Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I am rapidly taking up a number of causes across London. I know that Caledonian Road tube station is one of the great ways of leaving the Emirates stadium after football matches. Interestingly, substantial amounts of money were secured in order to dramatically improve the transport system around the stadium when it was being rebuilt. The reality is that there are concerns about whether that money was used properly. Clearly I realise that there is a need to renew the lift at Caledonian Road tube station, but I would much rather we ensured that there was a lift at Harrow-on-the-Hill station, because it does not have one, and at Stanmore station.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I give way to another hon. Lady from London, who no doubt has an aspect of London transport to bring up.

[Rachael Maskell]

I must correct the hon. Gentleman: I represent York Central, but I am in London today, as we all are. He said in his opening remarks that TfL’s financial position would be improved as a consequence of the Bill. On what premise is that assumption based?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

It is as though the risk is being nationalised and the profit privatised. That is what is happening for the sake of George Osborne being able to balance the books in the CSR.

[Rachael Maskell]

A further risk is that profits for some of those property developers may be invested offshore and they may not pay tax here. The Treasury would lose even more money on that land.

[Emily Thornberry]

Many questions need to be asked about the status of the partners that TfL will be able to join in partnership. Will they be offshore? Will they pay taxes here? Will they be able to move the control of the partnerships from one party to another without the public—it is our land—being able to stop it? One hears many scary stories, such as money from Moldova being laundered through Scotland—all sorts of extraordinary things go on under these instruments—and my concern is that the limited partners are liable only for the value of any investment they make and do not need to be involved in the management of the partnership. They put their money in, that is the extent of their liability, and we do not know what sort of profits they will then be able to make and we do not know whether they will pay any tax in this country. Those questions need to be asked before we revive this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad to be able to make a contribution to this debate. I am not from the city of London—I am from the city of York, which is a railway city—but I have many concerns about the Bill, and many of my hon. Friends have touched on them this evening.

At the heart of the motion is the desire to revive the Bill, which started its journey five years ago. As we have heard, the housing situation in London has changed so much during that time that the Bill is no longer relevant. It left the House of Lords 20 months ago, so there have been plenty of opportunities to debate it. London’s housing situation has changed so considerably that the Bill must be called into question. We need a new Bill to address the real issues faced today, rather than a Bill that is clearly outdated. We are talking about a property market that largely did not exist five years ago.

[Catherine West]

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in just the past five years, Haringey, which includes Tottenham, has been considered a higher-value London area, with homes on sale for in excess of £500,000, and that first-time buyers are unable even to get on to the housing ladder? Indeed, on the Government’s flagship scheme to incentivise people to get a mortgage, one person has benefited—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am not having any more long interventions. There have been far too many.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have grasped the point of my hon. Friend’s intervention. House prices have escalated out of control since the Bill was originated. The reality is that we are dealing with a different situation and a different world from when the Bill was put together. I therefore believe that we should not proceed with the motion today, but call a halt and go back to the drawing board to address the real problems we have heard so much about.

I want to touch on some of the issues that have not been addressed today about the consequences of the Bill. The reality is that there will be so many unintended consequences. I asked questions earlier, which were not answered, about the financial modelling and the financial risks that may arise.

[Ian Mearns]

It is not just about consequences, but about responsibility. In the context of London, particularly when it has land assets to dispose of, Transport for London has a social responsibility to make sure that the land at its disposal can be used to help to rebalance the housing market and give Londoners a chance to live in London.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that responsibility has to be at the core not just of this Bill, but of government. I have the same concerns as my hon. Friend. The Bill is full of risk, and we have heard about many of those risks today.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend rightly seeks to draw attention to the unintended consequences of the Bill. Does she accept that one of them may be to divert the focus of TfL’s attention to property development in zones 1 and 2? Might she be tempted to come out to Harrow on the Hill to understand that point even more acutely?

[Stephen Pound]

Via Ealing.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for the invitation to Harrow on the Hill station. I am sure that I will join many hon. Friends in going round the tube stations of London to examine the works that are waiting to be completed.

My hon. Friend makes the point that Transport for London needs a sharper focus on its work in improving our railway network and stations, including by making sure that stations are accessible to disabled people. Why should a disabled person have to wait to access transport? Surely that should be a priority for the Government. The reality is that so many questions are not answered in relation to the Bill.

One of the things we have heard a lot about is the price of housing and its consequences. We are not talking about the development of housing for people to live in, but about the building of assets on which people can make further money at the expense of others. As their assets build, inequality grows further and further in our city. Such inequality has an impact not only at the top end, but on others. If we look at one of the real consequences of inequality, we can see that there are serious skills shortages in the city. If we think about the impact on recruiting to the NHS because people cannot afford to live in central London—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) is gesturing on the Conservative Benches, but the reality is that the constituents of some Conservative Members will face lots of consequences from not having enough nurses in their hospital. In fact, the Government are concerned about agency workers in our hospitals. Are we surprised when trained staff cannot even work in our NHS because they cannot afford to live nearby? Those are some of the consequences of not developing land for its social value and to put something back into our services. In fact, rail workers working for Transport for London will not be able to afford—

[Catherine West]

Is my hon. Friend aware that key workers cannot gain access to such housing because the key worker category has shot up so high in relation to the market?

