Heathrow Airport: Public Consultation

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. This consultation is really just the latest consultation for Heathrow—the fruit of the poisoned tree. The issue has been heavily politicised over a long time, under successive Governments, but things really went wrong during the period of the Airports Commission. Prior to 2010, David Cameron made promises, which he then decided he did not want to keep, and we had the protracted and rather embarrassing saga of the commission stringing out the process, using assumptions that were already out of date, and producing a report that in the end said what the Government then wanted it to say and allowed them to change tack. Those are tactics that Heathrow has used for more than 30 years, and nothing really surprises me, but both the NPS consultations and the latest one are tarnished by that.

Nothing in this consultation, as my constituency neighbour to the west, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), has just said, tells us about flight paths. That is the key point that people want to know. Without that, it becomes an almost vacuous exercise. Yet we are not to know the flight paths, we are told, until 2021, after all the major decisions are made. There is nothing in the consultation about who will pay—particularly, as has been mentioned, who will pay the estimated £18 billion for public transport. Getting these glossy pamphlets through the door, as one does on a regular basis from Heathrow, sends the subliminal message, “This is a done deal. Get used to it. Get what you can out of it by way of mitigation.” It simply is not good enough.

The point on mitigation is interesting. We hoped that campaigns such as the one the Mayor of London is fighting; the action he is taking to improve air quality; advancements in air transport, which can lead to noise reduction; and planned improvements—such as Crossrail and upgrading the Piccadilly line—to public transport in London, would improve quality of life and enable Londoners to go about their business better, but they will all be sacrificed to mitigating the additional burdens, inconveniences and health hazards that Heathrow intends to inflict on us. Why should that be the case? Why should Londoners have to pay financially, through their health and through the inconvenience in their daily lives for this white elephant project to go ahead?

We are still talking about hub airports here, which to a large extent have had their day. There are alternatives. We are talking about London as if it was going to have a single airport, rather than a number of airports, each serving different areas, because of the size of the community in London and the south-east that they serve. It is no more than propaganda. It is out of date.

We have heard today that the financial figures have been looked at again. Let us see who we are serving here. We are serving a company that is 90% foreign-owned, that is debt-laden and that, as far as can see, pays no tax other than the VAT it pays on the sales from shops— increasingly it is a business in that way. We have opposition from the airlines that are unwilling to pay the greatly enhanced landing charges that will be levied in order to pay for this white elephant project. Everybody seems to pay except the shareholders of Heathrow Airport Holdings. Yet at the same time we are being told that Gatwick is a better option, not only, as we have always known, in relation to congestion, noise and pollution, but in terms of financial effects, both locally and on the national economy. There is very little left to recommend Heathrow as an option. Once again, as has been set out, we are going through a farce of a consultation.

I will end on that point. We will be here again, probably in another month, having another debate on Heathrow. We will be here in 10 years, wondering why London does not have additional airport capacity, as we wondered 10 years ago. The sooner the Government grasp the nettle, the better. I wait to hear with interest the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on the Front Bench. Very wisely, the Labour Front-Bench team has set a series of tests and not prejudged the issue. As time goes on, we will see that those tests will not be met. I hope to hear encouraging noises from my hon. Friend, as I often do.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

Very briefly.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I will be brief, because we do not have a lot of time. Clearly, we are discussing a national issue and concern, but there can be no doubt that housing is the No. 1 issue for London. Last year, prices rose by about 10% on average. The average price for a first-time buyer in London is now more than £400,000. No one can argue that Londoners today are not being priced out of their own city. It is no longer just a social problem—that point has already been made in relation to another city—because it jeopardises London’s economy as well.

The bottom line is that we need to build more and we need to build for people across the entire income spectrum. It is no good taking a polarised approach with a zero-subsidy option on the one hand and social housing on the other. We need to ensure that the market can accommodate young professionals, key workers and the like—people who perhaps do not qualify for social housing.

I was pleased with the Government’s interventions last week, with an emphasis on shared ownership, which will work around the country and have a particular impact in London. There is also going to be a London version of Help to Buy, which has been a very successful scheme nationally, but less successful in London, because we live in a different world here. The prices are so out of kilter with the rest of the country that that bespoke offer will have an impact. Finally, we have the two-for-one amendment under discussion.

I have a few questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. Amendment 112 requires that two new affordable homes be built for every single high-value council home sold as a consequence of the extension of the right to buy. That is based on my amendment, as has been acknowledged, and I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his diligence in making it work.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Zac Goldsmith]

Just give me a moment, please.

