Greater London Authority Bill

I want to speak to the generality of the amendments where they refer specifically to the need to take guidance and not follow recommendations. My experience of these matters in Westminster, where I live—I stand here once again as a council tax payer—was to follow very closely developments over the Candy & Candy applications to build the Bowater House development in Knightsbridge. Under the freedom of information legislation, I secured from Westminster City Council all the background documents and reports that flowed between the Mayor’s office and Westminster and between the offices of the local authority and its members. I also gained access to the Section 106 agreement, which I have with me, and which was drawn up with the developer. It is quite clear to me, following that particular application, that there is resistance from some councillors within Westminster—I cannot speak for other boroughs—to social housing development within their wards. That is happening. I first came across this in 1991; I was one of the original objectors to the housing scandal in Westminster which, Members of the Committee might recall, involved Lady Porter’s influence. I was actually the original objector to the cemeteries campaign, which was essentially about the misuse of power within Westminster. We did all the original work and I made the original submission to the district auditor; I submitted 44 objections, which led to the inquiry. So what happens in Westminster greatly interests me. I am now convinced that this is going on still in its treatment of social housing applications. I have a massive document here and could spend all night reading on to the record the kind of material that has come my way. I hope that during this debate on housing, we are able to look at the way in which Section 106 agreements work. I am worried about the position—