Transport for London: Funding

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Catherine West

Monday 30th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Five minutes is quite a generous allocation compared with many other occasions, so I thank you very much for that, and I thank the Petitions Committee for facilitating this debate.

I also thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening the debate, but I must say that his speech was disappointing. It crudely politicised the issue, and we know why—because there is a mayoral election next year and the Conservative party has a pretty duff candidate. I know as much because he ran against me in Hammersmith in 2010. He is 20% behind in the polls, so there we have it. And now I am making a political speech, but that is what happens. These issues, whether they affect our individual constituencies or London as a whole, are ones on which we should be able to reach agreement. TfL’s revenue fell by 90% as a consequence of covid, so to go around pretending that it is something to do with this or that decision by the Mayor is, frankly, ridiculous, and makes the public think we are ridiculous. When such points are made in a debate in this place, we have to rebut them, meaning that we then go around in ever-decreasing circles and end up where we are. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose to take that position.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend accept an intervention on that point?

[Andy Slaughter]

I will accept one intervention; I can never refuse my hon. Friend.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend find it curious that the introductory speech failed to mention the expenditure on the garden bridge?

[Andy Slaughter]

Again, this is where we are going: I hope the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is now shamefacedly regretting making his opening speech in that way.

If I may be indulged, I will speak for a couple of minutes on the general issue and then a couple of minutes on something very dear to my heart and to those of many other hon. Members in south-west London—namely, Hammersmith bridge.

The figures show that the current Mayor managed TfL’s finances immeasurably better than his predecessor, and indeed in a very efficient way. The operating deficit was reduced by more than 70%, the cash balance increased by 30%, and the fares freeze was wonderful for London, as opposed to the 42% rise in fares overseen by the previous Mayor. If we had not had the fares freeze, there would be a bigger gap to fill now, so even basic maths seems to escape Government Members when they talk about these issues.

A bail-out was necessary—does any hon. Member present deny that a bail-out was necessary or appropriate? —but we have to have six-month bail-outs. We cannot have a longer-term one to allow better planning, because of course the Government want to keep this story running and have another artificial row, with a 17 minutes to midnight, last-minute piece of blackmail just when the election is coming up. It really is that transparent, and the way in which the Government are dealing with this issue is, frankly, not worthy. I wish they would stop politicking in this obvious way, because the only people who suffer are our constituents.

The Government have targeted TfL’s progressive policies, such as the under-18s travel card, the over-60s travelcard—perhaps I should declare an interest as of about a month ago—and the congestion charge. I remember the huge fuss about the congestion charge extension and the calls to withdraw it, but suddenly the Government want it to be extended to the north and south circular roads— which, by the way, would virtually bring London to a halt.

Please can we just have a little bit of common sense? Nowhere is that needed more than on the issue of Hammersmith bridge—a major strategic river crossing. It is a concern not just to me as the Member for Hammersmith, but to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson)—we will hear from her later—and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who will be here, if possible. It affects a whole swathe of London and the south-east. I had a debate on that subject in March and I thought that we were making some progress, but it is always groundhog day.

TfL and Hammersmith and Fulham Council were making progress in drawing up a full schedule of repairs for the bridge, but the taskforce set up by the Government has brought everything shuddering to a halt, as taskforces so often do. It is a national, if not international, embarrassment that we cannot repair a major river crossing. It will cost a lot of money—more than £150 million—but every day I look at the bridges Minister’s Twitter feed, she announces another £100 million here and there for road and bridge schemes around the country. On average, about 85% to 90% of that is paid by central Government, but apparently that does not go for Hammersmith bridge. I hope all London Members will support me in saying that it is about time that the Government set an example on a major piece of London infrastructure, which can be funded only through central Government. TfL, Hammersmith and Fulham Council, and Richmond Council do not have the means to do it. It needs to be funded now.

