Before the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, replies—again, I apologise for detaining the Committee for a moment—may I ask about compensation? I do not want to labour the point. Does my noble friend agree that Parliament has made provision over the years for payment of adequate compensation for dispossessed incumbents who sustain losses as a result of changes in regulatory rules on the application of regulatory policy? Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said earlier, there are lots of examples of compensation being paid—for example, in the energy market restructuring, in the introduction of retail competition in the water market and in the regulation of telecommunications. Indeed, the PTAs themselves were, quite rightly, the beneficiaries of compensation paid to them under the privatisation process of the rail industry. Financial compensation via a deed of assumption was paid to many PTAs because of the loss of facilities and amenities as a result of that Act of Parliament.
So there is previous provision. Although I do not want to detain the Committee by spending too long on this, as I said, my noble friend did not mention that in his winding-up speech and I would be grateful if he would do so if he replies again .
Local Transport Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Snape
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 December 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Local Transport Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c136-7GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:28:26 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429695
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429695
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429695