Transport for London Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

That is another very good point. I am afraid that it is another one on which TfL does not have a terribly good record. In Brixton market or Shepherd’s Bush market, which I am very familiar with, there are many historical amenities, including retail areas—they have been there for decades, if not, in some cases, for centuries—of which TfL has been the custodian, that are now under threat. Again, that is simply because the bottom line always has to take precedence.

Such an approach is often self-defeating, because we end up building a white elephant. The best example I can give is the Hammersmith Broadway. TfL pressed ahead with that development some 30 years ago. Nobody wanted it, and it ruined the town centre, as we thought, for the foreseeable future. However, we have now found out that there are plans to pull the whole thing down and start again. Even within its own rather limited and pedestrian view, which is to make the maximum capital out of it, such an approach often does not work. We must have schemes that actually work—work with existing communities, and work in terms of long-term commercial prospects—rather than something that looks as though it will provide a quick subsidy for the sort of works at Harrow on the Hill that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West.

Let me press on. I am almost the last man standing in this debate—not quite, because I have had the assistance of my hon. Friend and of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, who have a particular interest in this matter—but it has had a glorious number of supporters so far. I see that the shadow Chancellor has joined us on the Front Bench. I will spare his blushes, but I was just about to pay tribute to what he and the Leader of the Opposition have done. They have really cracked the whip on the Bill. If he has looked at the amendment paper, he will have spotted that I have filched quite a large number of his amendments to propose myself. I would not have done that if they were not excellent in their own right. I will not speak to them at great length.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the drafting quality of the amendments?

[Andy Slaughter]

They are much better than I could have done. They could not be improved upon by the Clerks, so they get 10 out of 10, not just for their eloquence and presentation but for their content.

If I may, I will deal with the consolidated amendments in three parts, and will come to the promoter’s amendments last of all. In a moment, I will look at two amendments in particular, amendment 7 and amendment 8, which is consequential on amendment 7. I will be looking for a response from the promoter on those. They contain a serious and, to some extent, new point. To show my hand at this stage, amendment 7 is the one amendment I am thinking of pressing to a vote. I am only thinking of doing so, however—it will depend on what the Front-Bench spokesperson and the promoter say. I will explain my logic in a moment.

I will go through the rest of the amendments at some speed. A few might be probing, but they are mainly what we might call improving amendments. They try to make sure that the Bill’s deficiencies—it is rather hasty and secretive, and tries to provoke unwise decisions that have not had proper consideration—can be mitigated in some way. I ask the promoter and the Government to look at them in the spirit in which they have been tabled. I am not very hopeful, because when that same point was made in the first part of Report, in March 2015—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was proposing the amendments at that stage—the promoter said he was not going to accept any of them, which I thought was a little churlish. They are genuinely intended to be improving. Let me explain what I mean by that.

I will start with new clause 1. That measure is slightly different. It flushes out one of the problems that we thought we had got rid of with TfL, but I am now not sure that we have. In its enthusiasm to sell off its assets to the highest bidder and to maximise commercial return, TfL sometimes ends up selling off land that it needs now or might need in future. That is slightly counterproductive, because with London property, when it is gone, it is gone. Any public authority that tries to buy back land that has been used from a commercial developer—even if, as in this case, that might be a joint partner—will find the price very high. The developer knows that the railway will absolutely need that piece of land so it will be treated as a ransom strip.

New clause 1 says:

“TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, shall not lease land to third parties which…has been used in the preceding 10 years…has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or…is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years, for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.”

Let me give one example, a very big one and probably the one that the promoter thinks I am going to give: Lillie Bridge depot.

Lillie Bridge depot is one third of the Earls Court and West Kensington opportunity development. As is the case for many others, much of my interest in the Bill has been engendered by that very development, which, until Old Oak and Park Royal comes onstream, is the biggest in London. It is a multibillion pound scheme. It consists of three parts, two of which are, or were, owned in their entirety by TfL. I will not talk about this now; I will talk about it on Third Reading. The way that part one of the scheme has been handled—admittedly under the existing rules, because the Bill has not been passed into law—has been so disastrous and cataclysmic for my constituents and the wider London economy that it bodes very badly for what may come forward.

It could be even worse from TfL’s point of view, because Lillie Bridge depot, the second part of the site—the two or three parts are roughly the same size, between 20 and 25 acres each—is a working depot for TfL. It employs about 550 people. It has stabling for District line trains, and major manufacturing and workshop areas. To all intents and purposes, it is an essential part of the operation of TfL. Unfortunately, the view put forward by TfL’s property division is that it can all go. I have a letter here from Graeme Craig, whom I referred to earlier, from 26 March 2014. It says:

“TfL is committed to bringing forward the development of LBD”—

Lillie Bridge depot—

“in accordance with the approved masterplan or such updated planning permissions as may be approved by the Council. TfL is not able to commit at this stage to how and with whom the development of LBD is to be delivered if it is proved feasible to do so. However, given the establishment of JVCo to develop Earls Court Village and ECP’s control of other interests, it would make commercial sense in due course for both parties to fully explore the potential benefits which could arise should we combine our respective remaining land interests.”

That was a scandalous letter to write and I am pleased to say that Mr Craig gave me an assurance that no deal has been, or would be, entered into with Capco for the development of the Lillie Bridge depot before the mayoral election. What has happened in that area is on the basis of no ownership of that portion of land and on the basis of a masterplan devised by Capco itself. TfL, in a very craven way, just decided to give up the land and develop it with Capco without looking at any other possibilities.

Obviously, there is now a delay. Even TfL has to admit that a fully operational depot of that kind, with all the facilities in situ that I have talked about, cannot be closed down overnight. It is talking about not developing it for about another five years, but it is certainly looking to sign agreements to do so in advance. That is exactly the type of mischief that new clause 1 is designed to prevent.

It is not only because of the points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West that we need to worry about what type of development is going to go on TfL land; we need to worry about what is going to happen with current usage, either in the case of Lillie Bridge where there is current transport usage, or if there is a potential transport usage. This is absolutely recognised in the HS2 Bill, where HS2 is able to compulsorily purchase, acquire and protect land ancillary to the line, stations or other essential infrastructure that is being developed—for good reason.

Whatever we think of HS2, we cannot allow major infrastructure projects and essential lifelines of the transport system to be put at risk by private development in this way. I therefore ask, without a great deal of hope or expectation, for support for new clause 1. Even if there is not to be support in that way, I still ask for a clear statement of policy from the sponsor on behalf of TfL as to how it intends to protect the operational benefits of TfL. This is not a pious or notional idea. TfL is going into the property development game big time. It is looking at thousands of acres of land across London with transport or ancillary transport uses—by definition, most of its non-operational land is adjacent to its operational land—in a way that I do not believe it is prepared for and that would be a quantum leap in how it operates. All we are saying is that there needs to be safeguards. We need to ensure that it does not shoot itself, or the travelling public, in the foot by giving away, tying up or otherwise compromising land in that way, which, I am afraid, is exactly what has happened in the past.

Airports Capacity

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

As a member of the Transport Select Committee, I have to observe that the Government have got themselves into a rather big hole on this issue. At least, however, they have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, a former miner, to dig them out of it. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this decision will be taken in the early summer and that it will look favourably at the Davies commission, which made a clear recommendation to build a third runway at Heathrow?

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Stop digging!

[Mr McLoughlin]

The shadow Chancellor says stop digging. He should learn lessons from his own shouting from a sedentary position.

[John McDonnell]

That was a compliment!

[Mr McLoughlin]

Oh, that was a good one; I will put that in my book.

As for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), the important part of the Davies commission recommendations was having the extra capacity in place by 2030. I believe, given what I have said today, that we are on schedule to be able to deliver that extra capacity by 2030.

Davies Commission Report

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

In all my time in the House of Commons, I have always found it much easier to agree with my right hon. and learned Friend on such issues. He makes a number of points that we must bear in mind, and it is in a way a pity that progress has not been made on some of these subjects sooner.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State started his statement by outlining the history, beginning with the Davies commission. There was a stage before that, however, when the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron)—now the Prime Minister—said to my constituents, “No ifs, no buts, there will be no third runway.” Now, 10,000 of them are at risk of losing their homes, their local community centres, their schools and their places of worship. Today the air pollution levels were double the EU legal limits. If the runway goes ahead, the noise will extend to 1.5 million people. Does the Secretary of State think the onus is now on the Prime Minister to come to my constituency and meet my constituents whose homes and whole community are now at risk?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What the Prime Minister was talking about initially was a proposal put forward by his own party, which was basically not a proper proposal and would not have answered the capacity question. The Prime Minister certainly ruled out that option, and set up the commission so that we could make a reasoned and proper judgment, which is exactly what we will do.

Network Rail

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I can give that reassurance. Let me add that the railways Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), has been particularly good at keeping all local Members in touch, especially those who have experienced problems. I must, however, say to my hon. Friend in all fairness that there will be occasions, during what will be a major refurbishment, when passengers will be caused discomfort and inconvenienced. I am afraid that that is part of our legacy of having to catch up with all the under-investment that was happening for so many years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) mentions London Bridge. I am the first to admit that some of the conditions faced by people there have been unacceptable, but some of the conditions faced by me at St Pancras were unacceptable, and it is now a fantastic station that is almost a destination in its own right.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group.

I assume from his statement that the Secretary of State has resisted some of the calls from the wider elements of his party for the breaking up and privatisation of Network Rail. The fourth point that he made in his statement was,

“it is important that we understand what can be done better in future investment programmes.”

May I suggest to him that one of the key elements of that would be to start listening to some of the workers on the front line? May I also suggest that Dame Colette Bowe’s review should include a mechanism for ongoing consultation with the trade unions about how those programmes can be improved?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am certainly willing to consider the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions. Some of those workers on the front line do an incredibly difficult job, sometimes in the most horrendous conditions and often in the middle of the night. That is one of the lessons on which we should draw when considering what happened at King’s Cross over Christmas.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—TfL assets (constraints on developments)—

“(1) Tfl, or any subsidiary of TfL, shall not lease land to third parties which:

(a) has been used in the preceding 10 years,

(b) has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or

(c) is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years, for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.

(2) Before TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, enters into a contract involving the development of land for other than the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers, it must carry out a public consultation seeking views on the impact of so doing.

(3) Any consultation under subsection (2) must include consultation with:

(a) local communities likely to be affected

(b) the Greater London Authority

(c) London boroughs

(d) the City of London

(e) relevant trade unions.”

Amendment 21, page 6, in schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (c), at end add

“subject to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that TfL has undertaken, or caused to be undertaken, an effective risk assessment in respect of the impact on public heath of such use.”

Amendment 22, in page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (d).

Amendment 23, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (i), at end add

“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”

Amendment 24, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (o), at end add

“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”

Amendment 25, in page 6, paragraph 1(k), line 19, after “machines”, insert

“and other property which is exploited for commercial purposes other than within stations.”

Amendment 26, page 6, paragraph 1(k), line 19, leave out from the first “stations” to the end of the sub-paragraph.

Amendment 27, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (k).

Amendment 28, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (m).

Amendment 29, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (n).

[John McDonnell]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with particular regard to donations from trade unions to my constituency party. We are now in a long campaign period and although these donations are to my constituency party and are not personal donations, I wish to declare them. They will pay for leaflets in the election campaign bearing my photograph—that will probably cost me votes! I thought I had better declare those interests tonight.

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on behalf of myself and colleagues who drafted amendments to the Bill, I would like to thank and congratulate the Clerk on the advice he provided to us throughout. He took our original ideas and my own poor drafts and turned them into the amendments that have been selected today.

I will happily curtail this debate right now if the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), representing the Bill’s promoters, can inform us whether Transport for London is willing to accept all the amendments. If it is, we will not need to spend any further time on the issue this evening. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is willing to advise us of TfL’s position.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to intervene at this point. The sponsors of the Bill have been through the various amendments, and I have been taking advice today. The sponsors reject every single one of the new clauses and amendments.

[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.

[John McDonnell]

I am concerned about the Bill’s implications for all our London constituents and constituencies. As I have said, given that the debate has lasted for four years, I would expect a dialogue to have taken place by now, along with acceptance of some of the arguments, to allow at least a degree of compromise to be reached.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I was shocked, but not surprised, to hear what was said by the Bill’s sponsor, which was symptomatic of the arrogance that TfL has shown towards the House. The Bill’s progress began in the other place on 29 November 2010. I think that the summary dismissal of every single one of the amendments is symptomatic of not only TfL’s attitude but the faults in the Bill, which is why I have added my name to a number of the amendments.

[John McDonnell]

I will not labour the point. Let me now deal with the amendments. I shall begin by outlining the general justification for the group, and will then deal with them individually.

This group of amendments was prompted by the raising of a number of issues on Second Reading, in the Opposed Private Bill Committee and in the other place. None of those issues seems to have been taken on board bar one, and that only because the Committee forced it on the promoter after its consideration of the representation of petitioners who included members of community organisations, a member of the Greater London authority and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. I am sure that he will pay tribute to the objectors, who painstakingly gave their time in several meetings that I attended with representatives of TfL, and who were given the same short shrift that my hon. Friend is being given today. Two of them are constituents of mine, and they have become experts on this subject. They have been entirely reasonable throughout the process, but they have been treated with a large degree of disregard. Had it not been for the Bill Committee, we would not have secured even the concession to which my hon. Friend has referred.