Last week, the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council announced a proposal by Sir John Ritblat and Norman Foster for a very innovative scheme to put a temporary crossing in place that would, in a relatively short period, allow traffic to go over and under the river at that point. That work was done by the local authority, working with the private sector. It still needs funding, and unless we have that funding quickly, my constituents and many others across London will continue to suffer not for weeks or months but years without the basic facility that that provides.

This is an extraordinary dereliction of duty by the Government, for patently party political reasons. The Secretary of State and the Conservative mayoral candidate announce every five minutes, “Don’t worry. Just vote for us and you can have the money.” I am afraid that does not cut any ice. My constituents and others want the bridge repaired. They do not want silly party political squabbles and game-playing. Let us have a response to that. If we can get it from the Minister today, that would be most helpful.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Catherine West

Monday 1st April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. May I put it on record how proud I am that Hornsey and Wood Green currently ranks as the constituency with the second-highest number of signatories to the petition to revoke article 50? That is the main argument that I will make in this debate, because I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute.

[Andy Slaughter]

I cannot compete with my hon. Friend—Hammersmith has only 22,346 signatories, although that is 30% of my constituents. However, I must observe that even New Forest East, whose hon. Member stormed out earlier, has 7,245 signatories. Is it not shameful that hon. Members cannot represent their constituents, who are desperate for a resolution and for us to take the lead?

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is correct. Even though a very small percentage of my constituents voted to leave the EU, I have tried to engage with them and talk about what happened in the election and why they felt like that. That is the spirit that we need to move towards as a Parliament, but it is difficult to do that when hon. Members leave the Chamber.

On the Saturday after 23 June 2016, I hired a small room in the old Hornsey town hall for any EU nationals who wanted to discuss their worries with me. When I opened the door, it was biblical: 500 people had come. They were not all connected to the EU in a personal way; for some, it was just a general feeling. That is the sort of constituency I have, but I still want to engage with those who hold the opposite argument, who may feel just as passionately even though there are fewer of them. I hope that this debate will take place in a spirit of co-operation and of listening to one another.

When 1 million people took to the streets of London on 23 March, it was quite an amazing day. Only last Monday, MPs voted to take control of the Order Paper in response to a Government who have failed to deliver a deal that protects the interests of the British people. Yesterday, the petition that we are debating surpassed 6 million signatures—as it is 1 April, Mr McCabe, you may be amused to hear that this morning my other half came into the room and said, “It’s at 9 million!” I leapt out of bed and he said, “April fool.” At least we can try to maintain a sense of humour in these difficult days.

We know that the Prime Minister intends to make a fourth attempt at bringing her deal back—possibly on Wednesday, although the Minister may enlighten us further—and tonight MPs will take part in a second round of indicative votes. It seems completely nonsensical that the people should be prohibited from speaking again at this moment of intense crisis.

Nearly three years have passed since the narrow result, and we understand from commentators that with every passing week a further £600 million is wiped off the national economy. How can something like new computer systems for our ports—to give one example from my time on the International Trade Committee—be more important than providing free dental care for children in our most deprived areas, free university education for our students or the crucial funds that our local authorities need to fight knife crime? There are so many things that £600 million per week could be used for—it is enough to make one weep.

Each hour, £171,000 is spent on preparing for a no-deal Brexit, which we know would have a devastating effect on the economy and inflict disproportionate harm on deprived communities. To put it into context, that money could be spent on recruiting 85,000 nurses, 50,000 teachers or 49,000 police officers—a move that would begin to repair the damage done by eight-and-a-half years of austerity.

On 14 March, the Commons voted to extend article 50—an important step to ensure that the UK did not crash out of the EU last Friday. That action was necessary, but it is not a long-term solution. There are now 271 hours left of the short extension to article 50, so we must ensure that we have an insurance policy to protect the UK from a catastrophic no-deal scenario. As other hon. Members have said, that insurance policy is the revocation of article 50.

