 for a care worker. [Hon. Members: “That’s the train drivers!”] The median salary for the rail sector is £44,000, which is significantly above the median salary in the country. What is more, salaries in the rail sector went up much faster over the last 10 years than in the rest of the country—a 39% increase for train drivers, compared with 7% for police officers and 16% for nurses. It is a good package, and we need to get the railways functioning for everybody in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

This House has just discussed the Government’s disgusting Rwanda deportation policy. On Monday I attended a demonstration against that policy, coming directly from a debate in Parliament on the Government’s similarly disgraceful refusal to ban trans conversion therapy. That debate, the debate on the Rwanda deportations and this afternoon’s motion on the rail strike are connected: they are all about this Tory Government’s attempt to divide our communities and distract from their failure to serve the British people.

That is clear with the Rwanda policy, which has nothing to do with tackling people-smuggling and everything to do with whipping up hate, demonising marginalised groups and pitting people who were born here against people who seek asylum here. That is what the refusal to ban trans conversion therapy—letting abusive practices against trans people go unpunished in order to pit cis women against trans women—is about: division and distraction.

That is also what the demonisation of railway workers and the RMT Union is all about: threatening anti-democratic and anti-worker legislation; vilifying workers who are standing up for jobs, pay and conditions; and pitting those railway workers against other workers. It is all an attempt to distract and divide, at a time when this Government are overseeing a cost of living emergency and a growing poverty crisis across the country.

Railway workers are clear: this strike is a last resort, no matter what Conservative Members say. The union and the workers have been calling for the dispute to be resolved for two years, but Ministers have refused to do so. Ministers have refused to get employers to withdraw the threat of compulsory redundancies against thousands of railway workers or to end the pay freeze for workers, which is really a pay cut, worth thousands of pounds per worker, when inflation rises to 10% and beyond. This dispute is not about modernising the railways or whatever else people say; it is about attacking workers, declining standards and worsening services for passengers.

These workers—we should applaud them for it—are standing up for their jobs and pay, but are being scapegoated by a Tory Government who would rather distract and divide.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend must be aware of the anger that many people who work in the rail industry feel—those who clean and repair the carriages, those who repair the track and those who provide the catering that many Members of this House enjoy—at being told basically to take a pay cut and face compulsory redundancies at a time when billions has been poured into the train operating companies, which have done very nicely out of their cosy arrangement with this Government.

[Zarah Sultana]

I absolutely agree. These tactics from the Government are to stop us talking about the fact that private rail companies take more than £500 million out of the railway system every year in private profits. It is the richest in the country who are truly raking it in, from the Chancellor, who is one of the wealthiest people in the country, to the record number of UK billionaires, one third of whom donate to the Conservative Party—[Interruption.] Tory Members can make all the sounds they like, but the facts are the facts.

That is all while working people are experiencing the biggest squeeze on living standards since the 1950s. Tory Members want us to believe that railway workers are the problem. They want us to blame refugees, not Tory cuts, for the crisis in public services and why they are at breaking point. They want us to think trans women are a threat to cis women. This House should be clear: the problem is not railway workers, it is not refugees and it is not trans women. The problem is this Tory Government and the billionaires who back them.

P&O Ferries

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend and other Kent MPs, because I appreciate that the situation with P&O has caused considerable disruption. We have put the moveable barrier in place. I spoke to the lead of the Kent Resilience Forum yesterday, and they have been reporting to me on its level of usage, because I do not want it to be there for no reason. It is being regularly used. A benefit from having put in that moveable barrier is that it no longer takes weeks to deploy and take away, but I am cognisant of the disturbance it creates for Members in the Kent area. I will ensure that we meet regularly with my right hon. Friend and other Members to provide updates on what we expect to happen next.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State today, and in particular his reference to international seafarers. I recognise that he spoke about minimum wage conditions on ferries, but he then went on to talk about international seafarers, who often face disgraceful, almost slave-like conditions of work on international transport. Will he commit to working with the International Transport Workers Federation of transport trade unions, as well as the ILO, to try to get rid of this scandal on a global scale? Obviously Britain can only play one part in that, but we can have a very big influence on changing the whole mood internationally.

[Grant Shapps]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that this is an international issue. It is worth saying that during the pandemic, we got a UN resolution through to recognise seafarers as key workers. We repatriated 22,000 seafarers. I sent the MCA in to raid a ship that was in Tilbury docks, where I suspected international seafarers were being held at work, essentially against their will. That was successful and there were prosecutions. We have gone further today with the measures I have outlined, which I hope he will approve of, considering that they include working with the International Labour Organisation.

P&O Ferries

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

At a time like this, conversations take place across Government and across the devolved Administrations to consider what action we can take together.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I hope he introduces legislation very quickly. In that legislation, will he also take on board the scandal of the way seafarers are treated in international waters generally—they suffer from low wages, poor conditions and terrible working arrangements—which has been exposed by the P&O scandal? We need to address the issue of fairness and justice for all seafarers. As a major seafaring nation, we can take the lead on that.