[John McDonnell]

I do indeed pay tribute to the petitioners. The amendments that are in my name and those of others—and those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), which I support—arise from the views expressed by the petitioners on particular issues.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a great deal of respect for him and for the work that we do together in opposing a third runway at Heathrow. However, it seems to me, especially given his opening remarks, that the best thing that he can do is ensure that the question is put as soon as possible, rather than elongating matters, so that Parliament can make its judgment.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman and I have worked and campaigned on the third runway issue in close co-operation. I am grateful to him for all his support, and respect him for it. However, I think that the responsibility of a Member of Parliament is to reflect the concerns expressed to him by his constituents, and in this instance—given that we have a general accountability to Londoners overall—by the Londoners who have petitioned against the Bill. That is why the amendments have been drafted very specifically on the basis of the views expressed in the Opposed Private Bill Committee, which were not fully taken into account following the Committee’s recommendations. I had to draft the amendments, in consultation with some of the petitioners, to ensure that I captured their main concerns.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, and congratulate him on his elevation.

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have some sympathy with the broad thrust of his views. There is a risk that Transport for London could become over-leveraged and that land, which is very scarce in London, might be misused when it could be used for purposes connected with housing in particular.

I have a wider concern, however. I fear that there will be increasing hostility in other parts of the United Kingdom towards large-scale infrastructure investment here in London. Whether we like it or not, Transport for London is the only mechanism that allows us to drive that vital infrastructure forward, for the good of the capital and the good of all its residents, current and future.

[John McDonnell]

That is a valid point, which I will try to address when we turn to the specific amendments. I thought there were issues on which we could have had compromise; the main thrust of the first group of amendments is to secure openness, transparency and, most importantly, a consultative decision-making process. I have sat down with each of the petitioners. The whole point of these amendments is the need for consultative engagement by TfL and its subsidiaries when dealing with sites in their areas.

[Mr Slaughter]

May I, too, add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field)? I do not think anyone objects to sustainable responsible development by TfL, but this Bill permits not that type of development, but the type that I have seen in my constituency—irresponsible development that is in hock to developers and that, to use the parallel with the Heathrow proposal, can lead to huge damage to communities: 750 homes would be destroyed in my constituency as part of the Earls Court development, similar to the number in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as a consequence of the third runway.

[John McDonnell]

That is it exactly. That is what new clause 1 seeks to address to a certain extent, as I will come on to. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has got a valid point, however, in mentioning concerns about antipathy to investment in London and that we need a balance in terms of non-London infrastructure investment and infrastructure investment in London. However, I do not think that this Bill solves that—in fact, I do not think it even addresses it. It makes matters worse.

The prime principle behind this group of amendments is accountability. Why are those key elements of openness, transparency, a consultative decision-making process and accountability so important to the petitioners who have come to us and so important to our constituents who have raised these matters with us—the genesis of these amendments? It is because the Bill extends the power of TfL—and, via TfL, the Mayor of London’s power—to use an immense range and quantity of assets.

Members may wish to correct me on this, but when we last asked how many sites could be identified as being such assets, I think the figure I was told was about 3,000 sites in the ownership or control of TfL. As a result of this legislation, those sites could be used for the placement of charges and mortgages to guarantee indemnity, and therefore for borrowing to raise funds.

We will come to the other issue to arise from these amendments largely in the second block of amendments, but it relates to the first block as well. It is the concern about the vehicles that will be used, or which are proposed in this legislation. It is why new clause 1 is so crucial to the way forward. There are concerns about the range of vehicles, from the limited partnerships, which I think are the most worrying vehicle, as identified in the evidence to the Opposed Private Bill Committee, to the limited liability partnerships.

What we have in the Bill, and what this group of amendments addresses, is potentially the largest use for generations of public assets in the capital to raise funds. It amounts to an immense mortgaging of London’s future, but also, more dangerously, as has been put to us in discussion after discussion with the regional petitioners, it opens up what one has described as a speculators’ bonanza in our capital city. New clause 1 would address that to some extent, as would the other amendments.

The Bill puts at risk the finances of Transport for London, as well as its operations and its supply of transport services to London, including the tubes, the buses and even, I have to say, the Boris bikes. In the event of the catastrophic failure of some of what can only be described as the Mayor of London’s escapades, the burden would fall on London fare payers, London council tax payers, London business rate payers and, eventually, the general taxpayer. That is the risk behind this Bill if it goes through unamended tonight, and this group of new clauses and amendments has been tabled to ensure that we have a proper debate. I hope that the Bill will not go through unamended, but if it does, the new clauses and amendments will at least form the agenda for a dialogue between our communities and their elected representatives and Transport for London.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The Bill as currently drafted will be bad for the fare payer, and for the taxpayer in general, but it is also likely to be bad for those who work for Transport for London and for the communities in which the developments are likely to take place. This extraordinary cocktail of poor ideas is being pushed through, and I am not surprised to hear him say that it is being done in an atmosphere of secrecy.

[John McDonnell]

I come at this objectively, without any party political motivation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow East and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will remember when the last Government imposed the public-private partnership on London, the GLA and the then Mayor. At that point, a few of us in this House warned that it would put at risk the future of London Transport if it was forced on it, and it nearly did. This Bill has the same dangerous implications. I remember the debates on the PPP, and I think I was the first Member of Parliament to raise those concerns in the House. I urged new Labour, as it then was, to pull back. The then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, sought to ensure that the PPP would not be imposed. I have tabled new clause 1 to try to ensure that we do not go down the same route.

Members will remember that the scale of the PPP extended to £3 billion. That was the extent of the bail-out as a result of that poor legislation being imposed on the then Mayor of London against his wishes and, I believe, against the wishes of the GLA on a cross-party basis. We subsequently discovered that the cost of the imposition of that £3 billion was £400 million in accountancy and consultancy fees alone. That money was wasted, and it was an absolute scandal. The Bill that we are discussing tonight will have the same implications if we cannot amend it. I do not say this with any arrogance, but those of us who opposed the PPP were proved absolutely right, and I believe that we will be proved right about this Bill if it is allowed to go through unamended.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend does not need to speculate—if I may use that word—about the outcome of this Bill. He has already been proved right by the scheme that is the begetter of the Bill, the Earls Court and West Kensington scheme. It is demonstrably a terrible deal for the taxpayer and the fare payer, yet it is being used as the basis for institutionalising that type of development in legislation.

[John McDonnell]

I agree. It was with some sadness that I listened to the representations of the opponents of the Bill when they presented their petitions to the Opposed Private Bill Committee and, more importantly, when they held an open meeting in this House to explain the consequences of the scheme for their homes, their businesses and their environment. It was a scandal. The problem is exactly as has been described, which is why new clause 1 is so crucial and why we have tabled amendments to the scheme. As Transport for London said in its letter to the general secretary of the RMT, Mick Cash, if this legislation had been in place this vehicle would have been used for that scheme. This vehicle, under this legislation, would have been more precarious than even the existing arrangements under the Earls Court scheme.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It has not stopped TfL selling a majority interest in the site for a minority stake; and it has not stopped TfL going into a partnership where the fare payer takes all the risks and the developer takes none, and the developer is indeed represented by a £2 company that, for tax-avoidance reasons, is domiciled in Jersey. But at least we know some of the facts of that case. The deal before us is the type that TfL wishes to make the norm, rather than the exception, and wishes to hide from public scrutiny.

[John McDonnell]

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

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

[George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)]

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

[John McDonnell]

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

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The hon. Gentleman says that a number of people have not woken up to the consequences. Would that include the right hon. Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) and for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who all aspire to be Mayor of London?

[John McDonnell]

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

[George Galloway]

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

[John McDonnell]

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

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

[Mr Slaughter]

These are highly technical matters. My hon. Friend has a record of getting his head round such matters, and we have had excellent briefing from the RMT and support from the petitioners in this. I am not surprised that other Members are not on top of the matter. In all fairness to those who could not be present today, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), we should not pick on individual Members. However, I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is holding back on his endorsement of a mayoral candidate—I am sure that all the candidates are waiting for it with bated breath.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

[John McDonnell]

I never said—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. No, I know that the hon. Gentleman has not said anything. Let us take it as read that nobody in this Chamber will declare in which election camp they are. Can we now move on, as the hon. Gentleman is struggling to do, to the main point of his proposed new clause 1?

[John McDonnell]

I am very, very grateful for that protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me make my final general point about this group of amendments, because the next group contains some technical details in which we will need to involve ourselves. Decisions made by Transport for London may, if this Bill is enacted, result in sites being lost to private developers that could, at a later stage, be judged essential for future transport improvements. That is the view expressed to me by people working on the front line at London transport—I am talking about RMT and other union representatives. The cost of retrieving those sites, even through compulsory purchase powers and arrangements, would then fall on the fare payers, the council tax payers, London businesses and, eventually, the general taxpayers. If this Bill goes through unamended, it will not just create enormous financial risk but put at risk the long-term development of our transport infrastructure and reduce the flexibility of Transport for London to improve services in the long term.

Let me turn now to the detail of the individual clauses. I wish to indicate now that, at some stage, I would like to press new clause 1 to a vote. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North is concerned about a whole batch of amendments, and I believe that the House should also take a view on amendment 29.

In the context of the potential enormity of the scale of charging on TfL subsidiary assets—that is, the mortgaging of these assets—and the extent of the partnerships, limited or otherwise, it is important that Transport for London and, indeed, the Mayor are absolutely open about their intentions to enter into ventures for the development of these assets. That was clearly put to us time and again by the petitioners and others.

New clause 1 contains a come-clean list and tries to ensure that people are fully informed of the Mayor’s intentions. It requires Transport for London to publish a list of non-operational assets that it holds—I will come back to the definition of non-operational because it is a slippery one that could be used in many forms in the future if we do not tie it down very tightly—or that are in the hands of a subsidiary, which it regards as eligible for development, and to band them by value.

[Mr Slaughter]

I think that some Members will be surprised that such a list has not already been published. This is a public authority. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend has often had occasion to wonder who owns particular pieces of land. That may be for any reason to do with public nuisance, neglect, development or other matters. Should TfL not be publishing a full list of its assets, including operational and non-operational assets, whether or not they are ready for development?

[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.

[George Galloway]

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

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

[Mr Slaughter]

The new clause is extremely sensible, for the reasons that have been set out. It may well also assist TfL as I suspect that, despite my hon. Friend’s confidence, TfL probably does not know where some of its assets are. In my experience, it certainly does not know their value, and that is the cause of mistakes in how it disposes of property. Notwithstanding the fact that I have put my name to the new clause, I would quarrel with the reference to commencement within the next 12 months. In some instances—I shall expand on this point if I have the opportunity to do so—development is planned and proposed but for operational or other reasons the plans are made several years ahead.

[John McDonnell]

Okay, let us have that argument. The reason I specified 12 months is that I think it is a realistic timetable for concretising the plans that TfL and the Mayor have for a site, so that they are more focused on being absolutely clear about what is imminent. I agree that it would be good to have a longer-term plan, but I think that 12 months is more realistic, given that the Mayor has a five-year period in office.

[Mr Slaughter]

I understand what my hon. Friend says, but the example I was thinking of is Lillie Bridge depot, which is the third element of the Earls Court site. At the moment we are being told that development might happen in five or six years’ time, but I fear that in the interim—it is not only a major employment site for skilled labour, but a manufacturing site and a key site for TfL—it is being run down or that other changes are being made that will make unsuitable development a fait accompli.

[John McDonnell]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I am trying to be as realistic as possible about the burdens we place on Transport for London and the Mayor. I say to the hon. Member for Harrow East that it is worth looking at the Lillie Bridge site, and speaking with some of the workers there, to see how it is being degraded over time, which I think is with a view to selling it off and bartering with a developer.

[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.

[George Galloway]

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

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Slaughter]

I have no objection to TfL developing its non-operational land or retaining a stake in that land and deriving an income from it. What I object to—I think my hon. Friend agrees with me on this point—is the vehicles that TfL is using for doing that, and the underlying secrecy and inconsistency. Having set that out as a policy, in cases where it suits TfL—I am thinking of another site in my constituency, Shepherd’s Bush market—it simply threw up its hands and said, “We’re going to sell the asset anyway.”

[John McDonnell]

I disagree. I agree about the importance of new clause 1 requiring a list of assets, but I inserted the identification of their value by band because I am worried about the scale of the overall risk if, for example, as in the Bill, all or any of these assets can be used against borrowing—can be charged or mortgaged to secure borrowing. The scale of that risk is enormous. If we look at the scale of the loss of grant, which is the funding gap that Transport for London and the Mayor are trying to deal with, that will give us an idea of the scale of the use of TfL’s assets for borrowing purposes and development deal purposes, and the risk that Londoners could then face. It is enormous.

I have looked at Transport for London’s annual report and accounts. They are not easy reading. For 2013 the total amount of grant aid from central Government, excluding Crossrail, for general and capital grants was £3.2 billion. On page 140 of the annual report and accounts for 2013-14, table 9 shows the entitlement of grant income which identifies the non-ring-fenced grant from the Department for Transport to Transport for London, which is £632.8 million. Non-ring-fenced grant to fund capital from the Department for Transport is £1,578.4 million. So when the Minister talks about reducing the Department for Transport grant to Transport for London to zero, the magnitude of the sum that the Mayor and Transport for London want to raise from these deals with private developers or to borrow against these assets becomes clear. It is staggering. It is enormous—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into a debate that is the subject of the second set of amendments, which is borrowing. I understand that the two arguments are linked, but I caution the hon. Gentleman that he more he does that, the more it reflects on the second group.

[John McDonnell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Because Transport for London is using sites to enter into a relationship with developers from which it can get an income stream, and linking that to a mortgage to cover borrowing as well, the two activities are integrally linked. I understand what Madam Deputy Speaker is saying and I will try to separate my remarks about them, but that is difficult because the same clauses cover both.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I simply caution him that although one debate reflects on another, that may lead to repetition, which we want to avoid later in the evening, so please stay focused on the first group of amendments.

