Housing and Regeneration Bill

It is not the Government who might want to make this provision but the HCA, which is a large national quango. The Government keep telling us that it is not the Government but whatever it is described as—an agency that is at arm’s length, at least, from the Government. The basic point that I was making was to ask why the powers that the HCA has in issues such as these should be different from the powers that other public bodies have under other existing legislation. Why is it necessary to create special legislation just for the HCA? The answer is that it is what some previous agencies had under previous Acts, but now we have been told that those regulations were never made—so why are we being provided with pages 162 and 163 and two-thirds of page 164 in this legislation, which could just be scrubbed out as not needed? If the HCA requires this, why should it not have to go through exactly the same procedures that a county council, a borough council or any other body has to go through? That is the fundamental question that I ask. Okay, so that comes from a slight scepticism on my part about large national agencies and, if they are necessary, the need to keep them constrained in what they can do so that they do not have powers that lots of other bodies do not have. It is all to do with the rights of people to object, and so on. The fundamental point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. If these regulations have not been required for the past 15 years, why are they required now? The Minister tells us that they are required because something might happen—but the truth is that if these provisions had not happened in some historic legislation, the Government would not now put them in this Bill. It is just because they can recycle them and roll them forward that they are being put in here. That comes back to the point that I made about rights of way. When this recycling of historic legislation goes forward, we should really ask whether it is still needed in this day and age. If I were on a jury listening to this discussion, I might say that it was not required now. I might say that because that is what my amendment is saying, but my amendment was probing and I am strengthened in my view. We will ponder further about these things, but I hope that the Government will do so, too. There is no point in putting legislation on the statute book just for the point of it. There is already far too much legislation and, if we could get rid of some of it, that would be wonderful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.] Schedule 3 agreed to. Clause 12 agreed to. Schedule 4 [Powers in relation to, and for, statutory undertakers]: