HC Deb 08 July 1997 vol 297 cc828-30
Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 16, at end insert— '(3A) A person signing the certificate on behalf of the local authority shall in doing so be under no duty to any party other than the local authority on behalf of which he has signed.'. I have read and reflected on the discussions that took place in Committee, in particular the comments of the Minister in this respect. I still believe that the case law to which I referred in Committee—the case of Burgoine and Cooke v. London borough of Waltham Forest—raises serious questions.

The Minister reassured us in Committee that there would be a serious problem with negligence only if officers could be regarded as having acted in bad faith. My reading of the Waltham Forest case is that the officers who were held to be liable in negligence were in no way acting in bad faith. I fear that that judgment may impinge on the working of the Bill once it becomes an Act. I tabled the amendment to make it clear in the Bill that the officers who certify these contracts are responsible only to their local authority and to no one else. That is the best way to offer legitimate protection to local government officers in carrying out their role as advisers to, and servants of, local authorities.

If the wording of the amendment is imperfect but the point is valid, I hope that the Minister will find some appropriate wording to reassure officers who will sign those certificates.

7.30 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who moved the amendment in a constructive and sensible way, that in practice his fears are groundless and the amendment is not required. The amendment appears to be based on the misapprehension that the Bill can somehow increase the potential vulnerability or exposure of council officers to legal action. The Bill does not do that.

Local council officers who carry out their normal duties in good faith are not liable to third parties for the acts of a local authority, even where those acts turn out to be ultra vires. The Bill does nothing to add further burdens. Officers will be no more liable in signing a certificate than in putting their name to the contract to which it relates. I am sure that they will exercise the same care in signing certificates as they do at present in binding the authority under any contract or other transaction.

There are no real grounds for concern, in connection either with the kind of contract for which the certificate might be given or with other contracts. We would not want to throw misplaced doubt on officers' positions in the generality of their activities by making a provision—in the form of the amendment—affecting the certifying of some contracts.

The hon. Gentleman raised the case of Burgoine and Cooke v. London borough of Waltham Forest. The problems in that case were of a very different nature and flowed from the authority's lack of capacity to set up a particular company and appoint its officers as company directors. It was not concerned with the day-to-day activities of an officer, of which certification would naturally form a part. The officers in that case were acting not as local authority officers but as company directors, and that difference created the problems.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we have given this matter serious consideration. We do not wish to create a situation where council officers are exposed to the risk of litigation or liabilities simply through exercising their normal functions in good faith and in a proper way. We are satisfied that there is no risk of that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore not press the amendment.

Mr. Burstow

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is important to put such a matter clearly on the record. If, in the unlikely event that the courts look into this matter, the fact that it is set out in Hansard will undoubtedly be of great benefit to judges in deciding what we legislators were attempting to achieve through the Bill.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to
Forward to