[John McDonnell]

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

[George Galloway]

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

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

[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]

I recall that that legislation operated almost on the basis of giving first refusal to another public body—often another local authority. Then, if the land was genuinely surplus to requirements, it would be offered for sale, or, in some instances, there were joint initiatives. I remember the GLC working with the London boroughs on that basis.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the issue that his new clause seeks to address, which is that, frightened by the idea that it will lose substantial amounts of grant, TfL is rushing into deals to try to maximise its income. At the Earls Court exhibition centre site, all that will be built is luxury housing, with no affordable housing. At the Shepherd’s Bush market site, the market will be lost and luxury flats will be built. The one redeeming factor—that TfL might raise some money—is mitigated by the fact that it is entering into terrible deals. It ruins the communities where it develops and does not benefit the fare payer in the way that it intends.

[John McDonnell]

I agree.

The purpose of the new clause is to provide a list of assets and the intentions, or ambitions, that the Mayor has for the development of those assets to secure additional income. Another reason for the requirement to publish such a prospective asset development list is to ensure that these potential development sites are known to all interested parties. It has emerged in the discussions so far—Earls Court is the best example, but there may be others—that unless there is an open and transparent process and lists of available assets are produced, the information becomes almost private and there is an arrangement with an individual developer rather than a proper open, competitive process whereby others can make proposals for the site. In addition, unless there is clarity about the sites that TfL has and its intentions for them, local authorities, for example, are prevented from coming forward with their views about how they could work together with TfL on using the sites for the better development of the whole community as well as transport.

[Mr Slaughter]

That is exactly so. I wonder whether, in drafting new clause 1, my hon. Friend intended—I think he has now explained that he did—to address these other evils: first, with all the sites we have mentioned, a deal is made with a single developer, without advertisement or competition, so we have no idea whether the market has been tested; and secondly, the developer then enters into a deal, usually a master-plan agreement, that then dictates to the local planning authorities how the land should be developed. That is exactly the wrong way in which local development plans should work.

[John McDonnell]

That sort of process is a scandal, to be frank. We would not tolerate it in other public bodies, and I do not understand why we are allowing it to happen with TfL.

The whole purpose of having the lists proposed in new clause 1 is to make sure that the information is genuinely public. At the moment, even some of the people living on these sites are unaware of TfL’s ambitions. They were certainly not consulted about, or, at some stages, even aware of, the Earls Court development. I want to ensure that those who live on or have businesses on the sites or near them and the London boroughs and the communities in which they are located are fully aware of, fully conversant with, and fully informed about TfL’s asset base and its intentions for the assets within their area. If an asset is listed by TfL publishing information in this way, those stakeholders, including TfL’s employees and subsidiaries, will have at least an early warning of the development prospects of the site or asset in question.

This is one of the critical issues raised at the Opposed Bill Committee hearing on Tuesday 13 January 2015. I refer in particular to the evidence provided by Greater London Assembly member, Mr Murad Qureshi, on the basis of whose statements I tried to draft the new clause. Paragraph 115 of his evidence contains a startling example of the lack of information being provided by TfL. He said that his concerns about the whole Bill, particularly clause 5, relate to TfL’s transparency as a public body. Further on in his evidence, it emerged that the GLA had had to go through a freedom of information process to obtain information about TfL’s land holdings. It cannot be right that a public, democratically elected body has had to go through that process. In paragraph 116, he cited the Earls Court development as a perfect example of a TfL asset being developed with a lack of transparency on its decision making. In paragraph 122, he said that, to gain information on TfL’s planned investment programme, the GLA’s budget and performance committee—not individual members but a committee—was forced to make a freedom of information request. In paragraph 241, he sums up the fears that GLA members have about the secrecy and lack of transparency of TfL’s activities. Throughout the evidence session, petitioners gave examples of the difficulties they faced in securing any information about the plans that TfL and the Mayor had for the development and use of TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets. That was raised continually.

The new clause would ensure that at least one report is published that brings together all the information to which Londoners, London boroughs, the City of London corporation—if we have not abolished it by then—passenger groups and TfL’s own employees can refer when they want to know what assets TfL and its subsidiaries hold, but more importantly, what plans TfL and its subsidiaries, and therefore the Mayor, have for the development or use of these assets. This is a simple exercise in openness and transparency, and I cannot see why anyone, least of all TfL and its subsidiaries and the Mayor, would object to it.

[Mr Slaughter]

I think that people would be shocked to find that the GLA has had to use quasi-legal processes to obtain information from TfL. There is nothing new about TfL being a secretive body. I remember dealing with it 30 years ago over the appalling development of Hammersmith centre. I hoped that the GLA and the Mayor would provide some democratic accountability in that regard, but my hon. Friend’s example shows that that is clearly not happening. It is therefore all the more necessary that we put into statute the responsibility that TfL should have.

[John McDonnell]

As I said, this is a simple exercise; it is not difficult to do. In fact, most local authorities regularly undertake an asset base review that is published, and will often be translated into a link with their planning policies as well, so that people can know about these sites.

The new clause was drafted in the context of the deep suspicion that has arisen about the Mayor’s and TfL’s intentions with regard to linking up with private developers on grandiose development schemes that could curtail or impede the use of TfL’s land holdings and other assets for the long-term improvements of London’s transport network. Londoners, especially London’s elected representatives on the GLA and the London boroughs, have expressed their concerns about whether the rush to use TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets to bridge the current projected funding gap is overriding sound investment and operational judgments—indeed, at times, common sense—in relation to the use of those assets.

On Second Reading, hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed concern about TfL’s capacity to negotiate these schemes. At the evidence session on 13 January, people questioned whether TfL and its subsidiaries and the Mayor have the expertise to exercise sound judgments in the necessary negotiations with developers and development partners to determine what use an asset will be put to. They queried what ratio of benefit will be allocated to TfL and its subsidiaries, as against the benefit derived by the private sector partner, and what value for money TfL, and therefore London council tax payers and fare payers, will achieve in these deals.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point, which was also raised on Second Reading by myself, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and others. We keep coming back to the Earls Court site, but it is a £12 billion development—the largest in London—and TfL jobs, affordable homes and one of London’s premier exhibition centres are being lost to provide, in effect, safe-deposit flats that probably no one will live in. TfL’s judgment has to be seriously brought into question even before we turn to the finances.

[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 ---

[John McDonnell]

I would hope that a publication in which TfL indicated its plans for specific sites would include information about which companies and corporations it is dealing with as partners. On the Earls Court development, there are real concerns that TfL has got into bed with a company that is based in a tax haven, and I believe that some directors of individual companies have been prosecuted. That allegation has been made before on the Floor of the House and I think it is accurate.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Mr Slaughter]

Shorter, not Slaughter—I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply want to say, for the avoidance of doubt, that it is true that some of the partner organisations involved in the Earls Court development have been convicted of fraud, but not on the TfL-owned land and not including Capco, which is the major developer. It has many faults, but that is not one of them.

[John McDonnell]

In developments of TfL assets, it is important to have full transparency on the relationship with individual companies. I say that in the light of the report published last week, which stated:

“Hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of UK properties held in secretive offshore companies have been used to launder the proceeds of international corruption”.

That has been identified by Scotland Yard. The report went on:

“The scale of the problem has been revealed by Transparency International on Wednesday, with the anti-corruption campaign group warning that the UK has become ‘a safe haven for corrupt capital stolen from around the world’.”

It is absolutely critical to ensure openness and transparency on the proposals for individual sites to guard against TfL and others entering into relationships with companies and corporations that we do not consider appropriate.

I now turn to new clause 2, which is another attempt to safeguard the assets with regard to landholdings that may be required for the development of the transport network in London. In its submission to Members of the House, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has publicly made a point with which I fully concur. Its briefing quite clearly sets out the anxiety about the loss of potential sites, saying that new clause 2 will therefore ensure that when TfL or any subsidiary seeks to lease or develop such sites, there is full consultation with the local communities likely to be affected, the Greater London Authority, London boroughs, the City of London and relevant trade unions. That consultation has to take place before Transport for London or any subsidiary enters into a contract involving the development of land other than for the provision or maintenance of transport services.

[Mr Slaughter]

I fully support new clause 2 and, indeed, all the amendments tabled in my hon. Friend’s name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I fear that this is my last intervention. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will think it no discourtesy to the House if I say that an unbreakable constituency commitment means that I am unable to participate further in the debate or to join my hon. Friends in the Lobby. Nevertheless, I put on the record my great concerns about the Bill. I hope that it will be fully debated tonight, and that it will not pass in its current form, because that would do a serious injustice not only to my constituents, but to all Londoners.

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interventions.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 29).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Just one moment, Mr McDonnell. Please allow me to make sure that everybody understands; perhaps then there will be fewer points of order. We are on new clause 1 and the other amendments on the selection list. The next speaker is the sponsor of the Bill.

[Bob Blackman]

I rise to respond to the very long and detailed speech made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

Not yet—I have not even started my speech. I expect to make some progress before taking an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

The Bill started in the other place in November 2010. It has gone through Second Reading in this place and an Opposed Private Bill Committee, where there was the opportunity to make many interventions and many changes. After Second Reading in this place, the proposers approached all those who opposed the Bill, as I suggested they should, to encourage them to develop their concerns so that there was an opportunity to understand those concerns and to amend the legislation, if necessary. The reality is that they have moved substantially and I want to respond on the details.

The coalition Government have moved towards devolved government in London and across the country. Amendments 21 to 29 would take power away from the Mayor of London and require the Secretary of State to intervene. That is a centralising move that the House should reject absolutely, as more power is being devolved to the regions and to London in particular.

Briefly on new clause 1, the disposal of non-operational assets is covered by section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which was introduced by the last Labour Government and has been added to since. The review that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington proposes in the new clause would be extremely expensive. That cost would fall on the taxpayer and the fare payer.

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Bob Blackman]

I will give way after I make this point. On the visibility of Transport for London’s property portfolio, there is already a searchable website that any hon. Member, member of the public or interested party can search to establish what property holdings Transport for London has right across the capital. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to look at that website and see the opportunities that exist.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he argues that it is too expensive to produce a list under new clause 1, but on the other he says that a list exists. The new clause will ensure that Transport for London publishes a list not only of its assets, but of its plans for those assets. That is the whole issue in this debate—the lack of openness and transparency from Transport for London about the development of its intentions for individual sites, as we have seen with the disastrous consequences for Earls Court, where 700 homes were lost to the local community. Do the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of Transport for London, and the Mayor of London oppose new clause 1 to maintain that level of secrecy in their relationship with private developers?

[Bob Blackman]

The reality is that the Greater London authority and assembly exist to scrutinise the work of the Mayor and Transport for London. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that they are not doing their job, he should condemn the members of that assembly. We should be placing power in the hands of Transport for London to carry out the functions we want, and to open up capacity for housing that is desperately required by Londoners. We must then ensure that that work is subject to scrutiny by the GLA and assembly members.

[John McDonnell]

Has the hon. Gentleman read the witness account from the Opposed Private Bill Committee? At that Committee, as I said earlier, a Greater London assembly member reported that the assembly’s own budgetary committee had to use freedom of information requests to gain information from Transport for London about the use of its moneys and assets. The lack of scrutiny is a result of the impediment placed by TfL in the way of Greater London assembly members. Will he read the transcript of evidence to the Opposed Private Bill Committee that was presented to the House?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is a shame that the details he cites were not reflected in the amendments that were finally tabled only a few days ago—if that—so that the sponsors of the Bill and Members that support it could analyse them.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the amendments were tabled late—I think that is the allegation—and that the sponsors of the Bill could not respond. The amendments were placed before the Clerks in time—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. One second. Do not worry; relax. Let me have a little look at this. I assure the House that the amendments were not tabled late by the hon. Gentleman. There was a mistake in the Table Office, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being said. We do not need any more points of order on that as we have clarified the matter well. I am sure, Mr Blackman, that we will proceed in a courteous way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I reject the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and the point behind it. On behalf of the—

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I will not take any more interventions, as we have gone on long enough—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wishes to intervene, quite rightly it is up to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) whether he gives way. He has made it clear that he does not want to give way again.

[John McDonnell]

Why is that, do you think?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I have no idea. It is not for the Chair to judge, thank goodness, and I do not need a crystal ball to work it out. The good thing is that the hon. Gentleman has at least made it clear that he does not want to take any more interventions and he wants to get his speech under way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

I am sure the House is extremely grateful that the Minister is not going to take a Trappist vow of silence for the whole debate.

[John McDonnell]

This is truly shocking. I have never known a situation where those on the Government Benches have not taken a view on a private Bill of this moment. This is the point we were making earlier. We are talking about the use of billions of pounds of public assets. The amendments are trying to ensure accountability of those assets—openness and transparency—yet the Government do not have a view on that. Does my hon. Friend not find that absolutely outrageous?

[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.

[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.

[John McDonnell]

Clearly, there could be that interpretation, but a wise Mayor and a wise management of TfL would not jeopardise the future planning of the transport network in that way. The key aspect of new clause 2, which, unfortunately, I was not allowed to speak to, is a full consultation with all stakeholders to enable the complete engagement of all interested parties in the development of these sites.

[Mr Marsden]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

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

[George Galloway]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

and the “relevant trade unions” representing the workers who run the transport system in London. There is nothing in those new clauses that could not be properly considered as reasonable.

[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 ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[John McDonnell]

Clause 4(6) introduces the need for the Secretary of State’s approval, which we all support—as does the hon. Gentleman, because it is in the Bill. The schedule, however, sets out a long list of functions and assets that virtually undermines that subsection. That is our anxiety about the schedule.

