I shall deal with Amendment No. 36 first. It is grouped with the other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which make a small but significant change. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would reduce one of the examples in subsection (3) of the types of infrastructure that might be secured by the HCA to ““transport facilities”” by removing the explicit reference to roads. I appreciate that the noble Lord is concerned that the drafting might limit the HCA to providing only one of any such infrastructure service at any one time or to any one development. I am sure that he would be concerned that if we single out roads in this way, it may skew the focus of the HCA in that direction.
Perhaps I should make it clear that the clause does not require the HCA to deliver roads. While it empowers the HCA to provide or facilitate the provision of infrastructure, it does not require it to do so. I do not believe that the provision will skew the activities of the agency or divert responsibility for the delivery of roads on to it. The inclusion of ““roads or other”” merely makes it clear that in this context we consider a road to be a type of transport facility. If we do not say so, it might not be obvious to all that roads should be included. Our intention is to enable the agency to act responsibly. As I said, it must ensure that the housing that it provides forms part of sustainable communities. Part of those communities being sustainable is that they must have the right infrastructure, including roads. That is the purpose of that paragraph.
Next, I turn to Amendment No. 41, which is in this group. It would expand from one set of examples of the types of infrastructure that may be secured by the HCA to emphasise that ““recreational facilities”” includes ““open space””. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is concerned that as drafted it may not be obvious to all that open spaces should be included in recreational facilities and that the HCA should be empowered to secure them. I am not sure that is the case. It should be apparent to all that open spaces are a pretty vital recreational facility for all our communities and that the HCA should be empowered to secure them. Perhaps it is worth reminding noble Lords that the definition is what is known as a partial definition. The examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. We have made it clear throughout our policies that we consider open space to be vital to creating sustainable communities and ensuring their well-being. I do not think that we disagree significantly in terms of principles. I would like to give this matter some further consideration and return to it on Report.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42 are a small group of amendments that could have significant effect. The effect may be to turn a list of examples of types of infrastructure that is not intended to be exhaustive, but to give a flavour of the sorts of things that we mean, into a narrower list. That is our concern; I am sure it is not the concern of the noble Baroness. Perhaps she is concerned that as drafted Clause 2(3) would have the effect of exclusivity; namely that the agency may, for example, be limited to providing only one of any such infrastructure service at any one time or to any one development. That is not the effect of the subsection as drafted. The definition of ““infrastructure”” is wide, inclusive and not exhaustive. I am concerned that the amendments may have a slight narrowing effect, as I argued earlier, on the types of infrastructure that the agency can provide. Such an effect would be contrary to their purpose.
I accept that this is a fine point of statutory interpretation. I would like to take some further opinions before concluding on this matter. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would enable us to give the matter some further consideration and return to it on Report. Perhaps, if the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, we could achieve some meeting of minds on this point before we next meet to discuss these issues.
Housing and Regeneration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bassam of Brighton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 3 June 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Housing and Regeneration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c16-7GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:25:23 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_476238
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_476238
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_476238