Clause
61
Service
of
documents
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 72, in
clause 61, page 36, line 33, after
by, insert
registered.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to
discuss amendment No. 73, in clause 61, page 37, line
3, after office, insert
or the office of its legal
representative.
Stephen
Hammond:
Amendment No. 72 is very simple and needs little
explanation. It would merely require documents that are to be served
under the Crossrail Act to be sent by registered post. As the Committee
will be aware, a registered item of mail is recorded in a register when
it moves from a local post office, through the sorting office and on to
its final destination. It incurs a small extra cost and provides the
added comfort that the items location can be tracked through
the postal system. Those of us who have just experienced the
circumstances of October, including many of my constituents, will
understand that, if the document is important, that protection would be
not only relevant, but appropriate. It is a small measure that would
ensure that the Secretary of States documents get to the people
concerned, and the excuse that mail got lost in the post would not
apply. I therefore hope that the amendment will find the
Ministers favour.
I will not spend long talking
about amendment No. 73, whose purpose is to fill a
small gap in the clause. The clause states that, for non-UK businesses,
documents will be delivered to the companys
principal office within the
United Kingdom.
All I am suggesting is
that there may be a situation in which the company in question does not
have an office in this country. The amendment
provides that the documents by delivered to the companys legal
representative in the UK and fills a minor gap. I will not press
amendment No. 73 but I am interested to see why the Minister feels
unable to accept amendment No. 72, if indeed that is his
desire.
Mr.
Harris:
The clause deals with the service of documents
under the Bill. Its purpose is to set out how notices under the Bill
should be served. Amendment No. 72 would require that any document
served under the Bill by way of the postal system should be delivered
by registered post. It is important to realise that that would apply to
any person serving a notice, whether they were the
Secretary of State, the nominated undertaker or any other member of the
public serving a counter-notice. A number of provisions provide for
other parties to serve notice on the nominated
undertaker, and the amendment would require such notices to be served
by registered post. Using some method of registered post might be
sensible in some cases. It is in the interest of the person serving the
notice to ensure that it reaches the intended recipient, as the person
serving the notice would be disadvantaged if, in the event of a
dispute, they could not later demonstrate that the notice had been
properly served. The hon. Gentleman was right to point that
out.
Registered post
is more expensive than regular post and cost may be a
consideration in some casespresumably not for the Secretary of
State, but possibly for private individuals. The person concerned
should decide how they wish to proceed, bearing in mind that it may
later be a matter of dispute before a court or other judicial
body.
I am
instinctively opposed to any measure that might incur the accusation of
ushering in a nanny state, and I would have thought that a legislator
prescribing the method of post that an individual should use to serve
any particular notice is perilously close to territory that might lead
the Daily Mail to take issue. That does not concern me, but it
might concern Opposition Members.
Amendment No. 73
would allow documents to be served on legal representatives rather than
a business partnership. However, clause 61(4) already allows the person
on whom a notice would otherwise be served to specify an alternative
address to which documents should be served. That
allows a person to ask for notices to be served to the office of the
legal representative if they so wish. I therefore consider the
amendments unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will
consider withdrawing the amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
It is quite amusing for Opposition Members to
hear strictures about the nanny state. If the Minister follows that
through, I look forward to his joining us more often in the Lobbies to
vote against the provisions proposed by his Government. I think that
the Daily Mail would rather like the amendment. It gives
protection to the small person and allows them to know with absolute
certainty that what is being served will reach its
destination.
Mr.
Harris:
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that any member of
the public who is in a position where he or she has to serve notice in
such a way will not
understand what registered post is or the postal options available? Does
he believe that we need to put instructions in the Bill about which
envelope to use?
Stephen
Hammond:
I know that most of my constituents will not have
that problem, so I will not be tempted down that route. We have all
seen problems with the postal system and we have all lost important
documents. I certainly have lost important documents in the postal
system with no method of tracking them. I do not see that this minor
technical change does anything other than add to the Bill. I am not
tempted to withdraw the amendment and want to test the
Committees will and press it to a vote.
Question put, That the
amendment be
made:
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
8.
Division
No.
