I hope that I am not, but I will certainly be told from behind me if I am. I certainly do not intend to.
I turn to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I should say to the noble Baroness that I am told that our amendment is simply repeating what is already done under Section 3(2) of the 1965 Act. We are not widening the scope of the legislation beyond the 1965 Act. I could understand her concern if we were going to do so.
We agree with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that these owners’ rights are not rights of common. That is why we are simply enabling these rights to be noted on the register. It will not be a requirement to record such rights, just as at the moment one does not have to record easements but obviously can do so. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, to withdraw his amendment because it is covered already in the government amendment. I hope that my response satisfies the noble Baroness. If it does not, we will consider the matter further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Commons Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 25 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Commons Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c273-4GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:10:03 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269620
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269620
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269620