---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

I am grateful for what the Minister said, and I look forward perhaps to having some correspondence with him. There are two general questions. First, I am not clear at all about whether, if the HCA owns a common as owner, it is or will be subject, either through the Commons Act, regulations, or whatever, to the same regime as any other owner of a common. If it is not, what are the differences? That is the first question, which underlies the first amendment. On the second amendment, I am grateful for what the Minister said about equivalent land being provided from a compulsory purchase. The question is whether, if land is not compulsorily purchased but purchased by agreement, it is possible to legislate that the same provisions for equivalent replacement land should apply. That question may not be about the HCA at all; it may be about public authorities generally compulsorily purchasing or acquiring commons by agreement for development. Like the other issues that have been raised, the HCA and the Bill offer a convenient opportunity to raise the issue. If the HCA acquires common land by agreement for development, it ought to provide equivalent common land. The advice that I have from the Open Spaces Society is that that is not in the legislation at the moment. Can that therefore be looked at?