§ 'The adjudicator may not consider disputes relating solely to allegations of professional negligence.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. RaynsfordI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Exemption from adjudication of professional negligence—
'The adjudicator will not consider alleged matters of professional negligence.'.
§ Mr. RaynsfordNew clause 22 is concerned also with the remit of adjudication. Opinions have been expressed to us that it would be inappropriate for the adjudicator to become involved in matters relating to claims of professional negligence, partly because they would be outside the normal remit of adjudication, and partly because they would involve matters of legal complexity that would be difficult to resolve within the adjudication procedure.
The parties that have been in touch with us on this matter have proposed wording which I see in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). Our new clause 22 sought a rather tighter definition, simply to restrict disputes relating solely to allegations of professional negligence, recognising that professional negligence may arise in wider disputes that could well be appropriate for adjudication. I should be happy to hear the Minister's views on whether the adjudication procedure will normally exclude disputes that are related solely to matters of professional negligence.
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesI suspect that this matter arose because professionals were a little worried about judgments being made on their professional competence 91 by laymen. I think that much of that worry will have ceased in the move from permanently binding to temporarily binding adjudication.
There seems to be almost a contradiction between these two new clauses. One matter that I certainly worry about with new clause 23 is that it might open a very big loophole, because, to avoid adjudication, one could simply couple it with allegations of professional negligence. I can see that becoming a great industry for those who want to destroy this legislation, and that is why I reject the Liberal "loophole charter".
On the point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich, obviously it is right to take professional negligence into account in some cases, but if it were purely a matter of professional negligence, surely it should be pursued with the relevant profession.
§ Mr. ChidgeyMy main concern is that we should not broaden the Bill so that it includes matters that could make it cease to work properly and in the manner in which we want it to work. Disputes over professional negligence are extremely complicated and lengthy, and are usually a matter of law rather than of building practice. I should like to have some reassurance—the Minister may already have met me halfway on this issue—that the intention is not for matters of professional negligence to be a part of this process. I have no doubt that that would be the wrong road to take.
§ Mr. RaynsfordI am grateful for the Minister's response. I share his view that it would be inappropriate for complex matters relating solely to professional negligence to be considered under the adjudication procedure. For reasons that he will understand, in framing this new clause I took care to ensure that it did not open up the possibility of what he rightly identified as a "loophole", that could allow adjudication to be set aside. This issue concerns people in the industry. Hopefully, a problem will not arise, and the adjudication procedure will remain focused on the matters for which it is appropriate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.