My Lords, the Minister and I have previously exchanged amicable words about the question of compensation and it is clear that the Government have an intention to bring forward regulations. However, the Bill does not strictly require that. The purpose of this amendment is to reverse the onus. In a previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who is not now in his place, wished to transfer ““must”” to ““may””. In this clause, I want to do it the other way round and substitute ““must”” for ““may””. The intention being what it is, I cannot see any difficulty in the Minister accepting this.
There are legitimate concerns, some of which we have heard today and previously, about the position of owners in relation to the possible losses that they might incur as a result of the processes created by the Bill. There is the question of delay, the loss of a potential purchaser and so on, and perhaps other expenses involved in contesting the situation. I appreciate that time is still running on this, but it would have been helpful to have had draft regulations. I hope that by the time we get to Report, there will be draft regulations because we need to be in a position to assure landowners, business owners and so on that there will be a proper scheme for compensation and a suitable method to adjudicate the amount in the event of a dispute. That is the purpose of my second amendment, Amendment 147EA, which would refer any contested issue to the district auditor—I beg your pardon, not the district auditor but the district valuer—as would be the case in relation to a compulsory purchase, with which this is an analogous situation.
As it is, the clause indicates that the regulations which might be made under it will deal with a range of matters with the widest possible discretion for the Secretary of State on compensation—the amount, who is to be entitled to it and so on—and, indeed, on the review of decisions made under the regulations. It would help the passage of the Bill and help reassure people with an interest if, by the time we get to Report, at least draft regulations could be tabled and discussed. In the mean time, perhaps some comfort could be given by going beyond the expressed intention of declaring that regulations will be made to accepting this amendment, which would require regulations to be made to deal with these matters. I beg to move.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Beecham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 7 July 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c425 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:45:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_758217
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_758217
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_758217