Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Debate between Emily Thornberry and David Burrowes

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[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?

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

We are being distracted from one of the Bill’s main points, which is of concern to the hon. Lady’s constituents and mine. The explanatory notes to clause 4 state that, as fare payers and taxpayers, they are bearing the cost and the risk of the lack of

“capacity to finance projects and functions at the best available interest rate or at the lowest risk.”

If we do not give the Bill a safe passage, our constituents will continue to bear that risk. Is that acceptable?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Burrowes]

My fare-paying, tax-paying constituents— and the hon. Lady’s—will want to know whether future projects offer the best available interest rate at the lowest risk. Everyone wants that to be achieved. Would not clause 4 enable that to happen?

[Emily Thornberry]

I do not know that it would. It is vague in the extreme. In my view, it is inappropriate for a public company to go into partnership with public assets with who knows who—for us to take the risk of putting the assets out there and see who will put up the money. That is not the sort of slippery Joe operation we should deal with. We are talking about public land in my constituency in the centre of London, and frankly I do not want it to be controlled by the Russian mafia, for instance.

Legal Aid Reform

Debate between Emily Thornberry and David Burrowes

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My interest is as a criminal defence duty solicitor, so I have a particular interest in relation to the criminal legal aid proposals. It is important that we focus on this issue, but we should not have this debate in a vacuum. Certainly, yesterday’s statement ensures that we do not have a vacuum; there is a need to make the £11.5 billion saving, and legal aid cannot be exempt.

We also heard from the Chancellor that this is about fairness. Reference was made to the national health service as an institution that we can be proud of, that the people are proud of and that is about fairness. The legal aid system is also an institution that is about fairness. It is one that we can be proud of, but it is not one that in polls people say is a No. 1 priority. That makes it even more important that we as a Parliament and a Government make sure it has integrity, but it cannot be excluded from the Budget round.

Why can we proud of it? Members do not have to take my word for it. Just take the word of the Secretary of State, who has been maligned and caricatured in many ways, but I am convinced is open and is listening to this consultation. We need to take his word for it—

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Where is he?

[Mr Burrowes]

Let us not get into the “Where is he?” business, or who he meets with. Let us take this a bit more seriously. Let us listen to what he said in the document. He said:

“Access to justice should not be determined by your ability to pay, and I am clear that legal aid is the hallmark of a fair, open justice system.”

That is what we have all been saying throughout today’s debate. He went on to say:

“Unfortunately, over the past decade, the system has lost much of its credibility with the public. “

I look at the criminal legal aid system, predominantly in police stations and magistrates courts. The Secretary of State went on to say:

“Taxpayers money is being used to pay for frivolous claims, to foot the legal bills of wealthy criminals, and to cover cases which run on and on racking up large fees for a small number lawyers.”

The proposals seek to deal with that; for very high cost cases, I welcome that.

Police stations and magistrates courts have been under cost control for a number of years, with real-terms cuts. Is there evidence that the system has lost credibility with the public and we must change the system wholesale by introducing price competitive tendering? I think not. When we look at the elements of our system and ask what is delivering quality and what is making us proud of it, we see that it is the fact that it is based on the principle of choice. Yes, we can look at procurement going forward, but we cannot undermine the principle of choice.

When we look at those that I and others have represented over the years, we can characterise them as the good, the bad and the ugly. Choice ensures that the most heinous, wretched criminal is represented and has a choice of lawyer. The most worthy of saints also gets the choice of lawyer, without judgment or conditions. That is an important principle of which we can be proud. It means that, when dealing with the regular clients that I have represented over the years, we can enter a timely guilty plea, which is efficient; we can achieve a sentence that takes account of their mental health needs or drug needs and go the extra mile to make sure that they get drug rehabilitation.

We can also represent the young innocent because their parent has asked us to go down to the police station. They want to choose someone they trust, who can understand the person’s special educational needs, problems of communication or learning difficulties. They need their own solicitor to be involved. We must have choice, yes to protect the vulnerable but also to ensure quality, to ensure that there is a client base that is protected and maintained but also to ensure mutual trust and good will in the system.

Let us look at the costs of justice so that we can deliver efficiency. But let us also listen to the Ministry of Justice over the years, which has said that choice is the key deliverer of quality. Let us listen to Lord Carter, who conducted an independent review and said that choice had to be maintained. Let us also recognise our small firms, who make up three quarters of legal aid firms and do the business end—the 90% of cases that go through to magistrates courts. They are delivering out of good will—yes, they are paid, but a fairly limited wage—because they care about the system. They need to be maintained and encouraged. We need to go along with it, with a timetable and proper consultation so that we deliver an efficient justice system for the benefit of all.