[Robert Courts]

This country absolutely is a major seafaring nation and has taken the lead already; for example during the pandemic when we were the first country to declare seafarers as key workers and took the issue of their rights to the International Maritime Organization. I am very keen that we continue to take the lead. The right hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a number of really pertinent issues.

P&O Ferries and Employment Rights

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This debate comes at a time when 800 workers have lost their jobs in the most disgusting and disgraceful of circumstances. I join others in paying huge tribute to the RMT and Nautilus, not just for immediately defending their members, but for providing brilliant information and support to help us ensure that this debate is fully informed.

As Members have said, one coach turned up at the portside to replace the crew with low-paid staff. They are not the enemy; they are migrant workers who are being grossly exploited. The enemy is P&O, which sent them there in the first place. Then, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, another coach turned up full of people trained in the use of tasers and handcuffs to remove current staff, some of whom had worked for the company for 30 years or more. Just think about that. This is modern Britain, and people turned up wearing balaclavas, with tasers and handcuffs, to get workers off a ship because they might not want to leave. The workers were then told that if they did not accept the money and sign an order that would forever seal their lips on the subject, they would get no money at all. This is modern Britain at its absolute worst.

The situation also calls into question a lot of legislation. Over the years, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I went many times to the Department for Transport demanding that the national minimum wage apply to international seafarers operating in and out of British ports as well as, obviously, to those working routes within the UK’s territorial waters. That never happened, I guess because of pressure from ship-owning companies on successive Governments. It is absolutely disgraceful. Other legislation is weak on trade union protection and weak on employment protection—weaker than most countries in Europe and many other countries in the world—and that must change.

The Minister comes here with his crocodile tears of concern, yet he refused even to support the principles behind the excellent Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on fire and rehire. If we are serious about protecting employment rights, we need legislation that protects those rights and does not allow companies to behave like this and get away with it. I suspect the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) may be right that the company gamed the process through on a legal basis to see whether it could get away with it. Well, if it does, the Government have options.

The options put forward in the RMT document are as follows. First, the Government could tell the company to reverse the decision. Secondly, they could remove all Government contracts of any sort from P&O with immediate effect. Thirdly, we can all boycott P&O. Nobody needs to go on P&O. Fourthly, we could pass the necessary legislation.

If at the end of that process the 800 have still lost their jobs and P&O thinks it can still get away with this kind of behaviour, the Government have not just an opportunity, but a duty. Shipping is a major strategic industry. We are an island. We need shipping. Those ships have to sail, so it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that they do. If all else fails, the option of taking the industry, or that section of it, into public ownership should be used as a direct threat to that company given its behaviour and its financial and investment strategy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) pointed out, the company has money for golf and Formula 1, but the pension fund has a huge hole and £200 million was paid out in dividends last year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday, and look forward to sharing his birthday cake later and discussing these matters. He is a persistent campaigner for better rail services for his constituents. The constructive manner in which he goes about his business on behalf of his constituency will pay dividends for him. Future services will depend on demand, but of course I will continue to work with him on how we can get the best out of our rail plans, including the £96 billion integrated rail plan, for Burnley.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that when he meets and gets into discussions with Transport for London, hopefully today or tomorrow, he will take into consideration the effects of rising fares, reduced services and possible closure of lines on the environment, job opportunities and air quality for the people of London? Will he also consider the effects on the mobility of young and older people who have campaigned for years for the ability to travel around their city, which has a higher use of public transport than many other places around the world because of progressive transport policies?

[Grant Shapps]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we want to see this resolved, and we are in constant contact with TfL and the Mayor’s office. He is right to say that we want to ensure that TfL’s rail service, bus service and all the rest of it are there for Londoners, and those who travel into London, to use. We are well on the case, and I look forward to a resolution.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Railways are the most essential form of transport, and they are the greenest and cleanest form of transport available, so their development is absolutely essential. We have to reflect, however, that since privatisation in the 1990s, fares have gone up astronomically, there has been massive profit-taking from the railway systems, and fare-paying passengers are paying the price. We should take the opportunity to take the entirety of the rail system into public ownership, as we put forward in our 2019 manifesto. The longer we go on with a partly privatised rail system, the longer many of the people we represent—many of them—simply cannot afford to travel by train. They are, however, expected to support a very high level of investment in the railway system. We do need to address the problems of the fare gap.

This expensively produced document—the integrated rail plan—is actually a massive apology for the failure of the Government to carry out the promises they made in 2019 about the investment they would make in the midland main line, the Pennine lines and all across the north of England. I have absolute solidarity with all of my colleagues across the north who are demanding proper, rational investment—

[Jacob Young]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

No, I will not give way.

Those colleagues are demanding proper, rational investment to ensure that their towns and cities are properly served by the railway system across this country. I absolutely support them in doing that.

There has to be an integrated transport system in this country. Therefore, the underfunding of Transport for the North and the failure of the Government to recognise the need to support Transport for London at the present time are actually part and parcel of the same short-sighted mentality they have to try to get through the current problems they face.

