Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am greatly pleased by the Minister's response to my eloquent moving of the amendment. I am happy to withdraw it, as he suggests.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 142 I should advise the House that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 143 or 144.

Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 142:

Page 59, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert ("architects, surveyors or consultants in building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or in the laying-out of landscape in relation to such operations").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as noble Lords will see, this is a piece of pedantry on my part. I am proposing to leave out certain words in the Bill as it stands and put the same words back in but in a somewhat different configuration. My reason for doing that is pedantic but simple. First, I am asking what is the difference between subsection (3)(a) which talks about the work of individuals participating and subsection (3)(b) which talks about the professional work of people.

As I see it, the professional people mentioned are likely to be the individuals participating in the carrying out of the work. So we have what might conceivably turn out to be tautology, although I am not sure. My second point is different. As we all know, in this part of the Bill the definition of "construction" was cribbed or plagiarised, virtually verbatim, from the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. However, for some reason, in subsection (3)(b):

    (i) architects or surveyors, or

    (ii) consultants in building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or in the laying-out of landscape,

    in relation to such operations",
is changed. In the original legislation, from which this part of the Bill is cribbed, the wording was, I think, as I have put it in my amendment. The draftsman of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 was, I believe, unable to make a distinction between the professional work of architects, surveyors, or consultants in building, engineering and so forth. I am asking merely what is the distinction which the Government are making which made them change this part of the Bill into, first, architects or surveyors, and, secondly, consultants in building, and the others? There must be some explanation. It is not a great matter, but if we are to use the Income and Corporation Taxes 1988 as a model, we should not leave out the one bit of it that makes sense. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to

22 Apr 1996 : Column 947

Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. In introducing Amendment No. 142, my noble friend said that it is a matter of pedantry. My purpose in tabling Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 is somewhat different. I am a little concerned, not that proper interior decoration should be included as a professional job in construction operations, but that interior decorators per se should be included.

It seems odd not that someone who advises on lighting, structure or whether screens should go here or there, or whatever it might be--that is, a professional in that sense--but that someone who, as I read the Bill--I am advised that my reading is correct--comes in and says, "I think you should have a flash of green there and a splash of blue there, and a rather interesting 17th century lampshade on your desk", should be included within the Bill's ambit. I am advised that my reading of the provision is correct, but perhaps the Minister will be able to assure me that that is wrong and that interior decorators--in the way that we are used to them--are not part of the Bill and that it is only those who are professionally qualified to advise on the construction part who come within the ambit of the Bill.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, as a civil engineer and a member of the "Civils", like my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon I feel that we have a situation of sheep and goats here. I suppose that I could call the architects and surveyors sheep as they appear in paragraph (i) as worthy of special mention while everyone else is relegated to the role of consultant. The clause could be rewritten to read, "consultants in architecture, surveying, building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration", or whatever else one might want; or one could have architects, surveyors, chartered engineers, and so forth. I feel like a second class citizen as a chartered engineer reading this provision. I hope that the Minister will look at it again.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, to deal, first, with Amendment No. 142, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that he thought that it might be a piece of unnecessary pedantry. I cannot but agree with him. He has rearranged the words on the page and to our mind has made them considerably more confusing. I understand some of the sentiments behind what he is saying. I understand too the sentiments behind what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is saying, namely, that there appear to be a number of classes of consultants who might be in but who are not. We intend to have interior decorators included, and the splash of green and yellow people are intended to be in. I take the noble Lord's point that if they are in, why not others? I can perhaps say that all the others one could conceive of are included in the wording. However, as I cannot provide answers I undertake to come back to the noble Lord before Third Reading or on Third Reading. With that comfort for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am always gratified when my noble friend Lord Williams is

22 Apr 1996 : Column 948

comforted, and I am now. I have only one question to ask. If the words which I have extracted carefully from the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 would be confusing in this Bill, how is it that they are not confusing in that Act? There is something which might properly be called a dichotomy here, or even a straightforward old-fashioned mistake. The Minister has been reassuring. I am sure that he will go back and think about the matter. In view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 145:

Page 59, line 46, at end insert--
("(5) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 145, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 176. My noble friend Lord Ferrers indicated in Committee that the Government would introduce these amendments. They reflect the concern of noble Lords that amendment of primary legislation should be a matter for affirmative resolution. The noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Howie of Troon, laid amendments with the effect of Amendment No. 145 in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put forward an amendment with the effect of Amendment No. 148. Amendment No. 176 is consequential. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. They put into drafting language (if I may so put it) amendments moved in Committee. They also respond to concerns raised by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House. That committee was worried about the Henry VIII provision in the original draft of the Bill to amend primary legislation by simple order. This shows that the committee set up by your Lordships to scrutinise delegated powers has again had an effect. We are grateful not only to the committee but to the Government for assenting to the important point that it raised.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for responding to those concerns. It occurs to me that, now there are so many provisions for affirmative resolution in the Bill, we shall have to show that we are assiduous in dealing with such resolutions when they come before the House. Of course, they may not do so.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I rise to welcome what the Government have done. I believe that, when discussing earlier amendments to Clause 2, the Government gave assurances about the way in which they would use the power to amend Clause 103. Effectively, the provision says that they can amend any part of that clause: parts 1, 2 and 3. In discussions on the earlier amendments the Government spoke of

22 Apr 1996 : Column 949

amending part 2 of Clause 103 in a way that would create an inclusion within the scope of the Bill where it was deemed necessary and operations in the construction industry fell outside the Bill because of the way that the clause was written. Bearing in mind the decision in Pepper v. Hart, would the Minister be prepared to repeat those assurances so that they applied to parts 1, 2 and 3 of Clause 103 to deal with a fear that some noble Lords have that a grey area will emerge as to whether something is a construction activity not covered by the Bill? Is it the intention of the Government to seek to amend Clause 103 with this power to ensure that only construction activity is covered by the Bill rather than to cover exclusions?

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page