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend makes a reasoned point. The centre of London is becoming void of key workers, teachers, people who work in hospitals and people who work in our railway system, and we will suffer the consequences. In fact, the construction workers who will be asked to work on these sites will not be able to live in central London and access those services.

As I did at the start of the debate, I ask about the financial modelling behind the Bill. There are many risks, but my concern was roused by a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). She talked about the new chair of Network Rail, who has come from Transport for London. Network Rail has a major footprint in my constituency, and once the principle is introduced, we could see these limited partnerships extended to many other areas. Sir Peter Hendy has transferred to Network Rail and he could bring the principle with him. I have a site in my constituency of 35 hectares of Network Rail brownfield land on which 1,100 houses could be built, but they would be high-value houses—

[Claire Perry]

How does the hon. Lady know that?

[Rachael Maskell]

How do I not know? The Opposition’s job is to scrutinise the Government and these provisions—

[Claire Perry]

rose—

[Rachael Maskell]

I am not going to give way. I heard the point the Minister made from a sedentary position. It is clear that the Bill carries a potential risk. We have heard about financial risk, housing risk and the skills risk. As a result, and given the changing world we live in, we have serious questions about what the limited partnerships would bring. Opposition Members are concerned that we are seeing the social remodelling of London. Housing that is inaccessible is being built in the heart of the city, in zones 1 and 2 and further afield, which means that people cannot afford to live where they work.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend began with the important point that the property market has changed so much in recent years. Is she aware that overseas developers have been especially active in the land market, accounting for nearly three quarters of the £1.8 billion spent on land for development in central London in the second quarter of 2015?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that fact. Those figures were not quite on the tip of my tongue, but it does show that the level of overseas investment in the city is pricing everybody else out, leaving the centre of the city void of community life. People are spotted around the city, but do not actually live in a community.

We are not looking at the infrastructure needed to support these developments—social areas, additional staff, schools and other facilities—because that is not part of the legislation either. One concern is this: we talk about limited partnerships being agreed, but what happens after that agreement? Plans and proposals can change. Ultimately, we could end up with a very different animal from what we started with.

[Andy Slaughter]

We know what happens, because TfL has given the game away: a 100% market housing development in zones 1 and 2. The only guard against that are councils—Labour councils, principally—insisting on affordable housing. The provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill will remove that guard. This is the dirty little deal between the Government and TfL to ensure there is no affordable housing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Talking about housing tangentially to the Bill, because it has an effect on property and the owning of land, is in order. Having a debate almost entirely about housing and the provision of social housing is not in order when discussing the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

I very much take on board my hon. Friend’s point. There are real questions left hovering over the Bill. My hon. Friend refers to the Housing and Planning Bill, which relates to the use of land. That is the issue that concerns Labour Members: what will the land be used for? We highlighted the use of land and what kind of housing will be built on it. Clearly, there is concern about infrastructure and other possibilities, even use for business and other modelling on land in the future. The Bill does not specify a certain type of housing. The limited partnerships model proposed does not list the scope of use of the property and the development in the future.

I would like to return to my initial point before I close, which is the ageing of the Bill. We have seen very clearly that the world has changed so much since it was first drafted. What is the Bill’s relevance to the modern economy? We have heard much about the structure and direction of our economy. The Bill will build more of an asset-based economy than one that is social-based.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not discussing academic economic issues; we are discussing transport.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Bill is about more than transport and that is why it is a real concern. It is about an organisation in charge of running our transport expanding its business opportunities into other areas, largely property development on its land. We would like TfL to focus on addressing the needs of constituents’ stations, about which we have heard so much today, but the Bill goes far beyond that.

Twenty months after the Bill was last debated, it is now clearly out of time. It is time that this House agreed to pursue another route to use vital land in London.

[Stephen Pound]

On my hon. Friend’s tour of the metropolis, as she passes through Harrow would she care to join me in Northolt, where she will see that Dave Francis Autos is about to be closed down and turned into a car park by TfL in a way that is nothing to do with sustainable transport, local needs or the wishes of local people? Does she not agree that TfL should concentrate on transport? It should be talking about transporting Londoners, not developing land.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend makes a perfect point.

[Stephen Pound]

I wouldn’t say that.

[Rachael Maskell]

Well, I would—TfL needs that focus. The reality is that the Bill is about the Government’s austerity measures and the fact that TfL will have to plug the gaps. It is one thing to say to the public that it will ensure ticket prices are held for one, two, three or five years, but what happens after five years when the asset runs out? The sponsor, when pressed about financial security, could give the House no assurances. We therefore call on the Government not to proceed with this out-of-date Bill. It is time for a fresh Bill to address London’s social needs.