Clause 74 - Basic loss payment
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
10:45 am
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I have just one more thing to say about the specifics of the amendments, on which the Minister may wish to comment further. I listened with great care to her, and understood the arguments that she deployed. Because my disagreement with them is general, I shall explain why I do not agree with them when we come to clause stand part—with one exception.
The Minister's argument for a maximum figure was that with ever rising property values, there must come a time when using a percentage figure becomes unreasonable. I do not follow that. I understand what she is suggesting, but she is inviting us to draw a distinction between the cost of property or land, which will go up, and the cost of other things, which presumably will not. She is saying that at some point the two will part company. That is not logical. The Minister describes a case in which there would be a maximum figure, irrespective of what happens in the future—unless we return to a means of altering the figures.
I press the Minister to think again. If it is right to start with a percentage of the value of the land or the buildings, I do not understand how it logically follows that there can be a cut-off point. The values of land and buildings tend to be linked to inflation. If inflation applies to them, it applies to everything else, and it would be reasonable that all values would go up. The Minister certainly has not persuaded me that a maximum figure is justified.