--- Later in debate ---

Preamble

[John McDonnell]

I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, leave out paragraph (2).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 5, at end insert

“save as provided for in subsection (3).”

Amendment 5, page 2, line 6, at end insert

“save as provided for in subsection (3).”

Amendment 6, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has arranged for, and published the report of, a review of the—

(a) potential risks to the assets of Transport for London arising from the exercise of the relevant powers to be conferred thereby, and

(b) likely effectiveness of measures put in place by Transport for London in mitigation.”

Amendment 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, after “TfL”, insert

“following consultation with the Greater London Assembly, and the publication of a report of such, and”.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 19, leave out “two” and insert “three”.

Amendment 9, page 2, line 25, leave out “two” and insert “three”.

Amendment 15, page 2, leave out clause 4.

Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) The consent of the Mayor under subsection (1) may only be granted after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation:

(a) the Greater London Assembly

(b) the London boroughs

(c) the City of London

(d) passenger representative bodies, and

(e) relevant trades unions.”

Amendment 11, page 2, line 38, leave out “all or any” and insert “no more than 25%”.

Amendment 12, page 2, line 41, leave out

“including the creation of priority as between changes.”

Amendment 13, page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment 30, page 3, line 13, leave out

“Except for the property identified in the Schedule to this Act”.

Amendment 14, page 3, line 15, at end insert—

“(6A) TfL shall not charge any property for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) unless—

(a) it has consulted the Greater London Assembly and published the results of that consultation, or

(b) the property falls within a category identified in the Schedule to this Act.”

Amendment 31, page 3, line 15, at end insert—

“(6A) Any consent of the Secretary of State given under subsection (6A) above shall be given in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(6B) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) an order under subsection (6B) above shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6C) An order under subsection (6A) above shall in each case include—

(a) the land registry title number or numbers of any property or properties to be charged, and

(b) a specification of the proprietor or proprietors of the charge.

(6D) The proprietor or proprietors of the charge under subsection (6D)(b) may not be a joint venture partner of Transport for London or one of its subsidiaries.”

Amendment 33, in clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—

“(5) TfL shall conduct a review, and publish a report, after 12 months of the operation of the s49 Transport for London Act 2008 powers, as amended by this section, of the use and impact of those powers in relation to investment by subsidiaries of TfL in derivatives in order to limit exposure to changes in interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices or other matters specified in s49(3) of the 2008 Act.

(6) Each subsidiary of TfL shall publish a report each year of the use made of the powers under s49 of the Transport for London Act 2008, as amended by this section, in relation to investments made in derivatives, or equivalent instruments, in order to limit exposure to changes in interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices or other matters specified in s49(3) of the 2008 Act.”

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

[George Galloway]

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

[John McDonnell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is exactly what the clause does.

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

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are looking quite—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is correct. I am sure he will not be going down the line of considering the constitutional position in very, very great detail, although I am sure that he can make a brief reply to the intervention. But he was doing very well in keeping in order.

[John McDonnell]

Thank you for the compliment, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is not often that Deputy Speakers say that to me.

Let me respond briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North by referring him to page 930 of “Erskine May”, which cites the assessment of the Speaker in 1895 of the London Valuation and Assessment Bill. The Speaker then ruled that

“since the Bill raised questions of public policy of great importance and affected interests of vast magnitude, it ought to have been introduced as a public bill, and could not proceed as a private bill”.

I do not know what greater magnitude of risk there is to London, London taxpayers, the Greater London assembly and others than the risk that we are contemplating in this Bill. I do not want to go over the facts and figures we set out before, but I must say to the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), that the Mayor could potentially enter into an enormous escapade if this legislation is passed. For that reason, I do not believe that it warrants support as part of a private Bill.

Let me return to the link between amendment 1 and amendment 15. Amendment 15 simply seeks to delete clause 4, as I believe that it is dangerous. I was trying to get clarification about the objectives of the clause from the statements—

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

I urge Members to support Government amendments 115 and 116. I am determined that staff who transfer to the new organisation should not be disadvantaged in respect of terms and conditions. I have given assurances to the House that that is the case and intend, through the amendments, to reaffirm those protections and the stated commitment that the transfer of employees to Highways England will follow TUPE principles.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify the difference between staff transferring under TUPE and under his proposal in amendment 115?

[Mr Hayes]

I am coming to that. In shorthand, let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not want staff to be disadvantaged in any way, as I said. We will honour TUPE principles in this transfer of staff.

Amendment 115 makes it clear that when existing Highways Agency staff transfer to the new company, their employment terms and conditions will not change. I recognise that the changes that are planned for the Highways Agency will cause anxiety for existing staff. The amendment confirms that the existing rights and liabilities of staff will not change following transfer to the new organisation.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I will make a little progress and then let the hon. Gentleman come back.

The Bill provides that a transferring employee can terminate their contract if there is a substantial detrimental change to it if they transfer. That reflects regulation 4(9) of TUPE. Government amendment 116 supplements that by providing that where the employee claims constructive dismissal in those circumstances, no damages are payable in respect of any unpaid wages that relate to a notice period he or she has not worked. I should stress that the amendment does not prevent employees from claiming for damages for constructive dismissal, but seeks to establish a common-sense position that damages cannot be claimed for a period of required notice that has not been worked. I should highlight that the amendment ensures that the provisions in the Bill properly reflect TUPE in that regard.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman, with the courtesy he personifies, raised that with me before we came to the House today. I have committed to take another look at that through the parliamentary draftsman. There is no intention to disadvantage staff in that regard. I give that absolute assurance, but I will double-check the language, because language in such things matters. He and I are in discussion and I have committed to write to him as soon as possible, and certainly before the matter is discussed further, to clarify the use of the language to which he has drawn the House’s attention.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister clarify why he has used a formulation unused in any other legislation in the past? I have set out the various options in three amendments showing what the Government have used in past legislation to assure staff that they are transferring either under TUPE or under the Cabinet Office statement of practice, the TUPE-like agreement that the Cabinet Office agreed with the trade unions involved. Why are we not using the past formulations?

[Mr Hayes]

Originality and imagination are part of my style. I said style is as important as substance. The substance is in the Bill; the style is all my own. The important thing is that, having met staff representatives on 13 January, I am fully aware that there are other aspects they want me to look at. I fully recognise the concerns they raised. Some of those issues need to be considered further, and I have asked my officials to pursue those matters urgently. In the spirit that I have described, I will not allow staff to be disadvantaged by any changes. The House has my absolute assurance on that. Government amendments 115 and 116 reaffirm our commitment that existing Highways Agency staff terms and conditions should be protected, as I have described.

New clause 18 places a responsibility on the Government to report periodically to Parliament on the performance of Highways England. I have introduced this to reassure some who fear that Ministers will lose control of Highways England, and that they will have no accountability to Parliament if Highways England fails to deliver. It is absolutely right that the new body can get on and deliver the strategy that the Government devise, establish and agree, but let me be clear that should the implementation and delivery of the strategy require further involvement, direction or adjustment by Ministers, in concert with the House, the ability to make those changes must be established in the Bill. I am absolutely clear that Highways England must report to the House, and that Members on both sides of the House must have the chance to scrutinise its work. Ministers must have a role, indeed play a key role, in the delivery of the strategy.

It might be true to say that the greatest challenge we face is getting the delivery right. We have surmounted an important hurdle in developing a strategy founded on empiricism and backed with funding for the long term—more than £15 billion up to 2021—but it will happen only if we have in place the right resources, skills and partnerships, and the right range of other organisations, to make it happen. It would be inappropriate if Ministers and all hon. Members were not involved in that process. I expect directions to emanate from the Department for Transport periodically—it is not meant to be an exceptional power. I expect reports to be made to the House periodically. That, too, should not be a matter of exception. That was raised at length by the shadow Minister. The strong governance arrangements and framework we have put in place provide some of the measures he sought when he argued the case for greater accountability.

The use of directions in the licence will allow the Government to exert control over how the company exercises its statutory functions. In addition, as sole shareholder the Secretary of State can ensure that the company is properly led and governed. More detail is in the summary document published in December, but I will write again on some of those matters following today’s consideration.

Opposition Front Benchers and all Members of the House will be familiar with the new copy of the licence, which strengthens those provisions, and which was provided to hon. Members on 22 January and placed in the Library of the House. Let me say again that if there are problems with performance, I expect Ministers to make use of those directions; I expect Parliament to see the Highways monitor’s report on the impact; and I expect Ministers to ensure that Parliament is informed of how issues have been resolved.

It is obvious from the amendments that were tabled that I need to explain why we need to change the status of the Highways Agency and create an arm’s length body, and I am happy to repeat an argument I made earlier. Let me start with the point of view that some suggest—they suggest that we should do nothing more than implement a road investment strategy without changing the structure necessary to deliver it. Of course, the Highways Agency would make every effort to do so efficiently, and of course we would have some success in delivering that strategy, but we need to understand that if we are to deliver the strategy, we need to make significant changes to the existing arrangements.

The relationship between the agency and the Government has on occasions failed to reflect the wider interests of the economy and the long-term interests of taxpayers and road users. The measure is about providing a clearer, more strategic role for the Government, and providing a stronger, more certain framework, through the licence and the road investment strategy and the framework document, for the organisation mission to deliver those important infrastructural changes to our nation. By the way, those changes are not just about economic well-being; they are also about societal and communal well-being.

The industry is keen to see change both in the way funding is committed and in the way the Highways Agency is constructed. In the call for evidence for the Bill, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association said:

“Even with an apparently committed five year programme, not transforming the Highways Agency into an arms-length body could still leave it a target, should future Governments decide cuts to spending…The supply chain…has confidence that the creation of a Government-owned company would significantly reduce the likelihood of this happening.”

The CBI said that business welcomes the Government’s important decision to reform the Highways Agency to a more independent body, giving it greater funding certainty through fixed five to six-year funding cycles.

The road investment strategy provides a logical and credible commitment between two separate parties—the focus of the company is on delivering its operational objectives, and the focus of the Government is on providing a long-term funding stream. I know that some fear we will lose control of the reins of the company. That is why I have gone as far as I have in the framework document, the licence and the Bill. We will also of course have the monitor—the new body that will oversee the operation of the new arrangements. That is all in line with the conclusions of the Public Administration Committee’s recent report on the relationship between Government and arm’s length bodies, which said:

“Relationships should be high trust and low cost, but too often are low trust and high cost.”

On that basis, I resist amendments 5 to 42 which would remove the relevant clauses or reinsert the words “Highways Agency”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the cycling and walking strategy. It is not just a cycling and walking strategy; it is a cycling and walking investment strategy. As the Minister knows, good cycling infrastructure does not happen without that vital investment. I am particularly pleased to see the words “certainty” and “stability” in new clause 13. That is what it is all about, and it is how Holland achieved its objectives. It makes it appropriate for the Minister to be the Member for South Holland and the Deepings. Holland achieved its goals by having £24 a head of stable, long-term investment. If we can get that level of investment—£10 to £20 a head has been called for in the all-party cycling group—we can do the same. I pay tribute to all my colleagues in the all-party cycling group for the work they did, and I commend the cycling report. I warmly welcome the opportunity of discussing the issue with the Minister responsible for cycling, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who is in his place.

I think that we can expect an increase in the number of cycling journeys from 2% in 2011 to 10% within a decade, which will have enormous benefits for health. I hope there will be investment in not just infrastructure but training, and that cycle to work schemes will, in some form, be extended to young people. I warmly thank the Secretary of State for tabling the new clause, and look forward to seeing the health and well-being of the nation improve as a result.

[John McDonnell]

On Second Reading I echoed the fear that had been expressed by Highways Agency staff that this was the first stage of a privatisation process. Since then, the Minister has written to various Members saying that the Bill will not privatise the agency or any part of it. It is true that the Bill contains no such provision, but the staff nevertheless feel that they are being packaged up into an organisation and that the second stage will be privatisation, along with tolling.

The Minister has also given an assurance that the roads investment strategy budget will no longer be annualised, but the chief executive has made clear to staff that the revenue budget for the maintenance of the new company will be annualised. Staff fear cuts and the prospect of being transferred to a company that will be privatised in due course.

It is crucial for committed, dedicated professionals who, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), have done everything asked of them by this and the last Government over the years to be secure in the knowledge that they will have a job following the transfer. Both Governments have normally provided that assurance by including a reference to TUPE in legislation. In some instances, however, that may not be appropriate.

TUPE usually obtains when a group of staff have been transferred from the public sector to the private sector. When the transfer is between Government agencies, or from the Government to an agency, a formal agreement called COSOP operates. It was initiated by the last Government, and has been confirmed by this one, and it is negotiated and signed off by the Cabinet Office. My amendment 127 provides that

“if the TUPE regulations do not apply in relation to the transfer”

the transfer scheme may

“make provision which is the same or similar.”

There is real anxiety about the fact that the form of words used by the Government does not include such a provision, and hence does not abide by the agreement reached by them and by the last Government with the trade unions.

Amendment 115 refers to

“all the rights and liabilities relating to the person’s contract of employment.”

The transfer of undertakings extends beyond the basic contract of employment to a range of other assurances that should be given to staff on transfer. That is why people are worried, and I feel that we will lose some very dedicated professional staff as a result of the lack of commitment that is being given to the staff who have served us so well. I urge the Minister to reconsider, and to translate into the Bill a form of words that has been used in every other Bill, relating either to TUPE or to similar arrangements. If he does not do so, the staff will remain anxious and concerned.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak at the end of the debate, and to see the new clause make progress.

As I think the House knows by now, the case for cycling and walking is incredibly strong. It is a great way to travel. It is environmentally friendly, healthy, reliable, cheap and fun. It cuts congestion, so that everyone else benefits as well. It boosts the economy, it saves money and it saves lives. Public Health England recently said that one in six deaths was due to physical inactivity. What we do to promote physical activity helps people to improve their health.