We need to increase rail capacity, and we need to increase rail capacity all across the country. I support the reopening of closed railway lines. The whole process that Beeching carried out under a Tory Government of closing branch lines all over the country did a great deal of damage to the railway network as a whole, but I have to say that some of the reopening is good but short-sighted. For example, why was the line reopened as far as Okehampton, but there is no plan so far to reopen it all the way to Plymouth? And so it goes on all across the country. I would urge the Government—

[Jacob Young]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Just so that the hon. Member is aware of it, I am not giving way.

I would urge the Government to make sure that in their plans for reopening disused lines—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I cannot hear what Mr Corbyn is saying, and he is not giving way.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I would urge the Government in planning any reopenings, which generally I would support, to do a serious cost-benefit analysis and look at the potential of the line. In most cases, there has been a gross underestimation of the benefits that reopening brings. For example, the Edinburgh to Galashiels line, which is doing very well, should be opened right the way through to Carlisle.

The last point I would make is that to make the railways affordable we have to take the profit motive out of the running of the train operating companies, and we have to bring them into public ownership to make railways affordable for all. Otherwise, what are we going to say—that those less well-off can take the bus or those less well-off can take long-distance coaches, while the railways will be there for those who can afford it and for the middle classes? No, railways have to be there for everybody, and that means proper investment and public ownership.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

That is disappointing—in fact, I am absolutely shocked. I thought we might have been able to see some movement on at least some of these issues, given the dialogue that has taken place and that this Bill has been travelling through the House since 2011. Elements have been dropped from the Bill and the Committee insisted on having amendments at some stage.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I was very disappointed to hear the answer from the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I am not one for re-telling rumours, but I heard tell that TfL wanted to discuss some of these issues with us. Perhaps the promoter of the Bill could tell us at what point TfL expects to have serious discussions through which constituency MPs can deal with the often very detailed concerns that we might have to raise in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Somewhere deep in the heart of TfL’s offices, there will be a list. It is not a list that has been published in this form. Individual community groups, passenger groups and trade unions have been pressing for a clear list showing TfL’s intentions for those sites.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The question of property ownership, the public listing of it and its future use is central to TfL. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) will probably want to get on to the question of Earls Court during his contribution, so may I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to consider another example? Archway tower, next to Archway station, was built by London Transport in 1967, and the building was rapidly leased to the Department of Social Security and various other Departments. The building has now been sub-leased several times over, and a long lease has been purchased by a company called Essential Living to convert it into 120 luxury flats. We thus have 120 luxury flats adjoining a tube station with no consideration whatever having been given to the housing needs of people in the area, yet we are apparently powerless to do anything about it.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I know that I am a signatory to new clause 1, but I must press the point about 12 months, which I think is wholly inadequate. If we look at just one aspect of London Underground, the Victoria line, we see that the number of trains on the line is now double the amount that it was originally planned to take, which means there is great difficulty packing those trains on to the sidings at Northumberland Park, and the same applies to every other line. We need far more than a 12-month look ahead; we need to look ahead 10 or 20 years for the continued growth of transport in London and the need for land and facilities to accommodate it, rather than doing nothing now and spending a lot of money buying them back from the private sector at a later date.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is my friend aware that up till the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, any sale of land by a public body had to be offered to another public body first and had to fit into the local district plan? It was the abolition of that which set us into this dangerous area where freehold land is often sold on and it is therefore impossible to develop, for example, railway infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

New clause 1 will inform all stakeholders and interested parties that an asset held by TfL is being considered for use in a development deal and that action is under way or being planned over the next 12 months to use it in some way. That information will trigger the interest of stakeholders and enable them to gear up for discussions and consultations with TfL about the development and use of that asset. If the new clause is agreed to, no more would we see communities and local authorities shocked and surprised to find, late in the day and contrary to their wishes, that a site in their area has been included in a development deal with a private development company.

The proposal for the publication of a list of TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets and a statement of TfL’s intentions for them also goes to the heart of the concern of many hon. Members and others in relation to clauses 4 and 5. They are anxious about the Mayor’s ambition to use the vast range and magnitude of TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets to secure borrowing, which we will come to in the second group of amendments. There is concern that TfL’s standing could be put in serious jeopardy.

This is simply about ensuring that people are properly informed about the intentions, so that they can calculate the risk involved. The proposed report would be an invaluable tool in enabling all stakeholders to hold TfL and the Mayor to account if they launch a new venture as part of large-scale property development deals. Hon. Members should not underestimate TfL’s massive asset base—it has 3,000 properties across London—and in particular the assets located in central London. Those historic inherited sites are located in the most lucrative parts of the city, which private developers have an interest in developing. In fact, it is widely known in property circles that property developers from across the world are desperate to engage in dialogue with TfL on the prospect of gaining access to those sites and, to be frank, of running rings around TfL and the Mayor and walking away with massive profits.

