Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Karen Buck Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

I have to say that Islington residents who are on what could be seen as high incomes are very concerned about their children, as are those who are on middle and low incomes. How will children who were born in Islington remain in Islington, given the price of housing? The Mayor of London’s answer has been to redefine affordable housing. It is a little like getting rid of child poverty by taking income out of the definition.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

People in my borough of Westminster now need an income of £77,000 to be able to afford what the Mayor of London has deemed to be an affordable property. My constituents, like those of my hon. Friend, look at the proliferation of new developments and see properties that they will never have the remotest chance of being able to afford. They want not just house building, but the building of affordable homes that they will have a chance to access.

[Emily Thornberry]

The point is this: once the land is gone, it is gone for ever. Once these luxury flats are built, Islington residents will never have a chance of being able to afford to buy them, and if no social housing or real affordable housing is built in inner London, that will be it. We need to defend very carefully the land available.

The Mayor of London has decided that affordable housing equates to 80% of market rent. That would be a laugh if it were not so tragic. It is like newspeak in “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and someone saying, “Say black is white and say it for long enough, and hopefully some fools will start to believe it.” In Islington, 80% of market rent is not affordable housing.

I read with alarm what was said in the Financial Times about housing. Transport for London is talking about affordable housing in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrow East in outer London, but not in inner London. There are 21,000 people on the waiting list for housing in Islington. Does this Bill answer any of their problems?

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It brings us back to another rumour, which is that £700 million will be taken away from Transport for London in the comprehensive spending review and Transport for London is therefore even more in desperate need of a fire sale of our land to subsidise fares. London is the greatest capital in the world, and we need a proper transport system that is appropriate and helps our city to continue to be the lifeblood of this country. It seems to me to be short-sighted to the greatest extent to take away subsidy from Transport for London, because our city will grind to a halt. Once we have sold off that land and the opportunity for my constituents to live in affordable housing has gone, for the sake of their having cheaper fares for a year or two, what do we do then, having sold off the family silver in the way that is being suggested?

[Ms Buck]

Does my hon. Friend agree that risk comes in many different forms? The Evening Standard revealed a few weeks ago that there has been £100 billion of investment in the London property market from overseas since 2008. Some of that money comes from very dodgy sources, including money laundering. That kind of investment in property—where it is not transparent and the property is not properly managed—involves a fundamental risk to the London property market and all other sources that depend on such revenue.

[Emily Thornberry]

All of us have probably been down the river and seen all the developments that are happening. Members should look for how many flats have lights on at night, because if they do not, people are not living there. It is simply that somebody in Singapore can either invest a bag of gold or they can think, “No. Let’s buy a flat in south London, on the river with a lovely view. There will be someone to look after it. We can invest in that and keep it empty for years or decades.” Those empty flats are laughing at my constituents, who are in desperate need of proper housing. It seems to me that this opportunity is being frittered away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady saw the Evening Standard on Wednesday of last week. It reported a list of shame of London tube stations, where passengers were often queuing for up to an hour in order to get their tickets following the closure of the ticket office. Although she is painting a rosy picture of everything being wonderful on London transport, will she reflect on the fact that not everybody is able to use Oyster ticket machines and there is still a need in some cases for ticket offices?

[Claire Perry]

I did not see that report—[Interruption.] Well, I do not read the Standard every day; I apologise. The hon. Lady says that in some stations in central London people are queueing for up to an hour to buy a ticket because they do not have an Oyster card or a contactless card. I find that absolutely astonishing. Frankly, I might have to question the veracity of the reporting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

That raises a whole new question that has not been discussed by anyone on either side of the House. It is a valid question that needs answers.

[Ms Buck]

I, like a number of colleagues, am keen to see land released for development, as long as it is fair and balanced, includes affordable housing and does not substitute for significant cuts in spending on services. Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of people are very jaundiced by the sale of police stations by the Mayor of London? Two police stations in my constituency were sold off, but that did not provide affordable housing; nor did it lead to an investment in front-line policing, which we were told would be a guaranteed consequence of the property sale. We are therefore very jaundiced at the idea that the experience with Transport for London will be any different.

[Ian Lavery]

Are not people right to be jaundiced? They are sick to death of austerity. When the Government close fire stations, police stations, public buildings and public toilets, they always give the excuse that it will result in a better service for the public purse, and on every occasion the opposite is the case. That is why we need to ensure that this issue is discussed and that the people involved—not just the politicians, TfL and the developers, but everybody—understand what is likely to happen if the Bill is passed.

There have been many arguments about this issue. It has been suggested that TfL should not be able to enter into these partnerships until it proves that it can manage them properly, and I think that is fair. Why should an organisation—a first-class organisation, as the Minister called it—that was created to look after transport infrastructure be allowed to go into property development without proper accountability? I think that is a fair and reasonable question. The Bill would give TfL more power to enter into speculative developments on the sites it owns. We have discussed whether the property prices for these developments are affordable. That needs to reflect what people in the city actually need.

There is also an argument about whether TfL should be getting involved in these limited partnerships, and whether it has the financial competence to do so, because the people it will be getting into bed with under clause 5 are no mice or shrinking violets; they will be used to delivering development projects not just in this country but around the globe, so they will be shrewd cookies. We want to ensure that, whatever happens, the people of London get the best deal.