When my hon. Friend the Minister wraps up on this group of amendments, will he update the House on his discussions with London’s local authorities about how they will be able to work together to deliver the homes that London needs? I know that he has been having discussions with council leaders from all the different parties in both inner and outer London. It would be good to have an update.

May I ask my hon. Friend about housing associations? They are absolutely essential to the delivery of the next generation of homes. I believe that the G15, the group of 15 London housing associations, has already committed to delivering a one-for-one replacement of any home that is sold, but it has also said—it has told me this—that it could deliver a great deal more.

[Zac Goldsmith]

In just one moment, if the hon. Lady does not mind.

The G15 would even be able to replace each home sold with two new homes, provided that the Government give it the flexibilities it is asking for and, even more importantly, access to public sector land. Will the Minister commit to looking carefully at the flexibilities for which housing associations are asking, and will he look at the most critical issue, which is access to public sector land?

As my hon. Friend knows—he can take some credit for it, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—the London Land Commission is now live. It will provide a complete inventory of all publicly owned brownfield land in London, and we will have the figures shortly. We do not have all the details yet, but we know that an enormous amount of publicly owned brownfield land could be developed. We know that to build the homes we need, such land absolutely must be released, so it would be useful to hear from the Minister, when he wraps up the debate, whether he has a likely timetable. When will we have the full picture, and what will be the process for releasing that land both to housing associations and to developers?

[Andy Slaughter]

rose—

[Zac Goldsmith]

I said I would let the hon. Gentleman intervene, and I will let him do so before I finish my speech.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he agrees that the forced sale of empty council properties is a good idea or a bad idea? If it goes ahead, does he agree that those properties should be replaced with like-for-like in the same local authority area? Is that his position?

[Zac Goldsmith]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I stood on a manifesto that included a commitment to extending the right to buy to housing association tenants. That is the right policy: it will enable hundreds of thousands of people to achieve home ownership who would otherwise not be able to do so.

Airports Commission: Final Report

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) on her speech and on promoting me to a right hon. Member. Giving the looming decision on Heathrow, that has never been less likely, but I thank her all the same.

Big infrastructure is always disruptive. That is why we are having this debate, because whenever a big infrastructure project is discussed, it always causes pain. Often, however, the gain justifies that pain. Clearly that is the view of those who support Heathrow expansion, but I implore them to look properly at the costs and benefits of this project before taking a view, because I think the figures speak for themselves.

Let me revisit some of the cost—much of it has already been discussed, so I will be brief. Noise is the principal concern. Heathrow is already Europe’s biggest noise polluter by far—720,000 people are already affected, and a third runway would increase flights from 480,000 to around 740,000 a year and affect well over 1 million people. In addition, people would lose half the respite periods, which they treasure, because those would be cut from eight hours to four hours.

When Heathrow says that fewer people will be impacted by noise under an expanded airport with a third runway, that merely tells us that Heathrow as a company is so used to getting its way with the Government that it no longer feels the need even to appear reasonable. The Government have admitted—we might get clarity on this later in the debate—that they have not analysed the impact of noise on residents if Heathrow expands. I do not believe that they have even seen the proposed flight paths, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that point later in the debate.

Then there is pollution. With only two runways, air pollution around Heathrow already massively exceeds existing legal limits. A third runway would see 75 million more people using the airport and travelling to and from it—Transport for London believes that an extra runway would add 25 million more lorry and car journeys each year. Nobody in the world believes that Heathrow expansion can be reconciled with any of the aspirations, legal or otherwise, on air quality—nobody except Heathrow that is, which tells us that a third runway would take place with a zero increase in car movements. It is hard even to know how to respond to that assertion.

Howard Davies has begun to nuance his position on air quality on the back of the Volkswagen scandal, because the data on which he based his assumptions have been revealed to be entirely fraudulent. A few days ago he said to a Committee of MPs, including me:

“I do think the Government will need to satisfy itself on this particular point, clearly some things have moved on. The Government will need to satisfy itself that this can be safely done.”

The financial cost has already been mentioned, and we have an unlikely new ally in this campaign in the form of Willie Walsh, the head of BA. He described the proposed costs as “outrageous”, and said that they make the project impossible and undeliverable. If we consider surface transport costs alone, he is obviously right. How do we accommodate 25 million extra road passenger journeys per year? The Airports Commission puts the cost at £6 billion, while Heathrow puts it at £l billion. Transport for London has put that cost at around £20 billion—it goes on, and on.

That is just some of the downside, and it is big. People might consider accepting that downside if the economic case was utterly overwhelming, but what is amazing about the Howard Davies report is that it makes the economic case against Heathrow expansion for us. There is a giant gap between the report and the conclusion it reaches. It is as if Howard Davies began with a conclusion, spent £20 million and three years—or however long it took—cobbling together analysis, data and information, and then stuck the same conclusion on the end of the report.