There is a risk in so many TfL sites and assets coming into the market as part of such development deals. A report requiring TfL to identify the value of the assets, in bands, and its plans for the asset sites over the next 12 months would at least result in a proper assessment taking place. The report would shed critical light on both the quantum and the timing of the potential risk to TfL, Londoners, passengers, employees and council tax payers. That is why new clause 1 is so fundamental to the Bill.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The parallel with the requirements on Network Rail to consider the effect of disposed-of land assets on future rail usage is interesting. Despite its being a private company—albeit Government-owned—Network Rail protects future rail usage and rail lines, even to the extent of protecting land on disused lines. Such a requirement does not appear to fall on TfL with regard to its own use of development sites in future. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

[John McDonnell]

We will come on to that issue later, and I am sure my hon. Friend will take it up when he speaks to his own amendments.

Without the publication of information about the ownership of sites and the intentions for them, there is real uncertainty about the Mayor’s intentions for specific sites. That is what we are worried about.

In conclusion on new clause 1, this new clause is fundamental to the Bill if Londoners are to be protected against the flights of speculation of TfL under the direction of, and perhaps pressure from, the Mayor, whoever he or she may be, and speculative developers from across the globe, including some—this has been mentioned with regard to the Earls Court site—who are linked to tax-avoiding companies and corporations, including oligarchs with doubtful histories and backgrounds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

No.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will explain to the House what has happened before I take the point of order. The procedural motion that we just agreed to was that the motion be proposed, because the mover was on his feet. That means that the motion on new clause 1 has been proposed and the debate continues. It was not a closure motion, but what is called the Golding closure. The Minister needs to decide whether he would like to speak on new clause 1, because we are now debating new clause 1 and the other amendments on the selection list. Are there any takers?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Okay. This is very unusual, but I call Mr Corbyn on a point of order.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am unclear from the response you are getting from those on the Treasury Bench, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether the Minister intends to speak. Can you make that clear or ensure that it is made clear for the benefit of the House? After all, we are considering the disposal of a vast amount of public assets in this Bill and I would have thought that, at the very least, the Government would have a view on that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.

On new clause 2, the issue of securing consent for the disposal of land owned by TfL is well established in section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It includes a statutory regime for the disposal of former operational land, including requirements for the Secretary of State’s consent. The sponsors of the Bill therefore consider that further consent would be unnecessary and undesirable.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing in London and the disposal of assets to meet housing needs. Is he aware that under permitted development rights, the conversion of office or industrial property does not require local planning consent so there is no social housing content to it? Does he accept that the Bill would be strengthened no end if there was a requirement that the disposal of property for housing purposes must reflect local housing needs in the area where that property is disposed of?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I hope it is a point of order. I know you would not wish to waste the Chair’s time, Mr Corbyn, because I want to call you to speak.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is the sponsor of the Bill and responsible for conducting it through the House. Is it normal for the sponsor of a Bill to give way so that legitimate questions and concerns can be raised and answered?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thought my judgment was correct: that is not a point of order. You are after a point of clarification, but that is not up to me. It is up to the sponsor of the Bill whether he wishes to give way. He has been courteous and given way a couple of times. Perhaps if he is allowed to speak for a little longer, I can call the Opposition spokesman and then some Back Benchers. I would like to do that and hear what the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

The House will have heard my hon. Friend, as will those outside this House, including millions of Londoners, and they will make their own judgments. You wish me to speak on the specifics of the first group of amendments, Mr Deputy Speaker, which, as others have said, would impose additional duties on TfL when it wished to sell or develop non-operational land. Those on the Opposition Front Bench welcome that change to the Bill, which has already been made in the other place and offers some clarification on the distinction between operational and non-operational land.

I would like to say a few further words on this group. I understand the desire of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington, for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), and of the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway), to submit the Bill to additional scrutiny in the hope of obtaining further concessions from Transport for London. It is for others to judge, but I know that they are disappointed and very surprised that no concessions have come forward.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

We do not just want concessions; we want sensible planning of the transport needs of London. My hon. Friend will have heard our concerns in the earlier debate on new clause 1. Increasing use of the tube means increased trains, increased sidings and increased maintenance depots. If all the infrastructure facilities are sold off in a fire sale of public assets to bolster the income of Transport for London, Londoners will be short-changed and we will have greater transport chaos, not less.

[Mr Marsden]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. We want sensible planning and infrastructure to be at the heart of any development, which is why the Opposition have so strongly supported the establishment of an infrastructure commission. It is also why I am so surprised that those on the Government Front Bench do not feel they need to comment on this matter at this stage.

I return to the specifics of new clause 1. It is important that the concerns raised in the House today are addressed, especially in the light of the ongoing controversy over the Earls Court development, which has inevitably sharpened views and concerns about the general direction of travel in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, he is trying to reflect the views raised by people and petitioners. He has also raised the issue of homes and housing. Those, too, are important issues for us to consider on both sides of the House. There are also the issues of transparency and consultation, which, my hon. Friend has made clear, lie behind many of his concerns in new clause 1.