The all-party parliamentary cycling group set some targets during the Get Britain Cycling inquiry. If we achieved those targets, about 80,000 disability-adjusted life years would be saved each year by 2025. That is a huge number. When mental as well as physical health is taken into account, the financial savings would amount to between £2 billion and £6 billion, and the national health service would save £17 billion a year if we could reach the Dutch and Danish levels. That is worth investing in. That will save money as well as lives.

The case is strong, and that is why in our report we called for spending of up to £10—heading towards £20—per person per year. The report was supported not only by all the cycling organisations, of course, and by Living Streets, a pedestrian group, but by organisations such as the Automobile Association. All forms of transport want to see this happen, and business does, too. The director general of the CBI has called for a major effort to expand the dedicated cycle network, and it is very good that the Government have agreed and are doing the right thing by supporting this amendment. I thank the Minister with responsibility for cycling, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), in particular. I remember when the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and I tried to talk to him, and I am glad he has managed to deliver on what he knows is the right thing.

This amendment has been backed not only by the cycling organisations, but by health organisations—all of them, ranging from the British Heart Foundation to Age UK, to Macmillan, and to Rethink Mental Illness. This is clearly a popular thing to do, therefore.

This Government have made progress on the policy on cycling and walking. We have seen more money go in to this policy than ever before, and I welcome that. The £241 million from the Deputy Prime Minister is the largest single investment in cycling, but it goes nowhere near far enough. To get the benefits I spoke about, we must have the money going in. This strategy says there has to be some, but it does not say how much. My party is committed to the £10 per person per year that was agreed by this House and the cross-party group. It would also be something we would enshrine as part of our green transport Act.

I would love to see the other parties join in. I know that Back Benchers on both sides of the House are supportive, but I also know that the Front Benches on both sides are against this—or at least they have been so far. At the beginning of this year we saw an awful spat with the Conservatives putting out something saying that Labour is going to spend £63 million on cycling, as though that was too much. Unfortunately, we saw Labour respond by saying that that was nonsense and that Labour was not committed to spending any money on cycling. I hope both Front Benches will fix that, because I know their Back Benchers would like to see that happen. I know the shadow Minister was taken to task by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for not committing any money to cycling. I hope both sides and all parties will join us in committing to cycling and walking, because it is not enough to have a strategy; we have to put the resources in and we have to make sure they are available. We can do that and we should do it, and it is something this House has voted for. I hope it will become a reality in the next few months and after the general election as well.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I agree with every word that the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) has just said. His speech follows on from the constructive work that he did when he was in the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Having learned that we are burning fossil fuels and bringing about climate change on such a scale that it could destroy our planet, I find it almost insane that we should be bringing forward proposals that would mean our relying on another form of fossil fuel. I totally oppose the development of fracking in this country.

I shall concentrate on part 1, which deals with the Highways Agency and the road network. Sometimes I feel like shaking people in this building. There seems to be a loss of collective memory. Part 1 is the first stage towards the privatisation of our road network and it is on the same scale as the privatisations of rail, water and energy under the previous Conservative Government. I have the same dystopian vision of what will happen: once a GoCo has been set up, it will be broken up into regional franchises and sold off, almost inevitably to foreign-owned companies, most of them state run, exactly as 80% of the rail industry has been sold off. The story of the energy and water industries has been similar. There will then be the introduction of tolls, exactly as laid out in the Government’s response to the Transport Committee, and the tolls will fund exorbitant profiteering by those companies.

The House needs to wake up and recognise that the Bill represents the privatisation of our roads. We should be honest with the electorate and warn people that that is the consequence of the Bill. Why am I saying that? It is evidenced by what has gone on throughout this Government and previously. There is a loss of collective memory of what happened when the Conservatives were last in government. Throughout the 1992 to 1997 Administration, there were proposals to build on the privatisation of rail, water and energy by also privatising roads. In 1992 the Government published “Paying for Better Motorways”, in which they said that they would establish a single Government-owned company funded by road levies—that is, tolls—and possibly break it down into a number of privatised regional franchises, as has happened with rail and water. That was the Conservatives’ plan when they were last in power; now it is being implemented under a coalition Government. I hope some of the coalition partners wake up to the consequences of the Bill.

What other evidence is there? The plan is evidenced by the appointments that the Government have made to the Highways Agency. They brought in Tom Smith. Who is Tom Smith? He has just been put on the Highways Agency board. He is the chief executive officer of the M6 toll road. The Government brought in Elaine Holt. What was she? She was headhunted by the Department for Transport to lead on the east coast railway line—first in public sector management, but then to prepare it for privatisation.

All the evidence is there of the Government preparing for the privatisation of our roads. We saw it with the A14. The more recent proposals for the improvement of the A14 included tolling on that road, but there was such public uproar that even the Government had to pull back. We saw the evidence in the Government’s response to the Transport Committee. Paragraph 79 states:

“The Government will consider tolling as a means of funding new road capacity on the strategic road network. New road capacity would include entirely new roads and existing roads where they are transformed by an improvement scheme”

—that is, the investment programme announced last week. The strategy, as far as I can see, is to invest as much public money as possible to bring the roads up to a certain standard in the current period so that they can be privatised under the new agency that will then be broken up into regional franchises.

I note that clause 1 refers not to “a highways company” but to “highways companies”, to enable the Secretary of State to amend the legislation, under the Henry VIII clause later in the Bill, to enable regional franchises to be set up. I warn all the travelling public—motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and others—that our road network is about to be sold off, they will soon be fleeced by tolls and the tolls will subsidise the private profits of foreign companies. If anything provides evidence of that, it is the example of what happened to rail, energy and water when the Conservative party was last in government.

Having said all that, I wish to raise a number of issues on which I would like a response during the debate. I am concerned about the 3,500 staff, who, until now, have been commended for their hard work, commitment and professionalism. What will happen to them? TUPE is not provided for in the Bill. We have argued for it time and again, and in the past four and a half years TUPE has been put into only one Bill. All we have been given, yet again, are assurances that the staff will be covered by COSOP, the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector—the protocol agreement similar to TUPE, but not as enforceable. I reiterate that to give the 3,500 staff greater security we should insert a TUPE commitment in the Bill.

There are arguments to be made about the financial savings and the claim that they will be £2.4 billion. I note the debate over whether VAT is to be charged. First, the Treasury denied that the VAT would be saved and therefore the cost could be, over six years, some £2.4 billion—almost the savings the Government are seeking to find. Then, in the other place, we were told that there was a guarantee that VAT would not be charged. I think that is open to legal challenge. We need greater certainty, otherwise this whole operation will be jeopardised from the beginning.

We also need more details about the monitoring exercise, as we have a monitoring body that is not a regulator, no complaints procedure, and no information about the costings or the investment in the operation of the body. One of the worst aspects of privatisations in the past has been the way that remuneration at the top has gone through the roof while wages elsewhere in the organisations have not risen. We are told that remuneration will somehow be controlled through a central review. I do not think such constraints have worked elsewhere when these agencies have been set up—quite the reverse. I would like to see a ratio put in place between the highest paid and those who are on average earnings in the organisation. In that way we may be able to control the overall levels of remuneration in the future.

I am also concerned about clause 17, the Henry VIII clause, which puts such wide-ranging powers into the hands of the Secretary of State. We have now been assured that, through clause 46, the affirmative procedure will apply in respect of any changes in the legislation to be undertaken by the Secretary of State, but I am not convinced that that procedure gives those democratic protections of accountability to this House. I urge that the super-affirmative procedure be looked at.

[Mr Hayes]

I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but I want to make it perfectly clear that the Government and this Minister—I am the roads Minister, after all—have no intention of privatising our roads; have no intention of not having clear lines of accountability to both Government and this House for the work of the new agency; will set the priorities; will set the strategy; and will hold those responsible for delivering it accountable. I do not want to spoil the party, but I am afraid that he is fantasising.

[John McDonnell]

The Minister has not spoiled the party because I have no confidence or trust that this Government will not privatise. Assurances have been given on the Floor of the House about privatisation before and it has gone ahead. This Bill is the first step towards privatisation and towards introducing tolling on our roads—a new form of funding the road network that will be open to profiteering by foreign companies. I warn this House that if it passes this legislation, it will put at risk our road network in the future, our taxpayers and the future environmental policies that might be able to protect us against climate change.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

It is often a tactic in debates such as these to talk at length to delay a Bill as much as possible, to obfuscate and to try to prevent it from becoming law, but we do not need any assistance in that regard for this Bill, as Transport for London has been doing that for us since 2011. It has been a bizarre process.

I reassure the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that I will not seek to divide the House and vote against the Bill. I am a convener of the RMT parliamentary group and we are assured that clause 7 will assist us in protecting the hedging process for pension funds, so there is one clause that might have a shred of justification.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that TfL had offered an amendment inserting a new subsection in clause 5. At some stage guidance must be issued to promoters of private Bills. TfL has been promoting the Bill since 2011; it wrote to the RMT in May when it knew about some of the specific objections and the petitions against the Bill had gone in; we had a meeting on Friday afternoon; and at 3 o’clock yesterday we received notice of an amendment. TfL’s parliamentary or advisory team needs to be examined to see how we have reached this parlous state in debating the Bill.

I would have expected TfL at least to consult everyone who had petitioned against the Bill so far before introducing the amendment. It was obvious that such an amendment would be offered, because the lack of accountability to the Secretary of State in clause 5 stood out, but rather arrogantly it thought it could force the Bill through in the next few weeks without considering the main concerns expressed by the petitioners. Perhaps further advice should be given to TfL about how to behave when promoting proposed legislation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could suggest that sending a “peace in our time” letter at 3 o’clock on the day before the legislation is considered is simply unacceptable.

At this stage, I would expect TfL to withdraw the Bill, consult on the amendment and bring forward a properly drafted Bill, but I cannot see that happening, so let us have at least some general discussion today about why people are anxious about it. I think it is a matter of ever having confidence in Transport for London dealing with any property development. The hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned problems with taking over tube lines. Many of us have a long memory of what happened with TfL and its relationship with the public-private partnership, which was a disaster. Time and again, TfL officials and others came forward to advise us that PPP was an excellent way to raise funds and provide services, yet it was a complete disaster, which threatened £3 billion-worth of investment in TfL. When we looked at the figures, we found that £400 million had been spent on consultants, accountants and legal advisers, first to set the thing up and then in some way to try to retrieve it from the disaster it became.

I therefore think that this relatively small Bill of seven clauses has excited opposition among some members of the community and some Members of this House because of lack of confidence in TfL’s ability to go into partnerships with the private sector without either creating a disaster or being ripped off. Many of us worry that TfL will be given new powers to enter into partnerships that are not secure. These are not limited partnerships—they are not limited by guarantee or anything like that—but straightforward partnerships in which I suppose the main balance of interest will be with the private sector. The concern is that, yet again, the public sector will be left with the responsibilities. No matter what has been said about the hedging of some of the investments, those responsibilities could be unlimited.

People have examined the recent escapades of TfL in private sector development, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) will want to raise the issue of Earls Court, which does not inspire confidence. In fact, if this legislation had been in place at that time, it would have been used during the Earls Court development, which has aroused an amazingly sizeable opposition within the community. I think it has cost the party of the hon. Member for Harrow East control of the local council, such was the scale of the opposition, and it has subjected local residents to insecurity in their homes as well as raising concerns about the local community and the local environment. The concerns about this Bill are real.

Let me run through some of those concerns. The Bill will enable TfL to sell off or lease out land to developers elsewhere and right across the capital in the attempt to link up with property speculators as a means of gaining significant income—despite the track record of disasters in the past. Discussions with the RMT and other unions involved in TfL revealed their concern that such practices could produce extensive speculation around TfL sites, many of which should be secured for transport operations. Many within the industry raise with us the concern that this rush for short-term gain and short-term profiteering on individual sites will put at risk future developments needed for TfL in the long term.

The Mayor of London has rightly argued that we should be expanding the transport network in the capital, which means that some of the land currently in the ownership of TfL will need to be used. It looks as though individual developments will be allowed to take place, which will take the land away from transport use into speculative development, as we have seen in the Earls Court development. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned that earlier. There is no guarantee that development of land in one area will not have consequences for other sites, and, as the hon. Lady said, it certainly will have consequences in her constituency. There is a real worry that giving Transport for London these powers will result in a virtual frenzy in TfL—certainly under the guidance of the current Mayor—to convert land in central London for uses other than transport.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend saying that he believes that the leadership of Transport for London will sacrifice the long-term strategic interests of London’s transport infrastructure for short-term property development gain?

[John McDonnell]

What those who work in the industry want is a consistent plan for the development of the transport infrastructure, but what the Bill does is give more power to TfL to enter into speculative developments on the sites that it owns, along with developers. In the case of Earls Court—on which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith will wish to elaborate—we have seen property development for short-term financial gain override the needs of the travelling public and the need for long-term investment in the future of the transport infrastructure. That example illustrates the loss of confidence in Transport for London among the public that will result from its exercise of the new powers, if they are given to it. We may well see a speculators’ charter in relation to properties that are currently in public ownership under the auspices of TfL.

People are worried not only about the desire to gain income, but about the fact that the current property developments are based largely on the selling off of land for the building of residential properties. Transport for London, as a public body, might well want to enter into a partnership with, in particular, local authorities, in the hope of combining the advantages of improving the transport network with the provision of residential homes. However, it seems from the examples that we have seen so far—notably in Earls Court—that the residential homes will not necessarily be for local people: in fact, that applies to a relatively small percentage. Most of the sites are being used for speculative development, and many are being bought by overseas landlords with a view to letting properties at extremely high rents.

