My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend. I spent some 20 or 30 years in the construction industry in the days when clients tended to pay and contractors had big companies with lots of assets. They tended to pay their subcontractors within a reasonable time. There were problems, and Sir Michael Latham, as my noble friend said, is probably responsible for more improvements to the industry than anyone else. He has done awfully well.
The noble Baroness said that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Borrie could involve a party changing a contract unilaterally, but when you are faced with doing work and not being paid for three months, it is quite a problem. Someone has to work out an equitable balance between the risk and reward. For me, clients are paying later and later; sometimes the companies responsible for commissioning contracts and subcontracts are themselves £100 companies which may be doing the management, but can do nothing to help the chain, and you get more and more sub-sub-sub-subcontractors. Without going into the detail, my noble friend has raised some important issues in these amendments, and if he is persuaded to withdraw them, I hope that it will be on the basis that further discussions will take place between him and Ministers.
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Berkeley
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 22 April 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c1572 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:13:23 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548827
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548827
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_548827