We are not opposed in principle to granting TfL greater powers, but, as always, there must be a balanced approach to any restrictions imposed on the relevant public authority. It is important that powers are not granted to TfL in theory if they then prove to be unworkable in practice. As legislators, we always have to be concerned about the law of unintended consequences and that is why I will now raise some points about this group in particular.

We have not spoken a great deal about new clause 2 so far, but as I understand it, it would debar Transport for London from leasing land that has been in operational use or even been considered for operational use, however briefly. As I understand it, there would be no barrier to TfL selling such land—indeed, it currently has the power to do so. Is there a danger, by forbidding the leasing of land but not the sale, of unintentionally creating an incentive to sell, with some assets lost to the public interest for ever? I feel sure that that is not the wish or the intention of the movers of the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[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 ---

[John McDonnell]

Let me explain the genesis of the list in new clause 2. It came from the people who made representations to us on this Bill. They simply wanted to be part of the decision-making process in some form. Some might not necessarily want to be participants in deciding, but they do at least want to be consulted—nothing more than that.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have followed from a distance—it is not in my constituency—the goings on in Hammersmith over Earls Court and the development that goes with it. The points raised by the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) are so important in explaining what has happened there. The campaigners wanted to preserve local facilities, jobs and the opportunity for an improved transport system in the future. The very least we can do in considering this Bill is to look seriously at what TfL is trying to do.

We are all well aware of the problems of transport in London and of the need for serious long-term planning. I entered the House in 1983 when the Greater London Authority Bill became an Act, abolishing the Greater London council. There was a huge discussion about the role of Greater London council, formerly the London county council, in public transport matters. At the end of the debate on transport issues at that time, we ended up with the establishment of Transport for London as a co-ordinating body for public transport undertakings in London. Fortunately, the right wing of the Conservative party was defeated on its wish to deregulate the bus service in London.

Even at that time, we were expressing concern about the disposal of assets. There was a degree of thinking among London Underground and others that transport usage in London would continue to decline. It did not. It has not. We now have a very fast-growing public transport network in London. As I said, London underground has a maximum capacity of 4 million passengers a day, which has been achieved twice—once during the Olympics and then more recently. London’s population is going to rise, but car ownership will probably continue to fall in London because of the costs, congestion and so forth, so there is likely to be greater and greater demand for public transport.

My constituency probably has one of the lowest levels of car ownership in London, if not in the country, with less than a third of the population having access to a car. They rely totally on public transport. They are often very happy with the transport they receive. Clearly, however, there are growing demands. Any sensible transport authority would not be planning to dispose of assets; it would be protecting those assets, in order to allow expansion to take place in the future.

Let me give an example. Finsbury Park station, which is in my constituency, is a very busy underground station, a very busy interchange between Network Rail and London underground, and a very busy bus interchange with both those services, as well as serving local people who walk to the station. It takes about 30 million passengers on the underground and 6 or 7 million on the overground every year, and it is dangerously overcrowded. I have raised the issue many times on the Floor of the House. It is to his credit that, in response to a question that I asked following the congestion during the Christmas period, the Secretary of State agreed to visit the station, which he duly did. He met me on the overground platform, and we spent an hour walking around the station and looking at the facilities.

I believe that what is being proposed for Finsbury Park station is inadequate. Lifts are to be built, which is good, and there is to be a new entrance hall, which is also good, but unfortunately the Wells terrace entrance is to be closed, probably for eight months but perhaps for longer. That has to be worked out, and I hope that the closure period will be minimal. I also hope that the land assets surrounding the station will be protected, because I believe that the station as a whole is fundamentally inadequate to meet the needs of the travelling public. At peak times, about 30 Victoria line trains go through it in each direction, as well as a smaller number of Piccadilly line trains, and the platforms are too narrow. Someone, at some point, must grasp the nettle and make the decision to rebuild the station with much more platform capacity. Such rebuilding is not unusual: it has been done at Angel, and at other stations. However, it will not be possible if that option is closed off by sales of assets surrounding the station.

I think that I understand Transport for London’s motives. Because the capital needs of the network are underfunded—that may sound extraordinary to people who come from outside London, but London underground is a very expensive system to operate because it is so deep—and because of the difficulty of raising funds to deal with the problem, TfL has looked for assets to dispose of. That tends to be a short-sighted option, because it prevents later improvements to and development of sites. I hope that TfL understands that when those of us who represent constituencies with a very high usage of public transport—particularly London underground—raise concerns about the Bill, it is not because we want to delay its progress in a curmudgeonly way, but because we want to protect public assets so that we can have a better public transport system in the future.

I hope that the Bill’s sponsor will at least have the good grace to report our concerns to Transport for London, and to suggest that its representatives arrange to meet those of us who have raised those concerns and will continue to do so. We want an efficient public transport system in London, which I think is supposed to be the priority for Transport for London’s board. I am particularly concerned about Finsbury Park station, the relationship with Network Rail, and—in my view—the need for a single management of the whole station. At present, the station is managed by Transport for London and London Underground, and by Network Rail on the overground. I should have thought that making the station safer and more usable was the least that Transport for London could do. Some of us will not run away from this issue, because we are passionate about defending the interests of our constituents and others who use the underground system.

