Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 53B: 53B: Clause 9, page 4, line 6, at end insert ““in a specific case”” The noble Baroness said: It seems that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has drawn the short straw, but I think that this will be a short exchange. Amendment No. 53B seeks to make clear what I understand to be the case from a number of comments already made by the Minister; namely, that compulsory powers are not to be granted in a general fashion, but only for specific cases. If that is so, this is one occasion where that assurance should see its way quite explicitly into the Bill. The use of compulsory powers is a serious matter, and having read this clause a number of times, I can see that it could be read as meaning only on a case-by-case basis, but it could also be read as meaning the grant of powers—I do not know if this is an appropriate use of the phrase—in extenso; rather more than case by case in any event. Amendment No. 54A, which is grouped, is an amendment to the schedule that deals with compulsory acquisition and is a somewhat narrower point. In what will be new Section 8 of the 1965 Act, substitute Clause (2)(b)(i) and (ii) states that there is, "““material detriment to the land””" if it consists, "““of a house, building or manufactory””," or, "““seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of a house””," where the land is, "““a park or garden belonging to the house””." My amendment seeks to understand the difference between ““seriously affecting”” and ““material detriment””. The object of the potential powers is obviously different between sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), but is the level of potential impact different, or is the difference only what is inherent in the different objects—or perhaps subjects? I hope that I am not being too telegraphic here because I am trying to be as quick as possible. It strikes me that the language used is different, but I am not sure what is meant by those differences. I beg to move.