Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-04-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): I appreciate the way the hon. Gentleman has approached the debate, but he will understand that I am a little disappointed by his response and by that of the Minister, who gave the proposals a cursory few moments. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, for at least making some thoughtful comments It is not my fault, or that of any of the other opponents of parts of the Bill, that it has dragged on for five and a half years, and we will perhaps look at that issue on Third Reading. As I said, most of the proposals were probing or, I hope, improving proposals, and I am disappointed that they have been dealt with in a fairly cursory manner. However, I also said that I would not press them to a vote Let me go back to amendment 7. As I said, the powers in clause 4(2) already exist, but there is no ability to secure borrowing, or an indemnity or guarantee, against property. I asked what I thought were quite reasonable questions about that. I said that, whereas I understand the advantage of securing borrowing against property, I do not understand the benefit to TfL, the fare payer or the taxpayer of an indemnity or guarantee. I have not really received an answer on that from the Minister or the sponsor. I do not really blame the hon. Gentleman, who drew what turned out to be the short straw in being the sponsor of the Bill. TfL has serried ranks of experts in these matters—consultants, lawyers and property people—and the fact that we have not had an answer shows a certain amount of arrogance in the way this issue has been dealt with throughout I am not persuaded, but I am not going to push the proposals to a vote this evening. I hope, as I have said, that we have a new Mayor who will take a different view of how these matters are dealt with and how these powers are used. I agree that these issues are not at the centre of the Bill. As I have said several times, I appreciate the concessions that TfL has made. In that spirit, I am not minded to stop the Bill going forward now I simply think that it shows a lingering lack of candour and transparency and an attitude of "It’s none of your business how we run our railway" when those involved cannot give a simple explanation of a fairly simple, albeit technical point. However, there it is. I have made the points I want to make on the proposals, but I do not propose to put any of them to a vote tonight. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: 1, page 1, (Recitals) leave out lines 6 and 7. —(Bob Blackman.) Clause 5 Power for TfL to form and invest in limited partnerships Amendment made: 2, page 3, line 24, leave out clause 5.—(Bob Blackman.) Clause 6 Specified activities Amendments made: 3, page 4, line 19, leave out "or a limited partnership" Amendment 4, page 4, leave out line 21 and insert "a member; or" Amendment 5, page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38 Amendment 6, page 4, line 39, leave out "(c)" and insert "(b)".—(Bob Blackman.) Third Reading Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)