People fear that if TfL is given these powers, it will go on a development binge with the private sector throughout London, without taking into account either the needs of the transport infrastructure in the long term or the needs of local communities. The Bill seems to take no cognisance of the need for TfL to bear in mind the social criteria or social objectives relating to any future development when using the powers.

As the hon. Member for Harrow East pointed out, there also seems to be a lack of accountability in the case of some of the partnerships. We received that letter on Friday specifically because concern after concern had been raised consistently over the years—for instance, regarding the fact that even the Secretary of State did not have the authority to be consulted about the exercise of some of these powers. We have now been told, in a letter that we received at 3.30 yesterday afternoon, that an amendment will be tabled to deal with that. It would have been helpful to have seen at least a draft of the amendment; all that we have is a letter of comfort, or discomfort, depending on people’s judgment of it .

If we look at TfL’s record of participation in developments with private sector entities, we see that it is the commercial entity that has gained the profit and TfL that has been left with the responsibilities and, often, the liabilities. In the case of some of the partnerships that have already been entered into, ownership of some of the sites is so diffuse that it is difficult for the public, in particular, to hold anyone to account when it comes to some aspects of the deals.

[Mr Chope]

I am listening with fascination to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that the whole purpose of Transport for London should be to concentrate on its core business—providing transport infrastructure for the people of London? It is unlikely that Transport for London will be capable of doing things that are not its core business as well as they are done by specialists in those alternative businesses.

[John McDonnell]

The concern that many of us have is that Transport for London is not a property developer. It is not a developer with expertise in developing sites for high-value residential properties, yet that is the venture that it seems to want to enter into across London on most of its sites. There is an in-built lack of expertise in Transport for London. Many of us think not only that Transport for London is putting sites at risk by removing the possibility of their being used to develop transport infrastructure, but that Transport for London as a whole will be at risk from some of the liabilities that it will take on as a result of going into limited partnerships, which are not protected, with developers. The Bill has consequences not just for specific site development but for the stable funding of TfL in the long term.

I say to the hon. Member for Harrow East that the Bill seems to be an attempt at a quick fix by an organisation that does not have the expertise to enter the activity that it wants to enter. I would be more convinced that it had that expertise if the progress of the Bill had been more efficient and effective. The legislation has been hanging around since 2011. At this late stage, the clauses have still not been drafted properly. Clause 4 has been redrafted three times in that period. We have just received the letter of comfort on clause 5, but no amendment. That does not inspire confidence. This organisation could sit down with some of the most rapacious developers in the history of property development and secure deals without satisfying not just community interests but the long-term financial security of the sector.

I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope): when an organisation is called Transport for London, it should concentrate on providing transport for London, rather than go into property speculation in this way. The argument may be that Transport for London is under financial pressure from the Government or others and needs to look at other ventures, but we must take into account its record of working with the private sector to gain additional income or increase efficiency.

There was the debacle of the public-private partnership under the last Government—this is not a party political point. That demonstrates an inherent lack of expertise—I put it no more strongly than that—in the organisation; it lacks the expertise to be able to do deals with the private sector that deliver the service and that avoid the scale of liabilities that we saw under that partnership. It was extraordinary. Members who were here may recall that throughout that period the House was not kept informed. On both sides of the House there was shock at the scale of the incompetence and risk that TfL ventured into in those developments.

Those are the main concerns. The organisation is strapped for cash, by the sound of it, although the Government advised us earlier in the year that it received a significant grant. However, TfL says that it is strapped for cash and needs another source of income. It is looking at developing its sites to provide that and it wants to do it through partnerships with the private sector. As a result there are concerns that the overall operation of TfL will be put at risk. Those are the general concerns.

Let me turn to the individual elements of the Bill. I advise Members to go to the minutes of evidence taken before the Unopposed Bill Committee in the other House under Lord Sewel. TfL, with the Department for Transport present, took the noble Lord through the details of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Harrow East has said, it went to clause 5 in particular, and it said:

“Clause 5 would allow TfL subsidiaries to borrow and charge against assets and revenue streams. This will provide TfL with greater flexibility on how it borrows. Under secured borrowing, TfL subsidiaries may borrow for a discrete purpose, and the security could then be structured so that the creditor has recourse only against the subsidiary borrowing and not against TfL or other TfL subsidiaries.”

It went on to say:

“TfL subsidiaries may not grant security without the consent of the Secretary of State, other than in respect of those matters that are specified in a new schedule proposed to be included in the Bill.”

The hon. Gentleman referred to that.

Let me take Members to that new schedule. This is not a delaying tactic; I would like TfL to come back with some clarity on all this. The schedule means that it can, without the Secretary of State’s approval, enter into agreement with regard to subsidiaries to borrow and charge against assets and revenue streams. As I have said, it can do that with regard to activities identified in this schedule without Secretary of State approval. Let me give a selection of them. It can borrow against assets including

“property related to a tolling scheme…property related to the generation of power…property related to sponsorship activities being carried out by third parties”.

It can also borrow against

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

I have no idea of the scale that is envisaged, but it means that TfL, without Secretary of State approval, can become a sizeable landlord with commercial lets and borrow against those revenue streams. I would like TfL to say what is meant by this and I would welcome some clarity as we move into the next stages. What is the scale of operation that it is looking at?

The schedule also refers in sub-paragraph (n) to

“land which is not operational land”.

Again, it would be useful to know from TfL what its definition of “not operational land” is and what the scale of that is in its portfolio.

I raise this because many of our individual constituencies will contain pieces of TfL land which are set aside for future transport developments, and it looks as though this will enable TfL to raise revenue or borrow against those pieces of land without any Secretary of State approval whatsoever. It would be useful to know the scale of that and to have some form of report setting out where these pieces of land are. They could be fairly sizeable.

Again, I would welcome clarity about the purpose of this particular venture in this particular case. As Members have said earlier, we all have sites in our constituencies that TfL may want to borrow against and therefore develop with a private sector subsidiary. If it then removes a transport operation from that site, it will have a knock-on effect on other sites because of the shift of functions, as is planned at Earls Court. I am concerned that there seems to be a lack of clarity from TfL in its dialogue with the petitioners on some of these issues with regard to the supply of information.

In the presentation to the Unopposed Bill Committee in the other House, clause 6 was explained as follows:

“Clause 6 of the Bill will allow TfL to form or join with others in forming limited partnerships. TfL would like to be able to use partnership structures to seek third-party investors in its property estate, and to manage secondary income generated from the estate.”

TfL mentioned, I think to reassure the noble Lord in charge of the Committee, that

“Pension funds and development partners are identified as likely investors, who often prefer limited partnerships to other legal structures to invest in.”

I am sure that we will deal with this matter in Committee, but I would like to ask Members to look—if not today, then in Committee—at some of the concerns raised by the petitioners about the concept of limited partnerships and, in particular, at a petition from Mr Richard Osband and other parties. Mr Osband was with us on Friday when we met TfL. He is a knowledgeable person who has done a large amount of research in this area. He admits that he is not a lawyer, but he has vast experience in property development and commercial activities. He tried to explain his concerns, which I now share, to TfL regarding limited partnerships.

The issue that Mr Osband raised was that a registered limited partnership may not carry out any activities at all. The partnership is between one partner and a general partner, and the general partner largely bears the main liabilities. If the other partner becomes active in some way in the management of the process, it will then become part of the definition of the general partnership and will bear liabilities. Mr Osband argued that the limited partnership concept was opening up TfL to bearing almost unlimited liabilities as a result of the process that the legislation will enable it to enter into. On Friday, we were mystified as to why there was a need for limited partnerships. The legislation itself provides for the ability to enter into partnerships with companies and others. These would be proper legal entities and they would ensure that the burden of risk was shared with the partner rather than falling significantly on to TfL.

We are now at a late stage, and the petitioner has made his position clear. On Friday, he was simply inviting TfL to get further legal counsel’s opinion, because he and a number of others had contested the original counsel’s opinion that TfL had brought forward. I have yet to hear a convincing argument from TfL as to why it would want to enter into limited partnerships, given the element of risk involved. TfL said on Friday and in some of its other discussions with Mr Osband that this was the preferred route of the developer. I am afraid that that does not inspire confidence that any public investment in these developments would be secure.

[Ms Abbott]

I think Transport for London would argue that that arrangement would be preferable to the one-off sale of a freehold asset because it would guarantee a continuing revenue stream.

[John McDonnell]

Yes, that is one argument, but the point of the legislation is to enable TfL to enter into not only limited partnerships but proper partnerships. Clause 4 will enable TfL to enter into partnerships that are limited by guarantee, so why do we need a mechanism that is novel for TfL, that requires new legislation and that heightens the risk to TfL when there is already a vehicle available that will protect it? This mechanism appears to have been included purely and simply at the behest of some of the development companies that have approached TfL. That cannot be right. Surely the public purse needs to be protected in the best possible way.

I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is saying, but it does not mean that the sole way in which TfL can raise income streams is simply by a sell-off; it can enter into proper partnerships with limited companies. The hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned, on a grander scale, the ability to have shareholders and so on, but that is the normal way of protecting one partner and another: having a common shareholding in that way.

I came at this on Friday afternoon, and I find it mystifying that although Mr Osband’s petition and further detailed notes had been received, we had not been given by today, even in the last throes of the briefings that were flying around yesterday, some form of assurance about the legal protections that would be provided as a result of introducing the availability of limited partnerships to TfL.

Mr Osband quoted to the TfL representative the issues raised by the Law Commission on this matter. It said:

“The essential feature of a limited partnership is that the liability of the limited partners for the debts and obligations of the partnership is limited to the amount of their contributions. This protection is lost if a limited partner takes part in management.”

So as soon as TfL gets involved in the management of any element of the partnership and the development—I interpreted that, as did Mr Osband, as meaning any form of management of even the individual site or some asset on it—it is no longer limited in its liabilities; it becomes a general partner open to unlimited liability.

I find it extraordinary that we have got to this stage in the Bill—three years on from its original promotion by TfL, nearly six months since the petitions were submitted on this issue and following a meeting on Friday—yet we still have not had a response in any detail on Mr Osband’s valid criticisms of what has taken place in terms of the development of a concept of limited partnership at the behest of the private developers.

Let me quote from the briefing note that Mr Osband provided for TfL on Friday, although I will not use the names of TfL officers, as to do so would be invidious. He said that one of the officers dealing with this

“seems oblivious to the fact that it would be TfL’s Limited Partner that would be at risk of unlimited liability by virtue of TfL’s participation in the management of the General Partner. Would TfL really want to enter a Joint Venture with no management control?”

This is like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea. One can enter into a limited partnership and one’s liabilities are limited if one is not part of the management of that, but as soon as one enters into the management one’s liabilities are unlimited, yet a public body such as TfL would be expected to have some form of management responsibilities for the venture that is taking place. So it automatically gets caught, as this is a Catch-22 situation. I cannot see what benefit there is for TfL, although there must obviously be benefits for the individual developers who want to enter into these limited partnerships with TfL, because I fear that they will seek to ensure that the liabilities are placed on TfL and not themselves.

Again, let me cite what the Law Commission said, which was quoted by Mr Osband on Friday. He provided the quote directly to the TfL officers and still has not had a response from them. The Law Commission said:

“We understand this lack of clarity is considered a major defect in the law of limited partnerships in the United Kingdom.”

Again, a structure has been proposed in the Bill which even the Law Commission now considers relatively opaque in its operation.

I urge TfL, at this late stage, to reconsider the Bill and whether or not the legislation—certainly the clauses up to clause 7—is actually needed, given the facilities that TfL has for forming partnerships under the existing structures, which are flexible. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has said that until now TfL has relied upon the sale of land to gain income, but that is no longer the case. It is able to enter into wider partnerships and does not have to rely purely on such sales. This concept of limited partnership is introducing a real vulnerability to the tax payer—the London council tax payer in particular—and the Government who fund Transport for London. I do not understand why TfL wishes to persist with this clause of the Bill.

I am extremely worried that the general public will not be able to scrutinise development deals if limited partnerships are established, and, even with the Secretary of State’s approval now being floated by TfL as an amendment, that there will not be sufficient political accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith will cite the example of what happened at Earls Court. On the examples that we have so far, this issue of commercial confidentiality has prevented, without resort to law in many instances, the ability of members of the community or individuals who are affected by developments from gaining information on the partnerships —their purposes and their operations. When redacted documents have been offered, they have been redacted in such a way to make them virtually meaningless. I worry that this Bill offers the potential for a whole series of disastrous ventures by TfL on site after site.

The hon. Member for Harrow East also mentioned taxation. At the meeting on Friday, representatives of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers said that they were concerned about ensuring the transparency of the operation not just of the partnership itself, but of the individual partners who have participated so far under existing structures. They were concerned about their willingness to abide by and adhere to tax legislation in this country and also to some of their responsibilities. At least one company that was mentioned on Friday and that TfL entered into a partnership with is based in a tax haven and is seeking to avoid taxation as a result of its established structure. Again, that is not uncommon, but it is not something that a public body such as TfL should be encouraging. Furthermore, it is not something that we should be seeking to facilitate even further by putting forward this limited partnership proposal.

The concern is that if such a company is willing to operate from a tax haven to avoid taxation, it is quite likely and quite able to walk away more easily from the liabilities on risks if any venture becomes problematic in the future. Again, it provides us with another example of questionable judgment by TfL. Going into a partnership with a company that is based in a tax haven and that is seeking to avoid its taxation responsibilities does not inspire confidence in the ability of TfL to develop future deals. Such practice may not be unlawful, but it is immoral, and that point was put to TfL on Friday.