In the report Howard Davies tells us that in the most optimistic scenario, an expanded Heathrow would give us just 12 additional international routes. Even worse, much of the additional activity—if not all of it—would be at the expense of neighbouring airports such as Stansted and Gatwick. In other words, we would not be creating new activity; we would be centralising existing activity. We would be recreating the old monopoly—a giant, foreign-owned, subsidised monopoly on the edge of our city. It is a pitifully small upside, even more so when compared with the colossal dose of pain that Heathrow expansion encompasses.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, including on the Airport Commission report. We are where we are, however, and a choice has to be made. It is a binary choice the Government will make within, we are told, the next three or four weeks. Is he going further than his previous position and does he support the second runway at Gatwick, the only credible other option on the table?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I noticed the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) briefing the hon. Gentleman with that question a few moments ago. I will answer that point, but I have to say that the position of the right hon. Member for Tooting on this issue seems to ebb and flow with the weather. He seems to say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience. His position on Heathrow is about as authentic as Donald Trump’s hair, and the same applies to his position on almost every issue on which he has opined in the past few months. Nevertheless, I will answer the question.

The alternative to monopoly, which is what is proposed as the first choice of the Howard Davies commission, is competition. We know competition works. We only have to look at Gatwick to know that competition works: it has become a better airport. It has opened up routes to places we were told it would not be able to open routes up to, including Hanoi, Jakarta and two routes to China. Competition is the answer.

Despite coming down in favour of monopoly, even Howard Davies has acknowledged that the third runway would stifle growth at the other airports. He has said:

“a competing airport system is right for London”.

So how do we encourage that? We invest in transport links to, from and between the three main airports in London. If and when—as is likely—we have a capacity problem, we expand. We do not expand at Heathrow, however; we expand at a place in such a way that maximises rather than suffocates competition. That has always been my position: today, as it has been in any number of articles, interviews and comments. I have always come down in favour of competition, because it is the obvious answer.

Housing (London)

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Slaughter]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, of course, budgets and housing benefit would have been reviewed, but he is wrong to think that a Labour Government would have been party to the mass eviction of hundreds of families from areas in which their children attend school and they have low-paid jobs. We are talking not about indolent people but those doing low-paid essential jobs in inner London. Before the hon. Gentleman gets on his high horse, he should think about the consequences of his Government’s policy.

Far more fundamental in the long term will be the review of social housing policy. I almost admire the speed at which the Government have moved to ring the death knell of social housing. There has been consensus on that policy certainly since the second world war, and in the charitable sector since the beginning of the last century. That, however, is not good enough for this Tory-led Government.

There are four principal changes. The first is the introduction that I alluded to earlier of near-market rents for new lettings. In London, they will effectively be unaffordable, even to those on average incomes. Rent for two and three-bedroom flats in Hammersmith will rise by three or three and a half times. The second is the two-year tenancy. The speed of their introduction is amazing. I printed a leaflet to warn tenants that the Government might be introducing five-year tenancies, but before I was able to deliver it they had introduced two-year tenancies. The third element is the almost complete collapse of capital funding for the social sector.

As I mentioned earlier, there is the end of the requirement to provide permanent housing in the long term, with the private sector being used to discharge housing need obligations. If, God forbid, the Government were elected for another term, within 10 years there would not be a recognisable social rented sector left in this country. The proud tradition of providing affordable good-quality homes for people on low and average incomes will be gone, and a fundamental part of the welfare state and the post-war settlement will be gone with it.

Finally, let me turn to planning policy, which is a slightly trickier area to consider. I accept what Government Members say about the previous Government’s record in this regard. Over the past 40 years, our record on building sufficient numbers of high-quality affordable homes in this country has not been good. It is almost as if we lost the will to build such homes in the 1970s. In my constituency, we have good examples of the estates and properties that were built in the 20th century: the “homes for heroes” in the 1920s, the “garden” estates in the 1930s and the good quality brick-built council estates of the 1940s and 1950s. We even have some 1960s properties, which, although they have gained a bad reputation, are generally solidly built to Parker Morris standards. They are popular with people who live in them, even if they have not been maintained properly over the years.

