Of course, we appreciate the motives behind the tabling of these amendments but we do not think that they are necessary. We cannot see any reason why the commons registration authority would not act with due speed to amend the register as a result of an order from the Secretary of State or National Assembly, but to require them to do so within a specified period, irrespective of the circumstances, would be inappropriate.
I am unclear how the amendments would necessarily improve on the position already set out in the Bill. In the case of a straightforward amendment to the register, we would expect the authority to act promptly on receiving an order, and a delay of 40 days may seem excessive. However, if the amendment were not carried out within 40 days, what sanction would arise? By virtue of Clause 16(9), the Bill already provides that the exchange land application is not effective until the registration authority has amended its register, so there would be no obvious penalty if the authority failed to comply.
I am happy to tell the noble Baroness that we can also provide strong advice to registration authorities to register an exchange expeditiously by dealing with the matter in a local authority circular. On that basis, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Commons Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 1 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Commons Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c33-4GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:06:34 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280308
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280308
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_280308