Those are many of the concerns that have been raised in the discussions so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith will go into some detail about what has happened at Earls Court. If Members want an example of what could happen under this Bill because of the lack of protection within it and because of the structure that has been put forward with regard to the limited partnership, Earls Court is a classic example. In fact, this Bill was designed to enable TfL to go into a limited partnership specifically with regard to Earls Court. TFL was not able to do that, because the legislation had been delayed for so long, but it went into another form of partnership that has exposed the local community to devastation, almost, and that has exposed TfL to being ripped off for the development.

Overall, in that example we have seen a complete lack of transparency about the discussions with the limited company. The potential issues with that site and the safe operation of the rail transport network have been raised and, as I have mentioned before, there is an increasing threat to social and affordable housing. Indeed, there is even a public health threat because of the air pollution caused by the increased activity around that site, and a threat to some of London’s cultural heritage.

Concern has been expressed about the lack of an independent economic impact assessment on the development and a lack of accountability to local people and the elected local authority in its current form. This is a shining example of how TfL, although I am sure it has the best of intentions, can be driven by political motives. I know that there have been statements about the nature of the people that some politicians want to live in the area. Mr Greenhalgh, in particular, wanted to remove working-class people from the area and to populate it with wealthier people. That was one of the statements he made publicly, but, regardless of that, TfL seems unable to defend itself against such political diktats from above and demonstrated extreme incompetence in its negotiations with developers and extreme ruthlessness in preventing local people from having a say in the development. That has resulted not just in a degrading exploitation of public assets but a debacle.

That is the example we would give of Transport for London’s incompetence in dealing with a major strategic site and with speculative property developers. If this legislation goes through, developers in London will binge at the expense of the public sector and TfL in particular. The land assets of TfL have been developed over nearly a century and they are land holdings specifically for development of the transport infrastructure. They are not there for speculative development by TfL to gain some short-term income at a long-term cost to Londoners. The Bill will risk the long-term planning of our transport infrastructure, increase the risk of the liability for property speculation falling on TfL and have an impact on the public purse.

We gave these warnings on the public-private partnership and we were ignored. We were ignored by the previous Government and, in fact, we were derided for those warnings that came from the RMT, the TSSA and the other unions that were working on the ground on London transport. They warned us and we had report after report that TfL was being ripped off in its dealings with the private sector and that there would be a catastrophe, and that is exactly what happened. The PPP became a disaster: the companies had to be brought into public ownership and control, we lost at least £400 million through payments to advisers, accountants, lawyers and so on and we put TfL at risk. I think that this is what will happen in this case.

The work force, with their expertise, and those who work deep within the heart of TfL are warning that the property speculation promoted by the Bill will put the long-term infrastructure of transport in London at risk. As I say, I will not oppose the Bill this evening because there is at least one clause on the hedging of protection for pensions that is supported by some elements of the work force, but I hope that by the next stage of our debate TfL will either withdraw some of the clauses, making the Bill workable, or at least provide some form of accountability and set objectives and parameters about the speculative developments that can be undertaken as a result of the powers that TfL will be given. Unless we set those parameters, London’s transport infrastructure could be put at risk, and we might face significant costs and burdens. I hope that the House will fulfil its responsibilities by not taking Transport for London’s assertions at face value, but will be looking at the expert evidence with which we have been provided.

I advise hon. Members to read some of the petitions against the Bill submitted by individuals with expert knowledge of the operation of Transport for London and the consequences of its developments so far. Given that TfL has brought forward, at this late stage, its letter of comfort, it would be useful if we advised it that the petitioners should be not only contacted, but invited to petition again, if they wish, specifically with regard to the amendment to which the letter refers. Although we are yet to see that amendment—we have received only the letter—I would welcome the petitioners’ views on that proposal. I have so far received only a couple of e-mails from those who attended Friday’s meeting, although I know that others have an opinion, and their view is that the amendment proposed in the letter would not save the Bill. They believe that the Bill should be opposed, despite TfL’s assurances. As I said, I shall not oppose the Bill today, but unless we get a definitive view from Transport for London on some of the questions raised in the debate, unless we have clarity about some of the Bill’s provisions and unless we understand how to set parameters for TfL’s operations in this speculative area of development, we will oppose it at a later stage.

I treat the Bill with real scepticism. It could be a speculator’s charter for the Mayor of London, whoever that might be in the future, and that may well be at a cost to London’s council tax payers. I warn the House that, as was the case with the PPP, the Bill could be a disaster for the taxpayer overall, and if it goes through, I fear that the Mayor and Transport for London will place a sizeable bill before us in a couple of years because we will have to bail them out for the losses that they have incurred due to speculative development.

To echo what was said by the hon. Member for Christchurch, TfL should concentrate on providing transport for London. It is not a property developer. If there was the expertise in TfL to carry out negotiations on such matters, an element of confidence might be inspired in us, but its track record, especially at Earls Court, demonstrates not only that such expertise is lacking, but that it does not even understand that it lacks that expertise. Property speculators run rings around it time and again, and those speculators then go off to international festivals to market sites that were once owned by the public of London. It is scandalous that speculators can make vast profits out of public asset in such a way because of either the connivance or gullibility of the people responsible in TfL.

I urge hon. Members to pay more direct attention to the Bill. There are few Members in the Chamber today, which I understand, given events in Scotland and elsewhere, but the Bill could be as catastrophic for London as elements of what might happen following the referendum in Scotland. We might not only be presented with an extraordinary bill in the future, but lose considerable assets on which we were hoping to build a modern network for transport in London. While the Bill is in Committee, I hope that we can find sensible amendments that will allow us to set parameters in the Bill to assure us that this leap in the dark will not lead to a future disaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for their excellent contributions, not least because they will allow me to be more succinct.

I was impressed by the knowledge of the hon. Member for Christchurch of landownership in west London. I do not have the same knowledge about Christchurch. Without wishing to go off on a tangent, however, I must say that his knowledge of politics in west London is not so good. Though other councils did, I do not think that Hammersmith and Fulham council ever engaged in the selling off and buying back of lamp posts. It indulged in capital market swaps, which is perhaps more historically famous, but that began under a Conservative council, as I know because I was chair of finance and was involved in unravelling all that, and we were granted, as a privilege for doing so, 15 years of glorious rule thereafter. He has conflated political events, therefore, but I forgive him because his summation of the arguments against the Bill was so good.

I would be interested in this Bill in any event, being a London MP and given the many concerns, which I will not repeat, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the hon. Member for Christchurch, who from their different political perspectives have put their finger on the issues at stake, but I have an additional and perhaps more specific—some might say parochial—interest. I can demonstrate that the origin of the proposals lie in the Earls Court-West Kensington development in west London and might well end there, unless things happen.

I shall say more about that development in a moment, but first I want to resolve the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about, “Hasn’t the Earls Court deal already been done?”. Yes, part of the deal—concerning the exhibition centres—has been done, to the extent that the partnership agreement has been entered into, but the other major part of the site, also owned by TfL, the Lillie Bridge depot, is a minimum of five or six years down the line.

In any event, what happened at Earls Court is highly relevant to the Bill, and had the developer not pushed to get on with the proposals and had TfL not delayed the Bill, I suspect that the original idea would have been exactly the sort of vehicle envisaged in clause 5 and that the clause would have been used for the first part of the scheme.

[John McDonnell]

For the record, I can confirm that point. On 6 May, TfL and Sir Peter Hendy CBE wrote to the RMT that TfL

“may only use a company limited by shares as the joint venture vehicle”.

So that facility is open to it. He wrote:

“The new powers will be of most relevance to joint ventures with the private sector involving property development”,

and he

“anticipated that any such projects will be done using a partnership structure. Indeed, the choice of joint venture vehicle for the Earls Court development would have been different if TfL had the powers it is now seeking.”

[Mr Slaughter]

I am juggling a lot of papers here, so I am most grateful that my hon. Friend had that letter to hand to confirm the point.

It is important to note the ideas and the opportunity that came out of the Earls Court scheme. Let us be clear that this scheme is the Tennessee Valley authority in all of this: it is not just a scheme; it is a magic scheme—an £8 billion development and currently the largest site under planning development in London. It will remain so until the High Speed 2 site, also in my borough, comes along.

As to the history, it has been pointed out that the legislation for the scheme was presented to Parliament on 29 November 2010. It had an uneventful Second Reading on 13 December 2011, largely because it was below the radar for many people. Before I come on to the current petitioners, I must thank the then petitioner Mark Ballaam on behalf of the West London Line group, which is a fantastic organisation. It would be absolutely wrong to call it an amateur group. It had such a degree of professional expertise that it became the de facto guardian of the railway system in west London, doing a huge amount to promote it.

The group spotted what TfL was up to and got its petition in. Were it not for that group, I am not sure whether we would ever have got the first major concession. The Bill came before the Unopposed Bill Committee of the House of Lords, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has mentioned. It is peculiar when we go back and look at these documents: there had to be a corrected transcript because the first entry in Hansard showed that there was no debate or discussion at all. In fact, we have quoted from the quite substantive debate that took place.

There is a slight confusion because the clause numbers have changed. What was discussed in the earlier debate as clause 5 is now clause 4. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington rightly pointed out, what appeared to be a major concession was not quite such a concession because of the schedule that lists all the circumstances under which TfL can continue to dispose of land.

It was said to the Chair of that Lords Committee:

“My Lord, I would mention that following discussions with DfT, TfL has proposed certain amendments to Clause 5”—

now clause 4—

“which are contained in the filled-up Bill before the Committee today, and those amendments provide that TfL subsidiaries may not grant security without the consent of the Secretary of State, other than in respect of those matters that are specified in a new schedule proposed to be included in the Bill.”

Yes, there was a concession, but it might have been more apparent than real. It was to deal effectively with the objections at that stage in January this year. The issue limped on until it arrived here, with no urgency or hurry at all as far as I can see—until very recently when things take on a frenetic aspect.

With the petitioners, I have had three lengthy meetings with TfL, the last of which was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington last Friday. That is good; I am glad that it is prepared to put in that time. It is an important Bill to TfL and it has been courteous throughout the process. That is true, but it concerns me that, having allowed things to drift for four years, it has now taken on this extraordinary degree of urgency. Similarly, it concerned me when the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that we should support the Bill because it would make public-private partnerships run rather more smoothly. I do not think we want anything like PPP to be run more smoothly. There are lessons for us to learn that we do not want to be repeated in the context of this Bill.

Yesterday, the letter arrived, as has been said, following the Friday meeting. It said:

“We have considered the comments made at the meeting regarding clause 5 and the concerns expressed and, consequently, TfL intends to propose an amendment to clause 5. The amendment will insert a new sub-clause in clause 5 which will provide that TfL must obtain the Secretary of State’s consent to form, promote or assist a limited partnership when the purpose for it doing so is to carry on the development of land otherwise than for the purposes of TfL’s functions.”

Well, so be it. That is another attempt to deal with the objections that have been received in an emollient way, albeit at the eleventh hour. The concession has been made, and it is right that it should have been made, just as it was right that it should have been made in relation to what is now clause 4. However, it misses the point of our objection—at least, my objection, and what I understand to be the objection of the petitioners—which is that we do not think that this is the right approach for TfL to take. The fact that there will be a check is helpful, but we would prefer the clause not to be included in the Bill at all.

[John McDonnell]

During the meeting that my hon. Friend and I attended on Friday, one of the points raised—and it has been raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—concerned not the principle of limited partnership, but the need to establish some sense of the scale of these operations. In July, my hon. Friend had a meeting with a Mr Graeme Craig of Transport for London, during which Mr Craig said that TfL had 5,700 acres of land across London, and approximately 800 archways. There was a list of schemes involving South Kensington, Baker Street, Old Street, Oxford Circus, Victoria, Golders Green and Northwood stations. Whether we look at the schedule, which relates to charges against land, or whether we look at clause 5, which provides for developments by a limited partnership, we are talking about a huge property portfolio for potential development with the private sector.

[Mr Slaughter]

Absolutely. I do not know whether I am right in suggesting that Earls Court was the fons et origo of that, but in any event the potential for it across London is huge. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Christchurch pointed out, the potential for it to go wrong is huge, and I think that that is what is going to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I have to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although it has not been that transparent: it has taken rather a lot of work, over the last six of seven years and I am probably prematurely grey as a consequence. It has been like getting blood out of a stone, and so much work has been done, not primarily by me, but by the residents, the RMT, and people like my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the petitioners. They have worked day and night on this and have harried these people who are so irresponsible with the public assets that they hold—all public land at Earls Court, all being squandered and given away to developers, for losses of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds.

[John McDonnell]

The greyness becomes my hon. Friend, by the way, but on the point he is making, the issue is that a limited liability company will lodge its accounts at Companies House, whereas a limited partnership has no responsibility to do that, so even then there will be complete opaqueness about the financial transactions of that limited partnership.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

I was going to talk more about the formal instrument, but we have heard quite a lot about that already and I hope we will have more time to look at it in Committee. I also hope that if this Bill does go ahead we will at least remove this pernicious clause 5.

Before concluding, however, I must make two final points. The first is that I must pay tribute to the petitioners. Richard Osband has been quoted at length and he is an absolute star. He is a constituent of mine and he was a property developer. He bought a house on the west Kensington estate, a large council estate in my constituency, because he liked the area and he wanted to live there, and he is utterly affronted by the fact that he is being forced out of his home—that, with the connivance of public authorities, his home is being compulsorily purchased and he is being chucked out of it in order to do this terrible deal. I must also mention Joss Bell and Anabela Hardwick. Anabela is also a constituent of mine and Joss is an environmental campaigner, and they are also petitioners, and the next stage with this will involve their formidable talents being ranged against TfL.