I was proud to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), not least because he chairs the International Trade Committee, on which I sat until recently—I am sure that hon. Members will correct my faulty Gaelic pronunciation of his constituency. Many hon. Members present will be giving a lot of thought to a similar motion on the Order Paper this evening, which was tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and has the same aim. If we are heading towards no deal, revocation seems the most sensible, straightforward and logical course of action. Her amendment would not preclude hon. Members from continuing to pursue a second referendum, as I shall, or from advocating a Norway or Canada-style deal.

I am proud to be voting for the revocation amendment tonight, along with the second referendum amendment that it will enable. I encourage all hon. Members to join me in the Aye Lobby—although I feel that I may be speaking to the converted in this funny debate, in which the Minister, as the only Conservative Member, is looking a little lonely.

Future of Legal Aid

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Catherine West

Thursday 1st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter]

That is not something we discussed during the passage of LASPO, because the impact on criminal law seemed relatively mild compared with the effect on civil law, but that came afterwards. Now, eligibility restrictions and the reduced availability of legal aid practitioners as a result of cuts mean that people often go into court unrepresented, even in quite serious matters, which of course increases the risk of miscarriages of justice.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of the Government’s policies has not fallen evenly on all members of the population and that women have been particularly affected? Often, they will represent themselves and be repeatedly brought back to court by a perpetrator, perhaps their ex-partner, and have to face the trauma all over again. That has been a particularly damaging result of the changes introduced by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Rightly, more attention has been focused on domestic violence than on perhaps any other single issue. Although changes have been made, they are nugatory as far as the Government are concerned. In many cases, women are still being victimised because of the changes that LASPO introduced, against the assurances given at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend identifies the fact that by pulling away parts of the legal aid structure, the whole thing has collapsed in many areas. It is often the case that one problem, which may be housing or debt, is caused by another solvable problem, which is the lack of welfare benefits. Because they are not in receipt of welfare benefits, someone who would otherwise be eligible for legal aid may not qualify under the eligibility rules, and therefore the whole thing spirals down.

As I was saying, I have three specific requests. There are other discrete issues that I wish to mention and I will say a bit more about those in a minute, but I would like some indication from the Minister, when she responds to the debate, that at least these three specific requests are being considered as part of the review.

LASPO was billed as having four objectives,

“to discourage unnecessary and adversarial litigation at public expense; to target legal aid at those who need it most; to make significant savings to the cost of the scheme; and to deliver better overall value for money for the taxpayer.”

The Ministry of Justice predicted that the budget for the legal aid bill would be cut by £350 million. It promised that there would be innovative ways in which advice and legal services would be offered, allowing costs to be cut while still maintaining access to justice.

There was, however, little of substance. Instead, LASPO swept away 60 years of the development of legal aid, taking almost all private family law and most of social welfare law out of scope, introducing onerous restrictions on eligibility, and turning on its head the principle of a right to advice and representation. Now, matters would be eligible for legal aid only if expressly allowed by the schedule to the Act.

Later, criminal legal aid got the LASPO treatment. It did not feature in any detail in the original Bill, but subsequent secondary legislation introduced cuts of a similar scale for crime, opening up the prospect of advice deserts and, as we have already touched on, miscarriages of justice, where defendants do not meet eligibility criteria but cannot afford representation.

[Catherine West]

On the narrow point of advice deserts, does my hon. Friend agree that some London boroughs are appreciative of the Bar’s pro bono unit and the free representation it offers, and indeed, in my borough’s case, of the St James’s Church Legal Advice Centre in Muswell Hill, where the excellent Peter Thompson, who is not 21 anymore but still gives legal free aid, works? However, access to justice is a genuine issue in other parts of the country, where retired solicitors are simply unable to provide that kind of support.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, however good pro bono services are, they cannot replace legal aid and it would be wrong to say that they could. Secondly, I will give an example of a letter I received in preparation for this debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas)—who is in attendance and is himself a distinguished solicitor—may want to comment on. It says that in north Wales only two firms are contracted to do mental health work, in an area with eight hospitals with mental health services, and only one firm is doing community care—that is, social and health care law. That situation is far from untypical.