Proceeding contribution from Lord Rotherwick (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Commons Bill [HL].
Commons Bill [HL]
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I did not want to mention this until she had responded to Amendment No. 170. I was under the impression that anything of archaeological significance or historical interest was probably already listed by English Heritage. That being so, is that not already catered for? Who would define what is an archaeological remain and what is relevant as being of historical interest? What to one person is of historical interest might be nothing more than a bit of junk to someone else. That is why I thought that English Heritage was listing things that were of proper historical interest. Why is this necessary when there is a system already in place?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 675 c211GC
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Access Agriculture Common land Fees and charges Functions Land use Grazing land Ownership Powers Membership Payments Management Nature conservation Registration Commons councils Village greens
- Legislation
- Commons Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 01:58:42 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275929
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275929
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275929