Clause 135
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]
1:00 pm
Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)
We may have lift problems again, given the depleted number of Labour Members; however, we are not going to divide for the time being.
I was making mention this morning of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich because a rather mischievous suggestion was made that he might want to make a comeback in his role as Minister of State at the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I have heard of worse ideas. If I may pay him a compliment, in my role as shadow fire service Minister, rarely do I meet anyone in the fire service who has not got a good word to say about him as a former fire service Minister. If the Government Whips are taking any notice of what I say, they might consider my suggestion—but that has probably ruined his career.
Turning to clause 135, this morning I was making the case that had been put very strongly by the Construction Confederation, but it might be as well to put it into a wider context. The Opposition believe that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 needs updating to tackle the continuing problem of late and unreasonably disputed payments in the sector. We believe in the decision to legislate, and support strengthening the adjudication system. We consistently lobbied for that with the last three construction Ministers. We support the aims of the clauses on payment, and we hope that the Minister takes on board the significant amount of lobbying that the construction industry has put in place.
I am anxious not to stray outside the remit of the clause, but I was obviously disappointed that the amendment proposed by the Federation of Master Builders was not selected. We may have been minded to support that provision, which amended the 1996 Act and dealt with the desirability of maintaining a diverse range of contractors in a local authority area. We are sorry it was not on the selection list.
The Government had an opportunity, in drafting the clause, to take cognisance of the pleas being made in the industry to roll up all the adjudication under the auspices of the scheme for construction contracts. As a result, there would have been no need for this strict definition—the division between written and oral contracts—which, as I said earlier, may well give rise to unnecessary bureaucracy and time-wasting and impose an indicative cost on the construction industry. However, I look forward to hearing from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North. I paid her a compliment this morning, Mr. Illsley, and congratulated her on her promotion. She is in fact on double time this afternoon, we gather, because she is simultaneously serving on the Finance Bill and this Bill.