I want to mention two more stations in my area before I deal specifically with my amendments. Archway station is a deep and fairly old station in my constituency, which was once the last station on the Northern line. It was called Highgate then. It was rebuilt in the 1960s, and the plan included the building of a very large office block known as Archway Tower above the station. To call it an unattractive building is to do it credit. It is ugly, to put it mildly. No amount of cladding, Russian vines or anything else would make it an attractive building, although some cladding might improve it.

That building was constructed by London Underground, with public money. A succession of leases have been sold, at greater and greater cost, from developer to developer, and on many occasions the building has had to be leased back to the public sector. This is an object lesson in the mis-operation of public assets vis-à-vis private assets. The public have spent a great deal of money on the building of Archway Tower, on leasing it to developers who have then subleased it, and on its refurbishment for the Department for Social Security and, when it moved, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Lord Chancellor’s Department, as it then was.

The building has now been sold to a group called Essential Living, which is turning it into luxury flats. When I went to see its representatives, they told me that they were developing 120 luxury flats. When I asked them what was the social housing content, they looked at me blankly. When I then asked what contribution they were making to the community, they offered to subsidise an arts festival in the area. I want council housing there, because that would at least alleviate the problems in the area.

That asset was disposed of with no forethought, and there are many other such examples throughout London. I hope that Transport for London will understand that it has a real responsibility in respect of the way in which it uses its assets. We want to know what assets it has, and why it wants to put them on to the market or use them to engage in a joint private development. I am not against development when it is appropriate. My borough—along with, I am sure, that of the hon. Member for Harrow East—has massive housing issues. Indeed, London is full of such issues. I have no problem if TfL uses genuinely surplus land for housing. However, it must be housing that will benefit the ordinary people of London who are living in the desperately overcrowded, poor-quality private rented accommodation about which I know the hon. Gentleman is also concerned. Those people need to live in social units run by the council, or by a housing association, and to pay social rather than market rents.

As a public body, Transport for London has a responsibility in that regard. The aim of the Bill is to make TfL into a market operation that will maximise whatever market interest it has while ignoring its wider social responsibility to deal with housing issues throughout London. I hope that that is fully understood.

The other station that I want to mention is Tufnell Park, whose problems relate to the sale of land and local assets. Tufnell Park station is very busy, although it is fairly small. I have just received a letter from Transport for London telling me that it will close the station for many months while it replaces the lifts. I have written to Transport for London—as have the councillors representing both the Islington wards that are adjacent to it, as well as the council itself—expressing concern about the fact that the station will be inoperative, and the fact that the nearest two stations are a considerable distance away. Why can TfL not replace one lift at a time, so that the station can remain in use? TfL says that this is how it does things, and that it is cheaper this way. Well, it may be cheaper for TfL, but it is not cheaper for all the people who will have a very long walk, and the people who must spend more rather than less time travelling to work.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey the message that sensible planning, rather than the disposal of neighbouring assets which, in the case of other stations, could be used to make local improvements, could alleviate some of the problems.

Of course I recognise that assets have to be improved and the important works that have to be done on all transport networks at various times. The amendments I have tabled—amendments 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29—relate to the schedule at the end of the Bill. It is headed:

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

That worries me a great deal, because if the property referred to in this schedule can be disposed of by TfL without the consent of the Secretary of State, I ask myself where will there be any public accountability over a decision made by TfL?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[John McDonnell]

indicated dissent.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

No, my hon. Friend is just agitated because he is so appalled at the news he is hearing.

Sub-paragraph (n) refers to

“land which is not operational land”.

Again, that land needs to be kept in the public sector, so that we can then use it for development in the future.

This Bill has a huge effect on a very large number of people. I have just pointed out three stations in my area which need a great deal of attention. Some attention is being given to Finsbury Park and I am grateful for what has been done so far on that, and I am grateful to the Minister for visiting, but consideration must be given to the future needs of the area and future transport developments. I also mentioned Archway and the possibility of a big road improvement scheme which will introduce a piazza for the people of the area, and made points about Tufnell Park station.

