MEANING OF "CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS" (Hansard, 8 July 1996)

§ Mr. Robert B. Jones
I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 59, line 4, leave out 'structures or any works' and insert 'or structures'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 77 to 79.
No. 13, in page 59, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.
No. 73, in page 59, leave out lines 37 to 44 and insert— `( ) manufacture or supply of:—
(i) building or engineering components or equipment,

(ii) materials, plant or machinery, or
94
(iii) components for systems of heating, lighting, air-conditioning, ventilation, power supply, drainage. sanitation, water supply or fire protection, or for security or communications systems,
under contracts of sale, hire or lease.'.

§ Mr. Jones
The amendments are intended to tidy up the maintenance amendment that was carried in Committee, including the undertakings given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). His amendments, which relate to the process engineering industry, go too far, and I would certainly not want them to be passed by the House.

§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)
I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the Government amendments. I thank him for his decision to include maintenance in the definition of the industry, as we had a long debate on that subject. I also thank him for tabling amendments Nos. 78 and 79, which pick up minor points. I also thank him for Government amendment No. 74 on construction design, which again picked up points raised in debate.
I am sorry that the Minister does not feel that he can include the process industries, as we had a long debate on the subject in Committee—we might even have voted on it had it not been for a technical hitch involving the amendment paper. I like to think that, had we had a vote, we might have been able to correct the matter.
I can see no good reason why the process industries should be excluded. We rehearsed all the arguments, and the letters that I have received from Mr. Dunlop of the Process Industries Latham Group do not seem to have given any reasons. Mr. Dunlop says that, if things are left as they are, there could be confusion in the industry, so we should include it.
There is no more reason to exclude the process industries than to exempt drivers who have never had an accident from obeying the highway code. This is a good Bill, and we should include all the industries that are relevant to construction, not leave out the process industries because they have largely been able to manage their affairs reasonably well in the past. There can be problems, and the industries would benefit from the legislation.
I was disappointed that Mr. Dunlop said that he thought the legislation could harm the industries' operations. When I asked him to spell out in what way it might be harmful, he was unable to come up with any illustrations. We should have been able to include the process industries, and I am sorry that we are not able to go further.
Amendment No. 73 deals with manufacture off site. As we discussed in Committee, it is a growing practice, which leads to greater efficiency within the industry. Bespoke items can be produced off site, where they can be produced as accurately as possible, under factory conditions, and lead to greater productivity on site.
There is a danger in the Government's measure, although it is a great improvement on what we had before, and largely satisfies most requirements. There is a danger that it could result in the splitting of contracts so that the installation aspect is left out. My amendment is worded as it is so that the easily understood contracts covering the sale, hire and lease of goods would apply to those 95 components to which the Bill does not apply. Where we want the Bill's provisions to help the industry, it would be perfectly possible for it to do so under the terms set out in the amendment.
I am grateful to the Constructors Liaison Group for its help in drawing up the amendment, but I am sorry that the Minister does not feel able to accept it. I hope that he will take on board the arguments involving the clause. I hope that any anxieties that we still feel will be allayed when we see the scheme of contracts.
I thank the Minister for the help that he has given with the other amendments, and I hope that he will continue to give further consideration to amendments Nos. 13 and 73, which address valid points.

§ Mr. Raynsford
We welcome Government amendments Nos. 76 and 77, which build on the changes made in Committee, particularly including reference to maintenance works within the overall definition. We still remain a little doubtful about whether it was necessary to include the long illustrative list of works in the second part of amendment No. 77. It would have been neater simply to set out the principles in the Bill, without the illustrative examples. However, the Government have moved positively in response to our amendment, in the same way as they moved over the penthouse loophole to which the Minister referred in our earlier debate. We welcome those moves, and the inclusion of such provisions in the Bill.