Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-106)|
Wednesday 12 May 2004
MR PAUL THOMPSON of BIRCHAM DYSON BELL appeared as
100. JOHN AUSTIN: Just to follow Sir John's
point, notwithstanding the lack of any provision within this Bill
for compensation, if there were some freeholder who was completely
unaware of this process who suffered some subsequent loss, there
would be no loss of their rights of compensation under other legislation
101. MR THOMPSON: The Bill is entirely
neutral; it does not provide new rights of compensation and it
does not take any away where there are - it is silent on the subject.
The reference Mr Turner made a moment ago, in response to Sir
John, was to point out there is a power which local authorities
have, which Mr Turner believes allows compensation to be paid,
102. JOHN AUSTIN: But nothing in this
Bill infringes that right?
103. MR THOMPSON: No. That is an empowering
power, and we do not affect it.
104. CHAIRMAN: Can I thank you and your
colleagues? Perhaps you would not mind withdrawing for a few
moments while myself and other Members of the Committee deliberate.
We will try not to keep you too long.
The parties were asked to withdraw and,
after a short time, were again called in
105. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr
Thompson, and indeed thank you to your colleagues from Ipswich
Council who have joined you here today to answer questions from
the Committee. I am pleased to tell you that we propose to accept
the amendments to the Bill as it is. I would just add, I suppose,
that in looking at Section 3 of the Bill under "Designation
of market highways" and 2(b) there, about "consultation
with traders and any other interests likely to be affected by
the designation" that, perhaps, the points that have been
made here about consulting all the freeholders would be something
that could be taken into account by yourselves and the authority
in any further consultation exercise that you may wish or have
106. Would you, perhaps, therefore, confirm the
preamble to the Bill?