HL Deb 14 May 1987 vol 487 cc793-4

11 Page 38, line 15, at end insert— (7A) A ship, aircraft or motor vehicle shall not be treated for the purposes of this Act as supplied to any person by reason only that services consisting in the carriage of goods or passengers in that ship, aircraft or vehicle, or in its use for any other purpose, are provided to that person in pursuance of an agreement relating to the use of the ship, aircraft or vehicle for a particular period or for particular voyages, flights or journeys.".

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.

Noble Lords will be aware that as Clause 46 stands it defines supplying goods to include hiring out or lending goods. The definition of supply is of course important for the purposes of Part I of the Bill, where a person who has not supplied the goods has a defence to liability under Part I, and a supplier can pass back that liability to earlier persons in the chain of distribution.

Your Lordships will also be aware that complicated variations upon the theme of hiring out are common in the transport field. Ships, for example, can be chartered on a demise charter basis, or on a time or voyage charter basis. Aircraft are sometimes hired out, but sometimes their services are made available by what are called wet lease arrangements. In these latter arrangements, and with time and voyage charters for ships, it is the services provided by the aircraft or ship that are truly supplied rather than the ship or aircraft itself, and to this end the ship or aircraft comes complete with its crew.

Accordingly, this amendment makes it clear that such arrangements, where services are provided consisting in the carriage of goods or passengers in ships, aircraft or other vehicles, do not amount to a supply of the ship, aircraft or vehicle concerned. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, it is my understanding that there may be an error in the printing of Amendment No. 11. In line 5 of the amendment, the first word "the" should be struck out; and in the last line after the word "or" and in front of the words "particular voyages" the word "for" should have been inserted by the printers. I believe that I am right in that respect, and if I am then we are happy to accept that the printers made an error and we have no problem with this amendment.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, the noble Lord is right and I am grateful to him for pointing out the error.

On Question, Motion agreed to.