Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]


[back to previous text]

Division No. 56]
AYES
Goldsworthy, Julia
Rogerson, Dan
NOES
Cooper, Rosie
Efford, Clive
Gardiner, Barry
Heppell, Mr. John
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Stewart, Ian
Watts, Mr. Dave
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Curry: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I just wish to point out that neither Whip was present in the room until very recently and that we have made astonishing progress in their absence. Perhaps the Government Whip might consider withdrawing to facilitate our continued progress.
The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman has not made a point of order, but he has amused us.
Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 122 to 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 135

Requirement for construction contracts to be in writing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
On the face of it, clause 135 is quite straightforward, and this issue has had quite an airing in past years. To give them their due, the Government have tried to move on from the significant consultation that took place in respect of the 1996 Act to make the improvements outlined, beginning some years ago with the Latham review on unreasonable delays in payment and adjudication and the payment provisions arising from the Act. The matter has been taken forward by both the former Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Assembly and has been subject to two separate and exhaustive public consultations and a significant amount of lobbying—no doubt, for members of the Committee and before that.
Although our amendment to the clause has not been selected, I shall just make a simple point that bears repetition. The Construction Confederation has raised issues relating to the clause and makes this point:
“It will undermine industry ‘best practice’ of encouraging contracts to be in writing.
It will inevitably lead to the examination of who agreed what with whom, with each party making representations to the adjudicator.
It raises the question as to how such a procedure (which will inevitably require oral representation and examination during the course of an adjudication) can be incorporated within what is already the short statutory timescale for adjudication (usually two months).”
The confederation makes this pertinent point:
“Swift adjudication remains the most effective way to tackle non-payment. Introducing oral or part oral contracts within its scope will increase costs and delay the process.”
The clause did not have a very significant outing in the other place, but I would like to ask the Exchequer Secretary about it. Incidentally, I was remiss in not congratulating her at the outset on her promotion. We are getting quite giddy at new Communities and Local Government Ministers on the magic roundabout that is Government reshuffles, but she had not been long in her role.
Mr. Goodman: This is a helpful suggestion to the Government Whips: given the repeated helpful and learned interventions of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, perhaps he could fill any temporary vacancy by coming to the Minister’s place.
Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend makes an astute observation. However, I am not sure that a soufflĂ(c) always rises twice.
10.25 am
The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).
Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.
 
Previous Contents
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 19 June 2009