Housing and Regeneration Bill

We resist these amendments, but for good reasons which I shall explain carefully. The first amendment relates to the exercise of the HCA’s compulsory purchase powers. Clause 9(2) sets out that: "““The HCA may acquire land compulsorily if the Secretary of State authorises it to do so””." The amendment moved by the noble Baroness seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State’s authorisation can be given only for specific cases. I hope that I can reassure her that the amendment is not required. Compulsory purchase orders can only be applied to land specified in the order. Individual CPOs must be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation, and I can assure the Committee that nothing in the Bill will change that. The Secretary of State will not be able to give the HCA a general consent to make CPOs as and when it pleases; they would relate very specifically. Amendment No. 54A concerns the compulsory purchase of land belonging to a house. The law as it stands, which I am sure the noble Baroness understands better than me, addresses the situation in which a local authority wishes to compulsorily purchase only part of or a piece of land, perhaps consisting of a park or garden attached to a house, while the owner is able and willing to sell the whole of the relevant land, including the house. According to the current legislation, if the local authority is to be required to purchase all the land, the Lands Tribunal needs to be satisfied that the land cannot be purchased, "““without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house””." The same provision, including the ““seriously affecting”” test, is made for the HCA in Schedule 2, so we plan to carry over what is currently there. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was after something rather different from what we initially understood she was seeking to achieve from the amendment. As I understand it, the noble Baroness wanted to secure the difference between ““material detriment”” and ““seriously affecting””. That is a very technical point about appropriate levels of compensation. I would like to take that issue away and examine it so that we can put in writing for her something that explains exactly how we see that technical point and how we judge that difference. I do not want to put something on the record today that is not helpful. I think she is trying to be helpful in seeking clarification with her amendment.