ACQUISITION BY HOUSING ACTION TRUST (Hansard, 27 June 1988)

§ Mr. Spearing
I beg to move amendment No. 405, in page 51, line 15, leave out `by agreement or'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 342 to 344.

§ Mr. Spearing
My amendment relates to further acquisitions by HATs. Not only can they acquire property by virtue of the statutory instruments that have already been discussed, but under this clause they can take land designated "by agreement". Although that might appear to be reasonable, "by agreement" does not necessarily mean a willing buyer or a willing seller in the usual sense. The Secretary of State might, for example, say to a local authority, "If you behave yourself and co-operate with the HAT and let it have your land by agreement rather than by compulsory purchase order, we might favourably consider some other issue."
In addition, as the HAT will have planning permission, it can offer a considerable inducement. An area of rundown shops in Tarling road, Custom house, in my constituency is owned by the local authority. Perhaps it will be taken over by a HAT or, at some time in the future, there may be planning permission for the use of those shops in the nearby docklands redevelopment, and that could be held out as an inducement. The Minister must say how such agreement is envisaged, how it will work and what inducements might be offered to gain an agreement that might not otherwise be gained.

§ Mr. Waldegrave
I genuinely find it difficult to understand precisely to what the hon. Gentleman is objecting in a HAT acquiring land by agreement. The hon. Gentleman, even more than I, will know that there have been one or two cases of the London Docklands development corporation and the local authority getting together to take reasonable steps to improve the neighbourhood. That might have involved the LDDC buying a little land as part of a sensible piece of land assembly. I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman could object to that.
As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will acknowledge, the Government amendments are a response to a commitment given in Committee that the acquisition powers given to HATs would be limited in the way that the urban district council powers were limited in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

§ Mr. Spearing
I understand why the Government have introduced their amendments. However, the Minister appears not to realise that what he referred to as an agreement between the local authority and the LDDC is not necessarily viewed as such in the area. A block of flats in my constituency known as Barnwood court was the subject of discussions about possible agreement on alternative accommodation—but it was certainly not an agreement in the view of the local population.
The amendment highlights the fact that the clause puts the HAT in a position of considerable leverage and power, which is not compatible with the usual democratic local government. Having made my point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.