Transport for London Funding

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sure that the Minister will have heard that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) made some fascinating points. The point about the cruise terminal was new to me, but I hope that others will hear it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) continued his fantastic campaign on the Transport for London Bill, reiterating points that were made in a debate a few weeks ago and that, doubtless, will be made again. I will return to those.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) took me back to my childhood: I used to be driven by my parents from south London through the Blackwall tunnel when there was only one tunnel. I remember the pong, which I think was from a dog biscuit factory. Some things do not change, really, and there is clearly much more work to be done. His points about the unfairness of potentially charging his constituents to cross the river were well made.

I want to talk a little more generally about London’s transport system. As someone from outside London, I have to say that London’s system is widely admired as a model of excellence. There are now more passenger journeys in the capital than in the rest of England combined. In the UK, other metropolitan areas—including Manchester, notably—are keen to bring in Oyster-style, multi-platform, integrated smart ticketing. Indeed, I understand that Singapore’s Land Transport Authority last year announced a new Government contracting model after explicitly studying the bus systems of London and Australia; they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and that is clearly the case here.

We all know that the Department for Transport took a huge hit in the comprehensive spending review, as did the Department for Communities and Local Government. I fear that the repercussions will reverberate through the quality and connectivity of the transport system across the entire country. I am also sure, regrettably, that the savage reductions in funding and subsequent cuts to transport services will be keenly felt by all those who rely on them to go about their daily life. It is distressing but simple: cuts to central Government funding and local authority budgets mean that services will suffer.

Let us remember that in 2013 TfL’s operational funding was slashed by a quarter, requiring it to identify £16 billion in savings by 2021. Last month it was announced that the grant worth £700 million in 2015-16 will be phased out by the end of the decade. The Department for Transport said that this may be mitigated by “new commercial freedoms” for TfL. The implications of those commercial freedoms are potentially significant, and I will largely focus on them.

Along with funding for cycling nationally, London’s dedicated transport funding has been deliberately targeted in the spending review. As of 2014-15, a record 8.6 million people were living in the capital. By 2030, that figure is forecast to reach 10 million, rising again to 11 million by 2050. The pressures on the capital’s transport system will only intensify. TfL has already been making fierce and highly controversial cuts, but even it said in its annual budget last year:

“It is becoming progressively more difficult to achieve this without compromising our core services.”

I would be grateful if the Minister could offer some assurances about how the cut to TfL’s revenue support has been planned. It is well known that before the late 1990s, London Regional Transport was plagued by a pattern of annualised budgets and sudden funding reductions, which in turn created huge inefficiencies. TfL has more long-term financial certainty under Labour’s Greater London Authority Act 1999, but can the Minister really guarantee that additional costs will not be created—for example, in variations to TfL’s commercial contracts—as a result of this decision? We need further assurances.

Since October 2013, the bus service operators grant, which was previously paid to bus operators that were running bus services under franchise to TfL, has been incorporated into the general grant paid to TfL and the Greater London Authority. Now that TfL’s grant is being snatched by the Treasury, so too is this important grant that pays bus operators to keep costs down and helps to subsidise fares for ordinary people. BSOG was already cut by 20% in the previous Parliament, with the total value of the grant across the country falling from £469 million in 2009-10 to £298 million in 2013-14. Now the Government are quietly removing it from TfL entirely. That is unacceptable, and we will not let it go unnoticed. I would greatly appreciate the Minister’s assurance that BSOG will again be allocated to the capital on a separate basis; otherwise, this is clear discrimination against London.

TfL passes part of its grant to the boroughs to spend on local road maintenance and improvement. I am sure that those boroughs would be pleased to be told how that will be funded when TfL’s operational funding is soon reduced to zero. We have heard about the other possible method that TfL might use to alleviate the loss of the grant and to raise revenue to invest in London’s transport network. That method—the so-called commercial freedoms—is proving especially controversial, and many of my hon. Friends have already raised concerns about the wider implications.

The Department for Transport has stated that TfL could save the necessary £700 million a year by generating additional income from the land it owns in London, or with the “additional financial flexibility” that the Government will provide it with. TfL is one of the largest landowners, owning 5,700 acres of land in the capital and more than 500 potential major development sites. Against this backdrop of cuts, it is only natural that TfL wants to plug at least partially the gap that the grant will leave by selling off existing or underused facilities. We support making good use of assets, but there are certain issues that really must be addressed.

First, we need to be sure that forced sales will not, paradoxically, have an adverse impact on the very transport system that they are trying to fund. Selling off land might seem like a good deal in the short term, but it might not look so bright a few years later, when it transpires that the land is needed to expand transport services to meet increasing demand. If TfL land is to be used for housing, let us at least ensure that it is housing at a price that ordinary Londoners can afford. We need a pledge from the Minster that there will be a strong affordable housing element in such developments—particularly important given the disastrous general housing policies being pursued by the Government. Sadly, I have little confidence that that will be achieved.

We are deeply sceptical of the Government’s motives and fear that the asset sell-offs will be all about short-term gain at the expense of securing a future transport system for ordinary Londoners. I do not have time to go into the nitty-gritty of the argument, but the proposed mechanism for property development—namely, the provision allowing limited partnerships—is deeply worrying. I am sure that there will be time enough to discuss that controversial element when the Transport for London Bill wends its way back to us from the other place. Ultimately, a long-term investment strategy aimed at raising money to reinvest in the transport system is one thing, but short-term profiteering on property development is quite another.

In conclusion, TfL’s transport system works, and it ought to be protected, but it is at serious risk from a Government who seek short-term savings and do not understand the importance and value of a widely admired but pressured system that keeps our great capital city moving.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

It would be appreciated if the Minister would be kind enough to allow Mr Thomas just a few minutes to sum up at the end.

Neonicotinoids on Crops

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Daniel Zeichner

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

Stewardship schemes have always been important in rural areas. I strongly support them and, as someone who believes in intervention, I will continue to do so.

New research suggests that neonicotinoids might be damaging food production. There is some evidence that apples pollinated by bumblebees exposed to neonics are of a lower quality to those pollinated by neonic-free bumblebees. Although I sympathise with and understand the concerns of farmers who argue that they need such chemicals to grow their crops, it is worth bearing in mind that, given the rate at which bee colonies are collapsing, before long many existing crops will be at risk unless farmers take the very expensive action of pollinating their crops themselves—a service currently provided free of charge by bees across the country.

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Members on both sides of the Chamber would agree that the decline in the bee population in this country is higher than in any other country in western Europe. The hon. Gentleman is contending that the reason for that decline is the use of such pesticides. If that is not correct—I do not know whether it is or not —can he suggest a possible alternative reason, or does every route that he has used to explore this issue lead him to conclude that such pesticides are the cause of the decline in the bee population in this country?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman comes to the sensible conclusion—the one that I am coming to—that the use of neonicotinoids is the prime problem that we should be acting against. When all is said and done, pollination services are critical for both ecosystem function and crop production and are estimated to be worth between £430 million and £603 million a year to UK agriculture.

In conclusion, bees have been the unhappy victims of neonicotinoid use. Their decline is not only devastating for wildlife, but damaging to food production and our agricultural economy. It is time that the Government ended what some of us fear might be a slight case of knee-jerk anti-Europeanism, listened to the public pleas and scientific sense and ensured that our bees and farmers can flourish.