I shall end my speech in a moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington is waiting patiently to speak, but I want to make one more point about the sale of land. Until recently, TfL owned Shepherd’s Bush market. Indeed, I think it still owns part of the freehold. The market is not only an iconic London market but a massively important asset to my constituents. It sells relatively low-priced and incredibly varied produce, with a wider range of ethnic produce than almost any other market in London. It is highly successful. The only thing that makes it less successful is the fact that its landlord, TfL, has failed to maintain it. Every stall is let, and it is very popular, but what has TfL done? Rather than take the revenue stream, it has sold it to facilitate the demise and destruction of the market and the building of 200 luxury flats on the site. I am pleased to say, however, that with the help of local residents and shopkeepers, the new Hammersmith and Fulham council is endeavouring to prevent that from happening.

How contradictory is that? Is this new policy of setting up these wonderful joint ventures instead of selling off sites, as we have seen in Earls Court, going to spread across London? It is a policy that TfL appears to have no control over but every liability for. The partnership in Earls Court is with a £2 company with no covenant strength based in Jersey. If things go wrong and the project goes belly up, that company could be dissolved and the parent company, Capco, which has all the assets, could simply walk away. Who would be left to pick up the tab? It would be TfL. In the meantime, however, it has sold off substantial assets—namely, the freehold of its property in Earls Court—for a 37% stake. In my view, the way in which TfL negotiated that deal is almost criminal, yet we are being asked to give it more powers to do more of the same. That is absolutely not on. In Shepherd’s Bush, TfL had an income stream from a successful market that needed just a little investment, but for political reasons, it sold the development to facilitate another developer making a mint out of it.

I put it to the hon. Member for Christchurch that TfL gets it wrong every time, whether it is selling property or entering into a deal. It needs rather more financial rigour and better financial officers. It also needs to be less ambitious about being a property developer and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, more ambitious when it comes to managing our money and providing reliable bus and tube services. If TfL focused a little more on that, rather than on spending four years getting this needless Bill through, we would have a better transport system in London.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), and in particular to all the ups and downs of the developments in Earls Court and Shepherd’s Bush.

This debate is taking place under the long shadow of public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives—two wholly misconceived financial fixes designed to achieve public sector good. I will take this opportunity to say that PFI is of narrow merit and normally suited to capital projects that have a natural revenue stream, such as toll bridges. I certainly did not support the vast extension of PFI that happened under my own Government; nor did I support the misconceived PPP for public transport.

I can understand the scepticism being expressed by Members on both sides as a result of local authorities trying to be clever with financial instruments. However, I was taken aback by the headlong attack on the management of TfL by my good Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. He accused them of wanting to go on a property development binge and of sacrificing the long-term strategic interests of transport in London to property development. That is a tiny bit unfair.

[John McDonnell]

Let me make this clear. TfL is working under the political direction of the current Mayor of London. This is about Boris Johnson selling off sites to speculator friends to try to bail himself out following the cuts that have been made by this Government. This is not an attack on the individual officers of TfL—far from it. There is political direction behind this.

[Ms Abbott]

I will come on to deal with political direction later. The point I make is that on the long-term strategic development of transport in London the key elements in the current TfL management have an exemplary record, be it under a Mayor for whom I did not vote or under a Mayor for whom I did vote twice. It is a little unfair to accuse them of not having any long-term strategic vision. A lot of what has been spoken about by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Hammersmith, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is the consequence not of malign forces within TfL’s management, but an overheated property market in London, predatory developments and a climate of tax avoidance generally among multinationals. The House must address such things. We need changes in planning law; enhancement of local authority powers; and fiscal measures to deal with issues relating to the overheated property market in London and some of the consequences.

[Ms Abbott]

I will not, because I am mindful of the time and I believe there is a wish to close this debate at 7.15 pm.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, much of what is happening is due to financial pressures from the Government—they would say that they are obliged to do this. It is important not to confuse TfL, which was named throughout this debate, with the Mayor of London. It is not my role to stand up to defend him, but I would want to defend the long-term, responsible, strategic approach taken by the management of TfL.

There is no question that there is a danger that TfL may be dazzled by the glories of the property world. I was looking on TfL’s website at what it says about itself and property development. It states:

“Transport for London is a brand that is recognised around the world and owns great properties in prime locations. Our unique selling point is the:

Location of our assets

Impressive property space”

and so on. Clearly, it sounds like people who are perhaps overly dazzled by the notion of being property developers, but I remind the House that it is not a question of TfL buying and selling property just to make a profit; TfL, in the course of its activity, has acquired assets that could be developed, be it airspace above tube stations, bus stations, disused depots, archways, surplus London underground land or large-scale transport projects. It is not as if TfL has been wilfully engaged in property development; it has these assets, which in some cases have transpired because of changes in the nature of public transport and in technical aspects relating to transport, and clearly it wants to do the best with them. I do not think TfL has any aspirations to be a property developer.

[John McDonnell]

Come to Earls Court.

[Ms Abbott]

I do not think TfL has any aspirations to be a property developer; I think TfL would argue that it does not simply want to sell off assets in a one-off manner, as some Members have suggested. It wants to construct a way to have long-term revenue streams to pay for things, such as bus service enhancement. TfL can get capital, but revenue is harder to come by.

I listened with great care to what was said about Earls Court and it seems to me that the Earls Court deal may have been misconceived; it may be one of those unfortunate instances where the public sector was out-negotiated by private developers. The only point I wanted to make in this debate is that, in addition to the undoubtedly passionate attacks on TfL, we must give TfL credit for its stewardship of London’s transport system over the years. I hope that in Committee the Bill can be improved, so that whatever vehicles emerge from it ensure fairness on both sides of the agreement. Given the constraints under which TfL operates and given an overheated property market, which is not its responsibility, Members would be unreasonable in not seeing the need for TfL, and in not allowing TfL, to go forward with measures that it hopes will provide it with ongoing revenue. As for this being a quick fix, it surprises me that Members can say that a Bill that has taken five years to get this far is a quick fix. I understand what my colleagues are saying, and I am particularly concerned about what I have heard about Earls Court, but let us give the management of TfL just a little credit going forward.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Select Committee

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise for arriving late for the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your leniency in allowing me to speak for one minute.

Before the Bill goes into Committee, I just want absolute clarity. Last night, I asked the Minister a question about the Heathrow link. Clause 50 refers to the ability to extend the scheme under a Transport and Works Act order, without the full legislative scrutiny that would be required if a further Bill was introduced to deal with the Heathrow link. I want absolute clarity about whether my interpretation of clause 50 is accurate: could the Secretary of State use the provision to make a Transport and Works Act order to introduce a Heathrow link without full legislation? I ask that because many of my constituents want to petition against the Bill, and we need absolute clarity on which clause we are petitioning against and about whether we should petition against the whole Bill because of its failure to address the Heathrow link as part of a comprehensive package of railway network development.

In addition, I have been through all the inquiries for terminals 4 and 5, as well as various other inquiries, and I was a petitioner in relation to Crossrail the time before last. We found that there was a great inequality of arms in making representations, particularly for small community groups. Will the Government look at whether there is an opportunity for better resourcing not local authorities, which can stand on their own feet, but smaller community groups that represent individual facilities or individual communities? They need assistance of some sort to ensure that they can draw on the full expertise they need during the petitioning process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I do not know whether other constituency MPs often feel frustrated, as I do, that many processes such as planning inquiries and the operation of health trusts and other bodies seem to be beyond the control of us as elected Members. In this case, the hybrid Bill Committee at least means that the process will happen within Parliament.

I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and her boss, the shadow Secretary of State, for the co-operative way in which we have been able to work together. It has been a little bit like Christmas day on the western front, but no doubt when we have Transport questions next Thursday the howitzers will start to roar again across the no man’s land between the two Dispatch Boxes.

Hybrid Bills come along rarely, and changes to their rules and procedures seem to be even rarer, so it is important that these motions receive the House’s full consideration despite the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said, they might seem arcane. Members have raised important issues about the Select Committee stage of the process, and I will address the amendments to the motions. I hope that I will allay many of the fears that have been raised, and that none of the amendments will be pressed.

I turn first to the points that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made about the Heathrow link. I reassure him that Transport and Works Act orders can be applied only to extensions of under 2 km, so the Heathrow spur, which would be much longer than that, cannot be authorised in that way. I hope that sets his mind at rest.

[John McDonnell]

You’ll do it bit by bit, then.

[Mr Goodwill]

We would need a very good lawyer to get that passed.

I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) came from Bavaria. I think a socialist in Bavaria is a very rare breed indeed. She talked about passing a provision for the HS1 link. As I said, it is ultimately for the Committee to decide whether a petition should be heard, and it may choose to hear petitions suggesting that a future link should not be precluded. Its work is on the railway proposal before it, and it cannot get bogged down in considering the merits of links that may or may not happen, but it could certainly consider ruling out any future provision should it choose to do so.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, made a number of points about the environment, and I share her ambition to ensure that the environmental impact of the project is minimised. Of course, she is aware that we published a 48,000-page environmental impact report. I recognise the Environmental Audit Committee’s intention, and we are seeking to have no net loss of biodiversity. It is a hugely ambitious scheme, equal to that on any comparable project worldwide. We are building 140 miles of railway, and in biodiversity terms, it will be as though it were not there. In many cases, of course, there will be biodiversity gains. As I think I mentioned to the Committee, in some places where there is arable farming and monoculture we will put in something better than the current oilseed rape or wheat crops, which have little biodiversity and offer little in the way of habitat.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Everything about my background, and recent history in Parliament in particular, suggests I should support HS2. I am the co-ordinator of the RMT parliamentary group and have supported every campaign for investment in rail over the last 17 years in Parliament. I have also used the argument about high-speed rail and taking capacity from aviation on to rail to obviate the need for a third runway at Heathrow. However, I cannot vote for the Bill tonight—I will be voting for the reasoned amendment—because I must be one of the few MPs who does not know what is going to happen in his constituency.

Initially, when high-speed rail was put forward, I was told that there would be consultation on the main route and then, last autumn, that there would be consultation on the link between the main route through my constituency to Heathrow. I was looking forward to that, because we were told that we would look at about nine options and have a detailed consultation, and that I would be able to organise community meetings and we would come to a view on whether or not we supported the link to Heathrow from the main route—or at least on what option we would support. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) alluded to the fact that a grubby compromise was subsequently made, including across the Front Benches, whereby an Airports Commission would be appointed, in order to get every political party off the hook before the general election about deciding honestly what they supported on aviation expansion. Howard Davies’s commission has already confirmed that it could report by next January but has been told to go away on holiday between January and the general election and not report until after it.

Therefore, my constituents, like others, will not know what the political parties’ views will be about their options in respect of expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick or elsewhere. That has meant that the whole process of consultation about high-speed rail’s link to Heathrow has also been delayed. So I am the only MP in this place who cannot go to their constituents before the general election to explain to them what the implications of HS2 are. What does that mean? It means blight. It causes upset and distress for those people whose homes, businesses and community resources will be at risk, and it causes long-term blight in the area. My area is already blighted by the threat of a third or a fourth runway, but we are now blighted by the threat of a high-speed rail link that could go under us, over us or through us. We do not know which way it will go. That is just unacceptable politics.

[Mrs Gillan]

Does it also not send out a poor signal internationally that it is taking us so long to decide where our airport capacity lies? Surely we should be ensuring that we have the best connectivity internationally because, after all, we are in a shrinking global marketplace in which we should be competing.

[John McDonnell]

I agree. I just wish we had some certainty and that certain politicians kept to their word. Who said:

“no ifs, no buts…no third runway”?

That came from the Prime Minister. He never said, “No third runway during just one Parliament.” What he said was interpreted by most of us as a permanent commitment. I agree with the right hon. Lady that we need certainty on this matter, and the one group of people who have no certainty are my constituents. I would like the Secretary of State or the Minister to explain to me what the process will be for consultation and decision making on the link with Heathrow. Will there be additional legislation? Clause 50 enables further expansion of the route to go on under a transport works order and not full legislation, so I fear that there will not be full consultation and that we will not be presented with a Bill that we can debate in this House and vote on with regard to the link to Heathrow. In that way, yet again, my constituents will be left with uncertainty. This is no way to run a railway, no way to plan a railway and certainly no way to spend £50 billion—on a project that could be going nowhere.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend mentions clause 50, but clause 47 allows the Secretary of State, willy-nilly, to take land where he sees an opportunity for regeneration or development of that land. As far as I can see, that gives him carte blanche to do whatever he feels right, whether or not that is in the interests of the railway.

[John McDonnell]

My constituents do not know the route, do not know what land is threatened and do not know what compensation they will be offered. That is not acceptable, so I would welcome at least some certainty about the process in which the Government will engage when they eventually decide on moving this issue forward with regard to HS2.

I missed the speech that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) made, but I am sure he raised some of the environmental concerns relating to the north of our borough. May I just raise one such concern, which was raised with me by Bert May, an elderly gentleman who has worked extremely hard with Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre, developing it through the Queensmead school sailing club into a sailing centre that has given thousands of young people in our area the opportunity to learn how to sail and enjoy the environment? HOAC is threatened and on behalf of Bert May, my 80-year-old constituent who has put his life into that project, I ask for some certainty about what will happen to our local area, because this affects community facilities such as that and will have a devastating effect on the livelihood, if not the well-being, of many of my constituents. That is unacceptable. Any MP facing this in their constituency would do what I am about to do, which is to vote against the Bill and to vote for the reasoned amendment. We need a reasonable approach to decision making in this House that restores some confidence that we have the capacity to take decisions on major infrastructure programmes that bring people with us rather than alienating them at each stage.