The consensus on the will to build good quality council and housing association properties in sufficient quantities has gone. Individual local authorities—including, I hope, my own when it was under Labour control—did their bit and had to be resourceful in doing so. For example, there were the infill developments. We saw building on existing estates, public land being given to people who were prepared to build affordable housing, and building on top of supermarkets. We managed to build about 3,000 good, affordable units over a period of years, but it was a struggle. I do not pretend that it is easy to build social rented houses in areas of high land prices. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said, for many people—even those on average and above average income—social rented housing is the only type of affordable housing. The definitions of affordability in London have been stretched to ridiculous lengths. The Mayor and some councils say that an income of £70,000 to £80,000 qualifies under the affordable definition, because the types of discounts available on properties for sale or for rent in new developments demand such an income. I am sorry, but I do not accept that people who earn £80,000 a year are in housing need—even in London—which is the perverse definition of my own council.

The problem of planning development is slightly more complicated. At the moment—and the debate is opportune for this reason—London councils are going through their process of approving local development frameworks, which replace the unitary development plans. In preparing for this debate, I looked at my own borough’s LDF, which may or may not be typical, and it appears to give good news. It seems to say that it will build 13,000 houses over the next 20 years, with a maximum of 20,000 allowable. However, when I examined those figures I found that what is actually planned goes well beyond them.

Perhaps the biggest new development under planning consultation in London is the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area, which the LDF says could provide about 2,000 new homes, at least in Hammersmith, over the next 20 years. The developer says it will provide 8,000 homes over the next five to 10 years. The Hammersmith town centre development, which is somewhat misnamed because it includes areas way outside the town centre, including the historic riverside—the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) may be interested in this because he has written about it—is not one development but a string of developments along the riverside. The traditional low-rise buildings of this historic area are being converted into hideous tower blocks of luxury one and two-bedroom apartments. We have seen such developments springing up along many parts of the river on the south side of the Thames. The apartments are built principally for people coming from abroad or for those who wish to have a London pied-à-terre in addition to accommodation elsewhere. We are talking about buildings that are not just at the top of the market, but above it. The LDF for Hammersmith says that over 20 years, up to 1,000 new homes will be built in this area. Some 1,300 homes are currently being built or are under planning consideration for this area, so that target appears to have been exceeded already.

What we are seeing in planning terms, certainly in central London and in my part of London, is a development grab. Those parts of land that might be available for affordable and sustainable development in the future are being cannibalised for luxury high-rise blocks. Some of the blocks on the riverside are up to 15 storeys, and some in the west Kensington area are up to 30 storeys or more. That is a massive increase in residential units, but they are exactly the wrong type of residential units for the local population and will not meet housing need in London. That is a scandal and a misuse of planning powers. Of my local authority, the developer of the Hammersmith riverside says:

“Now the council says it is ‘open for business’, and I think they are—that’s why the development community has embraced the new administration”.

You bet they have. Helical Bar, the developer of the Hammersmith riverside development, has a dispensation to have no affordable housing in it whatever; in fact, there will be a net loss of affordable housing because trust properties for visually impaired people will be demolished to make way for the skyscrapers.

Mr Slade, the founder of Helical Bar, gave £20,000 to the Mayor in the run-up to his election campaign. He made this very prescient comment:

“You do run the thin line of someone saying: I am doing this to have access and influence, but that was what politics was always about. It is a little unfair, but there must be 20 per cent truth in it.”

Helical Bar wants to build high-rise flats in outer London. It now has that consent on the way despite the opposition not just of the hon. Member for Richmond Park, but of almost all my constituents, who do not want to see the destruction of their living environment and of the things they hold dear. They want to see not luxury high-rise flats, but affordable homes for themselves and their children.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the nature of this development. As he knows, I have spoken on the record about it and submitted a number of objections. However, is it not true that the decision comes from the local authority and is not one over which the Mayor has any influence at all?

[Mr Slaughter]

The developments I am talking about are of sufficient size and scale to require the Mayor’s approval, or the Greater London authority’s dispensation regarding factors such as their height and their not containing affordable housing. In addition to the town hall development to which the hon. Gentleman refers, there are other developments along the river. St George has just decided it wants to build 750 similar properties with no affordable housing in them just south of Hammersmith Broadway, and has its eye on redeveloping a council estate, which the council may wish to demolish, for luxury housing. We are not talking about not enough being done to promote affordable housing in London, or about neglect or negligence. We are talking about a concerted policy to socially engineer areas by demolition, and the removal of social housing units in London and their replacement with luxury, small high-rise developments. The ability to build in London for London’s population will not exist again for another generation. That is the real damage being done by this Tory-led Government and their creatures in town halls around London. I am afraid that that is the depressing message.

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said. I fear that the news, when one looks at the situation on the ground, is actually worse than inaction: it is the deliberate destruction of the consensus on housing policy that has sustained this country for many decades.