6
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 61 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
62
Arbitration
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 74,
in
clause 62, page 37, line 39, leave
out subsection
(5).
The clause is
important because it deals with the process of arbitration and, in
essence, it is a strong clause although hon. Members will have detected
from my remarks throughout the Committee that I would like it to apply
more widely.
The amendment
would omit subsection (5) as I fail to see what it would add. It allows
the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Communities and Local
Government to combine to issue rules about the procedures that govern
the process of arbitration.
The system for appointing an
arbitrator is already set out clearly in the clause and I would have
thought that the detailed rules of engagement should thereafter should
be left to the arbitrator. If the Government intervene, it could be
problematic; one of the parties to the dispute, namely the nominated
undertaker, is an appointee of the Secretary of State and the others
could be the Secretaries of State. How would the other party react if
they knew that the adversary was writing the rule
book?
I invite the
Minister to clarify exactly why he thinks the Secretaries of State need
the powers that I believe could, yet again, jeopardise the independence
of the arbitration process, which other than that seems to be robust
and appropriate.
Mr.
Harris:
The Bill contains provisions for various matters
to be referred to arbitration. For example, if the parties agree,
disputes with highway authorities under schedule 3
and with various statutory undertakers under schedule 16 can be
referred to arbitration. Subsection (5) allows the Secretaries of State
for Communities and Local Government and for Transport acting jointly
to make the rules governing such arbitration. The hon.
Gentlemans amendment would remove that power.
Subsection
(5) follows a similar provision to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act
1996. It address the possibility that it may be necessary to have
special tailor-made provisions to address the settling of disputes
arising under a scheme of the complexity, size and importance of the
Crossrail project. Two Secretaries of State will have responsibility
for that, rather than just the Secretary of State for Transport, and
they will have to ensure that such rules are consistent with the
principles of natural justice.
I am not saying that it will
not be necessary to make such rules; however, it is important that the
Secretaries of State should have the power to do so should it be
considered that the need arises. The amendment would
remove the power of the Secretaries of State for
Communities and Local Government and for Transport to make rules about
procedure in relation to arbitration under the Bill. The clause was
applied successfully to former Conservative Secretaries of State and it
worked extremely well under the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. I
therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the
amendment.
5.30
pm
Mr.
Field:
I cannot think of any circumstances in which the
clause could be invoked. Surely, the reality is that if there is
arbitration it is because both parties agree to it. If the procedure is
in some sense up in the air, and it has to be enforced by Secretaries
of State against the will of one or perhaps even both parties,
that runs wholly counter to the notion of what
arbitration is, and should, do. Arbitration is about parties getting
together on the basis that they agree not only on its application but
presumably on the procedure for it. That is why my hon. Friend the
Member for Wimbledon thinks that subsection (5) is redundant, and I
agree with him. Nothing that the Minister has said has convinced us
otherwise. One hopes that the provision will never be invoked, and I
suspect that it never will be, because if such a dispute began the
parties would not wish to go to arbitration, still less accept an
arbitration procedure that was pushed upon them by Secretaries of
State.
Mr.
Harris:
May I clarify the position? The clause
does not propose that the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for
Transport should determine the result of arbitration; it is about those
two Secretaries of State agreeing a procedure for
arbitration.
Stephen
Hammond:
That goes to the nub of what we have discussed
several times in our deliberations. The Secretary of State wants to
take powers that will enable them to become party to a dispute and seek
arbitration, yet at the same time try to affect the arbitration process
or even make a judgment in the arbitration.
I have several times tried to
convince myself of the validity of the Ministers explanations,
but I struggle even more in relation to this particular clause. My hon.
Friend the Member for Cities of London and
Westminster made a telling interventionit might conflict with
other requirements on him but he made it nonetheless. Nothing that the
Minister has said has reassured me that the provision is necessary. The
Channel Tunnel Rail Link Actan excellent piece of work by
Conservative Secretaries of Statewas used as a model for the
Bill. However, as has been said, that does not mean that it should be
slavishly followed. Consequently, I am not inclined to withdraw the
amendment.
Question put, That the
amendment be
made:
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
8.
Division
No.
7
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 62
ordered to
stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
s
63 and 64
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|