Highbury and Islington station has been well developed and, because there was co-operation between public bodies, a post office has been closed and relocated and passed to TfL, so that it could demolish it and create a much larger circulating area for the very large numbers of people who use that station, including on Arsenal match days. That is a good example of public services working together. Had that building been sold years ago, as would be envisaged if it had been a TfL building, that possibility would have gone and the public would have had to buy their own property back at enormous cost. So I ask the Bill’s promoters to think a bit more deeply about their guardianship and stewardship of and responsibility for a massive public asset.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend’s brief remarks, and as someone who has been a resident of London for the past 28 years, I am greatly concerned by the serious matters he is raising. Would it not be premature to advance this Bill in any way now, and would it not be a suitable matter to be debated and voted on in the general election as a major issue?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am not quite sure how far it will become a major issue in the general election, but I will certainly do my best to make it a major issue in Islington North, and I will draw the attention of the people of the area to what is going on with this Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point about sequential repair of the lifts at Tufnell Park and the disruption that could be caused. I am more than happy to get in touch with TfL and find out exactly why it is planning to do this work in this way and ask whether it has looked at alternatives.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am grateful to the Minister; that is helpful because there is understandable concern locally about the stations I have mentioned and their safety. If it helps him, I am happy to write an explanatory note about it and send it to him straight away, so that he can understand my concerns and the local concerns, and we can then have a serious meeting and discussion. I thank the Minister very much for that.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend says that he does not think this will be a major general election issue, but does he not accept that the selling off of the nation’s assets and this obsession with privatisation and making a quick buck and selling things off cheap should be precisely the sort of issues we debate at the general election?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I absolutely agree with my friend, but time is—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Time is running out, but we are speaking to specific amendments and I do not want us to get into a general debate about the general election. We will be doing that soon enough—if we have not already been doing it for 12 months.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I conclude with this thought—

[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.

[Bob Blackman]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and to hear his explanation of the new clauses and amendments that he has tabled. Amendments 21 to 29 would remove the requirement to consult or get permission from the Secretary of State on certain minor matters. There is a dilemma about whether it should be the Secretary of State who rules on these matters or the Mayor of London, with the assembly scrutinising what the Mayor and Transport for London do. A dilemma arises when we devolve responsibility and power: should we then recentralise it to the Secretary of State? We as London MPs face that challenge daily. The amendments would recentralise power to the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for expressing that anxiety.

Hon. Members have mentioned TfL’s failure to engage with the objectors, but having gone through the Opposed Private Bill Committee and listened to the various proposals, my understanding is that they have been reflected. TfL has sought to meet the objectors and hon. Members to ascertain exactly the details of their objections, and it will have heard what has been said tonight. Clearly, we will not reach agreement on all the amendments, but TfL will no doubt reflect on them.

My concern on reading new clause 1 is that all such properties would have to be banded by value. In my judgment, that would lead to more speculation, rather than less. If TfL is disposing of assets, it should seek to maximise the value that it gets, but banding by value would play into the hands of property speculators. At the moment, the assets are all listed on a searchable website that can be seen by any member of the public, so we know what TfL owns. I therefore reject new clause 1.

New clause 2 would set in train a whole series of consultations and place heavy restrictions on the disposal of land. In my view and in that of the promoters, that would place an unnecessary encumbrance on TfL. There is already a statutory regime, set out in section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. TfL cannot avoid that; nor does it wish to do so.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier comments on the parallels with the protection of rail land for future use. For example, the March to Wisbech line has been preserved even though it has not been used for many years. It is now going to be reopened because someone had the foresight to preserve it. I have the same concerns about TfL assets being put up for disposal. Does he not accept that having the Secretary of State in place to provide a kind of long-stop protection, as we are proposing, would be a good thing?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On the detail of it, can my hon. Friend think of any other examples where a private Bill has been used as a vehicle for disposing public assets? Normally, private Bills are about a privately owned development such as a dock or a harbour, but this is very different. Existing public assets are being put at risk, or mortgaged, which is hardly in the public interest.

Rail Network (Disruption)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think that the ORR does a good job in holding Network Rail to account, but I will of course take seriously what my hon. Friend has said about its performance. If she wants to send me further details of her complaints, I will certainly consider them.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

As the Member who represents Finsbury Park, may I ask the Secretary of State to say a big thank you to all the staff who coped with an utterly impossible position on Saturday 27 December, when the station was so overcrowded with passengers? They deserve our recognition and thanks for the hard work that they do.

The Secretary of State will recall that we had a meeting in his office last year about the future of Finsbury Park station, where a piecemeal improvement has been taking place over many years. Does he not agree that there should now be a serious examination of the capacity problem at that station, given the increasing number of rail passengers, the dangerously overcrowded underground platforms, and a management mix between Transport for London and a train operator on the main line? Will he meet me again so that we can have a new discussion about Finsbury Park and the need for it to be improved?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking all the people who were involved in ensuring that the vast majority of the vast number of people who turned up at Finsbury Park were kept as informed as possible, in extremely difficult circumstances. This is certainly one of the issues in which I intend to take a further interest, and I shall be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, possibly at Finsbury Park.

Cycling

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bradshaw]

Yes, I do share that concern. I agree with my hon. Friend, who has put her finger on another important element—education, getting people cycling early and giving people the confidence to cycle. I am fortunate that in my constituency we still have a local authority that is committed to Bikeability, but, again, the service around the country is patchy because there is no sustained funding. Heaven knows, we all know what funding pressures local government is under at the moment.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend’s city has very good cycling facilities and routes, and needs to be commended for that. Does he accept that there is a slight problem, in that primary school children can be excited about cycling and encouraged to enjoy it—some primary schools do good work on that—but in secondary schools cycling becomes impossible because of bad facilities or longer journeys, or simply because it is “uncool”? We lose a lot of cyclists in the crucial teenage years and they do not come back, so somehow or other we have to do a lot more to get young teenagers and teenagers in general to keep on cycling.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I am sure my hon. Friend is right in what he says, although it has not been my experience in Exeter. Helped by the fantastic success of our professional cycling teams in the Olympics, cycling is now very cool and there has been a big upsurge in cycling among teenagers in my constituency. However, that is mainly because there are safe routes to the schools and facilities for people to lock their bikes and store their stuff when they get there. I am sorry to say that that is not common across the country.

