Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to announce the
details of any further Extraordinary Funding and Financing
Agreement for Transport for London (TfL) for the period after 24
June; and when they expect that there will be a long-term
solution to funding TfL.
(Con)
My Lords, the Government have repeatedly shown their commitment
to supporting London’s transport network since the start of the
pandemic, providing almost £5 billion in emergency funding to
Transport for London. The Government have committed to consider a
longer-term settlement, and we continue to discuss further
funding requirements with TfL. However, any future support
provided will focus on getting TfL back on to a sustainable
financial footing in a way that is fair to taxpayers across the
country.
(Lab)
My Lords, I regret to say that I cannot honestly thank the noble
Viscount for his reply. I was hoping that the Government would
take the opportunity to end the uncertainty facing Londoners,
both passengers and staff. Of course, it is not just Londoners;
people across the country depend on work from TfL and on London
as a key powerhouse of the UK economy. What we face is managed
decline, making a mockery of the Government’s purported policy of
levelling up. Will the Minister give a specific commitment to
support the necessary capital expenditure that the Transport
Secretary has acknowledged will be required in London as well as
in the rest of the country?
(Con)
To the extent that the noble Lord is right, he makes a very
important point: the London Underground transport system in
particular is one of the best in the world, and is recognised as
such. It is important that we continue to fund it wherever and
however we can. But this extraordinary funding, so defined, was
meant for a specific purpose, as a result of the revenue
shortfall due to the Covid-19 pandemic. I am well aware that
tomorrow is 24 June, although I regret that I am not able to tell
the House what extension, if any, can be announced today.
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister knows that clouding this process is the
absolutely appalling relationship between the Prime Minister and
his successor as mayor. As a result, the absence of long-term
funding is hitting not just passengers but business, as we have
heard, because TfL is not able to enter into the proper
procurement processes with companies all around the United
Kingdom. Without that, they are losing business. Will the
Minister join me in calling for the Prime Minister to step back
from this feud and enable a long-term deal to be done for TfL?
(Con)
The noble Lord knows full well that this is a matter for the
mayor and Transport for London. The department works closely with
TfL on a range of operational and policy issues, but negotiations
with trade unions and averting further industrial action on the
London Underground are a matter for the mayor and TfL. But the
noble Lord makes a good point; we are keeping a close eye on this
because it is important that Transport for London is funded
properly.
(Con)
My Lords, many of us who have a close and long association with
Transport for London would be deeply keen to see a long-term
settlement that covered both operating costs post Covid and the
necessary capital investment. But will my noble friend agree that
the games that have constantly been played by the Mayor of London
since this began, his failure to engage seriously with any
responsibilities, and his refusal to take difficult decisions are
at the heart of the failure of trust between him and Ministers?
Does my noble friend agree that TfL and its fine workforce are
suffering as a consequence?
(Con)
My noble friend makes a good point; supporting TfL and the staff
that work so hard for it is important. I say again that we remain
committed to supporting London’s transport system, but only on
the basis that TfL is returned to a position of financial
sustainability in the interests of the UK taxpayer. We are giving
some help, but it is important that outdated methods of working
are closely looked at. My noble friend is right that trust is the
main mantra.
(Lab)
My Lords, is it not a fact that it is the Government who have
been playing political games with TfL’s budget, as they do in so
many other areas? They are playing games by drip-feeding
resources and not engaging in good faith in the negotiations that
they say they want. When will the Government stop that and
instead provide the necessary funding to deliver the
transformation that the mayor, this House and all the passengers
in London look for?
(Con)
I totally take issue with the noble Lord; what he said is simply
not true. As I said earlier, this is a matter for the mayor and
Transport for London, and we have been helping where we can. I
say again that the matter is linked to financial sustainability
and TfL moving towards updating outdated issues—driverless trains
and other matters are being looked at.
(CB)
My Lords, what, if anything, is happening that might lead to the
reopening of Hammersmith Bridge in due course?
(Con)
I can give my noble friend—I think I can call him that—an update.
The Government remain committed to supporting both the London
Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and TfL in the repair of
Hammersmith Bridge. A first business case was approved, but there
is another stage whereby a further business case that is
compliant with Treasury rules has to be presented. It is
important that we remain committed to the reopening of
Hammersmith Bridge.
(Lab)
My Lords, the situation we face is extremely serious. This is not
just some transport issue; it is about London. London’s
integrated public transport system is absolutely crucial. We are
talking not just about domestic use but about London’s
international reputation: it is why firms are willing to locate
here in the financial district. I was involved in recovering
London transport from the managed decline of the 1970s—it took
three decades. This is not just about whether the mayor and Prime
Minister can agree with each other; it is about recognising that
we cannot be allowed to slip into that syndrome again. Can the
Minister assure me that this is the central objective of
government?
(Con)
I regret that I am not able to give an announcement on funding
beyond tomorrow, but the noble Lord is right that investment in
London benefits the economy and supply chain outside London. The
Government recognise the need for certainty and stability in
Transport for London’s capital investment programme, and remain
committed to supporting London. But TfL’s income for 2021-22,
including revenue from fares, road user charging, business rates
and council tax—and our emergency support—is about the same as it
was in the last year before the pandemic.
(Con)
Will my noble friend join me in congratulating the staff of, and
those working in, Transport for London on keeping the service
going so brilliantly during the pandemic, and on the way on which
it has been recovering?
(Con)
Most certainly. My noble friend is absolutely right: about 26,000
staff work for TfL, and they work extremely hard on our behalf.
As she pointed out, the difficulties that have arisen over the
pandemic have been quite extraordinary, and I pay tribute to the
staff on behalf of the Government.
The Lord Speaker ()
My Lords, we will now move on—oh, I am sorry, the noble Lord,
Lord West, wants to ask a question.
(Lab)
My Lords, one of the areas that has not received sufficient
investment is transport on the river, which I used during the
Tube strike the other day. It worked brilliantly, but there are
not enough boats—
Noble Lords
Ships!
(Lab)
Those are boats; ships are rather different. I will have to give
a seminar on that. But will there be any more investment in river
transport? In particular, will the Government not pass
legislation, given that rules implemented by the MCA are making
it impossible for some older and most marvellous heritage craft
to use the river?
(Con)
I also wish the river were used more; I am the beneficiary of it,
in that I use what I would call a ferry from Battersea Power
Station up to the London Eye. My understanding is that this
service is privately owned and not funded by the Government. The
noble Lord makes an extremely good point; it is a valuable
service, particularly during the strikes, when more people have
needed to use it. I hope that more people will look at the river
as a permanent means of transport.
