If the HCA and the statutory undertaker come to an agreement, then there is no need to involve the Secretary of State in either of these sections. What would be the present situation if the HCA and the statutory undertaker did not come to an agreement? How would they now resolve the matter? Can they go for a court order? What would they do now? Is the Secretary of State needed to intervene in this? The worry that I have is that as you pile responsibilities on the HCA—of course, always leaving the door open for the Secretary of State to intervene directly—the top-down nature of the Bill is becoming clearer and clearer.
We shall come to some later amendments but perhaps I may go back a step to footpaths. I remember very well that when the right-to-roam Act was passed we were promised a strengthening of the footpath system. This Bill does not go to the aspect of what has been promised in the past in any way at all. Time after time, as we discuss these amendments, we are setting up local disputes of a serious nature, and any time the people involved in a local dispute get the feeling that it will be settled by the Secretary of State, that dispute will get worse and continue for longer.
Housing and Regeneration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Eccles
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 4 June 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Housing and Regeneration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c84GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:39:09 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_477030
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_477030
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_477030