It was in that context, after all the years of hard work by people such as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, that the all-party group, supported by The Times, decided to carry out its investigation and report in 2013. We spent days listening to evidence from experts across the field on how to get to the sort of cycling levels enjoyed in most of our neighbouring and similar continental countries. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, this is not rocket science; it comes down to sustainable commitments for funding and sustainable, persistent cross-departmental Government leadership.

What do we get today? A year late, we get a report that has been rushed out in time for this debate. I wanted to try to be kind about the report, which I had time to read before coming into the Chamber, but I cannot help agreeing with CTC, which has described it as “not a delivery plan” but a “derisory plan”. Once again, it is a hotch-potch of aspiration, which puts a lot of the responsibility on hard-pressed local authorities, on local enterprise partnerships—we have already heard that the record of LEPs is feeble at best, and they are also under a lot of pressure—and on business. That is deeply depressing and dispiriting, following all the debates we have had in this House, and the growing support among Members from all parts of this House and among the public for meaningful action to be taken on cycling. Seeing the report was one of the most depressing moments I have had in this House during this Parliament.

Surely we do not need to remind the Government of cycling’s benefits for health, the environment, and tackling congestion and pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) reminded us about the health benefits alone. If we met the targets that our report set for 2025 of 10% of journeys by bike, up from a derisory 2% in England at the moment, we would save £8 billion in health expenditure. If we reached continental levels of 25% of journeys made by cycling by 2050, which was our other target, we would save £25 billion for the health service.

Those are just the health benefits; they do not even take into account the additional benefits of tackling congestion and emissions. I do not understand what is wrong with the economists in the Department for Transport and the Treasury who do not recognise the logic of that. The Secretary of State, who I am pleased to see in his place, is a reasonable man. He was extolling the fantastic rail renaissance that we enjoyed in England in recent years. We could be having exactly the same renaissance in cycling if only there were the political will and a tiny bit of investment. All it would need is a fraction of the Department’s budget that is going on roads or on HS2 to be earmarked for cycling, and we could achieve that £10 per head per year figure, which would begin to deliver the cycling revolution we all want.

Let me be perfectly frank: whatever one thinks of this Government report, the timing of its publication—in the last few months before a general election—probably means that the political parties’ manifestos for next May and who then forms the Government will matter much more. I want to make it clear, including to my own Front-Bench team, that there are a lot of cyclists out there and we should not underestimate the power of the cycling vote. Many towns and cities, from Brighton and Hove to Norwich, Cambridge, Oxford, my own city of Exeter and Bristol, will have hard-fought contests in marginal seats at the next election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that point, and indeed that cycle route, which I have been to see—I know how much it is needed, because it is not a very nice road otherwise. The money has to be available for community groups; it cannot simply be driven from the top down.

There are good things in the plan. There are some encouraging words and good proposals—solid stuff that responds to our recommendations. The Government’s ambition to double cycling by 2025 is welcome, although it does not go as far as we would like it to, or as Parliament has voted for. I welcome the Government’s statement of its commitment to giving people a realistic choice to cycle, which is an important principle.

However, the report does not provide the money needed to actually make a difference. It states:

“The government’s aspiration is that—working with local government, and businesses—we can together explore how we can achieve a minimum funding equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020-21—and sooner if possible.”

That mentioned our starting figure of £10, but I am afraid that it is still pretty thin. It is an aspiration to explore funding, not even to ensure funding. We are not asking for much. The Department for Transport’s 2014-15 budget, counting revenue and capital together, comes to a total of £21.5 billion. Of course, much of that is accounted for, for example in schemes such as Crossrail, but £500 million is not a huge fraction of that and could make a huge difference to transport, health and the wider economy. It is a few per cent., or roughly on a par with the proportion of people who currently cycle, which is already too low. There is huge rail investment from this Government, which I welcome as the right thing to do, with billions of pounds properly invested, not just an aspiration to explore. There is £28 billion in road schemes—again, invested, not an aspiration to explore.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some continental cities such as Basle and Copenhagen have very good interchange facilities between cyclists and railway stations; in Britain, the situation is awful to poor. Does he think that any plan has to include a serious plan about proper, secure cycle parking and more efficient use of cycle parking space at stations?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In Cambridge we are beginning work on a 3,000-place cycle park at the station because it is such an important thing to do, and the Government have supported that financially.

Why are the Government not taking the obvious steps? Is it because of the “war on the motorist” concern exemplified by the Communities and Local Government Secretary? That would not make sense, because drivers benefit when people cycle. That is why the president of the AA and so many other people have supported our recommendations.