§ 'The provisions of this Part have effect notwithstanding any agreement which seeks to set aside these provisions.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. RaynsfordI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a simple clause, and it has been tabled with a sole purpose—to ensure that there is no risk of the provisions of the Bill being set aside or overridden by contractual agreements that would deny the intentions of Parliament.
I am advised by people who follow closely matters in the construction industry that debate is already beginning among some parties about the possibility of framing contracts that would set aside the provisions of the legislation. That would be unacceptable, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that there is no way in which that can take place. If he cannot do so, I hope that he will accept new clause 21, but he may be able to short-circuit the process.
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesI can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill and established case law already give statutory rights to parties to construction contracts, which they cannot agree to give away in advance. I think that that is the point that he is getting at. New clause 21 is therefore unnecessary.
In any event, there is a problem with this new clause, because the position on rights after the event is rather different. I should like to give the hon. Member for Greenwich an example. Suppose that two contracting parties decide after a dispute arises that, in that case, it is not desirable to call in an adjudicator. Perhaps they recognise that the dispute concerns a point of law that is fundamental to the interpretation of the contract, and that it is sensible to take the dispute straight to court. There is no reason why they should not be allowed to make and rely on an agreement to that effect.
I think that what the hon. Member for Greenwich is worried about is people signing away their rights in advance, and I can give him my assurance on that point.
§ Mr. ChidgeyI am very pleased to hear the Minister's remarks, but I should like to have some further reassurances, if possible. I think that the Minister understands that it is often the case in construction contracts that the main contractor employs a host of smaller and often financially much weaker firms. Sadly, competition is currently fierce in the construction industry, and sub-contractors are extremely vulnerable to pressures to give away the rights that they would normally have under the contract. A very important point is that they can be protected under statute regardless of the financial pressures that might be placed on them to win projects to stay in business.
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesI can certainly assure the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on that, because clearly they would not be able to give away those rights.
§ Mr. RaynsfordMay I press the Minister on one simple point? I entirely accept that there will be cases in 90 which it is appropriate to avoid the adjudication procedure, because the issues simply require handling by a different arbitral procedure. However, it would be totally unacceptable if it were possible for parties to be bound in advance not to take up their opportunity and their right to an adjudication procedure.
If the Minister can assure me that there will be no possibility of an agreement being reached in advance that will deny people the right to adjudication, but which will also allow them to decide in the event to set it aside if they wish to do so, I shall seek to withdraw the motion.
§ Mr. JonesI thought that that is exactly what I had said, first, at the start of the debate on this new clause to the hon. Member for Greenwich, and then, secondly, to the hon. Member for Eastleigh—but, for a third time, that is the position.
§ Mr. RaynsfordI beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.