Greater London Authority Bill

One of the problems with housing debates is that they bring out the sharp divisions that exist between us politically. I see the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in his place, which makes me think of the occasions over the past 20-odd years on which I have agreed with him about many issues that have come before Parliament. But when it comes to a matter like this, we are divided in our understanding of what is important in particular communities. It is unfortunate, although perhaps in part I have myself provoked some of those divisions. I want to comment on something that happened during the course of our debates yesterday. There is often a sense of, ““Should we be dealing with specific cases or applications when considering legislation of this nature?””. Sometimes we used to have that in the Commons; people would frown on constituency speeches in the context of general legislation. I have always thought that the only way you can test whether legislation is going to work is by producing concrete examples. That is why the Westminster experience is absolutely critical to the whole debate. We would do well to reflect on what has happened in Westminster when considering this area of the Bill. I agree completely with Amendment No. 94, just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Indeed, I would say to my noble friend at the Dispatch Box that I hope we take it on board. My noble friend may say that this provision is effectively already in the legislation, but I like to see things laid down in cold print so that people understand clearly what is happening, who is to be consulted, and what will be the product of that consultation. I am even marginally sympathetic to Amendment No. 96, but perhaps that is something we could return to on Report. However, I can seeno possible reason why we should not acceptAmendment No. 94 which deals with what I regard to be the very legitimate concerns of those who may be wondering what we are doing here. I should like to add something to the amendment, under subsection (c), which states, "““the member of the Assembly whose constituency covers the land subject to the application””." Going back to the Bowater application, Members of the Committee may recall that yesterday I drew attention to the problem of affordable housing provision made available offsite, perhaps half a mile or a mile away, but where local authority Members are not even aware of what is happening. That is because a Section 106 agreement is too general. The detail is in the minds of the planning officers in the authority. They know exactly what is going to happen, but what happens if the councillors in the ward where the provision is to be made are not aware of it? It is not that I object in principle to social and affordable housing provision being made all over Westminster. As I said yesterday, I am in favour of a balance in every community, but local councillors should know what is happening. The reason is this: if we are going to drive more affordable housing onsite as against offsite, you need the pressure from within the communities that are being asked to receive offsite those applications to help the authority argue the case for the affordable housing to be onsite. Perhaps I could correct something that I said yesterday. I referred to a flat costing £87 million. Actually, I was wrong: "““London flat goes for a record £100 m””." I quote from an article: "““If you’re struggling to get your foot on the property ladder spare a thought for a poor soul who is so far up it he needs an oxygen tank just to breathe. The world’s most expensive flat has just been sold in London for £100 million according to reports. Sheikh Hamad, the foreign minister of the Gulf State of Qatar, is behind the purchase of the penthouse home in the most exclusive block in the world—One Hyde Park. The apartment is one of86 luxury flats being built on the edge of Hyde Park opposite Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge””." The article goes on to tell the reader how wonderful the flats are. My case is very simple. The people in areas that are receiving offsite provision should be part of the lobby on the authority to drive the authority into making sure that the affordable and social housing provision is onsite. It takes us back to where we were yesterday, when the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, said: "““When I saw the overall recommendation of the director of Shelter about what the percentage of affordable housing should be in such planning applications””—" I hope the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is listening to me.